I spoke with a church of Christ preacher today who told me that their elders confront sin in their flock, including smoking.

Here is their line of reasoning:

1. Suicide is sin. Murder is sin.

2. Smoking is "slow" suicide, the taking of a life.

3. Nicotine is a drug, taken for pleasure, or to alter one's mood, or relieve stress.

4. Drug abuse is listed as one of those sins that "those who do these things" shall not inherit eternal life.

5. Smoking is something done on a regular basis; therefore it is continued, willful sin.

So, in their eyes, smoking is equivalent to drunkeness, adultery, etc., and as such, not to be tolerated.

I know this is harsh, but can anybody show me from Scripture where (or why) their conclusions are wrong?

-- Anonymous, October 25, 2000

Answers

Duane.....

You're approaching it all wrong!!! Where is the Scripture that specifically prohibits smoking?? What happened to "Where the Scriptures speak....we speak....where they are silent we are silent?"

Mark Wisniewski hit the nail right on the head.

I hope those same elders confront their "Pro-choice" people....their people who are overweight because they eat foods that are high in fat content (also a slow killer). I hope they are confronting people who even though they are skinny....they still eat foods high in cholesterol and therefore are at high risk for heart disease.

What about the people who drink coffee....coke's....etc...ad infinitum....ad absurdum??

I think we do well to confront only those issues for which we can take a solid stand on the word of God.....and be EXTREMELY careful about inferences.

Overweight people shouldn't be pointing plump fingers!!

If you want to argue from the matter of setting a positive example.....fine....I'll go along with that.

But until people are more consistent in their confrontation of the "habit" so called sins.....I think it is laughable.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2000

Duane....that is a false equivication since cigarettes do not have the same mind altering affects as marijuana. You're mixing apples and oranges.

Granted...not all fat people were gluttons....BUT....I wasn't talking about gluttony. I was talking about EATING HARMFUL FOODS...i.e., high in fat content, high in cholesterol......etc.

Come on guys.....in light of the world's problems....I think we could find something a little bit more needful to preach on than smoking.

BTW....do we confront the tobacco chewers, snuff chewers, and the cigar and pipe smokers? (If memory serves me correctly C.S. Lewis smoked a pipe.)

And then, do we confront those who chew "mint snuff" because they are involved in the "appearance of evil?"

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2000

John.....

So does the caffiene in coffee, tea, coke, and mountain dew. It is a stimulant as you well know.

Therefore.....do we confront them as well??

And no Robin.....I don't think the fact that it IS a sin has been admitted to....and for those who do....they have some GROSS inconsistencies to deal with.

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2000

Duane....

To me....IT IS RELEVANT....otherwise....you simply come across as hypocritical!!

Those are not my words....but the words of Jesus. Allow me to quote from Matthew 7:3ff....

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

So you see Duane....it is relevant. If caffiene consumption (in whatever form...Mountain Dew, coffee etc.)...is indeed "a sin"....then before we have the right to confront our brother about smoking....we must first "kick the caffiene habit."

If consuming too many "fat grams" or "high cholesterol" foods are indeed a sin (because they are as harmful to the body as smoking) then before we confront our brother about smoking....we have to take care of our problem (i.e., take the plank out of our eye). Only then are we in a position to confront over the issue of smoking.

So I'm not letting you off the hook. If you are going to confront smoking without the other "habit" sins.....that is hypocritical (Jesus words....not mine).

BTW....I just had a hamburger with 29 grams of fat....and I'm getting ready to eat four homemade chocolate chip cookies.

Anyone want to confront me in my sin?? :)

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2000

Mark....

Are you suggesting that by bringing "caffiene"....you are going to join me in my sin??

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2000

No Duane....

What I am suggesting....is that you have as yet to make a strong biblical case in support of calling smoking sin....let alone...sin that demands church discipline.

Everything you have said, including your Church of Christ Elder friends....is HEAVY on inference.....and lacking in Sciptural support.

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2000

And again Duane....you mix apples and oranges....I believe biblical support for calling adultery sin....could be easily made...don't you??

And it wouldn't involve one single inference.

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2000

Duane....

You continue to put up "straw men" (i.e., cutting yourself with a knife) and refuse to deal with the fact.....that every other thing I mentioned...(fat foods, high in cholesterol, ect.)....would fit into the "inferences" of your last post.

Your biggest inference is.....because you smoke it makes you a less effective witness. Really?? What about tobacco farmers who happen to smoke?? Would being a non-smoker make you a more effective witness?? And if so...to what??

That is the equivalent of saying..."I need to stop eating Ding Dongs and Ho-Ho's if I want to be a more effective witness to a vegetarian hehealth nut."

Sorry Duane....until you can demonstrate to me that you are going to confront all of these "bad habit" sins, including the ones in your own life (i.e., the plank in your eye).....you lack serious consistensy that Jesus called...hypocrisy.

Hmmmm....could it be we are comfortable confroting smokers because a) We don't smoke; and b) it's PC to do so??

Probably.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 2000

E. Lee Saffold....

BRILLIANT!!!! ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!! Most especially noteworthy was your exegesis of the Corinthian passage which discusses "sexual immorality"....not smoking!!

Duane....all I can say is....MEGA DITTOS to what Lee said.

You see Duane....I have lost 21 lbs. since August 1st. Did I do it because "I was harming the temple and therefore sinning?" No! I did it....because I want to be the best vessel possible, in the best shape, possible, to run the race.....and continue my ministry. I would encourage people to quit smoking for the same reason. Not because they are "sinners destined for the fiery pits of hell!!"

MARC GRINDLE......you actually come the closest (other than Lee) of my sentiments.....when you talked about something mastering you. Scripture says that does not it not? As Christians....we are to be in control of ourselves, and our habits.

You very correctly pointed out....that by nurturing Christians to grow in Christ, it seems that a natural thing to want to do is....give up smoking. Most Christians I have known who smoke.....struggle with it....and truely desire to be more Christlike in all they do.

Pounding them over the head with a Bible does little except add to the frustration and possibly turns them off from any further ministry effectiveness you might have.

I have never....no do I ever plan on preaching against smoking. As Lee said....."Where is the clear teaching of Scripture??"

However, I do encourage people to 1) Have better health....so as Jeremiah said..."You can keep up with horses. 2) Get control of all aspects of their life.

By the way Marc.....I've known quite a few people who have smoked all their life and lived to ripe old ages. Don't believe the Clinon media numbers on the numbers of people who are dying each year.

Also....the second hand smoke issue....while annoying....has never been scientifically proven.

I for one have never supported the govt's crackdown on smokers and the tobacco industry (that is the Clinton govt.).

What happens when caffiene becomes a PC condemnation of the govt.???

Then...I'll really be mad!!:)

Got to run.....time for my second cup.

PS: Got nothing more to say.....Lee said it all.

-- Anonymous, October 29, 2000

Randal...

You say you appreciated Lee's post...but I got a question..."Did you read it?"

He claimed on the one hand that he had no sciptural support to say that smoking was a sin....however...he would urge people for the sake of good health to quit smoking. That's what gives him or me or you the right to "urge" someone to quit smoking....not to save them from the fiery pits of hell but because we are concerned for them.

Also....you brought up a very good point about culture....and then turned around with your American bias and allowed culture to determine your condemnation.

You are right to point out in Brazil that smoking is a greater sin than drunkeness. That is true in many Latin cultures and European cultures......where when families sit down to dinner....they (even the children) have a glass of wine.

Try that in our country some time and see if you don't have the fires of hell called down upon you.

No.....I don't see smoking as a sin....again because I don't see any Scriptural support for such a position (just as there is not Scriptural support for abstinence from drinking). Again....I don't drink....but I'm not going to condemn someone who choses to have a glass of wine with dinner.

My basis for urging people to quit....is health reasons.....but only in the same way I encourage over weight people to lose weight....eat better and exercise regularly.

Is this what the Restoration movement has sunk to?? I have searched and searched and have not found one sermon from Al Campbell on the sin of smoking. Can someone help by referring me to such a sermon?? Walter Scott?? Raccoon John?? Anyone???

Duane....let me say some things to you. You continue to throw up straw man after straw man.....smokescreen after smokescreen.

First, it's evident you had your mind made up before you came here with the question. It always amazes me that people do this. You were so sure of yourself you called on Lee to come to your rescue (I guess because you felt he was in the Church of Christ....that guranteed his vote in support of your Church of Christ friends). I know Lee well enough to know that he was call to front anyone....Church of Christ or not!!!

Second, the fact that I live in tobacco country.....MEANS NOTHING!!! I felt this way in Florida. I felt this way about abstinence. YOU KNOW THAT!! As I get older I find myself not up to fighting battles that MEAN NOTHING!!!.....most especially when I do not have a clear, "thus saith the Lord." I have found myself trying to live more by the Restoration principle of "Where the Bible speaks...etc."....because I believe that to be a truley biblical position that preserves unity in the body of Christ. Is unity in the body of Christ your goal?? By throwing that accusation out....I believe you were attempting to "poisen the well."

Third....in response to your lung picture you show your unending bias and unwillingness to admit to your own sin. How about....showing a heart.....with 90% blockage caused from eating foods high in fat and cholesterol?? You deny it all you want.....BUT THE SIMPLE FACT IS.....they both are just as harmful to the body.

Fourth.....I KNEW it was just a matter of time before you introduced the abortion thing. That is sad....for I believe you KNOW that the Bible speaks of personhood for both the born and the unborn. "Thou shalt not murder" is a clear directive....of which I would be glad to quote from Tertullian and other early church leaders who KNEW that included infants in the womb. The Greek word "BREPHOS" translated as child in the N.T. is used both of the born and unborn. God makes no distinction. That was the "pro-death" people.

Again Duane....apples and oranges.

Now.....all those of you are so ready to point out the "sins" of those which are easy for you to do while you gulf down your "Ding Dongs" and "Ho-Ho's".....tell me what a liberal I am....because I refuse to make an "issue" out of something the Bible does not.

And one more time......the passage in Corinthians (as Lee pointed out)....has to do with sexual impurity.....not smoking. Read it!

-- Anonymous, October 30, 2000

Oh....by the way Duane.....your *sigh*.....was very.....shall we say......"Al Gore-isk."

-- Anonymous, October 30, 2000

Duane.....

Are you media brainwashed or what??

Why, in your thinking, does "passion" equal "anger?"

-- Anonymous, October 30, 2000

Marc....

Let me ask you....why would your witness be in jeopardy?? Would it be for Scriptural reasons???....or would it be more for cultural reasons??

In an Italian culture....where it is normal to have a glass of wine with dinner.....would sharing that drink....spoil your witness??

I believe we would be more in line with Scripture to discuss smoking under the genre of "culture"....then we would labeling it as "sin."

For instance, in Jamaica where I have done some extended mission's work.....it is a cultural imperative that women wear hats to church. To not do so....would be a threat to a woman's Christian witness.

If this be the case then....what does this say about the Christian who smokes.....but refuses to do it in public....or around others from church because he or she knows it is offensive to some??

Maybe it comes back to what Paul states when he says...."All things are LAWFULL....but not all things are PROFITABLE?"

I think ultimately we must ask....does my position lead to unity or division in the body of Christ?? This is especially true over an issue that WE DO NOT have a clear "thus saith the Lord" over.

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

Faris....

Bless your heart.....as I stated earlier....there is not one single documented scientific study linking lung cancer or any other life threatening disease to second hand smoke.

I believe you are being PC driven.....not biblically driven.

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

Marc.....

Again.....you come the closest to my feelings on the smoking issue.

I would/have/do urge people to quit smoking for the following reasons:

1) It is known to harm your body. 2) By doing so, we encourage others (i.e., young people) to follow suit. 3) A non-smoker is a more effective "vessel" of the Word of God.

It is for this reason that I make it a test of "leadership".....but not "fellowship."

Why?? Scriptural reasons. Paul says that an elder is to be a man who is under control. A smoker is controlled by something (namely nicotine)....therefore....until he can get control of that....I believe him to be unqualified to serve in leadership.

But let's understand this...outside of the qualification to teach....every quality listed for the elders.....is a quality that every Christian should be striving for in their life. Elders are not perfect....but simply men who have gained a degree of maturity in their life in those areas mentioned in the elder qualities.

I concur Mark that all we do must be examined in light of our witness for Christ. Therefore, smoking in this culture, is not the best Christian witness.

However, to label it as "sin"....is something the Bible does not allow me to do.

Call it "the need to grow"....the need to be "more Christlike"....OK....but sin...no.

DUANE....need I remind you......that just because govt. says something is "lawful" or "unlawful" does not make it so by God's standards....(the prime example, of course, being abortion).

We've had this discussion before on the "gun issue." Let me sum up my stand....."Out of my cold dead fingers."

As Thomas Jefferson once stated...."Fighting tyrannical bullies....IS...God's will."

But I digress.

The danger of your position was seen most clearly in your last post when you gave the impression of "our side.....their side."

Again I ask you.....on such an issue that you are obviously grasping at Scriptural straws to defend....how do you reconcile that with the COMMAND of Paul in Ephesians four to "be diligent to preserve the unity of the body?"

Now that.....is a clear command.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Robin....

I think I made my position clear.

Govt....is not the final arbitrater of "rightness" or "wrongness."

That's why this country exists in the first place!!

If people just always did what the govt. told us....we would all still be wearing dainty little tights....and having afternoon tea.

Follow your logic all the way through......when you council a girl not to have an abortion, and in essence stop her....are you disobeying govt.?? After all....they say it's right.

Govt. has one God ordained purpose.....to punish evil doers and to protect those who do good (this according to Romans 13).

Above this....govt. oversteps its bounds....and therefore....there is no need for me to "bow down" to Ceaser.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Robin...

In fact...no. Haven't had once since 1989.:)

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Robin....

Yes I can....BUT....don't call me "Shirly."

Seriously.....you still miss my point.....so let me write it in caps......THE GOVT. IS NOT THE FINAL ARBITRATOR OF WHAT IS RIGHT OR WHAT IS WRONG.

And Robin...you did not answer my question (Boy this sounds familiar).....following your logic all the way through ....the Revolutionary War was wrong and all the patriots who died to gain theirs/our freedom from England died and went to hell because they broke the command of Romans 13??

We give govt. way too much power in the name of Romans 13. Again...from Romans 13, govt has two functions (protect and punish).

Other than that....my obligation and allegiance and decisions are based upon God's law....not the govt's. If I can follow govt's law and not violate my Scipturally driven conscience....so be it. If not.....then the higher authority rules.

I don't know Duane about radar detectors.....do you have sin you would like to confess??

I follow the speed limit rules (not because govt. says so)......but.....because it seems wise to do so....and does not violate my Scriptural conscience.

Is there anyone here who would like to tell us that you NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE......bend the speed limit?? Hmmmmm....

Now when govt. starts to tell me I can't drive my SUV....then we no longer have a govt....we have a tyrannical bully!!!

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

By they way....

It's also cheaper to follow the speed limit....especially in those "construction zones."

Yikes!!!

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Duane....

Again, your "Al Goriskness" shows forth brilliantly.

From the debates, do you remember this exchange....

AL GORE: "Do you support affirmative action?"

BUSH: "I believe in equal opportunity without quotas."

AL GORE: "Answer the question directly....do you or do you not support affirmative action?"

BUSH: To the moderator....."Let's move on to the next question."

AL GORE: "Your silence speaks volumes."

BUSH: "No Mr. Vice President...it speaks to the fact that you will not follow the previously agreed to rules of debate....namely....that the moderator will ask the questions."

My point Duane....not answering the question in the way it was phrased does not give you permission then to claim a mini victory by declaring I would not answer a question.

When a question is asked of me.....I strive to look ahead and discover the "motivations" for asking the question and whether or not....I'm being pulled in to a direction I choose not to go. That's my decision.....not yours.

Now....in answer to one of your questions. You know full well that Scripture is not a complete treatise on every aspect of life.

It is a known scientific, medical fact that nicotine is addictive....and controlling. (For instance, where is the Scripture that says human life begins at conception??) However, medical science has proven it is so.

Robin....I believe you asked me if govt outlawed smoking.....and I felt it was alright FOR ME to smoke....would I?? The answer is....YES.

Govt. is not the dictate of my conscience, Scripture is.

As Drew Carey once said...."I'm sick and tired of the govt. telling me what ways I can or cannot hurt myself."

I love the fact that you said I do not seem to have the traditional view of govt. that Lee does. I take that as a compliment.

Ask anymone that knows me....I've always been...well....more than a little radical.

There Robin...I answered at least one of your question....now answer mine.

Were the patriots of the Revolutionary War wrong for rebelling against Britain in light of your...."traditional" govt. view??

Gotta run.....I have to clean my AR 15 today.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Duane....

The major problem with your faulty line of thinking is....science has not (nor can it) prove that "smoking is suicide."

Can you point out to us specific studies that have been shown to demonstrate that smoking is indeed suicide??

It seems to me that you definition of suicide is way too broad.

For instance, a race car driver knows the dangers of racing. Is he commiting suicide by engaging in a "habit" that could be dangerous to his life?

What about getting on airplanes.....climbing trees??

The fact is.....much of life is a risk.

For your minor premise to stick....it would have to look like this....

MAJOR PREMISE: Suicide is sin.

MINOR PREMISE: Smokers are intending to kill themselves by smoking.

Thefore......smokers are sinning by attempting to kill themselves by smoking.

Again....your Minor premise is the wink link for...1) It has not been proven scientifically that smoking is eqivalent to suicide; and 2) You cannot demonstrate that people are attempting to slowly kill themselves.

It seems to me you have made a large jump in logic.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Duane....

