Smoking a Pipe

[Hitch]

Let me rephrase that last sentence:

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the "benefits" being touted by pipe smoking comes from tobacco companies and those that smoke.

Ahh I get it. You're with o'l Gil a devout cigar man.

Well you're mistaken he did light a pipe occasionally, but I'll grant his preference was cigars.

Now Hitler,,that was an avid anti smoker.

The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.

- G.K. Chesterton

 

[Rinid]

actually one came from "Article taken from Dr. Beale About The Author: Dr. Beale is a psychiatrist, researcher, and teacher in Charleston, SC." another from Lauren A. Colby [SIZE=-1]Author of In Defense of Smokers, think this is a book, but he's a lawyer. Then lastly pipes mag. So you are one in 3. but there is the refs to the SG and that would be done by the US gov. [/SIZE]

I always wondered about propaganda in smoking and them testing us with it. see if they get stop the population from doing it using only propaganda. Some of us will remember that coffee was forbidden in our churchs because well good christains didn't drink that stuff. Now my church serves coffee. crazy thing is it's a pentacostal church. (They were the worst at telling others not to drink coffee)

 

[Hitch]

Let me rephrase that last sentence:

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the "benefits" being touted by pipe smoking comes from tobacco companies and those that smoke.

Also, an article in the Summer 1990 issue of The Compleat Smoker describes an interesting longevity study conducted in Pennsylvania during the late '60s and early '70s. An organization called No Other World performed the research with the assistance of the Northwestern Pennsylvania Lung Association and regional chapters of the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association. "In the study," reports The Compleat Smoker, "pipe smokers attained an average age of 78--two years older than their non-smoking male counterparts." This may say something about the stress-reducing benefits of pipe smoking. At the very least, it suggests that moderate pipe smoking is not a significant health hazard.

I wouldnt believe a word that puffy bunch said. They probably shoot pool and use playing cards too GASP!

Source:
Ode to Pipe
and other musings in defense of cigar and pipe smoking gentlemen
by Rev. Dr. Pete Bertolero, Ph.d; Th.d

 

[Hitch]

Gil has alot to say Free thanx for bringing him up

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Incidentally, I must say I can bear witness to this queer taboo about tobacco. Of course numberless Americans smoke numberless cigars; a great many others eat cigars, which seems to me a more occult pleasure. But there does exist an extraordinary idea that ethics are involved in some way; and many who smoke really disapprove of smoking. I remember once receiving two American interviewers on the same afternoon; there was a box of cigars in front of me and I offered one to each in turn. Their reaction (as they would probably call it) was very curious to watch. The first journalist stiffened suddenly and silently and declined in a very cold voice. He could not have conveyed more plainly that I had attempted to corrupt an honorable man with a foul and infamous indulgence; as if I were the Old Man of the Mountain offering him hashish that would turn him into an assassin. The second reaction was even more remarkable. The second journalist first looked doubtful; then looked sly; then seemed to glance about him nervously, as if wondering whether we were alone, and then said with a sort of crestfallen and covert smile: "Well, Mr. Chesterton, I'm afraid I have the habit."

As I also have the habit, and have never been able to imagine how it could be connected with morality or immorality, I confess that I plunged with him deeply into an immoral life. In the course of our conversation, I found he was otherwise perfectly sane. He was quite intelligent about economics or architecture; but his moral sense seemed to have entirely disappeared. He really thought it rather wicked to smoke. He had no "standard of abstract right or wrong"; in him it was not merely moribund; it was apparently dead. But anyhow, that is the point and that is the test. Nobody who has an abstract standard of right and wrong can possibly think it wrong to smoke a cigar. But he had a concrete standard of particular cut and dried customs of a particular tribe. Those who say Americans are largely descended from the American Indians might certainly make a case out of the suggestion that this mystical horror of material things is largely a barbaric sentiment. The Red Indian is said to have tried and condemned a tomahawk for committing a murder. In this case he was certainly the prototype of the white man who curses a bottle because too much of it goes into a man. Prohibition is sometimes praised for its simplicity; on these lines it may be equally condemned for its savagery. But I myself do not say anything so absurd as that Americans are savages; nor do I think it would matter much if they were descended from savages. It is culture that counts and not ethnology; and the culture that is concerned here derives indirectly rather from New England than from Old America. Whatever it derives from, however, this is the thing to be noted about it: that it really does not seem to understand what is meant by a standard of right and wrong. It is a vague sentimental notion that certain habits were not suitable to the old log cabin or the old hometown. It has a vague utilitarian notion that certain habits are not directly useful in the new amalgamated stores or the new financial gambling-hell. If his aged mother or his economic master dislikes to see a young man hanging about with a pipe in his mouth, the action becomes a sin; or the nearest that such a moral philosophy can come to the idea of a sin. A man does not chop wood for the log hut by smoking; and a man does not make dividends for the Big Boss by smoking; and therefore smoking has a smell as of something sinful. Of what the great theologians and moral philosophers have meant by a sin, these people have no more idea than a child drinking milk has of a great toxicologist analyzing poisons. It may be a credit of their virtue to be thus vague about vice. The man who is silly enough to say, when offered a cigarette, "I have no vices," may not always deserve the rapier-thrust of the reply given by the Italian Cardinal, "It is not a vice, or doubtless you would have it." But at least the Cardinal knows it is not a vice; which assists the clarity of his mind. But the lack of clear standards among those who vaguely think of it as a vice may yet be the beginning of much peril and oppression. My two American journalists, between them, may yet succeed in adding the sinfulness of cigars to the other curious things now part of the American Constitution.

