Smokers need not apply...

[Elijah John]

(Luke 5.31)

And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are in health have no need of a physician; but they that are sick.

One of our Jehovah's Witnesses said that smokers cannot be baptized and become members of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Even, apparently, smokers who want to quit. They have to have already kicked the habit.

Seems this criteria could be extended to ALL who are struggling with their bad habits.

For debate:

In light of Luke 5.31, how Christian is this exclusionary attitude and requirement?

Should Christian groups welcome of exclude those who are still struggling with their bad habits?

[catnip]

[Replying to post 24 by 2timothy316]

If you don't mind my asking. Now, I have smoked a pipe everyday, and I mean everyday, since I have been 16. I am now going on 70. I am in reasonable good health for a guy my age. Now if as you say smoking is so dangerous and kills so many people, how did I manage to last this long and stay healthy? I have a sneaking suspicion you may be gong more on media hype here than fact, which, when it comes to drugs, are hard to come by because one is swimming, literally swimming, in a chaotic sea of conflicting, often arbitrary claims from the medical profession, pot being but one prime example. As Hyman Rothman once said, "Doctors, what do they know?"

My brother in law's grandfather died at 77 from lung cancer from smoking a pipe. Diagnosed at age 75. If we are going by what happens to people as you seem to base your logic by. You have 7 years to live.

It is very uncommon for pipe smokers to get and die of lung cancer because they don't inhale. Most lung cancer is associated with cigarette smoking for the very reason that it is inhaled. And oddly enough there are those who have been heavy cigarette smokers all their lives--even into their 80s that don't get lung cancer either. But then smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer, a fact that many tend to overlook.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 24 by 2timothy316]

If you don't mind my asking. Now, I have smoked a pipe everyday, and I mean everyday, since I have been 16. I am now going on 70. I am in reasonable good health for a guy my age. Now if as you say smoking is so dangerous and kills so many people, how did I manage to last this long and stay healthy? I have a sneaking suspicion you may be gong more on media hype here than fact, which, when it comes to drugs, are hard to come by because one is swimming, literally swimming, in a chaotic sea of conflicting, often arbitrary claims from the medical profession, pot being but one prime example. As Hyman Rothman once said, "Doctors, what do they know?"

My brother in law's grandfather died at 77 from lung cancer from smoking a pipe. Diagnosed at age 75. If we are going by what happens to people as you seem to base your logic by. You have 7 years to live.

It is very uncommon for pipe smokers to get and die of lung cancer because they don't inhale. Most lung cancer is associated with cigarette smoking for the very reason that it is inhaled. And oddly enough there are those who have been heavy cigarette smokers all their lives--even into their 80s that don't get lung cancer either. But then smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer, a fact that many tend to overlook.

Barbara Campling, MD, Medical Oncologist, responds:

For some reason, pipe smoking is perceived as being less dangerous than cigarette smoking. This is not the case. It is true that the majority of cases of lung cancer are attributable to cigarette smoking. It is also true that cigarette smoking is far more prevalent than pipe smoking. It has been difficult to estimate the risk of lung cancer attributable to pipe smoking alone, since many pipe smokers also smoke cigarettes. The most comprehensive study of which I am aware estimated that pipe smokers have about an 8-fold increased risk of getting lung cancer compared to non smokers (reference 1). This compares to about a 15-fold increased risk of lung cancer in cigarette smokers. However, this risk of pipe smoking may be an underestimate, since the amount of tobacco smoked was not quantitated, and pipe smokers tend to smoke less tobacco than cigarette smokers. My opinion is that pipe smoking is every bit as dangerous as cigarette smoking.

0% chances of dying from tobacco use vs 8 or 15 times increased risk? Which one does one choose? It's like asking which cliff do you prefer to jump off of. On that is really high and has a good chance of killing you. Or one is not quite as high and only slightly better chances of surviving without serious harm or death.