You are correct....you are not the one who made such a "jump." You simply pointed out those who did. My bad!

Duane....another place where the premise falls short....is where you have quite a few people who smoke all their lives.....and live....very long lives....sometimes longer than non-smokers.

Considering "bad habits".....are we ready now to consider the "risk" factor from eating red meat....fatty foods, etc.???

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

You know Duane...I'm impressed that you know of Harry Brown.

You are right....his stance on abortion is the wrong one. But on many other things he is right on the mark. (BTW....thanks for being accurate and referring to "pro-choice" people as "pro-death" people.)

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

What about cigars or pipes??

Personally....I'm not offended at all at the smell of a fine stogey or an aromatic pipe.

It would have been interesting to have a philosophical discussion with C.S. Lewis while the wafts of his aromatic pipe smoke filled the air.

And to have the honor of eating with Rush while he enjoys a fine cigar would certainly be....well....certainly not offensive.

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2000

Robin....

To be honest.....Lee would have to respond to my assertions concerning govt. authorities for me to fully answer your question. To my reading so far.....I'm not sure that Lee and I are that far apart (especially if you have read in the past some of Lee's views concerning abortion....and the Second Amendment).

As per your comment....concerning the Patroiots of the Rev. War...."Didn't they at least in part feel their religious liberty was threatened?"

You are right Robin....at least "in part".....but it in no way does it even come close to the whole part.

Evidence?? Need I mention...."The Boston Tea Party?"

The whole issue of the monarchy and the right of anyone to rule over anyone else.....(including the area of religion)...was the core debate.

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2000

BTW Robin....you may want to rephrase the question to "a person's right to smoke".....as opposed to "your right to smoke."

Just because I support people's freedom to smoke.....does not mean I smoke, nor do I encourage it.

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2000

Duane....

A brilliant statement when you said...."I realize that the position of civil disobeience is precarious."

That cuts both ways.

For instance.....was Rosa Parks wrong for not sitting at the back of the bus?? Was the govt. breaking any of God's laws by making her sit at the back of the bus?? If so was she sinning when sitting at the front of the bus??

Part of the problem we have in understanding this whole issue.....is that our form of govt. is completely different from the form of govt. discussed in Romans 13.

Our govt is "of the people and for the people."

Not only do we live as Christians....we also live as U.S. citizens....and therefore.....we have a right to fight for change at every opportunity.

To simply think we have to sit back and let the govt. legistlate us to death and take it......is no longer a democracy....but....a monarchy or dictatorship.

Again....if that is your view.....then you must of necessity, logically, conclude that the patriots of the Revolutionary War were wrong....and that they sinned against God by revolting against England.

Because of this "sit back and take it" attitude of the church.....we have allowed too much to take place....i.e., prayer thown out of school, abortion on demand, etc...etc...ect.

We have not practiced our civil duty and privileges we have as American citizens.

You want to hear how serious this has gotten?? One of my elders got a call today from a county trustee complaining that "the preacher had political signs in his front yard."

I live in the parsonage.....so they say I don't have the right to express my views.

Now we have challenged the trustee to quote us the law. He has not yet called back.

However, here is what I did. I removed the signs.....placed them on my truck.....and parked the truck in my front yard.

It will be interesting to see how far they want to push this. For instance, if I have a Bush bumper sticker on my truck.....can I park in my front yard??

We live in a free coutry....and have a people driven govt....and I believe that includes civil disobedience at times to get the message through.

In that....I am in good company....George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et. al.

Again, according to Romans 13....govt only has two purpose....protect those who do good....and punish the evil doer. To accomplish this....they may tax....and we must be obedient to that.

Above that.....govt. has no Scriptural authority for anything they do.....and therefore.....whatever they decide is subject to my "pursuit of happiness"....including what my Scipturally trained conscience does or does not allow me to do.

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2000

Robin....

I do in fact claim..."a right to smoke."

God created free moral agents....free to chose to serve or not to serve him. Therefore, since man is a free moral agent...he has the right to make decisions that lead to "his pursuit of happiness."

Govt. needs to protect....BOTH.....of those decisions....as opposed to .....dictating those decisions.

Immediately someone will respond....."So Danny you are saying....the govt. should protect someone's "right" to have an abortion?"

No....the position of govt. according to Romans 13 is to protect those who do good, including the innocent. Govt's job should be to protect the unborn...not give permission to kill them.

"The rights of the unborn to live supercede the rights of the mother to kill it." (Roger Chambers)

And Robin.....it is so easy to criticize our founding fathers....and yet....enjoy the fruits of their work...isn't it??

And the Boston Tea Party was not just about "taxation without representation"....it was about freedom....and the right of anyone human being to rule over another.

It has become increasingly clear to me, in light of the attitudes I've seen demonstrated....why we have lost so many of our rights....and why the secular humanist view of things has taken over our schools and our society.

We are far to placid.

Really.....to follow that train of thought logically all the way through....why bother to vote??

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

So Robin....

If the people voted to live under a monarchy....you would abide??

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Lee.....

I believe you were in the military, were you not??

Then how do you harmonize being in the military with the statement....."this is different than overthrowing the govt.??"

Has not our govt. using its military power been involved in the destruction and overthowing of govt. throughtout history?? What does this say about the soldiers who were involved in that conflict??

By the way.....when you said...."if the people amend the Constitution to take away our right to bear arms you would lay your arms down."

I would not. For your see....such amendment would be a violation of the principles set forth by our founding fathers. They gave us rights (based on the fact that God gave us rights)....and govt. does not have the privilege of taking those rights away. In essence, then, God is a just God...and I do not believe he would want me to support the injustice of a govt. that violates its own constitutional laws and privileges. (The problem in America today is most people do not have the faintest idea of Constitutional Law and the principles that were the driving force in its writing.)

While I certainly do not condone violence on abortion clinics, including killing doctors, I have recently been rethinking my position on the matter of civil disobedience especially in light of the verse in Proverbs that states..."Rescue those who are being led away to slaughter."

If it were not for civil disobedience.....blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus.

I have a genuine distrust for govt. I believe our founding fathers intened it to be that way. (I'm not including you in this next statement....but rather a treatise on the American people).....i.e., most people depend FAR too much on govt. And when you dance with the devil.....eventually....you have to pay....and in recent years...that means the sacrificing of rights.

Lee....I believe this to be a matter of conscience. I'm not sure this can be resolved Scripturally. Scripture is not a treatise on every facet of our life. If govt. would stick to its only God ordained purpose as outlined in Romans 13....we would have less of a difference. However, since govt. has way overstepped its bounds.....then we as individuals must make our own decisons, seeking God's will for how we react.

I do not choose for my children or grandchildren to life under a dictorship. Therefore, I will do everything in my power to keep that from happening so that they can worship and serve God according to their understanding of Scripture....and not according to the dictates of govt.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2000

Whew.......

I wouldn't preach that doctrine in a church in tobacco-growing country. (good way to get yourself tarred & feathered)

Allow me to use the politicians' method of answering a question with a question....How many speeders do the elders of that church confront?......How many gossipers (especially those among the Eldership) do they confront?........How many people who go to movie theaters do they confront?.........How many people who watch sitcoms on their TVs at home do they confront?.........How many people who vote for Liberal, ungodly Candidates and practices (Gore & the Abortionists) do they confront?

Get my point? If their dogmatism isn't consistant in ALL of these matters, then they need to drop what should probably be a matter of opinion anyway.

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2000

It appears to me that smoking is indeed a sin, along with anything that would shorten the live of the temple of God. I'm wondering if all addictions are not sin, because when one is addicted to something he/she no longer has control.

However, to decide for one what he should do about it seems out of order as it is a personal decission. All anybody can do with another is point out to him the sin and let God make the change in the heart of the individual, if the individual has a yielding spirit.

Just my thoughts!

Nelta

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2000

Duane,

I would agree with the 5 points listed as well as add 1 Corinthians 6:19, 20 (our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and smoking will destroy that temple)... therefore smoking is a sin.

However, I would also agree with Mark and Danny in the fact that so many other things are also sins that we may not point out and I would sure be careful in personally confronting someone about their smoking (in fact I would not personally confront them, but let the Word of God convict).

I have preached from 1 Cor.6 and said that smoking is wrong... but so is a lack of exersise or wrong diet, etc.

BTW, Mark, I know a preacher that was in tobacco raising country and did preach against it... though he did it in a proper way... some did not like it, others did, but there were no real problems and today hardly anyone in that church raises tobacco anymore (partly due to economic reason, part due to preaching and learning).

I know one person who fell out of a tobacco shed and broke their leg... they never raised it again and felt that it was a wake up call from God... interesting:)

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2000

Marc, if you agree that smoking is a sin, and you have someone in your congregation who is sinning daily... what is your responsibility?

Danny, as to pointing "plump" fingers... being overweight does not necessarily indicate gluttony... gluttons come in all sizes...

But I digress. Let me ask you a question: if marijuana were legal in your state, would you fully accept into fellowship someone who smoked it?

-- Anonymous, October 26, 2000

Nicotine does not have the same mind-altering effects as marijuana. But that is not a valid argument, because nicotine does indeed have mind-altering effects. It affects the mood, it affects several bodily regulatory functions, and it is psychologically as well as physically addicting. All of which alter one's mind. Just because it is not a hallucinogen like marijuana does not make it harmless.

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2000

The original question: Is Smoking Sin... seems to have been answered YES by most.

So, now the discussion centers around what should be done about this sin. Is sin... sin? Is all sin created equal? Should all sin be treated the same? Or, are 'little' sins ignored....?

If one continues in a sin.... aren't they in rebellion to God and at risk of losing their salvation if they don't repent?

P.S. I am having some 'minor' surgery today.... prayers requested.

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2000

First let me say I know some fine Christians who smoke, and do not wish to question their spirituality.

Danny, your reasoning is not clear to me, and appears fallacious. It appears you are saying that:

1. If smoking is a sin, then so is caffiene, and bacon, etc, and if you don't condemn them too, you have no right to condemn smoking.

Very bad logic, Danny, and you should know better. Bringing up other potential "sins" is a smokescreen that muddies the water and is irrelevent. Please stay on one thing at a time. Let's confine our discussion to smoking. Whether or not somebody is "CONSISTENT" in their APPLICATION of a principle has NOTHING to do with the truth or falsity of that principle.

It reminds me of those who say, concerning abortion, "since you do not adopt, you have no right to speak out against abortion"

For the sake of argument, it is possible that caffiene and high cholesterol consumption IS INDEED ALSO SIN and should be dealt with accordingly. BUT THE FACT THAT WE DO NOT CONFRONT CAFFEINE is irrelevent and should not even be used if we wish to pursue truth. That is why the thread is entitled "IS SMOKING SIN?"

You know full well that it would look silly to say, "Yes, it is sin, but so is caffeine, and we let THAT slide, so we should tolerate smoking"....so what do you do? Deny it is a sin?

But you IMPLY thus when you say, "If youre gonna say smoking is sin, you gotta be consistent and condemn coffee too"...

Let's stick with one thing at a time... We can always do coffee in another thread.

So,

Is it sin? My dad, a non-Christian, used to say to me, "Son, our lungs were designed for one purpose only...to process air... ANYTHING else going in there is against nature, against biology."

Well, it is true that God made my lungs for air. If I try to inhale dirt, not only would I be accused of being some nihilistic body piercing sadist punk rocker, I would be violating God's intention for my lungs. I think that could be classified as sin.

And Danny, your remark that "in light of the world's problems....I think we could find something a little bit more needful to preach on than smoking" comes off a bit specious and perhaps even a bit condescending "Clintonesque" (or Gorish), especially from one who has in the past taken time out from the world's problems to wax eloquent on Promise Keeper Rally attendance and calling Preachers Pastors! (even though I agreed with you!)

Finally, I hope nobody here is saying that as long as you BELIEVE the right things, it does not matter what you do with your body. If so, I have some books on Gnosticism that you will need to brush up on.

Lee Saffold, do you have any thoughts on this? Don't worry about disagreeing with Danny. He can take it.

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2000

I won't confront you in your sin, Danny

but can I join you for some cookies if I bring the Barnies coffee?

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2000

Danny, are you suggesting that since we all sin, we should not preach against it? When Jesus said "he who is without sin, let him cast the first stone" was He suggesting this?

Too bad He didn't tell Paul.

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2000

I think the inference idea here is the key.

When I read through the 5 points toward sin that this thread began with, do you know the first thought that crossed my mind? (besides needing a cup of coffee that is?)

That process sounded hauntingly familiar. It is the exact same type of reasoning that got the Pharisees crossed up with Jesus. It is exactly how the "Keepers of the Law" developed all of the "hedges" that they began to enforce as Law by the time of Jesus.

Jesus took every opportunity He could to break down those "hedges" so as to show the Pharisees, Sadduccees, Scribes, & the common folk what the actual Law of God was - to love the Lord their God with all their hearts, minds, souls, & strength, and to love their neighbor as themselves.

If Jesus took such great steps to show the error of THAT type of thinking then, do you reckon He would be pleased to see that it is still alive and well?

And, "Yes Danny", I'd be glad to join you in your "sin". At least we'll know that we'll have a constant heat source by which to brew java by.

-- Anonymous, October 27, 2000

OK, let's break it down then, Danny.

Would you say that it would be sin for me to take a utility knife and slash my chest, (not fatally, but just enough to cause serious bleeding and scarring.)

-- Anonymous, October 28, 2000

Or how about inhaling dirt?

-- Anonymous, October 28, 2000

Here is an article I found:

Although smoking was unknown during the ages when the Bible was being written, the Bible provides adequate teaching, through principle, about this relatively modern habit.

In I Corinthians 6:19-20, the Apostle Paul wrote to Christians, "Know you not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which you have of God, and you are not your own? For you were bought with a price: Therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit which are God's". Much modern evidence shows smoking to be a health hazard to the extend that each package of cigarettes must, by law, bear this message, "Warning: the Surgeon General has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health". Obviously, something dangerous to the health cannot possibly enhance, or build up, the body. Smoking is contrary to healthful practices and acts to weaken or destroy the body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Christians do not own their own bodies their bodies are Christ's, bought and paid for by his death. Christians are not free to use their bodies for pleasure and in any way they choose. They are to glorify God in their bodies and since smoking does not glorify God, smokers are in violation of this precept.

In Romans 14:21 and Romans 15:1-2, we are taught not to offend our fellow-Christians and to take care to please our neighbors that they might be saved. While smoking will not be noticed by some and might please a very few, most people will be displeased by it and quite a few will be greatly offended by it. Soul winning is more difficult for smokers. In Philippians 2:3-4, we read ". . - Let each esteem other better than themselves. Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others". In other words, be considerate. Be thoughtful. Smokers cannot be thoughtful when smoking in a non-smokers car, it will be weeks before he will be able to get all the odor from the upholstery.

In a house-, cigarette odor will linger for 2 or 3 days. To non- smokers this is intolerable, to a few individuals smoke from other's cigarettes can produce dangerous toxic reactions. Smoking is against the principles of being careful not to offend and of being considerate.

Smoking is wasteful of time and of money. Christians are to be faithful stewards (Read Matthew 25:14-30), for, like our bodies, our money and our time, are not ours, but Christ's.

Christians also need to come face to face with the shocking realities that while more than 90% of all lung cancer victims are smokers, scientific studies have also shown that smokers have more than three time as many heart attacks as do non-smokers. We can simply find no way by which we can justify the willful destruction of our bodies in such a manner. The Apostle Paul said, "Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple you are? I Corinthians 3:16-17.

Most smokers find quitting difficult. The smoker who loves Christ has good reason to want to quit, and thus the battle is nearly won. Paul wrote in Philippians 4:13, "I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me". If you are a smoker and wish to quit, pray often for strength. Some smokers can quit easily, while others find it difficult. If you are one of these, endure the discomforts, remembering always that you can do so for your Christ; your agony is small compared to that which He suffered for you. You can quit for Him, for His cause, and for the sake of all those who your smoking might otherwise lose for Christ.

And some links:

http://membe rs.tripod.com/medicolegal/bibvcigs.htm

http://www .geocities.com/SoHo/Den/4411/smokesin.html

-- Anonymous, October 28, 2000

Nice try, Danny. You wouldn't answer the question. Call it a straw man, but answer it anyway. Instead you wrote: "could it be we are comfortable confronting smokers because..."

Why do you insist upon changing the subject? You prefer to discuss the motives of those who are addressing the issue, rather than jump in and address it yourself. That's called shooting the messenger and ignoring the message.

And by the way, if smoking is not sin, then you cannot use Jesus "plank in the eye" argument. As I see it, there are at least 3 options:

1. Smoking is sin, but we all sin, and we should not deal with someone else's sin without first dealing with our own (ONLY HERE is the "plank" argument valid. But you say it is NOT sin. Then why keep throwing in the "plank" comment? You cannot use it unless you admit smoking is a sin. It is not even a "speck in my brother's eye" IF it is as neutral as reading the morning paper!

2. Smoking is not sin, therefore it is a non-issue, and to call it sin is a pharisaical witchhunt, or

3. Smoking is sin, and should be treated like all sin in our lives and the lives of others, ie., hate the sin but love the sinner.

Please choose one of the 3 options, but you cannot mix it up and use both options 1 AND 2.

But humor me. Answer my question. Is it or is it not sin for me to inhale dirt? Or slash myself? Just because you know where I am going with this line of reasoning doesn't mean you can dance around the question. For a guy who has a history in this Forum of asking questions of others and complaining that they don't give you a yes or no answer, show us you are able of doing so.