I would therefore venture to say to Miss Avis Carlson that the quarrel in question does not arise from the Yankee Puritans having too much morality, but from their having too little. It does not arise from their drawing too hard and fast a line of distinction between right and wrong, but from their being much to loose and indistinct. They go by associations and not by abstractions. Therefore they classify smoking with vamping or a flask in the pocket with sin in the soul. I hope at least that some of the Fundamentalists will succeed in being a little more fundamental than this. The men of Tennessee are supposed to be very anxious to draw the line between men and monkeys. They are also supposed by some to be rather too anxious to draw the line between black men and white men. May I be allowed to hope that they will succeed in drawing a rather more logical line between bad men and good men? Something of the the difference and the difficulty may be seen by comparing the old Ku Klux Klan with the new Klu Klux Klan. The old secret society may have been justified or not; but it had a definite object: it was directed against somebody. The new secret society seems to have been directed against anybody; often against anybody who drank; in time, for all I know, against anybody who smoked. It is this sort of formless fanaticism that is the great danger of the American Temperament; and it is well to insist that if men must persecute, they will be more clear-headed if they persecute for a creed.

@19129
[/FONT]

 

[Hitch]

VERBOTEN!

To curb the use of tobacco the Nazi government implemented a variety of measures. An extensive advertising campaign included ads in newspapers, magazines, posters in the streets, and educational films. Laws were past to ban smoking in certain areas. Hospitals, schools, government offices, bomb shelters, and trams were all off-limits to smoking. Women in particular faced even more regulation. The sale of tobacco to women was restricted in retail establishments. Additionally, during the war tobacco ration cards were withheld from pregnant women, and women under the age of 25 or over the age of 55. Advertisements depicting smoking as harmless or a masculine habit were forbidden and deriding anti-tobacco spokespeople was also banned. In 1941, the government tax on tobacco products was almost 90% of the retail price.

Early anti-smoking efforts had little effect on smoking rates and tobacco use actually increased in the 1930’s. When the Nazi’s became more serious about their efforts however, the rates began to fall in the 1940’s during the war. After Hitlers defeat, tobacco use sky rocketed. The importation of black-market American and Swiss cigarettes became big business and Hitler’s success in the area was essentially undone.

Hitler's Anti-Smoking Movement | Junk Worth Knowing

 

[Pard]

Just wanted to add that the anti-smoking campaigns do not have clean hands at all. I'd venture to say that they have more dirt on their hands than any tobacco company does. Much like the gun industry the tobacco industry is smeared to no end and there is a terrible stereotype that follows them.

Now to be fair maybe some of this is deserved, but the attitude people hold towards tobacco companies is an attitude I'd hope to never have towards anything. You see, tobacco companies are not the problem. People smoke, it ain't illegal (nor should it be), and you cannot blame the tobacco companies for giving people what they want any more than you can blame the car company for giving people cars that lead to deaths or the gun companies for making guns which lead to killings.

To blame the tobacco company is to perpetuates the "victim-ocracy" that our secular world delights to splash around in. Instead of suing these companies that are only giving people what they ask for, maybe people should sue themselves for falling into smoking and that way people who enjoy cigars and pipes and chew can be free to do so without this stigma that comes with it.

