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?

[Elijah John]

Why would God allow into his clean congregation something that defiles the body like smoking does?

Isn't that a bit like asking "why would anyone allow sick people into a hospital"?

No. Don't people go to a hospital to be CURED OF THEIR ILLNESS? Does it make any sense to go to a hospital but not follow the doctors' orders?

If people seek to join up with people who are clean, and they want to be baptized, wouldn't they follow the "physicians' " orders and stop indulging in the habits that are making them sick?

Your question seems to indicate that you would go to a hospital because you are sick but would not do anything or change anything to make yourself better.

That's what I have been trying to say. Wouldn't people who are struggling to overcome their addictions do better to be around folks that are not addicted?

Those who aspire to be smoke-free etc.? It doesn't always happen with a snap of the finger decision, but sometimes is a struggle and a process. Or as hoghead1 indicated, those addicted are not "cured" but in recovery.

It can be a lifelong struggle. Why treat them as outcasts if they are trying to overcome?

[hoghead1]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Another interesting thing here is whether The Watchtower Society is going to say about all the stock it owns in Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds. Also, what is the Society plans on doing with all the stock it owns in defense industries? For a religious organization that preaches anti-tobacco and pacifism, they sure do like to invest in companies that manufacture such products. Curious, isn't it?

[JehovahsWitness]

That's what I have been trying to say. Wouldn't people who are struggling to overcome their addictions do better to be around folks that are not addicted?

Those who aspire to be smoke-free etc.?

Are you suggesting that people that are struggling with addictions are not allowed to be around Jehovah's Witnesses? Did you read my post here? Read the second paragraph again, if you are in any way suggesting that about Jehovah's Witnesses.

It doesn't always happen with a snap of the finger decision, but sometimes is a struggle and a process.

Many hundreds of thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses have given up addictions to serve God more fully, so *we* are well aware, not only what the process is like but to offer practical help, encouragement and association to those struggling with their own addictions but wanting to change. So I ask, are you suggesting that Jehovah's Witnesses are unaware of how hard breaking unhealthy addictions are or that we restrict contact with those struggling to do so in order to please God?

It can be a lifelong struggle.

Are you suggesting that Jehovah's Witnesses don't know this, many from first hand experience? The majority of Jehovah's Witnesses were not raised as such, and many of us come from addictions, prostitution, prision, broken homes, from being sexually abused, and much more... we are ex-gangsters, smokers, drug addicts, prostitutes, delinquents, alcoholics, ... but now serve God having broken free with God's help and encouragement and instruction from His people. Many of us have been there and know that without constant vigilence, even those that have overcome addictions can quickly backslide. Maybe your comment here is just general, if so, fine; but if you are in ANY way suggesting we don't know as a group what it means to be an ex-addict then you are wrong.

Why treat them as outcasts if they are trying to overcome?

I find your presumption that we "treat" people struggling with addictions as "outcasts" outright insulting. Perhaps you are not implying this about Jehovah's Witnesses in this comment, in which case, fair enough; but *if* you are it is evident that you know nothing about how we treat people struggling with addictions and nothing about the hundreds of thousands of Jehovah's Witness ministers that have overcome addictions like smoking themselves but live with the internal and ongoing struggle of the ex-addict.

I know most people don't bother to follow the links or watch the videos I post for additional information but feel confident because you strike me as an open minded person, you may be inclined to educate yourself about Jehovah's Witnesses and the road MANY of us have and are travelling before jumping to any conclusions or making any unkind and inaccurate insinuations. (If your comments have nothing to do with Jehovah's Witness, then I apologize but given we were directly mentioned in the OP you will perhaps understand my conclusions).

[youtube][/youtube]

'I Got Fed Up With My Lifestyle'
https://tv.jw.org/#en/video/VODIntExp/d ... 02_1_VIDEO

[2timothy316]

That's what I have been trying to say. Wouldn't people who are struggling to overcome their addictions do better to be around folks that are not addicted?

Those who aspire to be smoke-free etc.? It doesn't always happen with a snap of the finger decision, but sometimes is a struggle and a process. Or as hoghead1 indicated, those addicted are not "cured" but in recovery.

It can be a lifelong struggle. Why treat them as outcasts if they are trying to overcome?

And what makes you think that people that are struggling with addictions are not allowed to be around Jehovah's Witnesses? Did you read my post?

Many folks always exaggerate when it comes to the Witnesses. I was a smoker for many years and I was very addicted. I didn't want to go to the meetings because I didn't want others to look at me and think that smoking was ok to do. That was my choice. The elders on the other hand were telling me to get to the meetings even if I was struggling with smoking. But they understood my position and didn't force the issue. With prayer, personal study, support from other Witnesses and my desire to go to meetings without misleading others to smoke, I conquered that addiction. Now I can represent my God with a clean conscience. However, if I was to go back and do it again. I see why the elders tried to get me to the meetings even though I was a smoker. It might have been easier. It was me that was acting like I was the first smoker to ever attend a meeting, which is just spiritual sickness talking. Silly, now that I look back on it.