-- Anonymous, October 28, 2000

Danny,

You have said, "If consuming too many "fat grams" or "high cholesterol" foods are indeed a sin (because they are as harmful to the body as smoking) then before we confront our brother about smoking....we have to take care of our problem (i.e., take the plank out of our eye). Only then are we in a position to confront over the issue of smoking."

First let me say that high fat or caffine is no where near as harmful as smoking... I had a great-grandmother who ate the fattiest foods daily and lived well into here 90's a very healthy woman. What was her secret?... she ate a balanced diet of food that God had blessed her with and got plenty of exercise.

On the other side, her daughter (my grandmother) smoked all her life and died a herendous death to lung cancer from her smoking.

I realize that you could tell stories of people having heart attacks at a young age possibly do to colesteral, but also possibly hereditary... but it is proven how harmful smoking is (not to mention a waste of money, a bad and very addictive, smelly habit).

The other side of the issue I would like to bring up is the harmful effect that smoking has on others... it is proven how dangerous second hand smoke is... I don't know much abot second hand colesterol:)... BTW- I have a nephew who has asma attacks when around smokers and as far as I know he is not bothered by anything else.

Then finally, we need to look at the addiction side of smoking... I was a smoker before I became a Christian and my dad still smokes and take it from me... SMOKING CAN RUN YOUR LIFE!

It can be hard to even sit through an hour of church and focus on God because you NEED a smoke... I realize that caffine can be addicting and I will be the first to admit that I love my coffee... but it does not run my life and I could live without it.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 2000

Duane,

Earlier you asked me the question, "Marc, if you agree that smoking is a sin, and you have someone in your congregation who is sinning daily... what is your responsibility?"

My responsibility as a preacher is to preach against sin no matter what it is! I have preached that smoking is wrong because it is harmful (as are other things)... however, I have never spent a lot of time on this or made it a big issue.

I would much rather spend my time leading people to a closer DAILY, intimate walk with the Lord... I know of nobody who if honest would not feel that they should quit smoking.

I cannot imagine a growing Christian wanting Jesus to come back as they are puffing away on their cigarette!

Yes, I too have sin in my life and I do not want to be hypicritical and must get the log out of my eye before worrying about someones speck... however, I want to overcome my sin and not cover it up... I want people in a loving way to show me my sins... I want to do what Jesus would want me to do... and for some reason, I do not think that is smoking.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 2000

Brother Duane:

I apologize to you for not responding to your words. I had not read this thread until today and therefore was unaware that you had asked me specifically to respond as follows:

BLee Saffold, do you have any thoughts on this? Don't worry about disagreeing with Danny. He can take it. B

I suppose that I must admit that I have some thoughts on this subject. But I must also tell you that I think that you know that I have no more aversion to BdisagreeingB with brother Danny than I have about disagreeingB with you. I am satisfied that you are correct in stating that He is able to Btake itB. And I am sure that you are as well. Brother Danny and I agree more than most in this forum but we have had our disagreements a well and I have in fact learned much from my confrontations with Brother Danny and hope to learn more from him if he will consent to teach me. I have learned much from you as well and want to thank you for the lessons.

Now, I am convinced that smoking is a practice that all should avoid whether they are Christians or not. And I am fully convinced that both you and Danny agree that a wise person who is concerned about his health will avoid numerous things that are harmful to it. Not only will the wise avoid certain things that are harmful to their health but they will also strive to positively develop BhabitsB that are conducive to good health. That the scriptures teach us to take care of our health is obvious from the following. BBeloved I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth.B (3 John 2).

It may well be useful, in any discussion of what whether something is sinful, to begin by defining sin. God has done this for us. WE are told, Bwhosoever commiteth sin transgresseth also the law for sin is the transgression of the law. B (1 John 4:3). Now if we are going to classify any action or behavior as a sin it is best that we determine just how it BtransgressesB the law of God. Now, I am against smoking because it is harmful to oneBs health. I am against anything that would harm anyoneBs health for I cannot see how anyone would conclude that deliberately harming your health is a good thing. But I am also unable to show that it transgresses any of GodBs laws to not care for my health.

It seems to me that we should urge all faithful Christians to care for their health that they might have a long time to serve Christ and bring men to Him. I do not see that it is necessary to classify smoking as a sin to encourage brethren to avoid it. Nor do I believe that we should avoid any opportunity to urge one another to take care of our health even to the point of suggesting that we all take some exercise to improve our cardiovascular health. But I cannot see that it is essential to call those who practice a BsedentaryB lifestyleB sinners because they are neglectful of their health.

It seems to me that DannyBs call for consistency cones from the basis upon which we have determined smoking to be a sin. The only way in which smoking can be classified as sinful is that it is harmful to oneBs health. Now, if that were the basis of our argument then our argument would go like this:

Major premise: All behaviors that are harmful to oneBs health are sinful against God.

Minor Premise: Smoking is harmful to our health

Conclusion: Therefore smoking is sinful.

While everyone would readily admit that smoking is harmful to oneBs health and thus would accept without question that our minor premise is in fact the truth. I am not sure that all would conclude that we sin against God any time and ever time that we knowingly do something that is harmful to our health. Thus Danny is questioning the validity of the major premise of our argument against smoking. He is asking, what I consider to be a very good question when he ask us if we really believe that all behaviors that are harmful to oneBs health are a sin against God? If so where does the scriptures teach such a doctrine? It is a good question and I have not seen anyone who has given an answer that sufficiently establishes the truthfulness of the major premise upon which we conclude that smoking is a sin. And I am not sure that I can help much in this matter because I do not know of a passage of scripture that teaches that we sin against God anytime that we harm or neglect our health.

I suppose that one could argue in this way:

Major Premise: Murder is sinful

Minor premise: Any one who does anything harmful to their health such as smoking is gradually killing or murdering themselves.

Conclusion: Therefore smoking is sinful

But, the reason Danny questions our minor premise is because he is not certain that we can show from the scriptures that our minor premise in this syllogism is true. And I am not sure that we can, are you? Is it true that when we do anything that is harmful to our health similar to such habits as smoking that we are gradually murdering ourselves? Does the scriptures teach this in any place. If it does then those scriptures would have to speak specifically of smoking or they would have to apply in principle not only to smoking but also to all behaviors, which in a similar fashion gradually destroy our health. If not why not?

Now, The passages that have been used to support the truthfulness of the major Premise of the first syllogism and the minor primes of the second one above have all been taken out of their context. And they have been used to establish a principle from which it is inferred that smoking is a sin.

The first passage is found in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 where we read, BOr know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; 20 for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body.B But this argument from this verse overlooks the simple fact that God is not laying down a principle here that applies to taking care of our health. Instead Paul in context is talking about the fact that the body of Christ or the church is the temple of God. And each of our bodies are members of it and for that reason we must avoid fornication because we have been bought with a price and we belong to God and are a part of His holy temple. Thus it would profane the temple of God to join His body to a harlot in committing fornication. A simple reading of the 18th verse shows that the behavior that he is condemning is fornication, which profanes the temple of the Holy Spirit and not behaviors that are simply harmful to our physical health. Notice that the 18th verse reads, BFlee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. B

The comments of J. W. Mcgarvey on this particular verse are very good and I repeat them here for your benefit:

BPaul notes the mutual adaptation or correlation between the belly and food, but asserts that this correlation is transient, and will be demolished by death. A subservient correlation also exists between husband and wife, for they twain become one flesh, and the innocency of their union does not interfere with the relation of either to God, which is the body's supreme correlation. But there is no lawful correlation between the body of the Christian and that of the harlot, and such a correlation can not be subservient to the body's supreme correlation, but is repugnant to it. The correlation between the stomach and food is transient, ending at death; but that between the body and the Lord is made eternal by the [77] resurrection. Now, other sins, even drunkenness and gluttony, are sins without the body; i. e., sins against those parts of the body that shall not inhere to it in the future state (Rev. 7:16), and hence do not strike directly at that future state; but fornication joins the whole body in sinful union to a body of death, so that it becomes one flesh with the condemned harlot, thereby wholly severing itself from the mystical body of life in Christ, and thus it does strike directly B

Now, I agree that such is the teaching of this verse and cannot see that we are correct in our attempts to make this verse serve to condemn smoking as a sin.

Then another verse is called upon to serve this cause but it is also taken out of its context and forced against itBs will into our service to prove that smoking is a sin. That verse is 1 Cor. 3:16 which reads, BKnow ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you If any man destroyeth the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the [65] temple of God is holy, and such are ye.B Paul is here condemning divisions that were working within the temple of God or the church to destroy it and he warns then that if any man destroys the temple or church of God that God would destroy him.

Brother J. W. McgarveyBs comments on this verse are well worth reading for anyone who wishes to get the context clear in his mind. I will simply quote some of his words about this verse as follows:

BThe factions are here plainly made aware of the magnitude of their sin, and the severity of their punishment. They were destroying the church by their divisions (Eph. 5:27), maiming and dismembering it by their discordant factionsB.

Thus these factious men were being told not to destroy the temple of God of which they themselves were a part as individual members of it. But he was not talking to them about taking care of their physical health by avoiding harmful behaviors and habits such as smoking. And to jerk this verse out of itBs context and distort its meaning just to control what we all know to be a harmful and bad habit is unreasonable. Our using it to convince all that smoking is a sin against God is not only unnecessary to accomplish our goal of helping our brethren but it is a deliberate distortion of the meaning and intent of the teaching of GodBs word. Now that is sinful!

Now it may yet be true that smoking is a sin, though I have not yet seen a clear passage that would prove such to be the case. But is it necessary to call it a sin in order to discourage others from doing it? If a person is given to such a habit calling it a sin will not have any more force than telling him that it is going to kill him someday. But distorting the word of God is a far more dangerous habit than smoking. Smoking will destroy the body and a wise person will recognize this and avoid it but distorting the word of God will destroy the soul by leading one eventually away from God.

I hope that you can understand what I have said. I discourage smoking for it is harmful to oneBs health but I do not see that we must MAKE it appear to be a sin against God in order to fight against it. I am against neglecting the body by failure to exercise and strongly encourage all of you to go out right now and start an exercise program if you do not have one for Bbodily exercise profiteth littleB. But I do not need to call you all sinners for failing to exercise in order to accomplish that objective, now do I? I highly recommend eating foods high in fiber and with lots of fresh vegetables and fruit. I urge you all to avoid cholesterol and take good care of yourselves because I love and care about you. But I do not need to label any of your Bbad habitsB as a sin against God to get you to correct them for your own well being. I have no doubt that God is concerned that we develop habits that make us good stewards of the gift of life and that he is not pleased if we squander or neglect our health. But he has not, as far as I can tell, told us in His word that our poor stewardship of these gifts is a sin. If you can show that he has taught such in the scriptures I would be indebted to you for the lesson. I am willing to be taught on this subject. So, if you can show where God explicitly says or even necessarily implies these behaviors are sinful I am ready to learn.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 28, 2000

Ask a simple question...(sigh)

Is smoking sin?

Well, I wouldn't say it if I were in tobacco country! Besides, what about other sins?

Yes, but is smoking a sin?

You had better not call it a sin if you have any sin in your life. People with glass houses...

Will somebody answer my question? Is smoking a sin?

In light of the world's problems, we should not preach against smoking.

I did not ask whether or not we should preach against it. I did not ask whether or not we could (or should) consistently confront others about it. I just asked if it is a sin.

Well, Scripture does not specifically prohibit smoking!

Gee, maybe we are getting somewhere. Must it be specifically prohibited in Scripture to be considered sin?

Yes. Both the MAJOR PREMISE and the MINOR PREMISE must be supported in Scripture.

Not so. Only the Major Premise needs Scriptural support. Example: Major premise: Murder is sin. (supported by Scripture) Minor premise: Abortion is murder (supported by reason, science, & common sense) Conclusion: Abortion is sin

You must think smoking is sin because you don't smoke.

It's not about me. Please do not be upset with me for asking a question. Is smoking sin?

You are just trying to be politically correct.

(sigh) Please do not attack me personally. I did not mean to offend you. Let me ask it in another way. Is it wrong to harm my body?

We are never going to get anywhere beating somebody over the head with a Bible. We must love them into quitting smoking. The threat of Hell will not motivate them.

I agree. But my question does not concern how we (or IF) we confront smokers. Puh-lease answer my question. Is it wrong to harm my body?

Is it true that when we do anything that is harmful to our health similar to such habits as smoking that we are gradually murdering ourselves? Do the scriptures teach this in any place?

The Scriptures do not claim to be a health textbook. Any sophomore physiology student will tell you that nicotine is a carcinogen--a slow killer (and caffeine only a mild stimulant)

Clinton is trying to crack down on smokers. And we all know what a bum he is!

Is it wrong to harm one's body? Is smoking sin? Is anybody else out there who will just say "yes" or "no"?

-- Anonymous, October 29, 2000

-- Anonymous, October 29, 2000

Lee said: "But I am also unable to show that it transgresses any of God's laws to not care for my health. It seems to me that we should urge all faithful Christians to care for their health that they might have a long time to serve Christ and bring men to Him. I do not see that it is necessary to classify smoking as a sin to encourage brethren to avoid it."

I appreciate the spirit of Lee's post, at the same time the tone of others tends toward the profane. If Lee is correct in what he affirms that there is no Scripture which condemns smoking as sin, then a Christian has no business whatsoever "urging" his brethren to do or refrain from a certain action. Our message is the gospel of Christ, including repentance from sin. If smoking is not a part of that message, then I must silence myself in regard to it. Who am I therefore to speak against a practice that the Lord has not condemned?

It is of interest to note that in Brazil, smoking is considered far more serious than drunkenness. The frivolty with which we have considered the subject here and the seriousness with which it is considered in other cultures, therefore, might give us warning that our cultural values have skewered our sense of what is right. Not to say that Brazilians are wrong and Americans, right, but to say that the difference in evaluation merits further consideration of the subject than the wave-of-the-hand dismissal it has gained on the board.

This, gathered with the practical nonexistence of church discipline, the exaggerated individuality of American culture, and the accumulating evidence of the harm done by smoking, would seem to alert us to give a much more serious look at the subject.

One further note: if harming the body cannot be classified as sin, how is it that it is sin when I harm another's body, but not when I harm mine? Quite a double standard, I would think.

Randal Matheny
FORTHRIGHT Magazine
Straight to the Cross


-- Anonymous, October 29, 2000

Duane,

We who are asthmatics will say it is a sin, since if we are exposed to it in a restaurant and do not come home and take ANOTHER bath and wash our hair AGAIN, and wash all of our clothes that we just wore AGAIN, we will be sick for three weeks, and in some cases for the elderly, it can progress to pneumonia.

For my diabetic husband, we are all very glad he quit smoking 42 years ago when he became a Christian. The extremities of diabetics suffer from circulation problems, and smoking constricts blood vessels, which exacerbates the problem.

Anything which harms one's own temple, plus the temple of others, is a sin.

Connie

-- Anonymous, October 29, 2000

Touche, Danny! LOL! I'll have you know I invented smoking.

A bit testy, though, aren't we? Methinks the preacher doth protest too much! Well, I finally got an answer! You do not think smoking is a sin! That's all I wanted to know!

You wrote: "First, it's evident you had your mind made up before you came here with the question."

Oh, and you didn't? (Actually, I didn't. See further explanation below)

"Second, the fact that I live in tobacco country.....MEANS NOTHING!!!"

It was not you that mentioned tobacco--I was referring to something Mark Wisniewski wrote. Scroll back (and chill out!)

"in response to your lung picture you show your unending bias (by showing the results of smoking?) and unwillingness to admit to your own sin. (which is? uh, privately, please)

I sense a little bit of anger here. I can tell you that I have not come down firmly on either side. I am sincerely trying to find out what the arguments are. I see my persistence in demanding a straight answer has upset you, Danny. All one has to do is scan back and read this post. One will find two things:

Me, continuing to ask a simple question, and:

You, with side issues, personal attacks, smoke screens and red herrings. When I pointed them out to you, you became even angrier, and finally said, in effect, "OK, smoking is NOT a sin!" If you had just said that at the beginning, it would not have gone this far.

"How about....showing a heart.....with 90% blockage caused from eating foods high in fat and cholesterol??"

OK, maybe I will, in a thread entitled, "Is overconsumption of fat and cholestoral a sin?". Again, though, look who keeps changing the subject.

"the passage in Corinthians (as Lee pointed out)....has to do with sexual impurity.....not smoking. Read it!

Talk about straw men! I never used that verse. It was used in an article I posted, but that article was not intended to represent my position; rather, to provoke more dialogue.

Why is it so difficult to just examine the merits and faults of two opposing propositions without resorting to impugning motives?

Proposition One: Smoking is a sin, or:

Proposition Two: Smoking is NOT a sin.

In the discussion of the 2 propositions, it behooves us to refrain from the following tactics:

1. Saying anything like "You hold your position because...."

2. Referring to "other sins..."

3. Referring to what would happen if we applied either of these propositions consistently.

4. Associating either proposition with its proponents ("Joe Schmoe" believes your proposition, and look at what a jerk HE is")

Lee Saffold (whom I requested to participate because I know of his even-handedness and thoroughness, NOT because of his associations) came close to understanding the uncluttered pursuit of truth by his first post, especially with the suggestion that we must have Scriptural support for both the MAJOR and the MINOR premise in any syllogism. That is a good start. I gave an example where that is not "necessarily" so. My only point there was to show that it is NOT necessary to use Scripture to support the MINOR premise and conclude abortion is sin.

That's where we are now.