According to the Bible, the 0% chance is the correct way to live life. “let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.� (2 Corinthians 7:1)

There is also the chance of other person looking at another that smokes and decided that if it ok for them to smoke as well. If that person starts smoking, gets cancer and dies because someone told them it's ok to smoke then the Bible has a principle about that as well. It's called bloodguilt. Which is the unlawful killing of an innocent person even if it is by misleading them to do something dangerous. It's the equivalent of watching a person grab poison and allowing them to drink it and doing nothing to warn them of the dangers. What's worse, the bloodguilty person encourages them to drink it by drinking it themselves.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 24 by 2timothy316]

If you don't mind my asking. Now, I have smoked a pipe everyday, and I mean everyday, since I have been 16. I am now going on 70. I am in reasonable good health for a guy my age. Now if as you say smoking is so dangerous and kills so many people, how did I manage to last this long and stay healthy? I have a sneaking suspicion you may be gong more on media hype here than fact, which, when it comes to drugs, are hard to come by because one is swimming, literally swimming, in a chaotic sea of conflicting, often arbitrary claims from the medical profession, pot being but one prime example. As Hyman Rothman once said, "Doctors, what do they know?"

My brother in law's grandfather died at 77 from lung cancer from smoking a pipe. Diagnosed at age 75. If we are going by what happens to people as you seem to base your logic by. You have 7 years to live.

It is very uncommon for pipe smokers to get and die of lung cancer because they don't inhale. Most lung cancer is associated with cigarette smoking for the very reason that it is inhaled. And oddly enough there are those who have been heavy cigarette smokers all their lives--even into their 80s that don't get lung cancer either. But then smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer, a fact that many tend to overlook.

Barbara Campling, MD, Medical Oncologist, responds:

For some reason, pipe smoking is perceived as being less dangerous than cigarette smoking. This is not the case. It is true that the majority of cases of lung cancer are attributable to cigarette smoking. It is also true that cigarette smoking is far more prevalent than pipe smoking. It has been difficult to estimate the risk of lung cancer attributable to pipe smoking alone, since many pipe smokers also smoke cigarettes. The most comprehensive study of which I am aware estimated that pipe smokers have about an 8-fold increased risk of getting lung cancer compared to non smokers (reference 1). This compares to about a 15-fold increased risk of lung cancer in cigarette smokers. However, this risk of pipe smoking may be an underestimate, since the amount of tobacco smoked was not quantitated, and pipe smokers tend to smoke less tobacco than cigarette smokers. My opinion is that pipe smoking is every bit as dangerous as cigarette smoking.

0% chances of dying from tobacco use vs 8 or 15 times increased risk? Which one does one choose? It's like asking which cliff do you prefer to jump off of. On that is really high and has a good chance of killing you. Or one is not quite as high and only slightly better chances of surviving without serious harm or death.

According to the Bible, the 0% chance is the correct way to live life. “let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.� (2 Corinthians 7:1)

There is also the chance of other person looking at another that smokes and decided that if it ok for them to smoke as well. If that person starts smoking, gets cancer and dies because someone told them it's ok to smoke then the Bible has a principle about that as well. It's called bloodguilt. Which is the unlawful killing of an innocent person even if it is by misleading them to do something dangerous. It's the equivalent of watching a person grab poison and allowing them to drink it and doing nothing to warn them of the dangers. What's worse, the bloodguilty person encourages them to drink it by drinking it themselves.

To begin: Nobody has said that any kind of smoking is to be recommended.

But looking at this from a more logical perspective (and sure we can find scientist with various prejudices if we look hard enough), minimizing risk is important because some smokers can't quit. If I were to try to help a heavy smoker, recommending giving up cigarettes for pipes might be helpful. I would say the same thing for e-cigarettes (vaporizers).

Here is better research from the UK: www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_118.pdf


"The difference in risk to a cigar smoker’s health, as compared with a cigarette smoker’s health,
is largely due to the differences in smoking patterns of the two groups. In the classic studies of
smoking, such as those by Doll and Peto, the overall risk of premature death was raised some
70% in cigarette smokers compared with non-smokers. In comparison, the risk for pipe and
cigar smokers was only up to 10% higher than non-smokers"

HUGE IMPROVEMENT! Not recommended except to help those already addicted . . .

