Smoking

[ioioouiouiouio]

immanuelkant

Which is just a stronger way of saying should... I don't see your point. If the Bible says you will not do something, then you will not do it. And if you do, you're sinning.

Sort of like "Thou SHALT not." That's another way of saying you WILL not, not you SHOULD not.

I will not go to bed at 8:30 tonight.

I should not go to bed at 8:30 tonight.

I shalt not do to bed at 8:30 tonight.

The three statements are massively different.  

[Curium]

Cometh The Inquisitor

immanuelkant

Which is just a stronger way of saying should... I don't see your point. If the Bible says you will not do something, then you will not do it. And if you do, you're sinning.

Sort of like "Thou SHALT not." That's another way of saying you WILL not, not you SHOULD not.

I will not go to bed at 8:30 tonight.

I should not go to bed at 8:30 tonight.

I shalt not do to bed at 8:30 tonight.

The three statements are massively different.

I agree. Saying you will not do something is saying you know for a fact that it is not going to happen. Saying shalt is almost like saying should; it's like telling someone that it's not a good thing to do, but the choice is still up to them.  

[immanuelkant]

Curium

Cometh The Inquisitor

immanuelkant

Which is just a stronger way of saying should... I don't see your point. If the Bible says you will not do something, then you will not do it. And if you do, you're sinning.

Sort of like "Thou SHALT not." That's another way of saying you WILL not, not you SHOULD not.

I will not go to bed at 8:30 tonight.

I should not go to bed at 8:30 tonight.

I shalt not do to bed at 8:30 tonight.

The three statements are massively different.

I agree. Saying you will not do something is saying you know for a fact that it is not going to happen. Saying shalt is almost like saying should; it's like telling someone that it's not a good thing to do, but the choice is still up to them.

So are you saying that God implied you were able to choose whether or not to murder someone with "thou shalt not kill"?  

[Curium]

immanuelkant

Curium

Cometh The Inquisitor

immanuelkant

Which is just a stronger way of saying should... I don't see your point. If the Bible says you will not do something, then you will not do it. And if you do, you're sinning.

Sort of like "Thou SHALT not." That's another way of saying you WILL not, not you SHOULD not.

I will not go to bed at 8:30 tonight.

I should not go to bed at 8:30 tonight.

I shalt not do to bed at 8:30 tonight.

The three statements are massively different.

I agree. Saying you will not do something is saying you know for a fact that it is not going to happen. Saying shalt is almost like saying should; it's like telling someone that it's not a good thing to do, but the choice is still up to them.

So are you saying that God implied you were able to choose whether or not to murder someone with "thou shalt not kill"?

Yes. He did mean that we had a choice. Otherwise He would not have given us free will. Breaking any of God's rules comes with it's consequences, however. But if God had intended for all of us to be robots that worshiped Him without ever really wanting to or knowing what we were doing, then He would have done that and there would be no need for the ten commandments or any other laws.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

immanuelkant

So are you saying that God implied you were able to choose whether or not to murder someone with "thou shalt not kill"?

Well, you're getting into free will here. That's muddy territory.  

[immanuelkant]

Curium

immanuelkant

Curium

Cometh The Inquisitor

immanuelkant

Which is just a stronger way of saying should... I don't see your point. If the Bible says you will not do something, then you will not do it. And if you do, you're sinning.

Sort of like "Thou SHALT not." That's another way of saying you WILL not, not you SHOULD not.

I will not go to bed at 8:30 tonight.

I should not go to bed at 8:30 tonight.

I shalt not do to bed at 8:30 tonight.

The three statements are massively different.

I agree. Saying you will not do something is saying you know for a fact that it is not going to happen. Saying shalt is almost like saying should; it's like telling someone that it's not a good thing to do, but the choice is still up to them.

So are you saying that God implied you were able to choose whether or not to murder someone with "thou shalt not kill"?

Yes. He did mean that we had a choice. Otherwise He would not have given us free will. Breaking any of God's rules comes with it's consequences, however. But if God had intended for all of us to be robots that worshiped Him without ever really wanting to or knowing what we were doing, then He would have done that and there would be no need for the ten commandments or any other laws.

The fact that we have a choice whether or not to do it doesn't change whether or not it's right for us to do it. My point was that God specifically told us that murder is wrong and that we will be punished for it. In the same way he told us that being mastered by anything, or making something an idol or god for yourself is wrong and we will be punished for it. I'm not arguing that we don't have a choice to sin or not, but it doesn't change that fact that sin is sin.  