Lee, in light of your usual hermeneutic, I am having trouble understanding the position you take regarding smoking as sin. If it is true that we must not condemn something unless there is a SPECIFIC Scriptural condemnation of it, you would be hard pressed to condemn things like participation in Halloween, attendance at a PK rally, and "humor". Instead, things we do today, I'm guessing, in your opinion, can be addressed if they violate certain "principles" in Scripture. Do I understand this correctly?

But I digress. I STILL DO NOT AFFIRM SMOKING IS A SIN. BUT, I am also not able to DENY it. This puts me in a pickle, as I have already had two people come to me for advice. I emailed a CoC preacher about it, and he told me what they do at his church. I might add, they also "lovingly" confront other "sins" in their flock, and the preacher himself does NOT preach against it. So I mentioned it in this Forum.

But my MOTIVATION for this thread (however irrelevent that is) was to provoke discussion, since it is uncomfortable to be unable to either Affirm or Deny something which is so important.

So, posters in this thread, if you AFFIRM smoking is a sin, show me in the best way you can, without resorting to any of the above mentioned tactics. If you DENY smoking is a sin, do likewise.

Put on your logic caps, turn off your personalities, and consider this proposition:

1. Smoking harms the body.

2. Harming the body is sinful

3. Smoking is sinful.

So the rub is in proposition 2? Are we in agreement?

I cannot affirm proposition 2. Can you?

Neither can I deny proposition 2. Can you?

1. Is harming the body sinful?

2. Is your answer based on direct revelation of Scripture, or principles found therein?

-- Anonymous, October 30, 2000

Point taken. I will retract that. It was passion rather than anger.

-- Anonymous, October 30, 2000

Brother Duane:

You have rightly quoted my words and justly corrected them as follows:

BYes. Both the MAJOR PREMISE and the MINOR PREMISE must be supported in Scripture.

Not so. Only the Major Premise needs Scriptural support. Example: Major premise: Murder is sin. (supported by Scripture) Minor premise: Abortion is murder (supported by reason, science, & common sense) Conclusion: Abortion is sinB

Given the proposition that you just stated it is true that scripture must support only the Major Premise. And I am sure that you agree that it is also true that your minor premise must be true in order for your conclusion to follow. Murder is a sin but you have not proven that anyone who smokes is committing murder. If second hand smoke kills others because it is harmful to their health then why do we not have the smokers who produced second hand smoke up on charges of attempted murder? Should we?

But why did you not use your original premises to show this to be true. We can prove that abortion is murder because it is a deliberate attempt to take another persons life. But those who smoke are just like all others who have habits that are harmful to their health but do not intended to take their own lives. Those who eat foods with high cholesterol know that it will kill them some day, but they are convinced that they will stop eating such things before such a habit actually kills them, now arenBt they? Are we to find them guilty of murder every time they eat a scrambled egg and a few strips of bacon? Yes, most smokers are aware that this habit will kill them some day but are they guilty of murder? If so then I would agree that smoking, in this since, is a sin in exactly the same way that eating foods high in cholesterol is a sin and failing to have sufficient exercise is a sin. If that is the case then let us label all unhealthy practices as a sin, including smoking and let us preach against it and let that be the end of the matter. But if we are not going to be consistent and actually say that anything that we practice that is harmful to our health and threatening to our lives is murder I would not agree that smoking is murder either. You cannot have it both ways. If smoking is murder because it harms our health then so is anything else that is harmful to our health and if we are going to say firmly and emphatically that one is a sin let us be just as prepared to declare that they all are sinful. I will agree with you that smoking is just as sinful as any other practice that is harmful to our health. I cannot agree that in any other way to single out smoking as sinful when my argument is based upon the major premise that murder is a sin. And a minor premises that all unhealthy practices are acts of gradual murder.

Is it not enough that we all agree that we should teach Christians to avoid this awful habit for their own well being? It seems to me that we are all in agreement to fight against this practice while some do so to save a brother or sister's body from certain death and others to save their eternal soul from eternal punishment. Is it not sufficient that we agree enough to teach against this habit? Must we all agree to call it a sin, which the scriptures do not do? I agree that the scriptures teach us to avoid all such things as smoking or anything else that are harmful to our health. Is that not enough?

Now you have asked me:

BLee, in light of your usual hermeneutic, I am having trouble understanding the position you take regarding smoking as sin. If it is true that we must not condemn something unless there is a SPECIFIC Scriptural condemnation of it, you would be hard pressed to condemn things like participation in Halloween, attendance at a PK rally, and "humor". Instead, things we do today, I'm guessing, in your opinion, can be addressed if they violate certain "principles" in Scripture. Do I understand this correctly?B

No, Brother Duane, you did not understand me correctly. I think that the misunderstanding is my fault. When I said:

BNow it may yet be true that smoking is a sin, though I have not yet seen a clear passage that would prove such to be the case.B

I was actually thinking about the misuse of scriptures as the oneBs that I had spoken of earlier which are used as if they are clear prohibitions against smoking. I was not BclearB and I apologize for that. My intention was to show that sin is defined according to (1 John 3:4) as a transgression of the law. Now GodBs Law is not always given in clear statements of definite restrictions. It is done through direct commands, apostolic examples, and necessary inferences. Now when I condemn things such as PK rallies, Halloween observances (which I must admit that I am now reviewing whether I am inconsistent in this matter as Danny pointed out to me in that thread). But my condemnation of BhumorB of the type that can be described as foolish jesting is from a specific command prohibiting it (Eph. 5:4). Thus, what I meant to say was if you can find a command prohibiting smoking, as I have done with the specific prohibition of Bfoolish jestingB then I will readily admit my error and condemn smoking as a definite transgression of GodBs law and therefore a sin. Or if you can find an apostolic example or even a necessary inference as I have done with Pk rallies that smoking is a transgression of GodBs law and is therefore a sin, I will agree with you.

Please note that I am looking for ways to agree with you. This pernicious habit is not only so repulsive to those who do not smoke and filthy in its very nature that I have the same strong suspicion that you and others have that such a thing cannot be anything but a sin against man and God. But I cannot honestly speak from the oracles of God and say that it is such without first being convinced that such is in fact the truth. If you can provided any such evidence I would sincerely appreciate it.

However, I notice that you are asking the question and urging others to Btake a strong standB and condemn smoking as a sin yet you say:

BBut I digress. I STILL DO NOT AFFIRM SMOKING IS A SIN. BUT, I am also not able to DENY it. This puts me in a pickle, as I have already had two people come to me for advice.B

Well, is it not possible for you to understand that some others in this forum feel like they are in a BpickleB too? Why then do you not allow them to be in the same situation that you say you are in concerning this subject? They are no more ready to confidently affirm that the scriptures teach that smoking is a sin than you are. So why do you say, BIs smoking sin? Is anybody else out there who will just say "yes" or "no"?B You cannot say ByesB or BnoB but you are looking for someone else who will, arenBt you? I will be happy to say yes it is a sin when I can prove beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt in my mind that such is the case and not one moment before then. But I can assure you of one thing. If I am ever so convinced that it is a sin against God you will find me condemning it forthrightly and consistently condemning anything like without compromise or retreat. The reason I can do this is because I do my best not to take any position that I am not convinced assuredly to be the truth. When I am so convinced it takes a great amount of work to convince me otherwise. Hence the reason that I am never affected by assertions without proof.

The reason that I enjoy discussing matters with you is that you fully appreciate a sound argument when it is made and you are more than competent to detect an unsound one as well. And it is not your habit to make any assertions without offering evidence to support them. I appreciate sincerely any discussion that I have with you on any subject. I am more than willing to learn from you that smoking is a sin once you are convinced that such is the case. But for now it appears that you and I are somewhat in the same position. Neither of us is certain that GodBs word teaches that smoking is a transgression of GodBs law and therefore a sin, now are we? And I know that neither you nor I will so teach it until we are convinced by sufficient evidence from the word of God that it is the truth, now will we?

Maybe we could all agree from this standpoint:

Major Premise: Anything that does not please God is sinful.

Minor Premise: Any habit that is harmful to our health does not please God.

Conclusion: Therefore habits harmful to our health are sinful.

Major Premise: Habits harmful to our health are sinful

Minor Premise: Smoking is a habit harmful to our health

Conclusion: Therefore smoking is a sin.

But if this is our basis for such a belief let us not say that GodBs word clearly states that smoking is a sin. Rather let us state that we have deduced from the teaching of the scripture that smoking is a sin and allow that others may not agree with our deduction and our inferences drawn from the scriptures concerning this matter. Unless we can show that our inferences are necessary ones from the actual teaching of GodBs word.

But to say that the scriptures teach that smoking is a sin is not necessarily accurate. It may be more accurate to say that smoking is a violation of certain scriptural principles regarding the care we should take for our lives and then give the scriptures, which teach us to take care of our health. Would that not be sufficient? But when we say it is a sin and take passages of scripture out of context to prove our statement to be true you will find that I will have not part in any such thing. For I am more concerned about the sin of distorting the word of God in such a case than I am about deducing from it that smoking or any other harmful habit is a sin.

I know that you did not specifically say that those verses that were used in the article that you quoted taught that smoking is a sin but the article that you quoted said it and you quoted the article as if you supported itBs argument. If you do not support itBs argument then I must apologize for assuming that you did and making my argument to you instead of toward the authors of the article.

You Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, October 30, 2000

I just thought of another way to look at this... suppose as the preacher Sunday morning before church I was standing outside the church smoking a cigarette as the people of the community were driving by... what kind of an impression would this leave them with?

Would we impress them as Bholy people of God?B Would we look like salt and light or like the rest of the world?

This is the same reason that I am against drinking in any form (we already had this discussion and it is not my purpose to bring it back up)... I could not smoke or drink or be seen buying either for fear that my Christian witness would be in jeopardy.

So is smoking a sin because it could destroy your witness?

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

If it has even the APPEARANCE (perception) OF SIN we are to avoid it.

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

If a Dr.

1. Does an abortion

2. Gets drunk and on the way home, has a wreck and kills a car load of people

3. Attends his, non smoker, wife's funeral who died from breathing his second hand smoke.

What is the Dr. guilty of in each case?

The only difference I can see in the three are knowledge and intent. If this is true is knowledge enough to convict him of sin. And if that is true is smoking a sin in this case.

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

Danny

You are correct about my being PC driven because I have not read up on lung cancer. But I do feel very strongly that smoking does cause lung cancer as well as other cancers.

I do know of at least 2 ladies that died of lung cancer that never smoked but their husbands smoked a bunch. I know this is not proof but does bring strong suspicion.

My son-in-law is a top notch cancer doc. I'll try to get his opinion on this this evening.

A friend, old man/new christian, ask me if he could chew tobacco and still go to heaven. I told him I thought he could but he might have to go to hell to spit. We had a good laugh but I was glad he was looking at his life. He died and I suspect went to Heaven.

Faris

PS. Both my son-in-law and daughter tell me obesity is a very strong contributing factor to cancer. So when you spoke of the results of an improper diet ranking up there with smoking, I do agree.

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

Faris,

That reminds me of the talk show person Joe Pyne. He was interviewing a Christian minister and he asked that minister if he thought that smoking would send him to hell. The minister came back very quickly and said: "No, but it'll sure make you smell like you've been there!"

;-)

-- Anonymous, October 31, 2000

Brother Faris:

You have asked:

BIf a Dr. 1. Does an abortion 2. Gets drunk and on the way home, has a wreck and kills a car load of people 3. Attends his, non smoker, wife's funeral who died from breathing his second hand smoke. What is the Dr. guilty of in each case?B

In order to know just what crime one is guilty of he must first be charged of an offense which is proven to be contrary to the law, in this forum we mean GodBs law. And then sufficient evidence must be presented to convict him of the crime. Thus your questions may be difficult to answer.

If the Dr. Bdoes an abortionB we can charge him with murder, which is a violation of GodBs law. This jury could then find him guilty if we could provide sufficient evidence that he intended to take the life of this child in itBs mothers womb.

If the BDr. Got DrunkB. We could charge him with Drunkenness, which is also a violation of GodBs Law. If we could then prove that he was in fact drunk we could find him guilty as charged of violating GodBs Law against drunkenness.

If he then had an accident and killed a bunch of people I am not sure that we could charge him according to GodBs Law with Bnegligent homicideB but it is possible. Then we would have to prove that he actually was negligent. Which means that we would have to show that he was not drugged without his knowledge and that he intended to get drunk and with reckless abandon negligently took the lives of a bunch of people.

If he then attends his wifeBs funeral who died of second hand smoke I just do not know the charge in GodBs Word that he could be brought up on for I cannot find where it is a transgression of GodBs law to attend oneBs wifeBs funeral.

If she died because of breathing his Bsecond hand smokeB (which is by no means certain) I also cannot find the specific charges in the word of God that he would have violated when he produced the second hand smoke. And if we could find that specific charge we would then have to prove that he had absolute knowledge of the effects of second hand smoke. And that it was HIS specific second hand smoke and not a combination of all of the smoke that she had ever breathed in her lifetime from whatever source. In fact, we might all be guilty of BmurderB in this case just because we drive automobiles and contribute to air pollution that some have claimed is killing us. WE might find that he couldnBt be charged in the first place since there is certainly no transgression of GodBs laws to produce smoke, or pollution. So we would be in a precarious position to bring someone before the bar of justice charging him with actions that are not violations of the law at all. The issue here is whether smoking is a violation or transgression of GodBs law. If it is not then no smoker can be BguiltyB of a sin until one can show that the act of smoking violates GodBs law. Because Bsin is the transgression of the LawB (1 John 3:4). There must be a law that is violated or transgressed before one can even be charged much less found guilty of having committed a sin or crime. Even our own legal system is not sufficiently convinced that second hand smoke is actually murder for you cannot even charge one by common law in any country of murder because he smoked and someone who lived near him all her life died from breathing his smoke. So, if we are to charge this man with violating GodBs law where is the law that he violated. And if we are going to charge him with murder on what grounds can we prove that such is in fact an act of murder when no one even in our present legal system is able to successfully maintain that such is in fact murder? Just because we may think he contributed in some way to her death unless we can prove that it was murder we should not charge him. What if your neighbor charged you with killing his wife because you negligently drove your favorite old clunker that bellowed out smoke as it traveled through the neighborhood and this pollution contributed to his wifeBs death? What if a man dies from living with a wife that constantly nagged him? She knew that he had a heart condition but still could not control her life long habit of nagging and irritating him. What if some one was to conclude that she was guilty of murder and so charged her before God?

So, Brother Fairs, though I am with you in resisting smoking I cannot see how we can charge this man by GOD'S LAW of anything other than murder in the case of his Bdoing an abortionB And drunkenness and negligence. And I am not sure, with no more evidence than you presented, that he could be found guilty of any of them. For he may have been saving the life of a mother when he performed an abortion completely against his desire. He may have hoped to save them both and finally had to save the mother when saving both became impossible.. We do not know from the information given. If he did an abortion for the same reasons that the majority of abortions are done today we could justly charge him with murder. In which case he is already condemned to hell if he does not through himself on the mercy of God and obtains forgiveness. And the charge of smoking, which is not so far as anyone has shown, a violation of the Law of God would not add to his punishment even if it were a violation of the law of God. For he began his day with a murder and ended it at his wifeBs funeral condemned for all of his sins against God that you have listed such as murder, drunkenness, and negligence (lack of diligence). But I have not yet heard anyone read to us the Law of God that condemns smoking. A lost man has enough condemnation from GodBs law; he does not need further condemnation from manBs laws to make sure that he is condemned.

I just cannot understand why we must claim that smokers have violated GodBs law when no one can point to the specific law of God that they have violated.

With the scanty information we have before us concerning this man it seems to me that we had best leave this man and possibly all other menBs judgement up to the Bjudge of all the earthB. For we know that HE Bwill do rightB.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Faris,

Although I believe second-hand smoke is harmful, it is not necessary to introduce it into the "is smoking sin" argument. It becomes an easy "straw man" target for the "other side" of the debate, and detracts from the main question we are now considering, which is:

Is is a sin to harm my own body?

I haven't done a search to examine the emperical evidence for second-hand smoke damage, but I do know of anecdotal evidence. A Pediatrician told me that almost ALL of the children he sees who have chronic breathing and/or allergy problems have smoking parents. And almost ALL of his patients of non- smoking parents are FREE of such problems. (He is a non-Politically Correct Republican too!)

But again, I digress.

Lee, I appreciate your breaking down the syllogism to "Does it please God when I smoke?", but to be fair, it should be changed to "does it displease God" because some things that are "neutral" may neither please nor displease God.

And that is where I think we are at.

Can anybody show from Scriptural command, example or necessary inference where harming one's own body displeases God?"

I think of Judas' committing suicide, yet there is no indication from Scripture that this act, in and of itself, displeased God.

Anyone?

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Oh, one more thing, Lee:

If Al Gore wins (unlikely, considering the electoral vote lead Bush now has), and he makes it illegal to smoke:

Would you consider it to be a sin?

If so, would it be because of the ONE verse which talks about "submitting to the civil authorities"?

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Danny,

Perhaps it is true that smoking would put your witness in jeopardy more because of cultural reasons than biblical... however, isn't that Paul's purpose in Romans 14?

As Christians we are labeled by society and are supposed to be "perfect" and "holy" in the worldBs eyes... I donBt believe that smoking gives that impression to others (at least not in this country)... therefore I believe it is a harmful exampleB whether right or wrong may be irrelevant.

If I smoke as a Christian... don't I send a message to young people that it is o.k.? Would this be sin?

Danny... I understand what you are saying in the fact that we do not have a "Thus says the Lord" against smoking... however, we do have a "Thus says the Lord" when it comes to being "salt and light"... even if smoking were only a cultural thing... can we be "salt and light" in this culture and still smoke?

