Cigarette Smoking Christians

[Oats]

I re-posted the following post (in its’ entirety) because I believe it has it’s merits in this “Cigarette Smoking Christians” thread (#212). Somehow it got lost in the fray, but all is well. It comes from a “smoking” Christian’s point of view. Perhaps this view would be worth pondering/dialoging.

This is a ‘silent’ listener who intended to stay out of dialog by being just an observer. But after following the thread, she came to a point where she just had to give her perspective (after all, aren't we talking about cigarette smoking Christians?!)

How do I know for certain? Simple. GracenMercy is my wife of 29 years. Am I looking for validation for my point of view from her? HA! Is she looking for validation from me? HA-HA!

Nonetheless, my disclaimer is made. So please, let’s be adults and not try to read anything more to this except that I want to be upfront from the get-go.

Be blessed, Stay blessed!

Ciggarettes destroy God's temple period....

Shall we sin that grace may abound?

 

[Oats]

I agree, it is quite incredible.


No one, of course, has denied that Christians smoke (and by implication cease to be Christians by doing so). And even though I have doubts some are willing to hear this (since they want to paint me as a self-righteous judge), I will repeat yet again: I understand smoking is an addiction and I have symptathy for those caught up in this addiction.


Here is the problem with this request that we "spare the arguments about health": you are effectively trying to sweep aside the essence of the relevant arguments. My point has been, and continues to be, the health consequences of smoking are not an irrelevant consideration that can be swept aside at your request, they are at the very heart of the argument for the sinfulness of smoking.

I will not repeat what I have said so many times - and what has been ignored as many times - about why smoking is sin. But I will repeat that it has to do precisely with it "being bad for you" - this is not a consideration that you can ask be "set aside" as you seem to be doing.

Whether intentionally or not, this request of yours is a pre-emptive strike to set the terms of the discussion. Well you do not really get to do that. You must, if you are to be fair, at least engage the arguments about the sinfulness of smoking in specific relation to the matter of "health".

More shortly....

Time and time again I always agree with your post...

This is true,

When you see sin, call it sin

 

[Mike]

A remark was edited out, and a response to it was deleted.

 

[Bonairos]

A remark was edited out, and a response to it was deleted.

Thank you!

 

[Sparkey]

Thank you!

Bonairos, thank you for posting the comments and especially the voice of praise that arises from within your wife for her Lord, our God, who alone deserves our praise. It is His triumph over sin that shines through her, clearly.

Cordially,
~Sparrow

 

[GracenMercy]

... All that matters is that I am forgiven...

Guilty as charged!

Like I said, us cigarette smoking Christians..."We alright"!

 

[Drew]

Guilty as charged!

Like I said, us cigarette smoking Christians..."We alright"!

You are simply ignoring my argument - like so many others.

Are you really suggesting that all that matters is that you are forgiven and that you are then free to do whatever you want, including damaging your precious body unnecessarily? I suggest that this is not what the Bible teaches. What you are implicitly advocating here is a watered-down gospel where all that is important is getting a "ticket to heaven", and where participating in the kingdom of God programme of healing and restoration is optional.

 

[Sparkey]

You are simply ignoring my argument - like so many others.

Are you really suggesting that all that matters is that you are forgiven and that you are then free to do whatever you want, including damaging your precious body unnecessarily? I suggest that this is not what the Bible teaches. What you are implicitly advocating here is a watered-down gospel where all that is important is getting a "ticket to heaven", and where participating in the kingdom of God programme of healing and restoration is optional.

Now enters Drew again with a "It's okay for me to ignore [Sparrow's argument] but it's NOT OKAY to ignore my argument. What's your point, Drew? Shooting ducks in a barrel isn't sport. Put your guns away, sir. His wife is not offering a "watered down ticket to heaven." From what little I know of her she states that Jesus is her salvation and knows that the weightier matters of the Law: Judgment (righteous judgment, not judging from your eye or ear but according to the Love shown at the Cross), and Mercy and Faith are the weightier matters. Period.

 

[reba]

This thread has retaught me a very important ideal..
Not to think/believe i am right
It has taught me anew about the other guys shoes
It has taught me i would rather smoke a ugly sinful cigarette then be a pharisee

Thanks

 

[Drew]

This thread has retaught me a very important ideal..
Not to think/believe i am right
It has taught me anew about the other guys shoes
It has taught me i would rather smoke a ugly sinful cigarette then be a pharisee

Thanks

You lie, and like other who do the same, are now on ignore.

 

[Drew]

I have little doubt this thread will go as some others do. When faced with arguments that they cannot counter, some posters get nasty, lie, etc. Unable, or unwilling to engage the arguments, they make manifestly false accusations.

