Cigarette Smoking Christians

[Drew]

Drew, you were answering questions. Great. But my point in bringing up the Luke 18 was to compare how you look at what you're doing and feel that you're doing it "right enough".

Please Mike - surely you know that I simply answered questions. You need to deal with the fact that you innappropriately compared me to a Pharisee, when all I did was tell the truth in response to some very specific questions.

It is entirely inappropriate to presume, with no evidence whatsoever, that I am boasting when I simply answer questions truthfullly.

We've gone round and round in other threads where you did the same thing. The car you own isn't too big, your dwelling place is not too extravagant, etc. In answering the questions the way you did, you were drawing your own interpretation of treating your body as God would have us treat them AND say others do not.

You have no actual evidence to support any of these claims. Perhaps I have said that I live relatively frugally. But you cannot simply assume that my motive is like that of the Pharisee. For all you know, my motive is to enourage others to take up a more frugal and responsible attitute to material things.

This wasn't a slam.

Mike - the readers are not fools!!! Comparing me to a Pharisee is a slam!! You need to accept responsibility for your unjustified rebuke. What you did was not the worst thing, but it was clearly unjustified.

 

[Pizzaguy]

This wasn't a slam. Don't read anything more personal into it than was intended. It served my purpose to demonstrate how you are coming off throughout this thread; not how you are. Whenever someone says they are living righteously because they do this and only have that, there are people who do more than this and have less than that.

I was just urging you not to come off as "that guy".

Drew, (and Mike) I think he's being honest. Sometimes, answering a question is a trap - especially how detailed your answers became.

All we have to go on here is printed words - it's very hard to get to know someone with just that.

 

[Pizzaguy]

This is clearly a metaphor, not to be understood in any sense as suggesting that anyone damage their own body.

Directed to no one in particular: His metaphors caused a lot of confusion and mis-interpretation for His disciples. And it continues to today.

I once had a conversation with a guy who dismissed the whole bible based on the "pluck out your eye" verse. He said that was proof that the book was a joke, not inspired by God or to be taken seriously.

What I wonder (and we need not hijack a thread over it), is why did He use metaphors and parables if they would cause such confusion and argument?

He had a reason, but at the age of 50 and after 33 years with my bible, I'm still not sure.

 

[Mike]

Please Mike - surely you know that I simply answered questions. You need to deal with the fact that you innappropriately compared me to a Pharisee, when all I did was tell the truth in response to some very specific questions.

It is entirely inappropriate to presume, with no evidence whatsoever, that I am boasting when I simply answer questions truthfullly.

Drew, you were asked a series of questions about the way you take care of your body. You know the person who asked them wasn't concerned with your specific answers. You're a smart person, and you know he was making an overall point. Only Hitch can say for sure, but clear to me was the overall premise: you shouldn't be throwing stones at others for the way they treat their bodies unless you are treating yours to perfection. (That's what I got out of it, anyway.)

So, you didn't need to answer all of these things literally. And this was the kicker... When not only said what you do to stay healthy but compared what you do to the majority of America, that's where you crossed the line in SOUNDING self-righteous. When I asked why you chose to compare yourself to Americans and not the people among you in Canada, you said you did this because it appears most of us on the board are from America. That reply said to me that you not only were comparing yourself to the average person, but specifically to members of this board. No one asked you what you do compared to others. You chose to make the comparisons.

That's the only reason I ended my post with the passage from Luke. Believe it or not, I wasn't saying you are a pharisee, I was saying you were coming off sounding like one. Here is my public apology if I came across to you and others as sounding otherwise. I'm sorry. I have deep respect for you. We differ in liberal/conservative approaches to our faith, but we are both equally Justified by the Lord.

Getting back to the topic of the thread, I'd agree that smoking can lead to severe health problems and with increased smoking, the chances are more likely if not inevitable. I spent 10 years in the health care industry, specifically in the area of asthma and respiratory diseases (like COPD). I'm very aware of the ramifications of smoking and the cancer rate.

Having said that, light use of cigarettes will not necessarily do harm to the body, and quitting will yield fast recovery to the body. I refuse to accept that smoking in all cases is sin. Saying that we condone everything that doesn't conflict with our conscience by comparing it to acts clearly forbidden in scripture is not fare. Some things are clearly spelled out in the Bible as sinful, and some things are not. So somethings are always a sin (adultery, murder), and some things hinge on a person putting them above what the Holy Spirit is telling them to do.

 

[jasoncran]

exercising to much can be a sin. i know a man who the lord convicted on that as he road his bike too much and it was his idol.

i would be that way, i can hit the mma gym anyday, all day and i would prefer it over the church anytime. that is how i am.so then to me that is a sin.

 

[farouk]

Umm...not quite sure about all the He said/She said...

But quitting smoking is a good idea...

