Smoking a Pipe

[jasoncran]

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.


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?

in small amounts no, i know one person that smokes one cigarrette a year. rare , yes.

some forms are bad when extreme, body building. name one body builder , famous at your age that can handle the heavy weights he once did.he cant. joints are replaced. and back is shot. my sport can lead to some serious and permanant injury(this is why i dont compete)the point is yes one can go overboard on anything and that is what i am saying. you can literal damage yourself with exercise.thus a sin.

 

[Drew]

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.

Not this again.

I think that every Sunday School teacher who taught their students that the only criteria for determing whether something is sin is the existence of a "thou shalt not....." command should be lined up and slapped. Why do so many of you believe this patently false oversimplification? Surely you know it is not correct.

To force the issue I will ask questions that I have already asked and which, of course, have not been answered since they expose the fallacy of the position you hold:

Is it sin to eat carpentry nails, thereby damaging your body, and costing health care dollars that would otherwise be spent on something else?

Is it sin to eat fiberglass, thereby damaging your body, and costing health care dollars that would otherwise be spent on something else?

 

[Drew]

in small amounts no, i know one person that smokes one cigarrette a year. rare , yes.

OK, tell you what. If someone starts a thread titled "is it sin to smoke one cigarrette per year?", I promise I will not post in it.

 

[jasoncran]

incense,common in the ot. not sure if its used in a confined space. the incense we use alot in our homes, has adverse affects.

Long-term Exposure to Incense Raises Cancer Risk - US News and World Report

if the bible has incense which it does, the verses mention that it is a sweet aroma.interesting. pipes are similar to this you dont inhale them, the taste and the aroma that is it. i dont like incense. i cant , irritates my asthma.

 

[Drew]

incense,common in the ot. not sure if its used in a confined space. the incense we use alot in our homes, has adverse affects.

Long-term Exposure to Incense Raises Cancer Risk - US News and World Report

if the bible has incense which it does, the verses mention that it is a sweet aroma.interesting. pipes are similar to this you dont inhale them, the taste and the aroma that is it. i dont like incense. i cant , irritates my asthma.

Ye have caused me to rend my garment.......

There are cases in the Old Testament where God orders genocide, yes genocide. I trust you can see the error of the "if its in the Old Testament, and is countenanced by God, it cannot be sin" argument is simply an over-simplification.

Besides, its a real stretch, connecting incense to smoking. And there are other reasons why this analogy does not work.

 

[jasoncran]

Ye have caused me to rend my garment.......

There are cases in the Old Testament where God orders genocide, yes genocide. I trust you can see the error of the "if its in the Old Testament, and is countenanced by God, it cannot be sin" argument is simply an over-simplification.

Besides, its a real stretch, connecting incense to smoking. And there are other reasons why this analogy does not work.

poking holes at your thinking. you said if its incense is sin and its causing cancer then why would god use something that does just that? i didnt say that all nor even implied it. you did. not me. i said nothing of the sort. i said that one uses incense not to smoke but to add aroma to a room as it gives pleasure(that is what incense is for). some like pipe smoke for the same thing taste and smell. both cause cancer but then so does air fresheners


How "Fresh" Is Air Freshener? - TIME

trust me some need to use that when they use the restroom, but look at what i could do cause cancer.

where do we stop with this? i dont suggest one smoke. or use a pipe. risky, but now should add incense and room fresheners(less risky but a possibility)

if i really want to go there i could add certian states are higher risks for certian types of cancer(ie florida skin cancer, and sun tan is well a sin. it serves no purpose and it can cause a host of health issues)

i am not trying to smart here drew, just making a point

I will not smoke pot, pipe, or chew ever. i dont tan(high cancer risk) simply put one can get cancer from driving in florida from the sun.doubt it. i know better i have friends who dont tan but got skin cancer from being here. the uv rays are that strong.

one doesnt have to live in florida.i agree with mike apples to oranges

taking your logic further

if the bible doesnt say x is sin doesnt mean its not sin

tv is sin, all of it, one cant watch it without some adds that offend
movies. music, sports sin

all of them have some promotion of sin. you support it. its the same thing. see romans 1.