Just some thoughts... BTW way Danny, I am not arguing with you... I respect your Bible knowledge greatly and it has given me much to think about and I hope I can give you some things to think about.

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Danny,

You have said, "DUANE....need I remind you......that just because govt. says something is "lawful" or "unlawful" does not make it so by God's standards....(the prime example, of course, being abortion).

We've had this discussion before on the "gun issue." Let me sum up my stand....."Out of my cold dead fingers."

So.... are you saying here (in answer to Duane's question) that IF someone were a smoker and it became illegal per government law... that they would still have a 'right' to continue to smoke because you don't see it being a sin? Sort of, "...Out of my dead, nicotine- stained mouth.".....

In other words, we should only submit to civil authority When We Think They Are Right?!!? :-)

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Duane:

You have asked me:

BOh, one more thing, Lee:

If Al Gore wins (unlikely, considering the electoral vote lead Bush now has), and he makes it illegal to smoke:

Would you consider it to be a sin?

If so, would it be because of the ONE verse which talks about "submitting to the civil authorities"?B

Duane:

My answer to your question would be yes. Because We are to obey our rulers which God himself has said, BLet every soul be in subjection to the higher powers for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God.B (Romans 13:1). If I disobey the laws of the land I am sinning against God. Therefore if the Bpowers that beB forbid smoking. And I disobey that prohibition. Then I would be guilty of the sin of disobeying the powers that be but I would not be guilty of the sin of smoking for thus far no one has shown me a passage in the scriptures that makes smoking a violation of GodBs law. The only time that we are justified in disobeying the powers that be are when there laws are themselves a violation of the laws of God. For we are to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29).

Now, I do not understand why you say Bwould it be because of ONE verseBB For all faithful Christians, Brother Duane, ONE verse or even ONE word from God is sufficient to demand my attention and my obedience. God does not have to repeat himself to me. He speaks and I obey. He says it and I do it. If you show ONE word from God that smoking is a sin I will join you and fervently and aggressively tell every Christian that I know that they are sinning against God if they smoke. I will urge them to repent and ask GodBs forgiveness. But I will not ask them to repent of what I consider to be sinful. I will ask them to repent of what God has told us all through His inspired word is a sin. I have no right to just impose my own personal opinion about BsinB on anyone.

Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Let us remember, B SO then each one of us shall give an account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumbling block in his brotherBs way, or an occasion of falling. I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of itself: Save to him that accounteth anything to be unclean to him it is unclean. For if because of meat my brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for who Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. For he that herein serveth Christ is well pleasing to God, and approved of men. So then let us follow after things which make for peace, and things whereby we may edify one another. Overthrow not for meatBs sake the work of God. All things indeed are clean; howbeit it is evil for that man who eateth with offense. It is not good to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth. The faith which thou hast , have thou to thyself before God. Happy is he that judgeth not himself in that which he approveth. But he that doubth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith. And whatsoever is not of faith is sin.B (Romans 14: 12-23).

Now the above verse is the only scriptural prohibition that, it seems to me, can apply in principle to smoking and eating foods high in cholesterol or anything else whereby we could cause our brother to stumble. If I were going to contend that smoking was sinful, it seems that we should spend our time showing the violations of GodBs word in this particular place rather then abusing the word of God in other places and condemning the smoker as a murderer. But you will also find, in principle, a condemnation of the attitudes that non- smokers take toward smokers in this verse. But we must understand that my argument from this place would be made from inferences drawn from the actual subject under discussion, which is eating of meats. The subject under consideration here is not smoking. And we must remember that those inferences must be NECESSARY INFERENCES if it is my intent to bind them upon my brethren. If they cannot be shown to be necessary inferences then we must accept the fact that others may draw inferences as well that we might not see and in these things this passage tells us to have our faith to ourselves before God. There is a big difference between reaching conclusions based upon what is necessarily inferred and what MIGHT be inferred in a given passage of scripture.

I sincerely hope that this particular passage will shed some light upon this theme. I would like, as much as any of you, to call smoking a sin. It would make the task of condemning it and preaching against it much easier and probably far more effective. But I cannot say it is such until I can prove it to be so. Thus, I hope that you and the others in this forum might be able to show me what I have overlooked and correct me by showing from GodBs word that smoking is a sin. Just attempting to make it equivalent to murder and suicide is not sufficient. It is a Bthus saith the LordB that will convince me. If you can provide such I will be happy to thank you for the lesson and become immediately the Bposter boyB of anti smoking among Christians. I will then fight against it with every fiber of my being and preach vehemently from any pulpit that my brethren might let me stand behind, or any forum where Christians gather. But without a word from God I cannot pretend that it is sinful. I am against it for the reasons that I have already described and urge all to take care of their health.

For now, I do not preach against it with any more force than I preach against eating foods high in cholesterol or failing to keep up a regular exercise regimen for your good health that all of my brethren might live to a ripe old age in our LordBs service. Thus my approach is in the form of what I consider in my OPINION to be good and wise advice and nothing more. I reserve preaching for the gospel of Christ and sins that God has clearly taught in his words to be contrary to his divine will. All else say BI and not the LORDB. I keep my opinions separated from the word of God. Never, shall the twain be considered to have the same force and effect upon my brethren. My opinions can be ignored and even scorned with no consequence but we all must obey the word of God or we will face the judge and give an account of our deeds whether they are good or evil.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Brother Duane:

You have rightly said:

BLee, I appreciate your breaking down the syllogism to "Does it please God when I smoke?", but to be fair, it should be changed to "does it displease God" because some things that are "neutral" may neither please nor displease God.B

I can accept completely your suggestion. You are right in claiming that some things are neutral and it was not my intent to BneutralizeB smoking in any way with my words. So your words following words are acceptable:

BCan anybody show from Scriptural command, example or necessary inference where harming one's own body displeases God?"

But let us understand that without Bfaith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please GodB. (Heb. 11:6). And that Bfaith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of GodB (Romans 10:17). And that what is not of faith is sin. (Romans 14:23). Thus if we are going to draw any conclusions about this matter let them come from the WORD OF GOD rather than the inferences of men. If GodBs word teaches by command, example or a necessary inference that knowingly harming oneBs health is a sin. Then we can be certain that smoking is a sin of that class. And so is everything else in that class such as eating foods high in cholesterol and failing to have a regular exercise regimen. It could also include driving a car that is pouring pollution out into our atmosphere that is harmful to our health and the health of all other living beings on this planet. Thus far no one has shown us in this way that smoking and the other items in this list are in fact a sin or a Btransgression of the lawB which is what sin is. (1 John3: 4).

I am willing to be taught on this subject, brother Duane. And I am more than willing to consider smoking a sin. Or transgression of GodBs law, when and only when someone can show the part of GodBs law that is transgressed when one smokes. This does not mean that I support smoking for I most certainly do not. It only means that I do not make things that I do not like equal to a transgression of GodBs law. It is indeed a sin to transgress GodBs law but just because you offend me personally by any habit that I find disgusting and distasteful and dangerous to your health and mind does not mean that you have sinned against God. Offending me is one matter but offending God by rebelliously transgressing or going across and beyond his law is a sin to which any personal offense to me cannot remotely be compared. I therefore have no right to go about to establish a law of my own and claim that anyone who transgresses or offends my rules have sinned or transgressed GodBs law. Doing this is an offense against God that is without question a transgression of GodBs law. Jesus told the Jews who had come to teach that those who did not follow the traditions of Bthe eldersB concerning the washing of their hands before eating bread as if it were equal to transgressing against God. And they had drawn some interesting inferences from scripture to support their view. (Matthew 15:1-3) But Christ asked them, Bwhy do ye transgress the commandment of God by your traditions. And gave examples of how they had so sinned against God in this way. (Matthew 15:1-9). Let us not make the same error, Brother.

Christ went further in this passage to instruct his disciples concerning what actually defiles a man. And it was not eating food high in cholesterol or, failing to follow what is considered by us today to be a healthy practice of washing our hands before eating which can be harmful to oneBs health at times, nor was it smoking. Hear his words on the matter:

BNot that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (Matthew 15:11).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Danny, what did you mean when you wrote,

"The danger of your position was seen most clearly in your last post when you gave the impression of "our side.....their side."

I said "the other side" ... not our side, their side, or my side. It was a simple literary device... it was not me "taking sides"... You read too much into it!

Then you wrote:

It is for this reason that I make it a test of "leadership".....but not "fellowship." Why?? Scriptural reasons. Paul says that an elder is to be a man who is under control. A smoker is controlled by something (namely nicotine)....therefore....until he can get control of that....I believe him to be unqualified to serve in leadership.

Major premise: An elder is to be a man who is under control. (Supported by Scripture)

Minor premise: A smoker is controlled by nicotine (Supported by Danny's opinion) I believe he is correct in his opinion, yet I cannot find any Scripture which says that a smoker is controlled by nicotine.

Conclusion: A smoker cannot be an elder. (Supported by Danny's reasoning)

You see you said "Scriptural reasons" ... But you made a jump from Scripture to your own "common sense" (which I agree with) in the minor premise....

How is that any different than somebody who says:

Major premise: Murder is sin (Supported by Scripture)

Minor premise: Smoking is murder (Supported by opinion)

Again, show me from SCRIPTURE where it says that nicotine controls a person.

You cannot.

Therefore you have no Scriptural authority to disqualify a smoker for eldership, any more than I have Scriptural authority for calling a smoker a murderer. (Which I DO NOT, by the way...)

Lee, take a look at this post as it appears in your email This is bold I don't know what you're doing, but all we are seeing is the letter B with little squares...

Danny, I think the question asked of you could be worded this way: "If the government outlawed smoking, would it then be a sin to smoke?"

But for a 3rd time, I digress. So again, I ask, (for I am getting closer to Danny and Lee's "side"), "Can anybody show from Scriptural command, example or necessary inference where harming one's own body displeases God?"

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Danny,

Do you get a lot of speeding tickets? :-)

-- Anonymous, November 01, 2000

Aint them radar detectors great?

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Brother Duane:

You have asked:

BLee, take a look at this post as it appears in your email This is bold I don't know what you're doing, but all we are seeing is the letter B with little squares...B

I am not doing anything that I can determine is the cause of the letter B and little squares to appear in my post after I submit them. What seems to be happening is that every place where I put either quotation marks or an apostrophe after I hit the submit button and it appears in the forum it magically shows both the letter B and a small square.

But what ever is happening, it seems that it occurs between the time that I hit BsubmitB and the appearance of my post in the forum. Is it possible that there is a server problem? I have noticed in another thread that my post is not the only one that has this exact same problem. Take a look at the Minneapolis pk thread. You will see this in other post as well besides my own. Maybe we could all do a test by submitting a few quotations enclosed in quotation marks to see if this is a problem for us all.

I will not give an example so that you can see it happen for yourself. I now quote Mark 16:16 as follows:

BHe that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.B

If this works as it has been for a few days you will see the letter B and a small square in the place where I put quotation marks. This is happening no matter which computer I use. It happens when I use my computer at home and also when I use my laptop at work.

That is the best I can do to explain what is happening and my reasons for suspecting that the problem may be in the server that supports the forum. It does not appear to be a problem on this end. But I will continue to research it.

It is getting to be quite annoying, isnBt it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

"It's the mark of the beast!"

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

In the email the quotes were in the proper place, but in the Forum they appear as little squares. I do notice that in the email YOUR quote marks look different than the quote marks found in all of my other emails. I will try to cut and paste the two in this post, so that you can see the difference... but I don't know if they will display correctly... Here goes. First, a word with your quotes around it:

BinformationB

Now with regular quote marks:

"information"

I was going to guess that it had something to do with the font selection in your yahoo mail program, but I see it in your mindspring email as well. HMMMMM.....

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

H-m-m. A true "Mystery". Do you think it will take a 'Miracle' to solve it?

Or some intensive *Prayer*?

(I thought I'd use three different forms to see what happens).

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Some of my posts have this same problem... I have also been having problems with the server... sometimes I can not get on or can not post, yet have no problems with other pages and can often come back here with no problems... however, this seems o.k. today... good luck:)

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Danny,

You have said, "Follow your logic all the way through......when you council a girl not to have an abortion, and in essence stop her....are you disobeying govt.?? After all....they say it's right. "

Please.... you can surely see that there is a difference between counseling someone to NOT do something that the government says is Lawful... and supporting someone in Doing something that the government says is UNLAWFUL!!!

Let me quote Lee's answer to Duane's following question:

"If Al Gore wins (unlikely, considering the electoral vote lead Bush now has), and he makes it illegal to smoke:

Would you consider it to be a sin?

If so, would it be because of the ONE verse which talks about "submitting to the civil authorities"?"

Lee speaking: " Duane:

My answer to your question would be yes. Because We are to obey our rulers which God himself has said, Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. (Romans 13:1). If I disobey the laws of the land I am sinning against God. Therefore if the powers that be forbid smoking. And I disobey that prohibition. Then I would be guilty of the sin of disobeying the powers that be but I would not be guilty of the sin of smoking for thus far no one has shown me a passage in the scriptures that makes smoking a violation of God's law. The only time that we are justified in disobeying the powers that be are when there laws are themselves a violation of the laws of God. For we are to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29). "

Where exactly do you and Lee disagree here?

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Duane,

Is speeding a sin? Is using radar detectors so one can more easily break the law without getting caught... a sin?

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Twas a tongue-in-cheek remark to Danny... Yet worthy of another thread perhaps...

But let's get back to this thread:

"Can anybody show from Scriptural command, example or necessary inference where harming one's own body displeases God?"

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Danny,

My use of 'surely' was because you used an abortion example that you knew was flawed.

Now you have said, "Seriously.....you still miss my point.....so let me write it in caps......THE GOVT. IS NOT THE FINAL ARBITRATOR OF WHAT IS RIGHT OR WHAT IS WRONG. " I don't believe I missed this point AT ALL... I agree. Where have I said I don't? Of course, God is the final authority on things. I don't believe abortion is right just because the government says it is lawful.... HOWEVER, IMO, it is still wrong to do something that the government says is NOT LAWFUL (unless, of course, it is in direct opposition to God's commands... I don't believe smoking falls into that category, ie. Thou Shalt Smoke!). (CAPS used for your benefit... as you seem to continue to miss (or ignore) MY point that there is a difference between NOT DOING SOMETHING LAWFUL and DOING SOMETHING UNLAWFUL!!!!)

Then you say, "And Robin...you did not answer my question (Boy this sounds familiar)....." WHAT QUESTION? The only one you asked was this, "Follow your logic all the way through......when you council a girl not to have an abortion, and in essence stop her....are you disobeying govt.?? " Which I THOUGHT I plainly answered... but you must 'missed' that. So, to answer the question: NO, stopping someone from having an abortion is not disobeying the government.

Now, it seems I asked you a direct question: "Where exactly do you and Lee disagree here? "... which you have conveniently ignored.... Boy, is THAT familiar. I respect your insight on scripture... and I respect Lee's. He seems to have a more 'traditional' (from my point of view) take on submitting to government authority than you do. I would sincerely like to know how your two views differ SCRIPTURALLY.

Then you say, "If I can follow govt's law and not violate my Scipturally driven conscience....so be it. If not.....then the higher authority rules. " So, IF you were a smoker and the government outlawed smoking... would it be a sin for you to smoke? OR would you feel that not smoking violated your 'Scripturally driven conscience' and so you would continue to smoke??

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

The problem with Danny (sometimes) is that he won't give a direct answer to a direct question. And I say that as his lil bro in Christ. :)

Danny, why not just answer yes or no so we can move on? Let's say smoking became illegal tomorrow, and one of your members was a long time smoker having difficulty obeying that law. WOULD IT BE A SIN FOR HIM TO BUY BOOTLEG CIGARETTES AND SMOKE ON THE SLY?

check one: Yes____ No____

-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

And speaking of avoiding answers, the "speeding" and "law-breaking" posts have led us on rabbit trails, so I hereby repost the following, which has been met with unusual silence:

Danny, you wrote:

It is for this reason that I make it a test of "leadership".....but not "fellowship." Why?? Scriptural reasons. Paul says that an elder is to be a man who is under control. A smoker is controlled by something (namely nicotine)....therefore....until he can get control of that....I believe him to be unqualified to serve in leadership.

Major premise: An elder is to be a man who is under control. (Supported by Scripture)

Minor premise: A smoker is controlled by nicotine (Supported by Danny's opinion) I believe he is correct in his opinion, yet I cannot find any Scripture which says that a smoker is controlled by nicotine.

Conclusion: A smoker cannot be an elder. (Supported by Danny's reasoning)

You see you said "Scriptural reasons" ... But you made a jump from Scripture to your own "common sense" (which I agree with) in the minor premise....

How is that any different than somebody who says:

Major premise: Murder is sin (Supported by Scripture)

Minor premise: Smoking is murder (Supported by opinion)

Again, show me from SCRIPTURE where it says that nicotine controls a person.



-- Anonymous, November 02, 2000

Connie:

You have said:

BH-m-m. A true "Mystery". Do you think it will take a 'Miracle' to solve it? Or some intensive *Prayer*? (I thought I'd use three different forms to see what happens). B

I do not think that it will take a BmiracleB to solve this BmysteryB but if it would then we are certain that it will not be solved.

As I have pointed out before, all we see in this forum is mere BtalkB about miracles. We never see any genuine BDemonstrationB of these powers as Paul showed to the Corinthians. (1 Cor: 2:4).