 

[Drew]

What I wonder (and we need not hijack a thread over it), is why did He use metaphors and parables if they would cause such confusion and argument?

Excellent question. I would agree that Jesus even seems to go to the extent of being deliberately obscure. I think there is a reason for this, and I would bet that it has something to do with ensuring that He (Jesus) would be seen as a trouble-maker and sent to the cross.

 

[Drew]

Drew, you were asked a series of questions about the way you take care of your body. You know the person who asked them wasn't concerned with your specific answers. You're a smart person, and you know he was making an overall point. Only Hitch can say for sure, but clear to me was the overall premise: you shouldn't be throwing stones at others for the way they treat their bodies unless you are treating yours to perfection. (That's what I got out of it, anyway.)

I think you are right - Hitch was seeing if I was being consistent. It turns out that I was. That's no "boast" - it is the simple truth. This is not to suggest that I exhibit the same level of "non-hypocrisy" in other areas of my life.

So, you didn't need to answer all of these things literally.

How do you think that. If I don't answer the questions truthfully, people will see me as ignoring questions that would expose me as a hypocrite. And it is important to set the record straight. Why? Because we are to be a "light" to the world and an encouragement to other believers. And I would hope that my truthful answers will show that, yes, it is indeed possible to take very good care of one's health. It is not always boasting to "let your light shine".

And this was the kicker... When not only said what you do to stay healthy but compared what you do to the majority of America,

I only compared my intake of fiber to that of the average American. It was my way of saying that, in this area, I do relatively well. I agree this might have come across as a little self-righteous, but the overall flavour of my post was to simply answer the questions.

That reply said to me that you not only were comparing yourself to the average person, but specifically to members of this board. No one asked you what you do compared to others. You chose to make the comparisons.

Well I only "compared myself" in one area out of more than 10. And I was not intending to compare myself to members of this board in particular.

That's the only reason I ended my post with the passage from Luke. Believe it or not, I wasn't saying you are a pharisee, I was saying you were coming off sounding like one.

Well I do not believe I ever said that you said I was a Pharisee - that would impossible as I am not Jewish and I am not sure Pharisees as a religious group even exist any more.

Here is my public apology if I came across to you and others as sounding otherwise. I'm sorry. I have deep respect for you. We differ in liberal/conservative approaches to our faith, but we are both equally Justified by the Lord.

Thanks. And for my part, I do acknowledge that the one statement about "eating more fiber than the Average American" may have indeed come across as self-righteous. So I will apologize for that. And I am probably more "sensitive" than the average person (pardon the comparison), so perhaps I over-reacted.

 

[pjt]

This is clearly a metaphor, not to be understood in any sense as suggesting that anyone damage their own body.

I agree this is a metaphor so Jesus` intention is not to literally pluck out the eye, but it is an illustration of how serious sin is and how seriously we should take it. Preserving the spirit is far more important than preserving our physical bodies. Our eyes and hands are very important but not nearly as important as our spiritual well being. If you think the spirit and physical are the same, I don`t know what you get from this verse, but that is how I believe it is meant to be read. I without doubt believe the physical things of this world will eventually be destroyed either through natural decay or destruction, but the spiritual live on forever and it is the spiritual we are meant to protect, nuture, and preserve. That does not mean we should just stomp all over the physical. We should treat the physical with respect and dignity, but our primary focus should be on the spiritual. That is just my opinion that I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on. I think I understand your viewpoint now and I think you understand mine. But even if we disagree on this, I`d like to conclude on something we do agree on and that is the main thing, salvation is through Jesus Christ. If we can agree on this, then that is all that matters in the end!!!

After 12 pages of discussing smoking, I think I have said all I want to say so I am retiring from the thread!

 

[Free]

I agree this is a metaphor so Jesus` intention is not to literally pluck out the eye, but it is an illustration of how serious sin is and how seriously we should take it.

On the contrary, I believe Jesus was speaking literally.

 

[Nathan Kendall]

I think it's both.

If you're having a problem lusting, stop it.

If you're still having a problem, get counseling.

If you're still having a problem, remove your eyes.

The latter is obviously insane by our standards, but coming from God himself, his one desire is to be with you. He does not want a bad habit of yours to separate you from him for all eternity. I'm sure in his eyes, it's better to have no eyes than no savior.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Bonairos]

That's the only reason I ended my post with the passage from Luke. Believe it or not, I wasn't saying you are a pharisee, I was saying you were coming off sounding like one. Here is my public apology if I came across to you and others as sounding otherwise. I'm sorry. I have deep respect for you. We differ in liberal/conservative approaches to our faith, but we are both equally Justified by the Lord[/B].

In ALSO keeping with the OP, “I'm interested to hear your opinion AND the manner in which you express them.