 

[Drew]

poking holes at your thinking. you said if its incense is sin and its causing cancer then why would god use something that does just that? i didnt say that all nor even implied it. you did. not me. i said nothing of the sort. i said that one uses incense not to smoke but to add aroma to a room as it gives pleasure(that is what incense is for). some like pipe smoke for the same thing taste and smell. both cause cancer but then so does air fresheners

Not sure what you are saying. I believe my point remains: its risky to extrapolate from the Old Testament. God ordered genocides in the Old Testament. Does that mean its ok to commit genocide? Besides, the incense analogy is a massive stretch. People do not get routinely addicted to incense.

where do we stop with this? i dont suggest one smoke. or use a pipe. risky, but now should add incense and room fresheners(less risky but a possibility)

Well, when incense smoking and inhaling the air freshener used to mask a monster dump become real public health issues, then we can talk some more.

if the bible doesnt say x is sin doesnt mean its not sin

tv is sin, all of it, one cant watch it without some adds that offend
movies. music, sports sin

all of them have some promotion of sin. you support it. its the same thing. see romans 1.

The TV analogy is weak - TV can become an idol but, unlike cigarrettes there is a way to watch TV responsibly. But I would probably agree that most people, myself included to some degree, "sin" in their TV watching in the specific sense that its waste of time and contributes the physical degradation.

I get the impression that you all think I am standing on a pulpit lecturing you guys self-righteously. That is certainly not my intent.

 

[jasoncran]

Not sure what you are saying. I believe my point remains: its risky to extrapolate from the Old Testament. God ordered genocides in the Old Testament. Does that mean its ok to commit genocide? Besides, the incense analogy is a massive stretch. People do not get routinely addicted to incense.


Well, when incense smoking and inhaling the air freshener used to mask a monster dump become real public health issues, then we can talk some more.


The TV analogy is weak - TV can become an idol but, unlike cigarrettes there is a way to watch TV responsibly. But I would probably agree that most people, myself included to some degree, "sin" in their TV watching in the specific sense that its waste of time and contributes the physical degradation.

I get the impression that you all think I am standing on a pulpit lecturing you guys self-righteously. That is certainly not my intent.

incense has an affect drew, i told my wife to stop using it in the house. so those studies dont matter that the AMERICAN Cancer society says its a risk isnt enough for you?i cant even enter a room with incense as i will cough so much that i have to step out. and once it starts its all day.

how does one watch tv responsibly. name on tv show these days save christian only that doesnt have adds that promote sin? doubt you could and no, i am not even suggest that tv is sin.i choose not to watch it for i dont have to anymore. i didnt want to support sin.i could watch documentaries easily, not my thing, again the ads are what will get you.


read what i said on incense and the links will yah. its there and i have known that for yrs.no comment on sun tanning.you may not sound legalistic to you. but some here will take it that way. why they must see what you see as sin.till then they wont.with these gray areas(smoking and others that are bad but not really stated its that way)

i learned this the hard way as a young christian, in 1998, i stopped listening to all secular music, too include love songs
i used to say all must.that isnt in the bible to support that.i found that secular music doesnt edify me. but is it sin. not really.

with the gay rights pushing for promotion of sin, i decided that i cant in good honesty support it that way, so i gave up tv.if its not direct christian from the bible its going to have something that may be a gray area that some will call sin.even lotr has that.

should we then be in a bubble? that is my concern where do you reach the lost , drew

in my hobby, i dont go to the bars to watch the fights. i could, but for money reasons primarily i dont. some might say that is sin with the smoking and drinking and cursing etc. to me that wont affect me as i wont drink, smoke. i have a cursing problem however.

second on that the ring girls would tempt me. so i would have to either avoid that for now or ask or learn not to be tempted.i refuse to held to this as i wouldnt even be able to go to the beach if i so choose here. not that i care but that isnt what the cross is about.but if it what i must crucigy then so be it.

ironic , you watch tv more then me.

 

[pjt]

Not this again.

I think that every Sunday School teacher who taught their students that the only criteria for determing whether something is sin is the existence of a "thou shalt not....." command should be lined up and slapped. Why do so many of you believe this patently false oversimplification? Surely you know it is not correct.

I think going beyond what the Bible says specifically is exactly what the Pharisees did. They tried to define each area of sin and ended up with a whole new book of laws. God felt simple was best and I think that is good enough for us as well. The reason God felt simple was best was because He looks at the heart. Some things are black and white like stealing, but other things are more grey and that is where we leave God to judge. If someone is out on the battlefield and a pipe calms their nerves, let them smoke. I would not classify that as the pipe replacing God. God gives us many things in life to reduce our stress--music, animals, nature, hobbies, etc. These are gifts from God not replacements of God as long as the person is still relying on God. A person can smoke and pray at the same time and I would not see that as sacreligious as long as the heart is right, and God is looking at the heart.

