R
RhodesianSon
Guest
Other than Mormons, and they’re not really Christians, i don’t know any group that finds tobacco sinful.
- Status
T
tablecorner
Guest
i did like to explore his stance on Adoptionism which he later amended.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
Wikipedia has an article concerning “Religious views on smoking” has a section on Christianity that might be helpful.
M
Mrchatsworth
Guest
You said it. Outside of the health hazards.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
A small subsection of Christians who were heavily influenced by the temperance movement find tobacco in and of itself sinful. “We don’t drink or dance or chew and we don’t go with boys who do”
F
FrostArcana
Guest
By drugs I was including all kind altering substances, tobacco alcohol caffeine too, not just those that are illegal. I know most Catholics aren’t into it, it is just something I accepted when coming into the Church. But trying isn’t bad 
F
FrostArcana
Guest
I think it is misleading to equate that some which was used by Jesus to what was used now by people. I linked a sermon before in the thread that goes into that by John MacArthur. I know he isn’t Catholic but it is normally non-Catholics who pay attention to little things like that sadly.
R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
It’s not that it’s a “little thing” and that Catholics are just cutting corners. It’s that the idea that alcohol is inherently sinful is wrong.
K
kapp19
Guest
It’s a dubious claim… as if the Son of Man was called a “glutton and a drunkard” for using a spritz of yayin in some water. Please.
MacArthur might have some interesting and helpful things to say - well, so do the Muslims. So do the atheists sometimes, too.
-K
MacArthur might have some interesting and helpful things to say - well, so do the Muslims. So do the atheists sometimes, too.
-K
F
FrostArcana
Guest
He doesn’t say this. He even says he is fine with groups of people who traditionally drink it (he named many Catholic countries here) with meals and such in moderation. He should position is that due to the long list of reasons he gives, historical and otherwise, it is likely better to not. It is impossible to declare it as inherently evil, but still it is best avoided.
He says near the end: So, the point that I want to make tonight - just one point, seven more to go - the wine wasn’t the same; you got it? Are we clear? Okay, now you can go. Let’s pray.
None of it is something Catholics must disagree with, I have slightly stronger views but I stay within our bounds.
He says near the end: So, the point that I want to make tonight - just one point, seven more to go - the wine wasn’t the same; you got it? Are we clear? Okay, now you can go. Let’s pray.
None of it is something Catholics must disagree with, I have slightly stronger views but I stay within our bounds.
F
FrostArcana
Guest
That’s not the claim made in it at all…
K
kapp19
Guest
No, but it ties into your broader point… MacArthur does talk about the paste mixed with water - then throws out all kinds of speculations about ABV… which we’ll just leave aside (though I think they’re problematic speculations). The implication is, Jesus didn’t drink what we drink, so stop making that appeal.
Okay. Well, then, what exactly was the charge about being a “glutton and a drunkard,” as opposed to John the Baptist (a Nazirite) who drank “neither wine nor strong drink” and was said to “have a demon”? Just as some people like to appeal to Scripture to justify drunkenness (i.e. Cana), so too can people appeal in the opposite way… as MacArthur seems to. Even if we say, “it’s mixed,” first of all, we don’t actually know just how it was mixed, and second, more importantly, we don’t know how much people would presume to drink of it anyway. So… it’s not a great argument.
Okay. Well, then, what exactly was the charge about being a “glutton and a drunkard,” as opposed to John the Baptist (a Nazirite) who drank “neither wine nor strong drink” and was said to “have a demon”? Just as some people like to appeal to Scripture to justify drunkenness (i.e. Cana), so too can people appeal in the opposite way… as MacArthur seems to. Even if we say, “it’s mixed,” first of all, we don’t actually know just how it was mixed, and second, more importantly, we don’t know how much people would presume to drink of it anyway. So… it’s not a great argument.
Last edited:
T
Tommy999
Guest
I remember the old ”I love Lucy’ TV shows (and other shows and movies of that era) which portrayed smoking as glamorous.
After medical research pointed to cancer risk and other health concerns associated with smoking, smoking started being seen in a different light (no pun intended).
When I was little, smoking was viewed as an unpleasant habit by my mother, but certainly not as a sin. In fact, my uncle (my mother’s brother) smoked cigarettes and an uncle on my father’s side smoked a pipe, while one of my grandfathers chewed tobacco and spit into a spittoon, which I thought was both cool and gross at the same time (mixed emotions).
After medical research pointed to cancer risk and other health concerns associated with smoking, smoking started being seen in a different light (no pun intended).
When I was little, smoking was viewed as an unpleasant habit by my mother, but certainly not as a sin. In fact, my uncle (my mother’s brother) smoked cigarettes and an uncle on my father’s side smoked a pipe, while one of my grandfathers chewed tobacco and spit into a spittoon, which I thought was both cool and gross at the same time (mixed emotions).