 

[Hitch]

Good post good thread Pard

thanx

H

 

[Bob Carabbio]

No OTHER Gods.

"Smoking" never really was about "Health" to begin with. It's about ADDICTION - a First Commandment issue. "Addiction" is a GOD that the addict "serves" with a single-minded commitment and dedication generally FAR greater that his commitment to God.

God doesn't particularly CARE what you "have", but He's vitally interested in "What Has You".

And Pipe, or Cigar smoking, or "snuff", or Dip can be AS addicting as Cigarettes are.

And ANY "addiction" is intrinsically SINFUL.

Simple as that.

 

[Oats]

the tobacco industry isn't so bad

neither is the porn industry...right?

pipes and ciggs good for ya health- Einstien

 

[Rinid]

Just wanted to add that the anti-smoking campaigns do not have clean hands at all. I'd venture to say that they have more dirt on their hands than any tobacco company does. Much like the gun industry the tobacco industry is smeared to no end and there is a terrible stereotype that follows them.

Now to be fair maybe some of this is deserved, but the attitude people hold towards tobacco companies is an attitude I'd hope to never have towards anything. You see, tobacco companies are not the problem. People smoke, it ain't illegal (nor should it be), and you cannot blame the tobacco companies for giving people what they want any more than you can blame the car company for giving people cars that lead to deaths or the gun companies for making guns which lead to killings.

To blame the tobacco company is to perpetuates the "victim-ocracy" that our secular world delights to splash around in. Instead of suing these companies that are only giving people what they ask for, maybe people should sue themselves for falling into smoking and that way people who enjoy cigars and pipes and chew can be free to do so without this stigma that comes with it.

which brings me back to wondering if we were test subject of propaganda.. We didn't act like to towards any company until this.. and frankly beer companies and hard alochol companies do far worse yet we havn't lashed out towards them. Not even during prohabitation. So why then do we act with so much anger towards this.

 

[Drew]

Go ahead! Have a good pipe smoke. C. S. Lewis did.

Just keep it in moderation, though, and show some strength and (by) restraint.

After all, we don't see Indians smoking a peace pipe every 5 minutes, but they did not run around with lung cancer just as sun does not cause skin cancer.

Not good advice. I have already provided a detailed argument as to why smoking, even a little bit, is sin.

It is enormously telling that no one actually engages that argument. I suggest the reason is clear: it is a correct, Biblical argument, and people simply are unwilling to face the sin of smoking.

The fact that smoking a little bit only does a little damage does not change the fact that smoking is damaging God's beloved creation and is therefore sin, even in "moderation".

Do you commit adultery "in moderation"? And please let's not have the "there is a 'rule' against adultery, there is no 'rule' against smoking" argument. That is so easy to counter, its not funny - there are no 'rules' against a lot of things that you all consider sin anyway.

 

[Drew]

Interesting when he says that smoking pipes does no harm and prolongs life. I think Caroline H had it right there. Assuming that the facts are from good scources. Interesting one lists the world. So then might say that pipe smoking heals the mind at least thus going along with the kingdom.

I will bet you a month's pay that no reputable doctor would suggest that smoking is anything but a health disaster.

Please, I really hope no one is saying things like "smoking calms you down" so that's a good thing - so you see, smoking is OK. If it were the case that smoking is the only means to calm down a person, then there might be an argument here. But this is clearly not the case. Having a good session of sexual relations with your neighbour's wife might "calm the mind", but that hardly means its not sin.

Things are a commantment for a reason, we can't just add anything say like thou shall not smoke a pipe, and say well bible says we can't do that.

Not this again. Is there a Biblical command to not get your 2000 calories of nutrition each day in the form of Oreo cookies? Of course not! Is it sin? Yes, you are damaging the temple of the Holy Spirit by doing so.

Like morphine for instance. OK but then you get in a bad car accident and the paramedic gives ya a shot of Morphine, by the way they also carry volume. The idea isn't the drug. the idea is has it become an idol in our life. One shot of morphine to ease the pain so they can reduce the effect shock may have on you while in route to the hospital is not being a bad christain. If studies show the pipe prolongs life I would wonder how it's hurting you.