 

[Drew]

I think going beyond what the Bible says specifically is exactly what the Pharisees did. They tried to define each area of sin and ended up with a whole new book of laws.

I think there is problem with your argument, not to mention that, like almost everyone, you simply ignore the argument that I have made. But with respect to what you are saying here. It is not correct to argue thus:

1. The Bible does not have a rule against smoking;

2. The Pharisees made all sorts of incorrect inferences about what should be deemed to be "sin";

3. Therefore, any inferences about what should count as sin are as incorrect as the Pharisaical inferences.

This is your implied argument, but it is not correct. The fact that Pharisees made invalid inferences does not mean that one cannot make correct inferences.

God felt simple was best and I think that is good enough for us as well. The reason God felt simple was best was because He looks at the heart. Some things are black and white like stealing, but other things are more grey and that is where we leave God to judge.

If this is an argument that "if smoking were wrong, there would have been a rule against it", it really is based on unfounded speculation that the Bible would never leave it to us to figure certain things out, but would instead explicitly identify all sins. How do you know, Biblically, that God "felt simple was best"?

 

[Hitch]

not only are you wrong pjt you 're not even being wrong right.

 

[pjt]

I think there is problem with your argument, not to mention that, like almost everyone, you simply ignore the argument that I have made. But with respect to what you are saying here. It is not correct to argue thus:

1. The Bible does not have a rule against smoking;

2. The Pharisees made all sorts of incorrect inferences about what should be deemed to be "sin";

3. Therefore, any inferences about what should count as sin are as incorrect as the Pharisaical inferences.

This is your implied argument, but it is not correct. The fact that Pharisees made invalid inferences does not mean that one cannot make correct inferences.


If this is an argument that "if smoking were wrong, there would have been a rule against it", it really is based on unfounded speculation that the Bible would never leave it to us to figure certain things out, but would instead explicitly identify all sins. How do you know, Biblically, that God "felt simple was best"?

Because God kept things simple.

Actually, probably a lot of what the Pharisees wrote had validity but the problem was there was no freedom in what they wrote. For example, it was a sin to work on the Sabbath, but God kept this law simple and vague to allow freedom. The purpose was to set aside a day to honor God, but God gives humans common sense so if your house is burning, your cow fell in a ditch, etc. you could get up and take care of these matters on the Sabbath without dishonoring God, but the Pharisees tried to define sins so clearly that they removed God`s freedom from each law and by doing so they removed the true purpose of the law which is letting the heart decide. The heart desires or does not desire to honor God on the Sabbath and this results in how the people treated the Sabbath. The law was never about rules but about the heart.

 

[pjt]

not only are you wrong pjt you 're not even being wrong right.

How am I wrong?

 

[Drew]

Because God kept things simple.

Actually, probably a lot of what the Pharisees wrote had validity but the problem was there was no freedom in what they wrote. For example, it was a sin to work on the Sabbath, but God kept this law simple and vague to allow freedom. The purpose was to set aside a day to honor God, but God gives humans common sense so if your house is burning, your cow fell in a ditch, etc. you could get up and take care of these matters on the Sabbath without dishonoring God, but the Pharisees tried to define sins so clearly that they removed God`s freedom from each law and by doing so they removed the true purpose of the law which is letting the heart decide. The heart desires or does not desire to honor God on the Sabbath and this results in how the people treated the Sabbath. The law was never about rules but about the heart.

You are basically begging the question and making the same error as before. Just because the Pharisees "inferred improperly" does not mean that all inferences are incorrect. And, again, you simply declare that "God kept things simple" - you cannot do that, you need to support this assertion.

It is easy to see the problem in your line of argument. Suppose, for some mysterious reason, that there was no law against driving when you are exhausted. Using your reasoning, we would proceed as follows:

1. There is no "thou shalt not drive while exhausted" command in the Bible;

2. The Pharisees added all sorts of commands over and above what is in the Bible, and they were wrong to do so, falsely identifying things as sin which were not;

3. Therefore, we should not "add" a belief that driving while exhausted is sin.

Points 1 and 2 are correct, but conclusion 3 is unjustified. We all know that driving while exhausted is exceedingly dangerous to both the driver and the people he might crash into. So its clearly sin, even though there is no "rule" about it in the Bible.

 

[pjt]

You are basically begging the question and making the same error as before. Just because the Pharisees "inferred improperly" does not mean that all inferences are incorrect. And, again, you simply declare that "God kept things simple" - you cannot do that, you need to support this assertion.

