JWs, 7th day Adventist, etc. -- who was first to prohibit tobacco?

by Fatfreek 17 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  ackack

  Okay then, lets take this a couple of steps further.

  Suppose a) A smoker always goes outside to smoke (thereby causing damage only to themselves)

  b) An obese person indirectly harms their children by providing high fat snacks and high sugar sodas causing their children to become diabetic.

  Which one is the worst sinner? Is it judged by harm to others? Harm to self? Respect for life?

  This is the slippery slope of legislating what is a sin and what isn't. What is a disfellowshipping offense and what isn't.

  And I'm not even getting into pot smoking which is far less harmful than cigarette smoking. What about pipes and cigars? Is occasional use more harmful than drinking? Than over-eating?

  ackack
• 

  Fatfreek

  "Sorry , I was of the view that DNA is allowed as a second witness. Please correct me if I'm wrong."
  
  While not conclusive, this was a question posed 6 months ago on this forum. Nobody could provide a WT quotation that showed that they now allow DNA and rape kit evidence. I challenge you to get to the bottom of this if you are so inclined. Ask one of your elders. Write the Society. Check your WT cdrom's. I, and many on this forum, do not believe they have ever allowed it. We could be wrong. The ball is in your court.
  
  Fats
• 

  Fatfreek

  You made your points, well, AckAck. "This is the slippery slope of legislating what is a sin and what isn't. What is a disfellowshipping offense and what isn't."
  
  Yes, our country's obsession with food seems at an all-time high. What used to be an occasional social function where people got together to visit, has turned into very regular events. I say the churches (yes, including JW's) are prime contributors to the obesity of our nation and its members -- and ones they wish to attract into membership with all kinds of dishes rich in artery-clogging anti-nutrients.
  
  Yet I don't suggest the JW's lower themselves to DF those who become obese, though it could be argued there is some Biblical connection re obesity (gluttony) any more than I agree with their harsh stand on tobacco using members. Both sets of folks need compassionate help -- not condemnation.
  
  Fats
• 

  ackack

  You think churches are contributing to obesity? <blink> wow... um.. maybe *this* is why the UN will turn on all false religion, heart disease. :)

  Yes, compassion is needed, along with proportionality.

  Without proportionality in punishment, you encourage people to commit more serious "sins". After all, if the punishment were the same for robbing a bank and robbing a newspaper box, which would you rather do?

  This is of course all built upon the premise that the elders should meet out punishment.

  ackack
• 

  fairchild

  I have to say that any religion that claims to be Christian but allows smoking is certainly not Christian. It is the most disgusting habit & breaks at least 2 fundamental scriptural principles - love of neighbour and sanctity of life.

  I beg to differ.I live in the state of new York where smoking is strictly prohibited in ALL public places, this includes restaurants and bars. It includes every place which is not one's private home. The love of neighbor rule is not broken here by a person who lives alone, smoking only in his or her home, as this is the only place where smoking is allowed in an enclosed area.

  If one considers the sanctify of life principle, then one should not be partial, but eliminate everything which falls under that principle, not just smoking. If the bible says don't eat candy, then you can't point a finger at someone sucking on a lollipop and at the same time allowing the consumption of tootsie rolls. Many things go against the sanctify of life principle. Drunk driving, speeding, over-eating, hard drugs, etc...
• 

  billyboy

  
  I note your comments but don't agree with all of them. I would still prefer to be in a non-smoking religion than a smoking one. I feel the WTBS prohibition on smoking (based on bible principles) is correct.

  Life contains an element of risks - that why insurance companies levy a higher premium on smokers than non-smokers , but don't ask any questions about lollipop consumption. Your New York correspondent has clearly never seen anyone smoking in the street allowing their children to passively breath in the smoke or assumes that any smokers inside the home do so by themselves , without anyone else present.

  As stated , many ex-Jws exchange what they feel is one element of control for another.

  I asked my PO & he confirmed that DNA is definitely allowed as a second witness & has been for some time.
• 

  ackack

  Oh don't get me wrong, I certainly would prefer a non-smoking religion as you put it, than a smoking one. I went through the terrible process of getting someone through a double-lung transplant... someone who has ruined their own lungs from smoking at the age of 47.

  I think what I object to is arbitrariness of it. I think many others will also object to simply creating hard and fast rules around it. If its indeed a "principle", let it stay a principle without being enforced as a law. "Attention, this is the elders! Put up your hands and stop smoking in 6 months!"

  As for insurance companies looking at your lollipop consumption; if the insurance companies thought they could determine liability via lollipop consumption, they would examine it. Besides which, they already check into weight (a general indication of a lollipop consumption) Per my link earlier, obesity has overtaken smoking in causing heart disease.

  ackack
• 

  Fatfreek

  "I asked my PO & he confirmed that DNA is definitely allowed as a second witness & has been for some time."
  
  Thank you for getting back to us on that.
  
  Fats