This (post) too, is revealing. There was no demanding of evidence; as if to say, “Innocent until you prove me guilty!†(which by the way, is ironic in this thread being that cigarette smoking has no specific written evidence either in the bible; yet some are staunch in their position; I assume by they themselves making inferences).

Nevertheless, for the sake of harmony (no less also between the Lord and oneself), Mike apologized for what was heard in hopes of clarifying what he meant. This is evidence of the Word being written in one’s heart!


Be blessed, Stay blessed!

 

[farouk]

I`m glad it was helpful.

pjt:

Yes, it's good to be reflective and not just give the 'stock response'.

 

[Drew]

In ALSO keeping with the OP, “I'm interested to hear your opinion AND the manner in which you express them.

This (post) too, is revealing. There was no demanding of evidence; as if to say, “Innocent until you prove me guilty!” (which by the way, is ironic in this thread being that cigarette smoking has no specific written evidence either in the bible; yet some are staunch in their position; I assume by they themselves making inferences).

Nice try.

First, it was entirely appropriate for me ask for evidence when I am being accused. You seem to think that I am being "picky" for daring to ask for the evidence that supported a serious accusation - that I was behaving like a Pharisee. Please.

Second, I am surprised that anyone would take this "there is no teaching in the Bible about smoking, so .....". Well, obviously there is no "thou shalt not smoke" command in the Bible. But, equally, there is no "thou shalt not engage in insider trading" commandment either. But we all should know from general principles that insider trading is wrong. And the same with smoking. An inference, of course, but hardly a groundless or arbitrary one.

The Bible is not a list of "do's and don'ts" - it is a grand story of God at work in the world. And one thing God is doing is healing the physical world - no it will not be burned away to nothing despite what you think.

When you smoke, you work against God's programme of healing.

 

[jasoncran]

Nice try.

First, it was entirely appropriate for me ask for evidence when I am being accused. You seem to think that I am being "picky" for daring to ask for the evidence that supported a serious accusation - that I was a Pharisee. Please.

Second, I am surprised that anyone would take this "there is no teaching in the Bible about smoking, so .....". Well, obviously there is no "thou shalt not smoke" command in the Bible. But, equally, there is no "thou shalt not engage in insider trading" commandment either. But we all should know from general principles that insider trading is wrong. And the same with smoking.

The Bible is not a list of "do's and don'ts" - it is a grand story of God at work in the world. And one thing God is doing is healing the physical world - no it will not be burned away to nothing despite what you think.

When you smoke, you work against God's programme of healing.

off topic, is your version of the ressurection is the body we have is all of sudden healed and made whole if we are alive when the lord comes?

 

[Drew]

off topic, is your version of the ressurection is the body we have is all of sudden healed and made whole if we are alive when the lord comes?

Yes, our resurrection bodies will be entirely "healed", although we need to remember Jesus still bore the marks of the crucfixion, so I am not entirely sure that some of the "imperfections" of our bodies will not persist. But I hope (and expect not).

I really, really hope no one is thinking as follows: "Well, since I am going to get a new body, so it does not matter if I smoke, get obese, and generally wreck the body I have now".

Such thinking entirely misses the point. There is tremendous symbolic value in how Christians treat their bodies, even if we all get "perfect" bodies at the resurrection. When we do not treat our bodies we are symbolically telling the world, including the non-believers to whom we witness, that we are not terribly concerned in participating in God's sweeping programme of restoration of all creation.

God made your body. He declared to be "very good". But Adam fell and Jesus had to go to the cross to fix the problem. When we act carelessly to our bodies, we are in some measure saying that we do not honour Jesus' work of beginning a new creation - we are instead going to let ourselves go and wait for the magic at the very end.

 

[Alabaster]

Yes, our resurrection bodies will be entirely "healed", although we need to remember Jesus still bore the marks of the crucfixion, so I am not entirely sure that some of the "imperfections" of our bodies will not persist. But I hope (and expect not).

I really, really hope no one is thinking as follows: "Well, since I am going to get a new body, so it does not matter if I smoke, get obese, and generally wreck the body I have now".

Such thinking entirely misses the point. There is tremendous symbolic value in how Christians treat their bodies, even if we all get "perfect" bodies at the resurrection. When we do not treat our bodies we are symbolically telling the world, including the non-believers to whom we witness, that we are not terribly concerned in participating in God's sweeping programme of restoration of all creation.

God made your body. He declared to be "very good". But Adam fell and Jesus had to go to the cross to fix the problem. When we act carelessly to our bodies, we are in some measure saying that we do not honour Jesus' work of beginning a new creation - we are instead going to let ourselves go and wait for the magic at the very end.

Good words, Drew.

 

[jasoncran]

Yes, our resurrection bodies will be entirely "healed", although we need to remember Jesus still bore the marks of the crucfixion, so I am not entirely sure that some of the "imperfections" of our bodies will not persist. But I hope (and expect not).