I suspect the intent is to get the thread shut down, conveniently of course, considering that the arguments for smoking as sin are compelling and have most interestingly been ignored.

I do not believe we should countenance lying and will call people on it when it happens.

 

[Sparkey]

This thread has retaught me a very important ideal..
Not to think/believe i am right
It has taught me anew about the other guys shoes
It has taught me i would rather smoke a ugly sinful cigarette then be a pharisee

Thanks

There's nothing wrong with being a religious leader who is focused on keeping the law -- the law of God is good. Very good. We should not smoke. I can't say that God didn't tell me when I was 13 years old and started smoking that it was sin. My parents told me. His authority was given to them as they cared for me. I did get mixed messages (both my parents smoked -- and that was back in the 60's --- so 007 (secret agent James Bond) was the guy who got the girl and he smoked <---- mixed messages.

But I knew.

Paul was a Pharisee too. It's fine (in my opinion) to be a zealot and good to love the law. But the purpose of the law is to bring us to Christ. Afterwards the law has no authority. None. I've heard on this board one explanation about that -- how the law is like a bus-driver who has authority over the child while transporting to school. The bus-driver has zero authority over the child when he is in the classroom. None.

When we come to Christ we are then forgiven and the Law of Liberty is in effect. Do we say that our liberty should cause us to be unholy and continue in unrighteiousness so that God's mercy can be shown better? No. That is not the case. Nobody here is saying that smoking is good. There are addicted Christians who believe that Jesus will save them because they have called upon the Name of the Lord. It is those same Christians who have been taught to look to the weightier matters of the law who put their face down and ask their God, their Father, the Love and Savior and their Dependancy (for without Him, none can be heard) ---to consider the heart of the zealot - and how easy it is for people (remember our frame, Lord) to get off target. What the Law of Liberty is, is simply this: God trusts us, that our hearts are changed by His son's sacrifice and that we will act like Him toward each other because we love HIM, our Father. My dad put it this way, "The nut doesn't fall far from the tree, son." We will mature as we continue with him. That will be seen in each of us. Until we come into the unity of the faith that He works into us -- we abide peacefully (as we are able) in hope.

We are not to target each other. Peacemaker is the right call and it's only with prayerful consideration of each other that we can ever hope to grow into the 2nd Greatest Commandment, that we love each other as we love ourselves.

 

[reba]

About 1960 i started smoking because i new it was sin! I was very rebellious. ( for that time) I thought it was sexy to dangle a smoke. Some of us PKs are like that. I quit 1971 cold turkey Praise the Lord! I have fought the battle for how many years now? Those stinky things still have a pull.

I have seen much worse things in my life than smoking.

 

[Bonairos]

To say or imply that this thread has posters unable or unwilling to engage in arguments is a fallacy to say the least. To say this thread has posters adamant on having the world (this is the internet right?) to accept one's position (no matter the perception) would be closer to the the truth.

With that I'll re-post highlights from earlier. (#96)

". . . here is my (limited knowledge) definition of sin that I go by: “Any action (or lack of) that a person takes which is in direct contrast to what God has revealed to him or her.â€

". . . I also believe there are several means in which the revelation of God (to include His plan, purpose, and will) may come to an individual (i.e. the bible, intimate prayer, others, and creation itself to name a few). Nonetheless, it becomes a personal revelation, a personal knowledge. And never will any such ‘revelation’ go against who He has revealed Himself to be as declared in His written word."

". . . I think it would be fair to say that we all agree that it is unhealthy, but clearly a sin?"

". . . Because ‘smoking’ is not specifically mentioned in the bible (like murder, theft, immorality, etc.), yet references to ‘health’ are (and those references in no way refer back to an Edenic state), we are challenged with the question, “Is smoking cigarettes a sin?†. . . an action we take that directly contrasts the personal revelation we have of God for our lives (my definition)."

". . . For some it is, for some it’s not. And that depending on what the Lord has personally spoken to that individual. It’s like women using lipstick. Some in the church are adamantly against it. And that’s okay, I have no problem with them or it. In fact, it can further enhance my wife’s beauty.

However, if at some point the Lord speaks directly to me (for whatever reason, who can argue against God?) that lipstick is an unholy item in my life and for me to steer clear of it - and with that revelation I hang out at the cosmetic counter, it then becomes a sin for me. It is now an individual matter between the Lord and I. Though it may not be written as ‘sin’ in His word, it is now written in my heart that it is."