Seriously, I think self-righteous non-smokers really ought to stay out of the debate for the same reason that the best substance-abuse counselors have been substance-abusers. Unsupportive, negative messages do not help--in fact, quite the opposite. The most entrenched smokers are nervous smokers and, like I said, any improvement is a gain. I would take the odds given pipe smokers over those given cigarette smokers, all things remaining equal. It isn't good, but it isn't as bad. Until we have a perfect world . . .

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 24 by 2timothy316]

If you don't mind my asking. Now, I have smoked a pipe everyday, and I mean everyday, since I have been 16. I am now going on 70. I am in reasonable good health for a guy my age. Now if as you say smoking is so dangerous and kills so many people, how did I manage to last this long and stay healthy? I have a sneaking suspicion you may be gong more on media hype here than fact, which, when it comes to drugs, are hard to come by because one is swimming, literally swimming, in a chaotic sea of conflicting, often arbitrary claims from the medical profession, pot being but one prime example. As Hyman Rothman once said, "Doctors, what do they know?"

My brother in law's grandfather died at 77 from lung cancer from smoking a pipe. Diagnosed at age 75. If we are going by what happens to people as you seem to base your logic by. You have 7 years to live.

It is very uncommon for pipe smokers to get and die of lung cancer because they don't inhale. Most lung cancer is associated with cigarette smoking for the very reason that it is inhaled. And oddly enough there are those who have been heavy cigarette smokers all their lives--even into their 80s that don't get lung cancer either. But then smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer, a fact that many tend to overlook.

Barbara Campling, MD, Medical Oncologist, responds:

For some reason, pipe smoking is perceived as being less dangerous than cigarette smoking. This is not the case. It is true that the majority of cases of lung cancer are attributable to cigarette smoking. It is also true that cigarette smoking is far more prevalent than pipe smoking. It has been difficult to estimate the risk of lung cancer attributable to pipe smoking alone, since many pipe smokers also smoke cigarettes. The most comprehensive study of which I am aware estimated that pipe smokers have about an 8-fold increased risk of getting lung cancer compared to non smokers (reference 1). This compares to about a 15-fold increased risk of lung cancer in cigarette smokers. However, this risk of pipe smoking may be an underestimate, since the amount of tobacco smoked was not quantitated, and pipe smokers tend to smoke less tobacco than cigarette smokers. My opinion is that pipe smoking is every bit as dangerous as cigarette smoking.

0% chances of dying from tobacco use vs 8 or 15 times increased risk? Which one does one choose? It's like asking which cliff do you prefer to jump off of. On that is really high and has a good chance of killing you. Or one is not quite as high and only slightly better chances of surviving without serious harm or death.

According to the Bible, the 0% chance is the correct way to live life. “let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.� (2 Corinthians 7:1)

There is also the chance of other person looking at another that smokes and decided that if it ok for them to smoke as well. If that person starts smoking, gets cancer and dies because someone told them it's ok to smoke then the Bible has a principle about that as well. It's called bloodguilt. Which is the unlawful killing of an innocent person even if it is by misleading them to do something dangerous. It's the equivalent of watching a person grab poison and allowing them to drink it and doing nothing to warn them of the dangers. What's worse, the bloodguilty person encourages them to drink it by drinking it themselves.

To begin: Nobody has said that any kind of smoking is to be recommended.

But looking at this from a more logical perspective (and sure we can find scientist with various prejudices if we look hard enough), minimizing risk is important because some smokers can't quit. If I were to try to help a heavy smoker, recommending giving up cigarettes for pipes might be helpful. I would say the same thing for e-cigarettes (vaporizers).