I really, really hope no one is thinking as follows: "Well, since I am going to get a new body, so it does not matter if I smoke, get obese, and generally wreck the body I have now".

Such thinking entirely misses the point. There is tremendous symbolic value in how Christians treat their bodies, even if we all get "perfect" bodies at the resurrection. When we do not treat our bodies we are symbolically telling the world, including the non-believers to whom we witness, that we are not terribly concerned in participating in God's sweeping programme of restoration of all creation.

God made your body. He declared to be "very good". But Adam fell and Jesus had to go to the cross to fix the problem. When we act carelessly to our bodies, we are in some measure saying that we do not honour Jesus' work of beginning a new creation - we are instead going to let ourselves go and wait for the magic at the very end.

i disagree with that assement but i am not stupid to think that we should ignore our bodies and treat it like crap and expect that we should ask God to heal us when we eat like crap.

even persons like cornelius teach that in church.i was taught by a faith healer type yrs ago.common sense. some christians think that they can ignore the car problems and when it breaks down blame the devil for it.
nonsense the car is a machine and they need maintenence.

i dont think god calls the current state of our bodies good but that doesnt excuse us to be unhealthy.
does it make sense to get sick all the time if we cant at least reduce the causes of disease caused by unhealthy lifestyles?

moderation is a good thing.

 

[Bonairos]

Nice try.

First, it was entirely appropriate for me ask for evidence when I am being accused. You seem to think that I am being "picky" for daring to ask for the evidence that supported a serious accusation - that I was behaving like a Pharisee. Please.

Drew -

Nice try? First off, when I am addressing someone personally, I will direct my post to them by name and/or post their quote and respond accordingly (such as this one).

You amuse me. And for that reason (along with knowing there are silent readers who also follow this thread) I will once again engage you in dialog. But perhaps not as soft I was before.

My reply (#172) was to acknowledge Mike and his Christ-like remarks. This was in response to the OP. Not just whether smoking was good-bad, right-wrong; but ALSO the manner in which one expresses them. And yet it appears you could not leave it to stand but attempted to take away from it and make it about YOUR viewpoint on smoking being clearly a sin!).

If I was aware you were looking to see where or how I was applying this to you personally, I might have added the last sentence (what you left the readers with in your post #151): “If you do not like those answers, too bad.†(emphasis mine). I chose not to include you. Sorry, my bad.

Furthermore, unless you believe you are the ONLY one, or perhaps more appropriate, the leader of those believing smoking is clearly a sin, then maybe I could see you concluding that my inference was to you and you alone when I said, “yet some are staunch in their position; I assume by they themselves making inferences.†(#172)

Now to your post I quoted above:

You attempt to make the argument that it is entirely appropriate to provide evidence (not inferences) when (in one’s mind) he is being accused of being a Pharisee. Yet! Out from the same pen stroke you admit there is no ‘Thou shalt not smoke’ commandment in the bible. BUT! Based on inferences, you can unequivocally state that smoking cigarettes is clearly a sin.

I ask you directly Drew, What’s worse? Or is there a vast difference between you (IYO) being accused of being a Pharisee? Or a fellow Christian being accused BY YOU of being clearly in sin by smoking cigarettes?

Being accused of being clearly in sin (IMO) also is a serious accusation. Perhaps your rules of engagement suggests, “When it’s about me, I demand evidence! When it’s someone else, inferences will do!!†Please do correct me if I’m wrong. I do not want to believe this is the case.

As for insider trading, I'll leave that one alone for now. For me to answer I would have to ask what do you mean by ‘insider trading’? But then again you already told me (#93), “Definitions can be a cop-out - a way of over-simplifying something.â€

And if you did, at best, just “take a shot†(same post #93) at defining ‘sin’, which by the way you state a cigarette smoking Christian is clearly guilty of - sin, I certainly feel no need chase rabbits with insider trading.

My point is this (as it was stated in post #87). I attempt to effectively dialog with you, and if possible, by your guidelines. But first I need to know what are they and will they remain consisted?!

Aside from that, it’s apparent (to me anyway) that Christians smoking cigarettes (and we both agree that it is unhealthy) is a stickler for you. Perhaps if you stated your reason why, (if any aside from what you already stated throughout this thread), I may be better able to understand your unyielding position that smoking cigarettes is clearly a sin and your passion behind it.


Be blessed, Stay blessed!

 

[Free]

I'm curious, seeing as that we're made in God's image (as all humans are), temples of the Holy Spirit who are to reflect God to the world and then turn and worship God, reflecting love from the world back to him, walking in the Spirit in such a way that we develop the fruit of the Spirit, set apart and on the path of sanctification, a royal priesthood, seeking to be holy and blameless, how is it clearly not a sin to smoke?