Two things:

1. No one is saying that morphine is sin. It relieves pain - a good thing. Does it have side-effects? Yes. But, on balance, the good outweighs the bad. And if it were true that were other ways to relieve pain without the negative side effects, then we should ditch the morphine. But I suspect this is not the case. Morphine is not analogous to smoking a pipe - there is no benefit to pipe-smoking that cannot be easily achieved through some less damaging behaviour.

2. The "idol" argument: This is clearly not a correct argument. What if I said this "I am having sex with my neighbour's wife, but I only do it now and then, and it is not an 'idol' for me, therefore it is not sin". Please.

 

[Mike]

Drew, I cannot believe you continue to raise this flag and compare smoking to having an adulterous affair. Apples and oranges!! If you're going to use a comparator, you're going to have reach for new material. This doesn't hold water. Try comparing smoking to something that is clearly forbidden in the Word such as adultery doesn't work. You can't keep marching out adultery and asking if it's okay to do this as well.

My usual disclaimer... never smoked, don't smoke, never will smoke.

I do believe there can be the argument that if a person is relying on anything to calm their nerves and not trusting in the Comforter to quell their anxiety, there can be a disconnect there, and they need to be in prayer about why they are smoking. I do believe smoking is very unhealthy, which is one of the reasons I don't do it.

But whether in the form of a pipe, a cigar or a cigarette, I believe it's a stretch to say smoking in and of itself (aside from personal idolatry/dependence) is necessarily a sin. There's typically no physical benefit to popping a square of sugar in your mouth. I don't know much about diabetes, but this might be an exception. It would be dead caloric intake without any benefit and have negative consequences. Is eating pure sugar a sin?

I'm fine with someone stating that they believe smoking is a sin. But to say it's not up for debate and to call smokers sinners is taking it too far.

James 3
"<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-30337">17</sup> But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-30338">18</sup>Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness."

James 4
" <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-30349">11</sup> Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-30350">12</sup> There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?"

Now, I do believe scripture speaks to righteous judgment. We do no favors to our brothers and sisters by ignoring blatant sin while admitting our own shortcomings. But since there is no direct scriptural forbidding of smoking, I believe this can cause more divisiveness than good within the Body of Christ. There's little building up and more tearing down.

 

[Drew]

Drew, I cannot believe you continue to raise this flag and compare smoking to having an adulterous affair. Apples and oranges!! If you're going to use a comparator, you're going to have reach for new material. This doesn't hold water. Try comparing smoking to something that is clearly forbidden in the Word such as adultery doesn't work.

This is pointless - I have repeatedly argued that the "there is no rule against it in the Bible" position is incorrect. At a certain point, repeating myself any more becomes a waste of everyone's time. The people who get my argument will get it, those who don't don't. Its a deep mystery to me why anybody would use this approach to identifying sin when it is otherwise so clear that many things that are not prohibited in the Bible in the form of a "thou shalt not..." are clearly sin.

You do not see this, apparently. But I have done all I can do to convince you.

There is no Bible rule against insider trading in stocks. For some reason that is beyond my understanding, you seem to think that this places the sinfulness of this behaviour in doubt.

 

[farouk]

For some reason, pipe smoking used to be much more of a masculine activity than a feminine one; I don't know why. Whereas a lot of women take up smoking cigarettes.

It wasn't always like this. Before the American Civil War, many women would customarily light up their clay pipes after having attended a church service.

Can ppl figure why all this should be? and isn't it remarkable how some Fundamental Christians have tried to make doing and not doing certain cultural things in a certain period of history, supposedly obligatory for all time?

 

[Drew]

There's typically no physical benefit to popping a square of sugar in your mouth. I don't know much about diabetes, but this might be an exception. It would be dead caloric intake without any benefit and have negative consequences. Is eating pure sugar a sin?

In most cases, I think it would indeed be sin to eat pure sugar. I believe that excessive sugar intake is responsible for many ills in our society. The problem, from my perspective, is that you do not take seriously the mandate to be an agent for the healing of our present world. Smoking and eating too much sugar are both damaging to a part of God's beloved creation?

You seem to think that damaging God's creation needlessly is not necessarily sin. How do you explain such thinking?

I'm fine with someone stating that they believe smoking is a sin. But to say it's not up for debate and to call smokers sinners is taking it too far.

Begs the question.

James 3

"<SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-30337>17</SUP> But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-30338>18</SUP>Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness."

Your point being? Clearly, this implied admonition is only valid if there is an actual case that I am either wrong in calling smoking sin, or have done so in a hurtful way. I see no reason for an objective reader to come to either of these conclusions.