It is easy to see the problem in your line of argument. Suppose, for some mysterious reason, that there was no law against driving when you are exhausted. Using your reasoning, we would proceed as follows:

1. There is no "thou shalt not drive while exhausted" command in the Bible;

2. The Pharisees added all sorts of commands over and above what is in the Bible, and they were wrong to do so, falsely identifying things as sin which were not;

3. Therefore, we should not "add" a belief that driving while exhausted is sin.

Points 1 and 2 are correct, but conclusion 3 is unjustified. We all know that driving while exhausted is exceedingly dangerous to both the driver and the people he might crash into. So its clearly sin, even though there is no "rule" about it in the Bible.

Drew, I wrote "probably a lot of what the Pharisees wrote had validity". Therefore, your conclusion of my suggesting "all inferences are incorrect " is incorrect. The problem the Pharisees had was yes perhaps all they wrote could be correct in certain circumstances but not all circumstances. God gave freedom and flexibility with the law so the heart could be judged rather than just the specific acts.

As for simplicity, look at the 10 Commandments, you can`t get more simple than that. But compare that to what the Pharisees did, they made every law God gave extremely complex by defining each law to the finest detail. God could have defined the 10 Commandments in much more detail and given even more laws than the Pharisees, but He kept it simple because again the law was about the heart not details. Therefore, if you are exhausted and get in a car thinking "I might be a danger to someone else" but you think "I don`t care because I have my own things I want to do and if it means someone gets hurt, so be it", then you are probably sinning if you drive because your heart is not right. However, if a tired exhausted mom, has a child in an emergency situation and she has to get her child to the hospital quickly and drives her child there despite her exhaustion from say a long day`s work, I would say she is not sinning because her heart is right, she is putting her child above her own exhaustion. The way the Pharisees defined laws, there was no room for individual circumstances, but the way God defined the laws allowed complete consideration of each heart, motive, and circumstance. I prefer God`s way!!!

 

[Mike]

There as been an inordinate amount of editing out posts in this thread. I believe we're nearing a breaking point.

DO NOT post personal comments about other members. Focus on the content; not the person! We've allowed this thread to continue despite multiple violations of the ToS, because we don't like to kill threads unless it is necessary. This is getting to the point of being necessary, as are infractions.

 

[Drew]

Drew, I wrote "probably a lot of what the Pharisees wrote had validity". Therefore, your conclusion of my suggesting "all inferences are incorrect " is incorrect.

You are right, I did not read as carefully as I should have.

The problem the Pharisees had was yes perhaps all they wrote could be correct in certain circumstances but not all circumstances. God gave freedom and flexibility with the law so the heart could be judged rather than just the specific acts.

This I have a problem with - it seems to me that you are giving the "heart" freedom to do things that are clearly unBiblical. I think that the Biblical argument against smoking is clear and correct - so unless one places "personal revelation" above the Bible in terms of authority, I do not see that one has any more "freedom" to smoke than to do other sinful acts.

You have not actually engaged the content of my argument. Why not?

As for simplicity, look at the 10 Commandments, you can`t get more simple than that.

The fact that the people of Israel were given some "rules" is certainly not grounds for taking the "if there is no rule against it in the Bible, its OK" line which so many people do here.

Therefore, if you are exhausted and get in a car thinking "I might be a danger to someone else" but you think "I don`t care because I have my own things I want to do and if it means someone gets hurt, so be it", then you are probably sinning if you drive because your heart is not right. However, if a tired exhausted mom, has a child in an emergency situation and she has to get her child to the hospital quickly and drives her child there despite her exhaustion from say a long day`s work, I would say she is not sinning because her heart is right, she is putting her child above her own exhaustion.

There are a number of problems with this reasoning. First, you seem to think that your "heart" has to convict you that driving exhausted is wrong in order for it to be sin. That clearly does not work - there are many people who "believe in their hearts" that its ok to sleep with their neighbour's wife, but that doesn't mean its not sin. I am not sure where this idea comes from that the sinfulness of an action is determined by the "testimony of our hearts". While I do not deny there is some truth to this, I would place Biblical authority on a higher level. And the fact that neither you, nor anyone else has refuted "the 6 point argument" tells strongly that you all know that it is, in fact, correct - smoking can be judged to be sin from the Biblical perspective, apart from "inner experience".

The mom in an emergency is a different case - I am not suggesting it is always sin to drive exhausted, but unless there is a compelling need to drive that cannot be delayed, it clearly is sin, even though there is no "Bible rule" against it.