Here is better research from the UK: www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_118.pdf


"The difference in risk to a cigar smoker’s health, as compared with a cigarette smoker’s health,
is largely due to the differences in smoking patterns of the two groups. In the classic studies of
smoking, such as those by Doll and Peto, the overall risk of premature death was raised some
70% in cigarette smokers compared with non-smokers. In comparison, the risk for pipe and
cigar smokers was only up to 10% higher than non-smokers"

HUGE IMPROVEMENT! Not recommended except to help those already addicted . . .

Seriously, I think self-righteous non-smokers really ought to stay out of the debate for the same reason that the best substance-abuse counselors have been substance-abusers. Unsupportive, negative messages do not help--in fact, quite the opposite. The most entrenched smokers are nervous smokers and, like I said, any improvement is a gain. I would take the odds given pipe smokers over those given cigarette smokers, all things remaining equal. It isn't good, but it isn't as bad. Until we have a perfect world . . .

I used to be a smoker and I am not self-righteous. I know that everything a smoker sees as going against their habit is unsupportive and negative. Believe me I get it. I didn't want people telling me that it was going to kill me and that it was killing people around me with the tar in smoke. I didn't care. I smoked because it made me feel better. I loved it. I looked for justifications for my smoking in research just as you are doing now. Here's the truth. As long as a person keeps smoking they are going to continue to feel others are self-righteous. If a person has any sort of love for themselves and others they are going to feel guilty. That's all there is to it. I wish I had better news or could soften the blow somehow but I can tell you as a person that used to smoke, there is no kind way to say to a smoker, 'you're killing yourself and others that wish to follow you.' I didn't listen to it as I am sure there are smokers reading this rolling their eyes right now. They don't want to hear about the doom and gloom. But there is no good news for smoking. Any good news a smoker tells themselves it's ok to smoke is just trying to justify themselves and sooth their conscience. That's what I did. I had to face the truth of what I was doing and yes I hated to face the truth. Again, I get it.

If a person truly believes that a person can live forever on Earth like it says in 2 Peter 3:13 and Isaiah 65:17, that person can't expect to hang on to the 'former things'. There is no way to smoke and live forever or love their neighbor. A person can't only halfway poison themselves and others and expect God to think, 'oh well it's only half the poison, that's ok.' “let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh� (2 Corinthians 7:1) Not just some or half of it.

There are plenty of ways to quit smoking and tons of support. So go do it. If I can, anyone can. The only thing that no one can provide for a smoker is the desire to quit. If love of God, neighbor, themselves or even understanding the health dangers can't get a person to cultivate the desire to quit, nothing will give them the desire to quit.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 24 by 2timothy316]

If you don't mind my asking. Now, I have smoked a pipe everyday, and I mean everyday, since I have been 16. I am now going on 70. I am in reasonable good health for a guy my age. Now if as you say smoking is so dangerous and kills so many people, how did I manage to last this long and stay healthy? I have a sneaking suspicion you may be gong more on media hype here than fact, which, when it comes to drugs, are hard to come by because one is swimming, literally swimming, in a chaotic sea of conflicting, often arbitrary claims from the medical profession, pot being but one prime example. As Hyman Rothman once said, "Doctors, what do they know?"

My brother in law's grandfather died at 77 from lung cancer from smoking a pipe. Diagnosed at age 75. If we are going by what happens to people as you seem to base your logic by. You have 7 years to live.

It is very uncommon for pipe smokers to get and die of lung cancer because they don't inhale. Most lung cancer is associated with cigarette smoking for the very reason that it is inhaled. And oddly enough there are those who have been heavy cigarette smokers all their lives--even into their 80s that don't get lung cancer either. But then smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer, a fact that many tend to overlook.

Barbara Campling, MD, Medical Oncologist, responds:

For some reason, pipe smoking is perceived as being less dangerous than cigarette smoking. This is not the case. It is true that the majority of cases of lung cancer are attributable to cigarette smoking. It is also true that cigarette smoking is far more prevalent than pipe smoking. It has been difficult to estimate the risk of lung cancer attributable to pipe smoking alone, since many pipe smokers also smoke cigarettes. The most comprehensive study of which I am aware estimated that pipe smokers have about an 8-fold increased risk of getting lung cancer compared to non smokers (reference 1). This compares to about a 15-fold increased risk of lung cancer in cigarette smokers. However, this risk of pipe smoking may be an underestimate, since the amount of tobacco smoked was not quantitated, and pipe smokers tend to smoke less tobacco than cigarette smokers. My opinion is that pipe smoking is every bit as dangerous as cigarette smoking.