I am sure that intensive prayer is a good thing for all of us. But we must understand that the Bfarmer must plow in the same direction that he prays or he will not gain a harvestB therefore if we are to pray about this problem we should also think in the direction of our prayers toward reaching a solution.

For that reason I sincerely appreciate your thought on attempting Bthree different forms to see what happensB. Lets keep trying for we already know what happens when you ask for a miracle, now donBt we? You asked for the Holy Spirit to Bcome on this forum in Holy FireB which would be miraculous indeed and God has told you BNOB.

It is likely therefore that should you ask God to solve this petty problem with a BmiracleB that he would also tell you yet again in simple denial, BNOB.

Your Friend,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 03, 2000

Funny you mentioned that example, Danny, because I remember watching the debate and when George Bush avoided AlGore's question, and I wondered at that time why Gov. Bush didn't just say "no, I don't support affirmative action (as it is defined by most). The fact that you found an example where a bad guy (Al Gore) demands an answer from a good guy (GW Bush) does not entitle you to somehow paint our dialogue with the same brush. That is called "guilt by association" and is a poor excuse for intelligent debate...(a fallacy)

In fact, I believe Al Gore was justified in asking for a yes or no answer. Of course his motivation was not pure. He felt that if GW said he was against affirmative action, un- educated minorities might think GW was against them. So what? George should have given a yes or no answer, and then go on to use it as a teachable moment.

You wrote:

You know full well that Scripture is not a complete treatise on every aspect of life.

MY POINT EXACTLY! WHICH IS WHY GOD ALLOWS US TO USE COMMON SENSE. Which is why we DON'T need Scripture to support the MINOR premise, just the MAJOR one.

It is a known scientific, medical fact that nicotine is addictive....and controlling.

I AGREE!

(For instance, where is the Scripture that says human life begins at conception??)However, medical science has proven it is so.

AGAIN, I agree! Which is why I can conclude from a major premise (Murder is taking a life, supported by Scripture) AND a minor premise (Abortion is taking a life, supported by Science) that Abortion is Murder.

To your credit, as I noted, you did the same thing:

"An elder must be under control (Scripture)" PLUS "Smokers are controlled by nicotine (Science)" EQUALS "A Smoker cannot be an elder"

BUT, according to Lee Saffold, we are BOTH wrong in our conclusions, because he says we MUST have Scripture for BOTH the MAJOR and MINOR premises. This was my only point.

Which leads me to say Danny, that if you and I are logically correct in our conclusions, (which I believe we are) the only thing needed for the following proposition to be true

Suicide is sin (Scripture)
Smoking is suicide (Science)
Smoking is sin.

is for somebody to show from SCIENCE (NOT SCRIPTURE) that Smoking is suicide.

Now, I am not saying I can do that. But hopefully by now my point is clear: In determining whether or not smoking is sin,

It is not necessary to use Scripture IF it can be determined from SCIENCE that Smoking is suicide, because we only need SCRIPTURE for the MAJOR premise (suicide is sin)

For that to happen, one would need to break down this minor premise accordingly:

Suicide is intentionally killing oneself, AND Smoking kills oneself, AND, a smoker smokes KNOWING it is killing himself.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Lee, do you understand my line of thought so far, and how I came to these conclusions?

Based on this line of reasoning, from here on out, Scripture should not be used to pursue the proposition. Because as Danny correctly noted, "Scripture is not a complete treatise on every aspect of life" and we are NOW trying to establish (from SCIENCE) whether or not "Smoking is equivalent to suicide".

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Well, I haven't made such a jump. I have only "thrown it out there" for consideration. But your response is helpful, very much on the mark I think, and where we need to be at this point.

I had not considered the "risk" factor, nor the comparison with other "risky" habits and hobbies.

Definitely food for thought. There is some difference however, between something like sky diving, where there is always a chance that I "might" die, (1 in 1000, or whatever) and smoking, where I am sure science would tell us that you are destroying cells "EVERY" time you smoke, and therefore the damage is cumulative, rather than hypothetical.

But I think you may have brought this argument to the crux of the matter.

Now, I do not know if science can show that race-car driving is habit forming or controlling, so there are some differences in your analogy. Anyone else?

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

I'm not gonna argue with someone with a loaded AR-15...

I don't think of smoking as being in the same category as sky diving or high cholesterol intake, although I must admit that life insurance underwriters ask you about ALL THREE of these things...

Here is another difference between smoking and cholesterol intake, albeit a minor one:

High cholesterol intake results from doing something that humans already do naturally, that is, eating. Our taste buds and stomach readily accept what is ingested. It then stands as a possible misuse or abuse of a gift that God has already given us, the ability to eat and enjoy food.

In contrast, Smoking is not something that "just happened" as we were inhaling air. It had to be thought of, rolled up, lit, and smoked, without asking our lungs permission, and is, in that sense, "unnatural" whereas high cholesterol intake can occur as a result of doing something that already comes natural for us. I hope that made some sense.

I am still wondering if any of you Greek geeks can help with the verse in the Bible that speaks of sorcerers not entering heaven. I have heard some mention that the word means "pharma- something" and is referring to drug usage.

I say this not wanting to blaze another rabbit trail, but science has more proof of nicotine's danger and addictive properties than marijuana, which is illegal. I agree with Danny's libertarian stance concerning government's "staying out" of our lives, even to the point of de- criminalizing marijuana. I would support the Libertarian candidate if he were pro-life.

Too bad we can't find the ideal candidate...one with the moral courage of Pat Buchanan, the eloquence of Alan Keyes, the populist appeal of GW Bush, the libertarian stance of Harry Browne(minus his pro-death stance), and the, uh, hair style of Al Gore...But, as usual, I digress.

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Brother Duane:

You have said:

BBUT, according to Lee Saffold, we are BOTH wrong in our conclusions, because he says we MUST have Scripture for BOTH the MAJOR and MINOR premises. This was my only point.

I did say that we must have scripture for both the major and minor proposition but you seemed to have forgotten that I agreed with your point in that regard therefore I repeat it now so that it is not forgotten. This was my response to your pointing to the fact that we only needed scripture to support the Major premise. And please note that while I agreed with you I also correctly pointed out that your minor Premise must be true. This you have not proven to be the case as far as I can tell. I now quote my words so that all can see that I agree that we must have scripture to support the major premise and that the minor premise must be supported by evidence that it is true as follows:

BBrother Duane:

You have rightly quoted my words and justly corrected them as follows:

"Yes. Both the MAJOR PREMISE and the MINOR PREMISE must be supported in Scripture. Not so. Only the Major Premise needs Scriptural support. Example: Major premise: Murder is sin. (supported by Scripture) Minor premise: Abortion is murder (supported by reason, science, & common sense) Conclusion: Abortion is sin"_

Given the proposition that you just stated it is true that scripture must support only the Major Premise. And I am sure that you agree that it is also true that your minor premise must be true in order for your conclusion to follow. Murder is a sin but you have not proven that anyone who smokes is committing murder. If second hand smoke kills others because it is harmful to their health then why do we not have the smokers who produced second hand smoke up on charges of attempted murder? Should we?

But why did you not use your original premises to show this to be true? We can prove that abortion is murder because it is a deliberate attempt to take another persons life. But those who smoke are just like all others who have habits that are harmful to their health but do not intended to take their own lives. Those who eat foods with high cholesterol know that it will kill them some day, but they are convinced that they will stop eating such things before such a habit actually kills them, now arenBt they? Are we to find them guilty of murder every time they eat a scrambled egg and a few strips of bacon? Yes, most smokers are aware that this habit will kill them some day but are they guilty of murder? If so then I would agree that smoking, in this sense, is a sin in exactly the same way that eating foods high in cholesterol is a sin and failing to have sufficient exercise is a sin. If that is the case then let us label all unhealthy practices as a sin, including smoking and let us preach against it and let that be the end of the matter. But if we are not going to be consistent and actually say that anything that we practice that is harmful to our health and threatening to our lives is murder I would not agree that smoking is murder either. You cannot have it both ways. If smoking is murder because it harms our health then so is anything else that is harmful to our health and if we are going to say firmly and emphatically that one is a sin let us be just as prepared to declare that they all are sinful. I will agree with you that smoking is just as sinful as any other practice that is harmful to our health. I cannot agree that in any other way to single out smoking as sinful when my argument is based upon the major premise that murder is a sin. And a minor premises that all unhealthy practices are acts of gradual murder.B

I do ask, Brother Duane, that you not imply that I am continuing to require scripture for both premises after I have accepted your just and accurate correction of my logical error on the matter. I also ask that you give serious consideration to the questions and points that I have made in my above quotation wherein I have cast doubt upon whether you have established the truthfulness of your minor premise even without the use of scripture.

Also please notice that when we must reach a conclusion based upon inferences not even found in scripture it is very difficult to be adamant that we have established that this matter is a sin against God. For our Bthought s are not his thoughts and neither are our ways His waysB. (Isa. 55:8.9). The inferences that we draw are not binding upon others unless they are NECESSARY inferences. And the proof of any premise must be based upon undeniable evidence and good reason and not upon what might be inferred by an act or statement.

I have shown how that smoking is very different than abortion if for no other reason than the fact of deliberate intent to kill which is not necessarily the case with smoking. And you have remembered my previous statements, which you have justly corrected but ignored the other half of what I had to say. Which, I am convinced shows that you cannot prove by science that those who smoke are intending to kill themselves, or commit murder of their fellow citizens. You cannot show this any more than you can show by science that those who eat foods high in cholesterol, even though they are aware of its detriment to their health are intending suicide. But I believe that we could easily establish that a doctor doing an abortion for no other purpose than preventing an BunwantedB child from being born has the intent to commit murder.

In either case, it should be clear that you are trying to establish smoking is murder by that which it appears that most will readily admit that smoking is harmful to our health. WE admit that smoking can kill. But that does not prove that one who smokes intends to kill himself. We admit that eating foods high in cholesterol can kill but it is a great leap in logic to draw the conclusion that one who eats such food has the intent to kill him or herself. WE accept that a sedentary lifestyle lacking in sufficient exercise can possibly lead to loss of life but to draw the conclusion that one who is not getting regular and sufficient exercise to sustain a healthy life is intending to kill him or herself. You do not need to prove by science or any other means what we generally agree is true. WE agree that smoking can kill. What you need to prove cannot be proven by science that which science has sufficiently proven to us that we generally agree about it. You need to prove that one who does anything that is harmful to his or her health knowing that the action or habit is one that will kill has the intent to take his or her own life. This it seems to me you have not established and it is a matter that cannot be proven by science. It can only be proven by reason based upon sufficient evidence to support it. And I am not convinced that we have sufficient evidence that such is the case with all those who smoke or do other things that they know is harmful to their health. Now there is no doubt in my mind that God has sufficient evidence to judge these matters concerning men. But I am doubtful that we human beings shall ever have sufficient evidence to conclude that all men in general who do anything that they know to be harmful to their health is intending to kill themselves or commit murder. If you could prove that they do have such intent then you could possibly prove with your line of argument that murder is a sin and smoking is murder therefore smoking is a sin. But thus far you have failed both with the scriptures and by logic or reason to establish that smoking is a transgression of any of GodBs laws simply because the only law of God that you claim that it violates is GodBs law against murder and you have not yet shown conclusively that smoking is murder.

As I have said before, I am willing to learn from you about this subject. And I would like to call smoking a sin but you have not established from scripture that it violates any of GodBs law thus I cannot see how it is a sin because Bsin is a transgression of the lawB. (1 John 3:4).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Brother Duane:

You have asked:

BLee, do you understand my line of thought so far, and how I came to these conclusions?

Based on this line of reasoning, from here on out, Scripture should not be used to pursue the proposition. Because as Danny correctly noted, "Scripture is not a complete treatise on every aspect of life" and we are NOW trying to establish (from SCIENCE) whether or not "Smoking is equivalent to suicide". B

I am satisfied that I understand your line of thought very well. And I hope that you understand the shaking ground upon which you have been and are even now standing. It should be obvious from what you have just said that you admit that we are to now proceed as we have been thus far proceeding upon the bases of human judgement that a certain matter is a sin. By admitting this you are possibly unwittingly admitting that we cannot establish from the scriptures that smoking is a sin but rather upon human reason. For you do not prove that those who smoke intend to commit murder or have in any way committed murder. You infer it. And that inference is not a necessary one in the least. Therefore the best you can do when it comes to proving that smoking is a sin is to resort to human judgement and inference that smoking is murder. Which is a conclusion inferred to you by the simple fact that smoking is harmful to our health and we know it therefore we are intending to commit suicide if we smoke. Now I can see how you may infer such but I do not agree with the inference and you most certainly cannot prove it. No one is required to accept that such necessarily infers that all smokers are intending to kill themselves. But even if we all agreed we could never know if God agreed, now would we? For he has not spoken about that matter, now has he?

We would do better to stay with the scriptures. If we must abandon the scriptures to prove something then we had best learn to be silent. For when we do this we are entering the realm of the vain and foolish which does gender strife. Because you have now entered the realm of human opinion and in such matters we must allow abundant liberty. Therefore, I recommend that we remember an old but wise motto of the restoration, B In matters of faith unity, in matters of opinion liberty, and in all things charityB. It is definitely not a matter of faith that smoking is a sin. But it is without doubt a strong matter of opinion with some that it is. But let us not seek to bind our opinions upon our brothers in Christ. It is our faith that needs strengthening for our opinions are abundant enough and we will never find agreement upon matters of opinion. But if it is your contention that the scriptures teach that smoking is a sin then give us a scripture that proves it to be the case without your having to go away from the word of God to establish your minor premise based upon inferences and human judgement. For these can widely differ.

If scripture supports your major premise and human judgement and opinion support your minor premise, which supports your major premise, then your conclusion is not reached by scripture but rather a mixture of scripture and opinion. Now, if your minor premise is established by undeniable fact then your conclusion is a scriptural one because your major premise is based upon scripture. But so far you have not supported your minor premise by undeniable facts. You have only inferred from the fact that smoking is harmful to your health that one who smokes is intending to kill himself and is therefore guilty of the sin of murder every time he smokes. And that inference is not a necessary one at all.

I would have much preferred that we show from the scriptures that you major premise is true and that we also proved from scripture that your minor premise is true. Then we would know beyond doubt that the conclusion reached is a scriptural and true conclusion. This would be the most certain ground we could reach on any subject. But it is also true that if our major premise is scriptural and our minor premise is proven by facts beyond reasonable doubt then our conclusion would also be scriptural and true. But what I have seen thus far is a scriptural major premise and an unsupported minor premise and therefore cannot accept the conclusion. For your minor premise is not supported by scripture as you have admitted in your last post and neither is it supported by the facts that you have presented thus far. And there is no scientific evidence that can establish the intention of the hearts of those who do things that are detrimental to their health. Murder is an intentional act designed to take the life of another. I understand how we are applying it in this argument that one who harms his own health is actually killing himself. But not every case of killing is murder. There is a different element in murder that is not a part of the word kill. I may accidentally kill someone and not be considered a murderer because in order for it to be murder I must have the intent to kill. Before you can show that our smoker friends are deliberately intending to kill themselves you cannot prove that they are guilty of murder every time they smoke a cigarette. So, just because smoking is harmful to your health does not mean that when one smokes he is intending to kill himself. Any more than one who eats foods high in cholesterol or neglects daily exercise or does anything else that is harmful to his health such as driving automobiles that pour pollution into our atmosphere that is detrimental to our health is deliberately trying to kill himself.

The tread of argument which has been presented thus far to establish that smoking is a sin against God has been very weak indeed, has it not?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 04, 2000

Sorry, Lee, I forgot that you did confirm that it is not necessary to prove the minor premise from Scripture.

I cannot prove from science that smoking is "intentional" murder. Might it be negligent homicide?

:)

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2000

Duane:

You have said:

BSorry, Lee, I forgot that you did confirm that it is not necessary to prove the minor premise from Scripture.

I cannot prove from science that smoking is "intentional" murder. Might it be negligent homicide?B

No apology is necessary, Brother Duane. I assumed that you had forgotten my acceptance of your just correction in my logic. I appreciate very much such correction for it is essential if we are to all work together to keep our thinking in harmony with truth.

I agree that science cannot prove that smoking is intentional murder and it may be Bnegligent homicideB but then we would have to change our syllogism to read:

Major Premise: Negligent homicide is a sin

Minor Premise: Smoking is negligent homicide

Conclusion: Therefore smoking is a sin.

I am not sure that we can show from the scriptures that our major premise in the revised syllogism is true, are you? And I am not certain that we can prove that smoking is negligent homicide. But if we were to do so it might be that we would say that anyone knowing that any practice is harmful to his or her health and continues in such practice after receiving that knowledge is guilty of negligent homicide. Smoking is known by most smokers to be harmful to their health and yet they persist in its practice. Therefore they are guilty of negligent homicide. But the man who eats foods high in cholesterol after learning that such will kill him is also guilty of negligent homicide and so is the man who deliberately neglects to have a regular exercise program. And certainly we would all be guilty of negligent homicide knowing as we do that our automobiles are pouring deadly toxins into our atmosphere which are going to not only kill ourselves but has great potential to threaten all life on this planet. SO if this is our argument and it is valid and true then let us condemn everything that fits the syllogism. Why must we be bold to speak against one deadly habit and fearful of speaking against those that we ourselves might be guilty of committing. God will judge us all. And we must all obey him in all things and be ready to meet Him at the judgement and prepared top give an account of the things done in the body whether it be good or bad. And we must not forget that we have an advocate with the father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John 1:6-2:6).