[immanuelkant]

Cometh The Inquisitor

immanuelkant

So are you saying that God implied you were able to choose whether or not to murder someone with "thou shalt not kill"?

Well, you're getting into free will here. That's muddy territory.

Let's stay on topic and leave free will for another discussion... razz  

[ioioouiouiouio]

immanuelkant

Cometh The Inquisitor

immanuelkant

So are you saying that God implied you were able to choose whether or not to murder someone with "thou shalt not kill"?

Well, you're getting into free will here. That's muddy territory.

Let's stay on topic and leave free will for another discussion... razz

your point is based upon it.  

[immanuelkant]

Cometh The Inquisitor

immanuelkant

Cometh The Inquisitor

immanuelkant

So are you saying that God implied you were able to choose whether or not to murder someone with "thou shalt not kill"?

Well, you're getting into free will here. That's muddy territory.

Let's stay on topic and leave free will for another discussion... razz

your point is based upon it.

No, my point was that choice doesn't have anything to do with right or wrong.  

[HonorBoundKnight]

On the original subject, I think that if smoking, despite the fact that it is a nasty, harmful habit, would be, though not beneficial, all right- if it affected only the smoker, and it were done in reason.

After all, even though alcohol damages the body, Jesus, who could not sin, drank it.

However, I believe smoking anywhere where it will affect other people IS sin.

Despite what it does to the SMOKER'S body, the act of smoking around other people is to inflict harm upon them. They have to breathe whether your smoking or not, therefore, whether they want to or not, they are inhaling the second hand smoke. I believe it's sinful to inflict that upon people- as it's known to cause damage and disease, and they have no choice in the matter.

Then there's the simple matter of keeping it in reason. To smoke to an excess wouldn't be okay either.

So if the smoker only smokes one cigarette in a long while, only in places where nobody is around to be damaged, (and he/she thinks that buying cigarettes/tabacco products is a good way to spend the money God has given him/her,) then I believe that, though still not beneficial, smoking would not be a sin.  

[sunshinehearttrob]

i dont think it so much a christian thing but a health thing. those things are so nasty and just sick. costly too. i know its hard, but if one works at it enough and is mentally strong enough, they can pass this task and overcome all challenges. pm me if want to know more.

www.cnn.com/2002/health/04/11/smoking.costs.index.html
www.2.cdc.gov/nccdphp/osh/state/epi
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1908201202.html  

[Eaten By Cheese]

hot_wheels_turbo_racing

I never said it was always easy to quit. It's as easy to quit as you make it. Having overcome other addictions (not smoking), I have found for one thing that if you really want to quit something, you have to actually decide you want to quit. If you go against that, then you obviously don't want to quit.

You can't just DECIDE you want to quit, and suddenly be rid of your addiction. It takes hard work, things such as nicotine patches, perhaps, and love and support. I know a woman who has been trying for years to quit smoking, so she doesn't die before her time from the effects of smoking, as her husband did. She's tried everything she can think of. Stoping her addiction is VERY important to her, but you know what? She still smokes. Addiction is a hard thing to overcome. If this woman could have just DECIDED to quit, she'd be smoke-free by now. And a heck of a lot healthier.

(I'm sorry, I realize I'm not being very tolerant here... It's just, I've lost people to smoking, people that SHOULDN'T HAVE DIED. And it just makes me feel... mad. Mad and angry and sad.)

hot_wheels_turbo_racing

And for us Christians, we always have God to help as well, and with God, everything is possible.

So you're saying that if you prayed to God, right now, for a neon pink pony with a jester's hat to appear on your doorstep, it would?

Might I add, the seven men who first sold cigarretts stood within a courthouse and swore that there was no addictive possibilities to smoking, knowing full well there were. If anything is a sin, it's lying, as they did, knowing their actions would result in the deaths of dozens of thousands per year.

 

[mimiru22]

I agree what I am wondering is why do people start when they know what the affects are and such this is just a question and I will be glad to any one who can answer and I think God wants you to take care of your body so he may not give you a pink pony if you ask for one but if you are trying to quit and you persistantly ask he will help but if you go well God help me thanks bye then hes like well they only want it and then they will go and do something else so I don't know I guess it depends on the sercomstance  

[Xahmen]

Tobacco isn't all that harmful on your system, it's the other chemicals packed into cigarettes with the tobacco.

You know what tastes really good in the morning though?
A ******** smoke.