James 4

" <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-30349>11</SUP> Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-30350>12</SUP> There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?"

Again you simply misrepresent what is happening. I realize that being willing to actually substantiate accusations seems entirely lost on most here, but I have not engaged in any slander or any judgement, no matter how much you, and others, suggest otherwise.

 

[jasoncran]

Drew, I cannot believe you continue to raise this flag and compare smoking to having an adulterous affair. Apples and oranges!! If you're going to use a comparator, you're going to have reach for new material. This doesn't hold water. Try comparing smoking to something that is clearly forbidden in the Word such as adultery doesn't work. You can't keep marching out adultery and asking if it's okay to do this as well.

My usual disclaimer... never smoked, don't smoke, never will smoke.

I do believe there can be the argument that if a person is relying on anything to calm their nerves and not trusting in the Comforter to quell their anxiety, there can be a disconnect there, and they need to be in prayer about why they are smoking. I do believe smoking is very unhealthy, which is one of the reasons I don't do it.

But whether in the form of a pipe, a cigar or a cigarette, I believe it's a stretch to say smoking in and of itself (aside from personal idolatry/dependence) is necessarily a sin. There's typically no physical benefit to popping a square of sugar in your mouth. I don't know much about diabetes, but this might be an exception. It would be dead caloric intake without any benefit and have negative consequences. Is eating pure sugar a sin?

I'm fine with someone stating that they believe smoking is a sin. But to say it's not up for debate and to call smokers sinners is taking it too far.

James 3
"<sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-30337">17</sup> But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-30338">18</sup>Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness."

James 4
" <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-30349">11</sup> Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-30350">12</sup> There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?"

Now, I do believe scripture speaks to righteous judgment. We do no favors to our brothers and sisters by ignoring blatant sin while admitting our own shortcomings. But since there is no direct scriptural forbidding of smoking, I believe this can cause more divisiveness than good within the Body of Christ. There's little building up and more tearing down.

mike this is why i dont tell christians that its a sin to watch tv.i dont because mostly it drives me to lust. others dont have that problem.liberty must sometimes be allowed. otherwise, we should all be vegans, and not go the lost where they may be and stay in our christian bubbles.

theres a ton of things, DREW, that can be destructive, even excercise, i watched a testimony yesterday by an anexeroic canadian olympic soccer player, she literally exercised 4 hours a day, and it was killing her SLOWLY.

i dont think smoking is wise, never will but some must come to stop, i dont consider it the same sin as adultery, otherwise that lady is just as much as a sinner. and so christian therefore cant be athletes. (for if you want to suceed that is what it takes, some can handle that level and dont have that problem).

 

[GojuBrian]

I don't smoke, don't care to.

Every once in a while, out in the field, (jason understands this) we would sit around and smoke cigars, some pipes. I didn't see anything wrong with it.

I'm not in the position to go around telling others they shouldn't smoke a pipe since it isn't clearly stated in the Bible.

When a christian is sinning, I suspects he knows about it and doesn't need me to harp on them. I'm NOT saying smoking a pipe is a sin either.

 

[jasoncran]

I don't smoke, don't care to.

Every once in a while, out in the field, (jason understands this) we would sit around and smoke cigars, some pipes. I didn't see anything wrong with it.

I'm not in the position to go around telling others they shouldn't smoke a pipe since it isn't clearly stated in the Bible.

When a christian is sinning, I suspects he knows about it and doesn't need me to harp on them. I'm NOT saying smoking a pipe is a sin either.

i was wondering if it was my unit alone that did that.

 

[Drew]

theres a ton of things, DREW, that can be destructive, even excercise, i watched a testimony yesterday by an anexeroic canadian olympic soccer player, she literally exercised 4 hours a day, and it was killing her SLOWLY.

If someone exercises to the point of hurting themselves, and they know they are doing so, and it is within their power to stop, that too would be sin.

i dont think smoking is wise, never will but some must come to stop, i dont consider it the same sin as adultery, otherwise that lady is just as much as a sinner. and so christian therefore cant be athletes. (for if you want to suceed that is what it takes, some can handle that level and dont have that problem).

You seem to believe that because some people exercise to the point of damaging themselves, that no Christian can exercize without sinning. This is not what I am saying at all. When you can show that exercize is always bad, then I would agree that Christians should not exercize. And do I really need to ask whether smoking is always harmful?