0% chances of dying from tobacco use vs 8 or 15 times increased risk? Which one does one choose? It's like asking which cliff do you prefer to jump off of. On that is really high and has a good chance of killing you. Or one is not quite as high and only slightly better chances of surviving without serious harm or death.

According to the Bible, the 0% chance is the correct way to live life. “let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.� (2 Corinthians 7:1)

There is also the chance of other person looking at another that smokes and decided that if it ok for them to smoke as well. If that person starts smoking, gets cancer and dies because someone told them it's ok to smoke then the Bible has a principle about that as well. It's called bloodguilt. Which is the unlawful killing of an innocent person even if it is by misleading them to do something dangerous. It's the equivalent of watching a person grab poison and allowing them to drink it and doing nothing to warn them of the dangers. What's worse, the bloodguilty person encourages them to drink it by drinking it themselves.

To begin: Nobody has said that any kind of smoking is to be recommended.

But looking at this from a more logical perspective (and sure we can find scientist with various prejudices if we look hard enough), minimizing risk is important because some smokers can't quit. If I were to try to help a heavy smoker, recommending giving up cigarettes for pipes might be helpful. I would say the same thing for e-cigarettes (vaporizers).

Here is better research from the UK: www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_118.pdf


"The difference in risk to a cigar smoker’s health, as compared with a cigarette smoker’s health,
is largely due to the differences in smoking patterns of the two groups. In the classic studies of
smoking, such as those by Doll and Peto, the overall risk of premature death was raised some
70% in cigarette smokers compared with non-smokers. In comparison, the risk for pipe and
cigar smokers was only up to 10% higher than non-smokers"

HUGE IMPROVEMENT! Not recommended except to help those already addicted . . .

Seriously, I think self-righteous non-smokers really ought to stay out of the debate for the same reason that the best substance-abuse counselors have been substance-abusers. Unsupportive, negative messages do not help--in fact, quite the opposite. The most entrenched smokers are nervous smokers and, like I said, any improvement is a gain. I would take the odds given pipe smokers over those given cigarette smokers, all things remaining equal. It isn't good, but it isn't as bad. Until we have a perfect world . . .

I used to be a smoker and I am not self-righteous. I know that everything a smoker sees as going against their habit is unsupportive and negative. Believe me I get it. I didn't want people telling me that it was going to kill me and that it was killing people around me with the tar in smoke. I didn't care. I smoked because it made me feel better. I loved it. I looked for justifications for my smoking in research just as you are doing now. Here's the truth. As long as a person keeps smoking they are going to continue to feel others are self-righteous. If a person has any sort of love for themselves and others they are going to feel guilty. That's all there is to it. I wish I had better news or could soften the blow somehow but I can tell you as a person that used to smoke, there is no kind way to say to a smoker, 'you're killing yourself and others that wish to follow you.' I didn't listen to it as I am sure there are smokers reading this rolling their eyes right now. They don't want to hear about the doom and gloom. But there is no good news for smoking. Any good news a smoker tells themselves it's ok to smoke is just trying to justify themselves and sooth their conscience. That's what I did. I had to face the truth of what I was doing and yes I hated to face the truth. Again, I get it.

If a person truly believes that a person can live forever on Earth like it says in 2 Peter 3:13 and Isaiah 65:17, that person can't expect to hang on to the 'former things'. There is no way to smoke and live forever or love their neighbor. A person can't only halfway poison themselves and others and expect God to think, 'oh well it's only half the poison, that's ok.' “let us cleanse ourselves of every defilement of flesh� (2 Corinthians 7:1) Not just some or half of it.