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2000

One thing I can say is true: Smoking may or may not be a sin (and I think it is), but smoking around other people probably is a sin regardless. Let me elaborate. When I smoke (I do not, I am just making an example), I damage my own body. When I smoke around others, however, I am inflicting damage on their body via my second-hand smoke. They may also have allergies or asthma which I am unaware of and I may be endangering their immediate health. And I am rudely making them carry the offensive odor on their clothing at the very least. I am also giving the impression to others that it is a habit that is ok to pick up. Paul wrote that we should do nothing that might cause our brother to stumble. When I speak to a Mormon, I do not ask them for out for coffee! That would just be plain rude, not to mention blow my witness. In the same way, smoking can blow our witness to those whom it offends. (Perhaps it wouldn't offend someone who grew tobacco in Virginia. But would not smoking offend them? Of course not!) The cross is an offense enough without our going out of our way to offend in other ways. That's what being "harmless as doves" means.

-- Anonymous, November 05, 2000

Danny,

You have said, "I love the fact that you said I do not seem to have the traditional view of govt. that Lee does. I take that as a compliment. " I didn't mean it as a compliment or as NOT a compliment... just as how I see it. (However, I have 'talked' with you enough here to konw that you would take any indication that you are a 'radical' as a compliment.) I would still like an answer from you (and/or Lee) on how your views concerning 'disobeying the established government' differ?? How do you interpret the scriptures differently to arrive at your different conclusions??

Lastly you have said, "There Robin...I answered at least one of your question....now answer mine.

Were the patriots of the Revolutionary War wrong for rebelling against Britain in light of your...."traditional" govt. view?? " I'm not sure... didn't they feel, at least in part, that their 'religious freedom' was threatened? Isn't that somewhat different than feeling that your 'right to smoke' is threatened?

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2000

Brother Robin:

You have asked of Brother Danny the following:

BNow, it seems I asked you a direct question: "Where exactly do you and Lee disagree here? "... which you have conveniently ignored.... Boy, is THAT familiar. I respect your insight on scripture... and I respect Lee's. He seems to have a more 'traditional' (from my point of view) take on submitting to government authority than you do. I would sincerely like to know how your two views differ SCRIPTURALLY.B

Brother Robin, if I disagree with someone I will express that disagreement, if I deem it important and if I have the time and opportunity to do so. I am not sure that Danny and I disagree about submitting to government authority. I am only concerned that we agree with what the scriptures say about such submission. WE are to obey the laws of the government, including paying taxes, unless the government ask or demands that we do something that violates the laws of God. The government has no God given right to order me under any circumstances to disobey God. I have quoted the scripture Bwe must obey God rather than menB (Acts 5:29). When the laws of the government run contrary to the laws of God I must obey God. But unless they run counter to GodBs law I must obey the government because in doing so I am obeying the command of God given in Romans 13 to be in subject to the powers that be for they are ordained of God. I am not concerned whether this view is BtraditionalB or not. I am concerned that it is in harmony with the will of God. For if it is then it is according to the Btraditions that we receivedB from the Holy Spirit speaking through the apostles in the word of God and thus we would be Bcontinuing steadfastly in the apostles doctrineB (acts 2:42). If this is the case then I am standing exactly where every Christian should firmly stand.

I must also confess to you that I cannot even begin to comprehend how any two Christians can disagree BSCRIPTURALLYB. If I read my Bible correctly the scriptures forbid us to disagree. BI beseech ye therefore brethren that ye all speak the same thing and that there be no divisions among you but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgement.B (1 Cor. 1:10). The degree to which we disagree with each other is a degree to which either one or both parties are in disagreement with the scriptures but there is no such thing as a Bscriptural disagreementB. For all of our disagreements are contrary to the will of God and if we all followed the word of God without adding to or taking away from it we would all be of one heart and one soul and we would speak the same thing. Now, our disagreements are caused by either one or both parties to a disagreement failing to yeild to the teaching of God's word. FOr if we all followwed the truth we would not be in disagreement, now would we? There is only one Christ and He is walking in one direction. He is the way the truth and the life (John 14:6). If we were all following Him in His way and walking as he walked we would all be walking together. Can two walk together except they agree? The obvious answer to the prophet AmosB rhetorical question is no. WE can only talk together if we disagree but we cannot walk together unless we are in harmony. WE cannot all walk with Christ unless we all agree with Him in all that He says. We can study Christ and learn of and about Him but we cannot walk with Him if we do not agree with Him. WE have his word and we can agree with Him and if we all agree with Christ we will all of necessity agree with each other. This is the reason that the opinions of men should have no place among us. Those we should hold to ourselves and we must not elevate them into laws at all much less laws that claim to have come from God when in fact they are nothing more than the opinions, creeds, and doctrines of men. SO, if Brother Danny and I disagree at all it will not be a BscripturalB disagreement. It will be a disagreement contrary to the teaching of the scripture and we will have to seek diligently to reconcile ourselves and bring both our beliefs and actions into harmony with the mind of Christ revealed by the Holy Spirit in the apostles through their inspired word. But the degree to which we disagree is a degree to which either one or both of us are out of harmony with the mind of Christ revealed in the scriptures.

Now I am not sure that I understand what Danny means when he speaks of a Bscripturally driven conscienceB. I would hope and it appears that he does mean a conscience that has been trained and exercised and is motivated by the spirit of obedience to God even if such obedience requires rebellion against the government. Thus if he means that he will obey the government until the government orders him to disobey the scriptures in which case he will obey God even if he must disobey the government to do so. Then I cannot see any difference between his view and that taught in the scriptures, can you?

But it is unreasonable for you to perceive a difference between his view and mine and then demand that we reconcile that difference when you have no idea that we perceive any such difference ourselves. It seems that it would be better for you to assert and prove that there is a difference between us and then we could deal with your assertions and the evidence that you offer in support of them. But you have been asking Brother Danny to defend or explain a difference between him and myself on this matter that you have not proven exist and we have not sensed it either. How can he or I answer such a question when neither of us have the slightest feeling or indication that we are opposed to one another in this matter in the least?

Now, If you will read you will notice that I answered the question that Duane asked concerning smoking being made illegal. I told every one that I would consider it a sin to disobey that law if it were made because such a law does not violate any scriptures or laws of God. I also made it clear that such a law would not make smoking itself a sin but rather the disobeying of that law would be to sin against GodBs law commanding us to be in subjection to the powers that be (Romans 13).

But the government cannot make smoking a sin against God. They can only make it a crime against the state. So committing a crime against the state is sinful unless the state itself is committing a sin against God. No Christian is required to obey the state and support the state in its sinful acts against God. And I am not persuaded that the state would be committing a sin against God by making smoking illegal and therefore believe firmly that a Christian must be subject to that law or sin against God by refusing to be subject to it. But remember that the sin against God that the Christian who disobeyed anti smoking laws would be guilty of committing would be the sin of disobeying GodBs Law concerning being in subjection to the powers that be. He would not be guilty of the sin of smoking because the scriptures, as far as anyone has thus far shown, do not make smoking a sin.

Now, if Brother Danny and I disagree, it might be in the actual application of the scriptures that teach us to be subject to the powers that be. But I do not see that we differ in the least concerning the fact that we must be so subject unless such subjection would require us to disobey the word of God.

However, you are claiming some difference between us that you have not shown to actually exist. Therefore it does seem to be a bit unreasonable or unfair for you to expect brother Danny or I to reconcile some contradiction between us that we do not even perceive exist, now is it? If you are convinced of such then maybe you can at least understand the reason you have not received an answer is because you have not sufficiently established an actual difference between us in this matter. Therefore, if you really want to get such an answer maybe it would be helpful if you would explain why you are convinced that we do in fact disagree. Do you agree that such might be helpful? I hope so because I honestly cannot tell that he and I have a disagreement about this matter.

I know that you are not just trying to Bsow discord among brethrenB. I am convinced that you perceive a difference between us that I am unable to see. So, if you can help me understand what you are talking about I may be able to give some response that is useful rather than assuming that Brother Danny holds a view contrary to the word of God which he has never affirmed or asserted in any way. For such behavior would be unjust toward Brother Danny and unreasonable and sinful of me.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2000

Well, hey, I'll take a stab at that one.

Not that finding you (Lee) and Danny in disagreement is some big accomplishment or anything. "In non-essentials, liberty..."

Anyway, as I understand it, If smoking were made illegal, according to Lee, it would then be a sin, not in and of itself, but because we must obey our government without waver in areas not concerning God's laws.

But I think Danny (and I) would say that if smoking were made illegal, it would still NOT be sin to smoke, because the government has no right to tell me that I cannot smoke, Scriptural irrelevence nothwithstanding.

I would call that a disagreement, assuming I have understood both of your positions correctly.

I also realize that the position of civil disobedience is precarious.

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2000

Duane,

Thanks... that is the disagreement that I was speaking of.

Lee, you have said, "No Christian is required to obey the state and support the state in its sinful acts against God. And I am not persuaded that the state would be committing a sin against God by making smoking illegal and therefore believe firmly that a Christian must be subject to that law or sin against God by refusing to be subject to it." This is, from what I can see Danny saying, where he and you would differ... and I am trying to get you both to indicate to me how you interpret the scriptures differently (what I meant by 'scriptural disagreement') to arrive at your differing views.

You further say, "WE are to obey the laws of the government, including paying taxes, unless the government ask or demands that we do something that violates the laws of God." From what I can tell, Danny would say something like this, "We are to obey the laws of the government, including paying taxes, unless the government asks or demands that we NOT DO something not strictly forbidden in the Word (ie., smoke) or asks or demands that we DO something not required by the Word (ie., wear a seat-belt, or cycle helmet)."

Thanks for your input.

-- Anonymous, November 06, 2000

Danny,

(Our last two messages must have passed in Cyberspace.... I'll try to respond to your last one later... but am heading 'out of touch' for 3 days.....)

Earlier you said, "You are right Robin....at least "in part".....but it in no way does it even come close to the whole part.

Evidence?? Need I mention...."The Boston Tea Party?" "

So..., you support, as right, the destruction of other's property, up to and including rebellion against governing authority over the issue of taxation? Scripture? "No Taxation... Without Representation!!"??.... Oops... Not a Biblical quote! :-)

Isn't it possible that the 'part' concerning religious freedom was right... and that the other 'part' of their motiviation was, indeed, wrong?

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Danny,

You have said, "BTW Robin....you may want to rephrase the question to "a person's right to smoke".....as opposed to "your right to smoke." Just because I support people's freedom to smoke.....does not mean I smoke, nor do I encourage it. "

I never indicated that you smoked or encouraged it. In fact, the 'your' was not even a specific 'your'... but a non-specific reference (such as, "the building is on your left") But this doesn't even matter because... I said, "your right to smoke"... not "your smoking habit".... You do seem to claim a 'right to smoke' (whether you invoke it or not).

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Danny,

On the contrary... to vote IS the way to take action!! Not to rebel against the government that has been established By People Voting!!!!!!!!

-- Anonymous, November 07, 2000

Brother Robin:

I must apologize to you for it does appear from what both Brother Duane and Brother Danny has said that there is in fact a difference between Brother Danny and myself that I had not noticed or perceived until they explained their positions more clearly. I do not mean to imply that they were not clear but rather that it was not clear to me. I appreciate your good insight and excellent perception. I stand corrected and I thank you for it.

Brother Duane:

I appreciate your BstabB at clarifying what is the difference between Brother Danny and myself on the subject of the Christians obedience to the government with your following words:

BAnyway, as I understand it, If smoking were made illegal, according to Lee, it would then be a sin, not in and of itself, but because we must obey our government without waver in areas not concerning God's laws.

But I think Danny (and I) would say that if smoking were made illegal, it would still NOT be sin to smoke, because the government has no right to tell me that I cannot smoke, Scriptural irrelevence nothwithstanding.B

While I admit this difference between us, I am not sure that the difference would really exist in actual practice because of my knowledge of DannyBs excellent Christian Character and great faith in God. I cannot see that Danny would in fact actually rebel or resist the government in any practical way if they made smoking illegal. I can only see that he still would not speak of it as a sin. Though I, on the other hand, would consider disobeying the government by breaking their laws against smoking a sin, I would still agree with Brother Danny that smoking in and of itself has not been shown from the word of God to be sinful.

Now, we are not talking in this thread about the ChristianBs relationship to earthly government and therefore recommend that if we are to discuss this issue let us take it up in another thread. Because the issue of the ChristianBs relationship to the government does not in any practical way have any bearing upon whether smoking is in and of itself a sin against any of GodBs laws.

Brother Danny:

It does appear that we differ slightly about this subject of the ChristianBs relationship and responsibility to be obedient to the government but I hope that you will agree that in practice we would not really differ much at all. For I cannot actually see you rebelling against our government unless they were compelling us to disobey GodBs law. Thus I do not see our difference as being in practice significant. Now, I could be wrong but this is how it appears to me at the moment. Even you have said:

BTo my reading so far.....I'm not sure that Lee and I are that far apart (especially if you have read in the past some of Lee's views concerning abortion....and the Second Amendment).B

And it is my view that you have correctly read my past comments concerning the second amendment and abortion. These are two subjects upon which you and I both agree. Even though I am not prepared to engage in Bcivil disobedienceB to correct either of these two problems as they currently exist. I will keep my guns for they have not been outlawed and I will vote for people who will not ignore the second amendment to the constitution and I will obey the laws that are written. But if the people of this country were to amend the constitution to revoke the right to bear arms I would lay mine down and willingly give them up. But I would not support any effort to amend the constitution in this way.

And I will not support abortion at all. If abortion became a requirement and all were being forced to participate in the taking of innocent life I would resist with all of my being including deliberate and defiant disobedience for this is without question a violation of GodBs law. But in our current situation I will not go out to kill abortion doctors, nor do I believe Brother Danny would either, for that would be a sin. Nor will I disobey any laws regarding the distance a protester is to remain from an abortion clinic etc. I do not believe that Christians should have any part in civil unrest or rebellion but only that they are to obey God in all things even if they must disobey the government to do so. But this is very different than rebellion and overthrow of the government. And my comment concerning this matter contemplates the Brevolutionary warB against England, which established the United States. For I am a Christian. Jesus said concerning fighting for earthly kingdoms, BMy kingdom is not of this world if it were then my servants would fightB. BWE wrestle not against flesh and bloodBB WE are a kingdom of priest not a kingdom of politicians. We are spiritual soldiers in a battle against spiritual wickedness in high places and we are therefore not soldiers of rebellion against established authority. We are to seek and save that which is lost. We are not to get lost ourselves in seeking temporary social changes that benefit only this short vaporous life that we live on this earth.

I am convinced from the scriptures that we must obey the laws of the land until they conflict with GodBs law and then we must refuse to obey and we must refuse in a respectable and honorable manner giving God glory in all that we do.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 08, 2000

Danny,

As strange as it may sound, I have to concur with your last post. As a matter of practicality, I have to consider myself a citizen of 2 different realms. First & foremost and by the grace of God, I'm a citizen of Heaven. But also by the grace and providence of God, I'm also a citizen of the USA.

I would never wish to intentionally jeopardize my status as a citizen of Heaven, nor do I tolerate the attempts of others (Satan & his minions) to jeopardize that citizenship. Likewise, I would not wish to jeopardize my US citizenship (by becoming a Felon,etc), but also I should not have to tolerate others who wish to jeopardize said citizenship by making me a felon because I choose to exercise my Constitutional rights as a citizen.

So how do I resolve the conflict between obeying gov't as Scripture says and civil disobedience? Interesting enough, Scripture provides an answer. God has, on mulitple occassions, allowed His laws to be superseeded when human life was at stake. I Sam. chapter 21 contains the account of David and his men eating the consecrated shew bread. The bread, according to the Law, was only to be consumed by the priests, but because David & his men were running for their lives and were weak from hunger they were allowed to eat it WITHOUT any penalty from God. In fact, Jesus approved of David's actions as He quoted this account to the Pharisees in Matt. Chapter 12. And also in I Sam. 21 David pretends to be insane (commonly known as lying) so as to seek refuge with the Philistines - this also was done in order to save his life and was never condemned in Scripture.

So obviously. there is a law for preserving life that overrides the "legal" law. Abortion obviously violates this law. Gun control violates this law because it prevents our ability to protect our lives against evil doers, plus it can, in some circumstances, prevent us from providing food for our families. This law also can come into play in many other areas of politics. The politicians always promise to do things that would "improve" our lives - but since the Abortionists do not even understand what Life is, how can we expect them to do anything BUT threaten Life as we know it?

With all this in mind, I am not conflicted about my rights of citizenship - in both realms.

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2000

Brother Danny:

I am persuaded that a detailed discussion of the Christian and his responsibility to earthly government is a discussion that would take us away from the subject of this particular thread concerning the subject of whether smoking is a sin. Smoking is not currently against the law. Therefore it is indeed a moot point to make that its being against the law would make it a sin. I believe that both of us have sufficiently put that notion to rest. However, if we are to continue our discussion of the Christian and the government I recommend that we take it up in a thread dedicated to that subject. What do you think?

Nevertheless, I will respond to your last post to me about this subject because your comments are in this thread but afterward I will respond in a new thread with this as a subject heading and we can all give fair and objective consideration of this subject there.

You have correctly question my consistency on this matter as follows:

BLee..... I believe you were in the military, were you not?? Then how do you harmonize being in the military with the statement....."this is different than overthrowing the govt.??" Has not our govt. using its military power been involved in the destruction and overthrowing of govt. throughout history?? What does this say about the soldiers who were involved in that conflict??B

You are very right to ask this question for it does indeed involve me in what appears to be a clear conflict between my belief and my practice. Yes, I did serve in the military and in combat. And I initially did so long before having much chance to give sufficient thought to this subject in particular. I served for a long period of time and during that time I began to think about the things that my government was sending me out to do. I can tell you that it was not always simply a matter of defending our freedoms and not everyone who died at our hands were guilty of any crimes against humanity nor positioned to present a Bclear and present dangerB to the United States and our freedoms. Military duty is a serious business especially if you are called into severe combat situations. Things happen that in those circumstances would cause any faithful Christian to seriously question whether he should be there at all.