Smoking however is a seriously dangerous thing to do. It kills so many people. It is highly addictive and seductively appealing. The question must be asked, do you as a father reward your children if they choose to pick up and continue a deadly habit? So I agree with the Bible that a person must be held to a certain standard before being allowed to be baptized. That however doesn't mean that a person trying to quit should be avoided. That's not helpful at all and no one avoided me.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I'm confused about a couple of things here and maybe you can explain them. The Watchtower Society excludes smokers. However, in light of recent scandals in the UK, it is well-documented that the Society gives sanctuary to child molesters. One article called the Society a "pedophiliac paradise." So, smokers no; child abusers, yes. That seems like a strange set of priorities. Could you explain this?

Another think that is puzzling is that the Society says it professes the truth. However, under oath in court, in 1954, Franz, a major Watchtower official and president, openly admitted that the Society knowingly preaches "false prophecy," which he tried to justify on the basis of keeping unity within the group. All this is a matter of court record. So how can an organization that claims it preaches the truth expect to be trusted when it turns around and openly admits it preaches false prophecy? Sure doesn't make sense to me.

And what exactly are you going to do about nuts? Nuts are one of the most common and devastating food allergies. Nuts defile the flesh, poisoning millions of people, including myself. That's why the Feds require warning labels on food products, stating they contain three nuts and peanuts. Children are especially prone to being poisoned by peanuts, which is way many schools have adopted a nut-free policy in their food service. So is the Society going to ban nuts and nu-eaters?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 25 by hoghead1]

We don't believe avoiding things that aggravate allergies applies to the principle of defilement since many can consume them without it doing them any harm at all.

As for your other points, they have nothing whatsoever, to do with the topic under discussion so I will not be derailing this thread by addressing any of them here. I do believe however that there is a specific sub-forum for questions about a particular faith; if you post there I'm sure someone, somewhere on the internet interested in talking to you will eventually one day post a reply.

Hope that helps, have a good evening,

JW

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 26 by JehovahsWitness]

Well, that doesn't seem to me to be a solid argument. Many can consume alcohol and tobacco without any defilement. I sure know I do.

If you wish to avoid answering my questions or feel I am being irrelevant, that is your privilege. However, I know otherwise and will continue to post here.

[hoghead1]

[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?"

[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.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to 2timothy316]

Thanks for the health tip and all, but I judge by me, not by others, in these matters. Trying to judge you own lifespan or heath, based on data from others, is always a risky business and most inclusive. Judging from a friend of mine, who lives in New York, an artist, who drinks like a fish and smokes a pipe like a furnace, and has been known to use other substances as well, and is still going at 92, I'd say I have a while to go. Or how about George Burns, who puffed away on all those delicious cigars? He sure was a long-liver. Then again, being an avid brass player (first the trumpet, now French horn), I may be due for lip cancer tomorrow, as what happened to Amanda Ghatallia, one of the truly great trumpet virtuosos. Who knows? And then maybe, just maybe, to stay on the safe side, I should get a medical-marijuana card and switch to pot. The medical profession openly admits it has been shown to be of great benefit, especially with cancers.

Getting back on topic, there are still some issues I placed on the table that I feel should be addressed. One is what do you consider "defiling the flesh"? If by that you mean taking some substance that you feel can medically harm you, or that you can become addicted to, the you are going to end up with a very long list of things to avoid, including tap water. You have no idea about the garbage you are drinking, and bottled water is little better. How about nuts, a point I brought up earlier? Saying well, there OK because certain people have allergies to them, as was done in a pervious post, is no answer. Alcoholism and well as nicotine addiction has been view as a form of allergy. OK, now let's focus on alcohol for the moment. Even see what alcohol can due to your liver and pancreas? Now, if you say yes, you are aware of that, then what? Are you going to say people shouldn't drink? If you do, you'll certainly have a major problem with Scripture, which, as I pointed out in an earlier post, sings the praises of alcohol. So now what? Are we going to assume that Jesus defiled the flesh by turning water into wine, that he should have turned wine into water? And then just what is the Watchtower Society going to do with all the stock it owns in Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds? Have they now decided to dump all this? I also wonder about all the stock it owns in defense industries, but that is another story.
Another major issue is how I or anyone can put any validity into anything the Watchtower and its supporters say about defiling the flesh, when this organization has admitted, in open court and as a matter of public record, that it knowingly preaches "false prophecy."