There are plenty of ways to quit smoking and tons of support. So go do it. If I can, anyone can. The only thing that no one can provide for a smoker is the desire to quit. If love of God, neighbor, themselves or even understanding the health dangers can't get a person to cultivate the desire to quit, nothing will give them the desire to quit.

You are right. No one can. It isn't rationally based--it is the addiction in control.

I don't care for your approach and I disagree with your theology. I guess we will have to leave it at that.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 35 by catnip]

I didn't agree with it either when I read what I read in the Bible. Yet, I had a desire to please God well and that is what ultimately got me to quit. So if a person feels they have no power to beat something irrational, turn to the One that can give power beyond what is normal. "However, we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not from us." - 2 Cor 4:7

"Do not be anxious over anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God; and the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus." - Philippians 4:6, 7

I know exactly what it's like to have an addiction in control. I found help how to regain control and guard against it in the future.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 31 by catnip]

You raised some interesting points. I think a lot has to do with our society's attitudes toward cancer. When I was growing up, nobody, and I mean nobody, wanted to talk abut it. My mom used to do the letter C with her fingers, when talking about it. Now, everyone talks about cancer. And then the public has gone on a kind of frenzied feeding, seeing cancer everywhere and just about anything causing it. I think the problem is that medicine is not an exact science, we are not really sure what causes cancer, and tend to panic and grasp at loose straws. But I've gotten way off the OP here.

Getting back on topic, my concern about the issue in the OP is that it suggests people are trying to read modern-day health ideas back into Scripture. And that simply won't work. When the Bible speaks abut the "clean" and the "unclear," or dietary laws, that had absolutely nothing to do with concerns abut health or health issues. For example, tattoos are forbidden,unclean. Why? Not because they cause some sort of disease or skin problems, but because hat's a pagan practice. Circumcision had nothing do with having a healthy penis. It is simply a sure-fire way of marking you as one of teh chosen, as well as being a very good way of keeping foreigners out, as no one would want, as an adult, to be circumcised. Alcohol, specifically wine, is sanctified in Scripture, yet from a purely medical point of view, can create serious health problems.

So if church members want to rag on one another for smoking, they can maybe talk health issues, but certainly not accuse someone of defiling the flesh, especially since the Bible says nothing at all about smoking. When I get kidded about my pipe, I simply tell other members my body is the Temple, and the Bible says we should burn incense in the Temple. Mine's nicotine. What's yours?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 32 by 2timothy316]

As I already said, it's nice to see some of you have such great concern for my health. However, I think we have gotten off track from the OP. The question is, Should people who smoke be excluded as members of a church? Now, that may be the case with the Watchtower Society. I can't do anything about that, as I am not a member of the Society and am definitely not going to be. In America, we have freedom of religion; and if persons want to go start some sort of cult, that's their right. That's their show, and they can go off an establish any silly rules they want. However, I am part of mainstream Christendom, which I realize the Watchtower Society totally abhors, and the mainline Christian churches welcome sinners on Sunday mornings. If we weren't all sinners, we wouldn't need to be in church. Personal habits, such as drinking and smoking, are left to individual members to decide for themselves. And it is respected that there are many attitudes on these subjects, from complete abstinence to you-name-it. As I mentioned earlier, when I was doing grad. work in seminary, we all pulled out our pipes and cigarettes and cigars, too. As far as a church taking a definite stance on a certain health issue, that's a bit difficult and risky, as there may well be considerable controversy over the medical findings and research. For example, when I grew up, it was presented as an absolute medical fact that pot would drive you sex crazed and insane. Now, the medical world has considerably changed its opinion. Plus, it is extremely risky to try and read in modern-day concepts of health and medicine back into biblical concepts of ourity and defilment.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 35 by catnip]

I didn't agree with it either when I read what I read in the Bible. Yet, I had a desire to please God well and that is what ultimately got me to quit. So if a person feels they have no power to beat something irrational, turn to the One that can give power beyond what is normal. "However, we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not from us." - 2 Cor 4:7

"Do not be anxious over anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving, let your petitions be made known to God; and the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and your mental powers by means of Christ Jesus." - Philippians 4:6, 7

I know exactly what it's like to have an addiction in control. I found help how to regain control and guard against it in the future.