 

[jasoncran]

You are right, I did not read as carefully as I should have.


This I have a problem with - it seems to me that you are giving the "heart" freedom to do things that are clearly unBiblical. I think that the Biblical argument against smoking is clear and correct - so unless one places "personal revelation" above the Bible in terms of authority, I do not see that one has any more "freedom" to smoke than to do other sinful acts.

You have not actually engaged the content of my argument. Why not?


The fact that the people of Israel were given some "rules" is certainly not grounds for taking the "if there is no rule against it in the Bible, its OK" line which so many people do here.


There are a number of problems with this reasoning. First, you seem to think that your "heart" has to convict you that driving exhausted is wrong in order for it to be sin. That clearly does not work - there are many people who "believe in their hearts" that its ok to sleep with their neighbour's wife, but that doesn't mean its not sin. I am not sure where this idea comes from that the sinfulness of an action is determined by the "testimony of our hearts". While I do not deny there is some truth to this, I would place Biblical authority on a higher level. And the fact that neither you, nor anyone else has refuted "the 6 point argument" tells strongly that you all know that it is, in fact, correct - smoking can be judged to be sin from the Biblical perspective, apart from "inner experience".

The mom in an emergency is a different case - I am not suggesting it is always sin to drive exhausted, but unless there is a compelling need to drive that cannot be delayed, it clearly is sin, even though there is no "Bible rule" against it.

in florida the dot wont let a commercial licensed driver drive for more then 12 hrs straight. on that note.i must sin alot on that as well paper guys cant sleep much. cursed wierd hours.

 

[pjt]

it seems to me that you are giving the "heart" freedom to do things that are clearly unBiblical. I think that the Biblical argument against smoking is clear and correct - so unless one places "personal revelation" above the Bible in terms of authority, I do not see that one has any more "freedom" to smoke than to do other sinful acts.

.

Drew, this is where we will not ever meet eye to eye. What you see as "clearly unBiblical", I do not. What is clearly unBiblical to me are the things clearly spelled out in the Bible. Smoking a pipe is not one of those things.

And no, I do not believe in "personal revelation above the Bible". If the Bible says it, I believe it. If the Bible said "Do not smoke a pipe", I would be right by your side saying it is a an undeniable sin, and no one could convince me otherwise.

"You have not actually engaged the content of my argument. Why not?"

Drew, I have engaged you as best I can. You asked me for an example of simplicity and I gave it. I answered your response about driving exhausted. I clarified for you my views on the Pharisees. And I have told you as best as I can why I believe what I believe. I feel I have answered you sufficiently.

"First, you seem to think that your "heart" has to convict you that driving exhausted is wrong in order for it to be sin. "

I would disagree with this. In the example I gave, the person who was exhausted chose to drive knowing it could put others in danger but simply did not care. This person was not at all convicted he was doing wrong. He was simply thinking of himself and not caring about others so in God`s eyes, I think his heart would probably be judged as wrong. Many criminals are hard hearted so they don`t care about the victims nor feel guilt about their wrong, nevertheless, their crime is sin. Sin is not based on if someone feels it is wrong or not. Likewise, righteousness is not based on good works or if we feel we are doing the right thing. Righteousness is measured by motive and weighed against the Word of God. If one feels something is right but it contradicts God`s Word, it is wrong. So right and wrong are not based on feelings.

"there are many people who "believe in their hearts" that its ok to sleep with their neighbour's wife, but that doesn't mean its not sin."

I agree. But to tie this in with pipes, the Bible clearly says not to sleep with another man`s wife. There is no way to justify this sin because it is undeniably spelled out in the Bible not to do it. But there is nothing in the Bible spelled out about pipes.

""if there is no rule against it in the Bible, its OK" line which so many people do here."

I disagree with that. I can`t speak for everyone but what I am saying again and again is God judges the heart. I think to a small extent you and me have some agreement on this. You agreed that in an emergency situation, it would be okay for a mom to drive while exhausted for the sake of her child. On the other hand, we agree with a thing like adultry, there are no exceptions. Sleeping with another man`s wife is always wrong, period, and that is why it is spelled out in the Bible. But others things are based on circumstances. The Bible does not say "do not drive when exhausted" because it is not an "always, unexceptional" sin. Sometimes it can be sinful and other times not at all sinful. Many things that are not clearly spelled out in the Bible fall in this catagory, and truthfully God is the only true judge in these circumstances because only God knows our motives and hearts.

 

[Hitch]

Hmmmmm now heres an important question.

English, Virginia or OTC blend?:yes