". . . In turn, I cannot emphatically state what the Lord (by design) has for me, MUST also be the same for everyone else a as well. A personal revelation within a personal relationship. I may attempt to share this knowledge with others, but to restrain others because of my own restraints would also become a sin for me."

". . . Especially when not addressed in written His word."

Be blessed, Stay blessed!

 

[Drew]

To say or imply that this thread has posters unable or unwilling to engage in arguments is a fallacy to say the least.

Untrue - at least in respect to the argument I have repeatedly made about how smoking works against the kingdom of God programme of healing and restoring this present physical world.

Prove me wrong - show me one post where this argument has been engaged. There are two hundred and seventy-five posts in this thread - show me just one where someone has argued against the position that God is trying to heal this present world physically (which, of course, makes smoking sin since it clearly works against that program).

And by the way, I have indeed engaged the basic argument you re-posted. Why are you not willing to engage my arguments?

I think I know the reason.

To say this thread has posters adamant on having the world (this is the internet right?) to accept one's position (no matter the perception) would be closer to the the truth.

What, exactly, is wrong with advocating for a particular position? Sure, I am a little different from many here in this thread - I don't lie, or attack posters personally. But even though that makes me a bit unusual, what, exactly is wrong with the way I am arguing for the position I believe to be true?

 

[farouk]

About 1960 i started smoking..

Ms reba:

Well, this was a long time ago.

I thought it was sexy to dangle a smoke.

Whether or not this is true, the fact is that ladies smoking is very well established. It's better than women and men don't smoke at all, but I don't buy the idea that it's somehow not 'ladylike' to smoke.

Some of us PKs are like that.

I guess you mean that your father and mother didn't smoke, then.

I quit 1971 cold turkey Praise the Lord!

It's great you managed to quit smoking when you wanted to.

I have fought the battle for how many years now? Those stinky things still have a pull.

So you like the smell? Yes, it's a nice smell, isn't it.

I have seen much worse things in my life than smoking.

Well, exactly. I am bewildered with Christians who make a fuss about smoking, while seemingly happy about robber corporations exploiting people when making exorbitant profits on many of their products.

 

[Pizzaguy]

... while seemingly happy about robber corporations exploiting people when making exorbitant profits on many of their products.

Do you realize how much you are telling us about yourself in that short statement?


One thing I'd like to see you do, answer this: What is a "robber corporation"?

 

[farouk]

Do you realize how much you are telling us about yourself in that short statement?


One thing I'd like to see you do, answer this: What is a "robber corporation"?

Pizzaguy: By way of response, have you ever heard of antitrust law? have you ever heard of the leaders of corporations very widely referred to as robber barons who, before Congress enacted antitrust laws, acted very much according to this name? Is it beyond comprehension that huge corporations can still evade tax scrutiny by creating fictitious offshore futures and generate false investor confidence? Is it not offensive to a Christian's conscience that the convicted fraudster who did the biggest fraud in history was a Sunday School teacher? It's true that some politicians see their natural constituency among 1) Christians and 2) the interests of huge corporations. But I don't buy the idea that Christians need to be blind to the way some huge corporations sometimes behave. You know I think it's best not to smoke. I do, really. But as Reba says, there are other big issues out there also, in comparison.

 

[jasoncran]

Pizzaguy: By way of response, have you ever heard of antitrust law? have you ever heard of the leaders of corporations very widely referred to as robber barons who, before Congress enacted antitrust laws, acted very much according to this name? Is it beyond comprehension that huge corporations can still evade tax scrutiny by creating fictitious offshore futures and generate false investor confidence? Is it not offensive to a Christian's conscience that the convicted fraudster who did the biggest fraud in history was a Sunday School teacher? It's true that some politicians see their natural constituency among 1) Christians and 2) the interests of huge corporations. But I don't buy the idea that Christians need to be blind to the way some huge corporations sometimes behave. You know I think it's best not to smoke. I do, really. But as Reba says, there are other big issues out there also, in comparison.

the first anti-trust laws was enforced by a republican president. teddy roosevelt. and also the irony of it was regean broke up att. which owned all the bell communications.local phone companies. ie bellsouth,southern bell, ny bell, bell west, etc

 

[farouk]

the first anti-trust laws was enforced by a republican president. teddy roosevelt. and also the irony of it was regean broke up att. which owned all the bell communications.local phone companies. ie bellsouth,southern bell, ny bell, bell west, etc

j:

...and TR Roosevelt fell out with his successor Taft, because he feared that Taft was too soft on the big corporations.

I don't know whether TR or Taft smoked, though, and really I don't care to find out, even.

Which is precisely the point that some Christians make mountains out of molehills and vice-versa.