Considering your dialogue here, I have a difficult time believing that. I'm sorry if I am wrong, but it isn't marked with the compassion born of empathy. Your message is antagonistic, controlling.

Now, among the people in my own church there are very few smokers. But they are merely encouraging and patient. The most that has ever been said to me is from those who no longer smoke and the benefits derived--such as being able to yawn for the first time in years. And perhaps they pray for others voluntarily--they are very loving--I feel certain somebody is praying for me because I tried and tried to quit and failed repeatedly.

I guess there are just different ways of treating others and JWs do not have the only corner on righteous living.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 31 by catnip]

You raised some interesting points. I think a lot has to do with our society's attitudes toward cancer. When I was growing up, nobody, and I mean nobody, wanted to talk abut it. My mom used to do the letter C with her fingers, when talking about it. Now, everyone talks about cancer. And then the public has gone on a kind of frenzied feeding, seeing cancer everywhere and just about anything causing it. I think the problem is that medicine is not an exact science, we are not really sure what causes cancer, and tend to panic and grasp at loose straws. But I've gotten way off the OP here.

That is because it was the death warrant--people didn't live through cancer. My mother died of breast cancer in 1957. You would not believe the things they did to her in an effort to "cure" her.

Getting back on topic, my concern about the issue in the OP is that it suggests people are trying to read modern-day health ideas back into Scripture. And that simply won't work. When the Bible speaks abut the "clean" and the "unclear," or dietary laws, that had absolutely nothing to do with concerns abut health or health issues. For example, tattoos are forbidden,unclean. Why? Not because they cause some sort of disease or skin problems, but because hat's a pagan practice. Circumcision had nothing do with having a healthy penis. It is simply a sure-fire way of marking you as one of teh chosen, as well as being a very good way of keeping foreigners out, as no one would want, as an adult, to be circumcised. Alcohol, specifically wine, is sanctified in Scripture, yet from a purely medical point of view, can create serious health problems.

Even if the things they did were in some way beneficial, in the Bronze and Iron age, they did not comprehend medicine in any meaningful way. It was early in the history of civilization and a nomadic existence was still the mainstay in the region.

So if church members want to rag on one another for smoking, they can maybe talk health issues, but certainly not accuse someone of defiling the flesh, especially since the Bible says nothing at all about smoking. When I get kidded about my pipe, I simply tell other members my body is the Temple, and the Bible says we should burn incense in the Temple. Mine's nicotine. What's yours?

I think the self-righteousness in ragging on others is a sin in itself. And not useful.

Pipe smoke is a scent I love! My Dad was a pipe-smoker and had the most aromatic blend! I miss it and him. And no, he didn't die of cancer at 89 years of age.

I am stepping down using vapes--it is a different habit than smoking and I don't see it being called "e-cigarettes". That is a misnomer. I think nervous smokers need something to replace the act, the reaching for the cigarette and lighting up thing. I'm not worried if I continue to rely on them. It has got to be much better for me considering it is about 2,000 chemicals fewer than what is in cigarettes. And all nicotine can be eliminated to zero. I don't think that it is a full transference of habit and I am not as drawn to them. I still have moments when I habitually think of smoking. And vapes smell much better, too.

In the U.K. they have researched it and they published an article in the BBC saying that fully 1% of their smokers had taken up vaping and very nearly all had succeeded in giving up smoking. So they are encouraging it. Here in the U.S. they refuse to see it as a means of giving up smoking, focusing instead purely on the nicotine, despite the fact that so many have found it to be instrumental in helping them. And ironically, still encouraging dangerous levels of nicotine in patches, gums and other oral means of delivering nicotine. I think it is driven by greed for the cigarette tax that was supposed to have been used to help smokers quit but is used for all sorts of other purposes.