One of those very questions is what right do we have to overthrow any government, especially if that government is no threat to us? Another is even if our government wants to overthrow another Government what right does a Christian have to be involved in such an overthrow.

There are numerous personal reasons I could give for my rejection of the idea that Christians should be involved in the things that I was involved in for so many years but they are not what we should consider in such matters. The only thing that should rule our hearts in these things is what does the word of God say about them?

As to your question concerning what does the fact that our government has been involved in overthrowing other governments throughout its history have to say about those who were involved in such conflict I believe is a good one. I also believe that I have some right to speak about it since I am one of those who has been involved in such activity. However, the question should not be what does this history say about us but rather what does God say about us? Therefore I will simply say this concerning historyBs view of us. I would hope that historians would recognize that we were honorable men fighting hard for what we firmly believed in and that no good soldier or sailor is to be seen as dishonorable because of the terrible task they have been called upon to do. I speak of honorable soldiers and sailors of all nations whether they accept the American way of life or not. These men faithfully do what they perceive it is their duty to do. They are obedient and completely dedicated to the service of their countrymen and should be respected for such devotion to duty. But this does not mean that they are always right in accurately determining what it is their duty to do. For a good soldier is just as duty bound and honorable if he serves a dictator as he is if he serves a democracy like America. Though my opinion of those military men is a good one and I hold them all in high regard it is not this that we should use to decide what is their duty if they are Christians. Their duty as Christians is to serve God and obey Him and I believe that there are many conflicts between the law of God and blind obedience to government and patriotic zeal for a particular country or cause that may blind us to our duty and responsibility before God. Often the two are diametrically opposed.

This is all I can or will say about that matter until we discuss what the scriptures have to say about this subject.

But as to how I harmonize being in the military with the statement....."this is different than overthrowing the govt.?

I do not harmonize it at all. In fact, my contention is that serving in the military, especially in the capacity in which I served, cannot be harmonized with Christian faith according to the word of God. So my answer to that question is that there is no harmony. It would be like asking a man who spend much of his life in sectarian error and had been converted when he spoke the truth concerning baptism just how he could harmonize his statements with his former life. It would sound like this: BMr. Former Sectarian you once served as a minister in a sect that taught salvation by faith only did you not? How do you harmonize your quotation of the words of Jesus, BHe that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:B with your former teaching? And what does this say about those who lived and died teaching the things that you taught?B

His answer would be the same as mine to you, wouldnBt it? He would no doubt say that his quotation of the scriptural truth concerning baptism did not harmonize in the least with his former life, now wouldnBt he? He would point out that those who were believed and died teaching such a doctrine were sincere men who never knew they were in error, now wouldnBt he? This is what I am saying to you. The Christian faith as delivered to us in the scriptures does not harmonize with my former life as a military officer. And I would hope that faithful Christians would at least give diligent, prayerful, and serious consideration to this fact before they are drawn into bloody conflicts around the world, which diverts them from their service to the Prince of Peace. Yes, I served my country faithfully but I am not convinced that I served our Lord faithfully in rendering to Caesar that which belonged solely to God.

Then you quote my words with the following comment:

BBy the way.....when you said...."if the people amend the Constitution to take away our right to bear arms you would lay your arms down."

BI would not. For your see....such amendment would be a violation of the principles set forth by our founding fathers. They gave us rights (based on the fact that God gave us rights)....and govt. does not have the privilege of taking those rights away. In essence, then, God is a just God...and I do not believe he would want me to support the injustice of a govt. that violates its own constitutional laws and privileges. (The problem in America today is most people do not have the faintest idea of Constitutional Law and the principles that were the driving force in its writing.)B

Now, I do hope that you will consider the possibility that you are not exactly correct in saying that an amendment to the constitution to take away the right to bear arms would violate the principles set forth by the founding fathers. We are not living, in this country by the principles set forth by our founding fathers, outside of those, which they incorporated and set forth in the constitution itself. WE are living by a constitution set forth by them. And the constitution allows for a process whereby our constitution can be amended. Following this process we have amendments like the second amendment. Thus such an amendment to the constitution was not only allowed by our founding fathers it was guaranteed by the very constitution that they wrote. WE, the people have a right to amend our constitution even if such amendment were to be a violation of the principles set forth by our founding fathers outside of the constitution.

But if you are talking about the principles set forth in the constitution itself such an amendment is in accordance with the principles set forth in the constitution. We are not told in the constitution that we can only amend it if we ensure that any proposed amendment must been seen to agree with the principles set forth in the constitution as it is currently written. If that were the case there could never be an amendment to the constitution and we would not now have the second amendment that both you and I deem to be of such importance, now would we?

Then you say:

BWhile I certainly do not condone violence on abortion clinics, including killing doctors, I have recently been rethinking my position on the matter of civil disobedience especially in light of the verse in Proverbs that states..."Rescue those who are being led away to slaughter."

I sincerely hope that I have misunderstood this statement from you. I have not implied in any way that you condone killing abortion doctors and I hope that you would also join with me in condemning those who do such things. For they have surely violated God's law against murder and they have without doubt sinned against God when they killed these men.

I was living in Birmingham when the abortion Clinic was bombed. A Police officer was killed and a nurse was severely wounded in that bombing. I want to tell you that the police officer that was killed was opposed to abortion! I know because he was a member of the Church of Christ where I worshipped. This man gave his life protecting a nurse that was working daily in the clinic. And the verse that you have quoted does not justify murder to rescue those who are being lead to slaughter. In fact, that verse has absolutely no application to abortion whatsoever in it's context. And the radical anti-abortionist who is prepared to kill to stop the killing most certainly cannot use it. This behavior is more like that of zealots than Christians.

And the verse that you quoted has no application to the subject of civil disobedience at all. In fact, the only passage that justifies anything like disobedience to the government is in Acts 5:29, which says, Bwe must obey God rather than manB. But you cannot find one single verse of scripture that justifies civil disobedience on any other grounds than when there is a conflict between GodBs word and ordinance of man. In fact, if we are to discuss this issue we must be clear in defining just what we mean by civil disobedience and the difference between it and open rebellion. There is a big difference between passive disobedience and active revolt and we need to be sure that we discuss them both.

Then you say:

BIf it were not for civil disobedience.....blacks would still be sitting in the back of the bus.B

I am not sure that this is true. I do not necessarily think that Civil disobedience was the determining factor. But even if it were it would not prove that GodBs word allows a Christian to be involved in such action. And let us understand that we as Christians are not here to decide who sits in the back of the bus. We are here to teach the gospel to every man. And if the gospel had been taught to every man and all became subjects of the King of Kings in obedience to the gospel then the African Americans would have been allowed to sit wherever they wanted long before they were forced into civil disobedience of the civil rights movement. Could it be that the African Americans had to resort to civil disobedience because we had failed as Christians to preach the gospel and be obedient to the word of God ourselves? It is indeed a pathetic situation when Christians are more apt to join in actions of civil disobedience and political protest than in a vigorous effort to plead with their neighbors to come to Christ. But if they did aggressively preach the gospel they could eliminate the need for political action at all. Christians are a "Kingdom" of priest and not politicians. And they certainly are not anarchists.

Then you say:

BI have a genuine distrust for govt. I believe our founding fathers intened it to be that way.B

I understand your feeling but we must not forget that our government was ordained of God and we must obey God concerning our actions and attitudes toward it. (Romans 13). I am not concerned about what our founding fathers intended when they established our form of government but rather what did God intend when he ordained all the governments of the earth.

Then you say:

B (I'm not including you in this next statement....but rather a treatise on the American people).....i.e., most people depend FAR too much on govt. And when you dance with the devil.....eventually....you have to pay....and in recent years...that means the sacrificing of rights.B

I appreciate your not including me in this statement for I do not depend on the government for much more than a road to drive to work. Yes, Americans depend far too much upon government and they would be better off if they did not do such a thing. And the Christian should not depend upon any one or anything but God. The arm of flesh will fail you! But God will never leave you nor forsake you. WE can trust God. And this is the very reason that I contend that patriotism is opposed to Christianity. Let us not Bdance with the devilB by being active patriots and zealots for any Kingdom other than the Kingdom of God. Let us sacrifice our lives in preaching the gospel rather than fighting and dying on the battlefields of this world for some inferior causes.

Then you say:

BLee....I believe this to be a matter of conscience. I'm not sure this can be resolved Scripturally. Scripture is not a treatise on every facet of our life. If govt. would stick to its only God ordained purpose as outlined in Romans 13....we would have less of a difference.B

I believe that we have all that is needed to live godly lives in the scriptures because God has granted to us, Ball things that pertain unto life and Godliness through the knowledge of Him that has called us to glory and virtue.B (2 Peter 1:3). And there is no doubt that the scriptures cover this subject quite thoroughly.

Then you propose that we must make decisions for ourselves about what needs to be done with a government that has overstepped its bounds as follows:

BHowever, since govt. has way overstepped its bounds.....then we as individuals must make our own decisons, seeking God's will for how we react.B

If the government has overstepped its God given bounds then God will deal with that matter. But where does God authorize you to correct the government that He ordained by civil disobedience or any form of force? And if we are Bseeking GodBs will for how we should react as you have suggested we must find it in GodBs word. For there is no other way to determine GodBs will for anything including how we are to BreactB or even if we are to BreactB at all except by going to His word.

Then you express the same concerns that I have as follows:

BI do not choose for my children or grandchildren to life under a dictorship.B

I do not either, Brother Danny, and in fact this is one of the very reasons that I fought in the wars and conflicts in which I was involved. I believed that I was fighting to make sure that not only my grand children but yours as well might never have to live under a dictatorship. But I honestly believe that you have accomplished far more by preaching the blessed gospel of Christ to protect them from tyranny than I have by fighting bloody battles with men who thought that they were also guaranteeing a better way of life for their grandchildren.

Then you say:

BTherefore, I will do everything in my power to keep that from happening so that they can worship and serve God according to their understanding of Scripture....and not according to the dictates of govt.B

My recommendation brother Danny is that you just keep on doing what you have been doing. Preach the blessed gospel of Christ and bring as many people to him as you can. For then they will live in the Kingdom of God where Christ dictates over us as Lord and Master of our lives.

Let us not work for a materialistic free society that is free to even rebel against God but rather seek to bring all men to bow down to Christ as King! Let us have more passion for Christ and less patriotism for any form of government or rule of man over his fellowmen. I prefer Christ as King to any form of Government especially a democracy. Americans can become Christians but Christ will never be an American. Christianity is for the entire world not just for the democracies of the world.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 09, 2000

Brother Lee....

Thank you for your gentlemen's response. It was greatly appreciated.

It's 6:15 AM....and I'm late getting to my deer hunting stand....but I just had to read it through twice. It was much appreciated.

The appreciation of it is wrapped up in the fact that you appreciate and understand the great personal struggle that many military men and women have and will go through. It's one I went through.

In addition....you have a keen appreciation for the "this world/that world" conflict....and you do not try to give easy answers.

I really have nothing more to say on the subject. You seem to understand and respect my position.

Let me end this discussion with something I often tell my college students when discussing such difficult issues. Here it goes.....

"Every position one chooses to take carries with it a series of questions that must constantly be dealt with. Your decision...is to decide which set of questions....you can live with."

God bless you Lee....and God, please.....bless the U.S.A.

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2000

Brother Danny:

I appreciate your reading my response in the manner in which I sincerely meant it. I am convinced that I do understand and respect your position though I have after much contemplation and struggle come to hold an opposite one.

You are also correct in pointing to the fact that these questions are complex and often difficult and your advice that we understand the "questions we must live with". I would also add that we need to understand the consequences of the position that we take. I pray that those who preach will understand the position that their teaching might put some young Christian who is contemplating answering the call of our government to serve in the military where they may face these difficult questions under circumstances that will bring quick and often sever and certianly unchangeable consequences to their lives and the lives of other young men and women very much like themselves. And worse a serious and severe testing of their faith and consistent practice of it.

I think that shakespear was right when he said, "War is a game, that were there servants wise, kings would not play at."

I thank you very much for your prayers that God would bless me and say a hearty amen to your prayer that He would bless America.

I especially pray that He will cast the deciding vote in our present election and ordain in His wisdom the one who will influence not only the people of this country but also millions of people in countries around the world. And let all faithful Christians be subject to the one He ordains to hold this great position of power and responsibility before Him.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, November 10, 2000

D.L. Moody smoked a pipe and I am sure you have heard of him. You would be suprised on how many people that are Christians and on there way to heaven smoke. Sure it isn't Christ like and have you ever tried to witness and spit tobbaco juice across the ground. Not very Christ like. But before we judge Cig. smoking and or tabacco in general, let us get the mote out of our own eye, Do you really think that we are all sin free, not really, I would sometimes rather have a smoker backing me than a so call Christian backbiter.......THanks

-- Anonymous, March 06, 2001

I believe C.S. Lewis also smoked a pipe.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

Personally, I hate cigarette smoke and have since I was a kid. I wish they would just outlaw it. maybe they could raise the smoking age by one year every year in the US until it gets up around 80 andthen outlaw it completely. Those who smoked illegally could get the same penalty as those who smoke marijuana. But I digress...

I think smoking, to some extent, is a conscience issue. Someone on the 'net the other day said that Spurgeon smoked, but this would have been before they had medical evidence about how dangerous it was. Nicotine doesn't seem to do much in terms of being a drug except get people addicted. (Which is something I don't get. Why do people start taking an addictive drug if they only get relief, and don't even get a buzz or something. It's morally wrong to do crack cocaine to get high, but I can understand why thrill seekers would want the high. Cigarettes give the addiction but no high, cost a lot of money, and don't have any real benefit._

When you think about cigarettes in the context of church discipline, this becomes a serious issue. I Corinthians 5 mentions some types of people that you should not fellowship or eat with. There is also some reference to keeping the Passover in a way that seems to refer to the Lord's supper.

On the other hand, the Corinthians were carrying over their divisions into their celebration fothe supper, which wasn't even the Lrod's supper because they were doing it so wrongly, and not regarding the Lord's body. Paul told them to wait for one another. maybe the people who got their first ate up all the food before the longer- working poor and slaves got there, creating division- they didn't all eat together. If many were sick among them and some slept because of such division at the supper, would we want to refuse to eat with someone over a debatable issue, and bring ourselves under judgement?

Cephas stopped eating with the Gentiles. The church probably regularly ate the Lrod's super. The division caused by not eating with the Gentiles may have involved creating an obvious division at the Lord's supper. No wonder Paul challenged Peter.

So, would you advise breaking fellowship with smokers? If you make the wrong descision, could someone die from wrath on the church over this issue? If you continue to eat with such a person, does leaven leaven the whole lump?

Maybe smoking cigarettes is up there with eating habits. Ther edoes seem to be a double standard. i used to have a friend who said he was sick of seeing fat preachers preach against drinking alcohol, when scripture deals with alcohol abuse and gluttony in some of the same passages.

One preacher pointed out that if someone died of a heart attack, you don't hear people saying the same thigns they say about a drunk. "That man ate himself to death. He was too lazy to do a little exercise. And because he abused his body, now his wife and kids are left penniless. What a pity."

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001

Another man of God who smoked cigarettes was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

FYI. :)

-- Anonymous, March 12, 2001

June 1st 2001 Very interesting comments. My own thoughts on the matter wwould lead me to believe that smoking is a sin...however I have doubts in the following: 1.Supposing one smokes in moderation ( whatever moderation might be ?) would that be the same as having one or two cups of coffee, one/two bars of chocolate etc per day ?? Is there a safe and non-sin level? 2. What about the idea of giving scandal by smoking in public? I have seen young 14/15 year olds in my church group smoking in a public restaurant during a Retreat Day. I was shocked at such blatant ??? I'm not quite sure how to describe it..at some level it could be my conservatism being pressed or was it some judgement on young people's behaviour...'oh, when I was their age you wouldn't dare smoke in public'...(we did it in secret !) 3. Did those young smokers give scandal to others in the restaurant, especially as they might have been identified as a church group on retreat? ( some of the adults were smoking as well !) 4. What about the waste of monies spent on trying to deal with smoking self-induced cancers etc in Governmanets health budgets (likewise for those who abuse their bodies in other ways).Wouldn't the momies be better spent on education, housing etc etc ?Is this not robbing the poor and the needy? 5. In some African countries farmers are compelled to grow cash crops such as tobacco instead of growing food for themselves. 6.If one agrees to allow smokers to smoke 'outside' the Church hall, is one contributing to their sin ? If the person was addicted to other substances, would one give them facilities to cary on with their addictions? 7. I know of at least 3 women who lost babies during pregnancy in my extended community. All 3 were heavy smokers.I can't prove that the smoking caused the unborn babies to die, but it certainly couldn't have helped their growth in the womb.Is this not anti-life ? 8. I also have seen my brothers and sisters in Christ rush out the dooor to smoke after a service instead of waiting to share a cup of tea and chat and staying in the Spirit. Surely these are false idols? 9. I have spoken up about these issues and have generally been greeted with hoots of derision and complaints that it is I who has the problem ie no tolerance, no acceptance for the weak,being bourgeoise etc etc Any answers, gratefully received ! God Bless

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2001