Last edited:
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
I believe that Jesus’ intent with that passage was pointing out that if someone disagrees with what you are teaching (i.e., that you are calling them to a life dedicated to God and free of worldly excesses), they will find any excuse they can to dismiss you. They dismiss John as having a demon because he refused drink, and they dismiss Jesus as a drunkard because He partook. Neither choice is wrong, they are just false justifications people use to dismiss people who are making them question themselves.
We see this all the time in modern “debate”; a person is losing the argument so they regress to ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the stated points. A significant number of people nowadays seem to start with the ad hominems and don’t even bother with actual debate.
This passage didn’t have anything to do with drinking at all.
To answer the OP, Catholics have no issue with tobacco or alcohol when consumed in moderation. There’s nothing wrong with a good cigar now and then, nor is there anything wrong with a glass of wine with dinner. It may be reasonable to conclude that many Christians have an issue with cigarettes and similar products because of their inherently-addictive nature, as well as the added chemicals that are extremely harmful to the body. Similarly, we have issue with drunkenness because it robs a man of his right judgment.
Last edited:
K
kapp19
Guest
Yes, of course. My point was an indirect one, based on the context for this verse… It would not be passable even as an ad hominem if there were only this unfermented drink going around, or the alcohol used was only 2% or what have you…
-K
J
JanR
Guest
Well, Jesus changed water into wine at Cana, and if it was that sinful to drink wine, I’m sure he wouldn’t have done that.
What is really being discussed here is excess. Drinking in moderation not only can’t hurt you, it can actually have some health benefits (mainly wine).
Smoking is another matter. It’s best not even to start that.
There’s nothing wrong with having fun and enjoying these simple pleasures, so long as it’s done responsibly. We were never meant to live as miserable inmates in a dungeon during our earthly lives.
Some very strict fundamentalists seem to discourage enjoyment of this life, at all. They even forbid the consumption of coffee or tea. And that’s not fair, nor is it correct.
What is really being discussed here is excess. Drinking in moderation not only can’t hurt you, it can actually have some health benefits (mainly wine).
Smoking is another matter. It’s best not even to start that.
There’s nothing wrong with having fun and enjoying these simple pleasures, so long as it’s done responsibly. We were never meant to live as miserable inmates in a dungeon during our earthly lives.
Some very strict fundamentalists seem to discourage enjoyment of this life, at all. They even forbid the consumption of coffee or tea. And that’s not fair, nor is it correct.
Last edited:
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
I think you sorely misjudge the extent to which people will go to dismiss someone who is causing their conscience real pain. There are protestant pastors out there who say that all alcohol consumption is immoral, period. There’s no reason to say that people wouldn’t use this same kind of justification in Christ’s time to dismiss Him.
However, I think I see how I am missing your point. What you’re talking about is the odd argument that the wine was unfermented, essentially grape juice. Wine consumption was common among the Jews and the early Catholics (as well as pretty much all the Catholics since then). I’ve really never understood how it turned into a problem for people.
Last edited:
I was a fairly heavy smoker from my teenage years through my mid-30s. Then I made the transition to a pipe, and then finally quit that about six years ago when I began vaping. Last year, my insurance company began levying a $200/month surcharge for smokers, and vaping was included in that. I wasn’t happy about it, but I quit — used nicotine lozenges for a couple of months, which strangely enough, helped to wean me from nicotine entirely.
I always found smoking, and then vaping, to be very relaxing, as well as good for digestion. There is a grave health risk with smoking leaf tobacco habitually, the verdict is still out on vaping. Quitting wasn’t to my liking, but life is like that sometimes, not all things in life are going to unfold according to our wishes and preferences. In five years I will be eligible for Medicare, and as far as I know, they have no such surcharge. With the way things are going in this country, it’s hard to say what the rules will be like then. I may celebrate my 65th birthday with a pack of Camel non-filters, always my brand of choice
I always found smoking, and then vaping, to be very relaxing, as well as good for digestion. There is a grave health risk with smoking leaf tobacco habitually, the verdict is still out on vaping. Quitting wasn’t to my liking, but life is like that sometimes, not all things in life are going to unfold according to our wishes and preferences. In five years I will be eligible for Medicare, and as far as I know, they have no such surcharge. With the way things are going in this country, it’s hard to say what the rules will be like then. I may celebrate my 65th birthday with a pack of Camel non-filters, always my brand of choice
Last edited:
S
Socrates92
Guest
That’s the only reason I would consider it sinful. I like my lungs and consider it a sin to willfully damage them via smoking.
C
childinthefaith
Guest
Strongly disagree on this. My mother is of the same opinion but is Pentecostal.No, I mean Christians do so when they drink wine (or other drinks, outside of Eucharist) that’s what my sentence meant, sorry for any confusion
Gluttony with wine or other strong drink is where it becomes sinful. Or, if an addiction, that’s clearly a problem. I was taught my entire life that drinking was a sin, so it took me a little bit to figure out that the misuse of alcohol, or getting drunk (=gluttony) is the only sinful thing about it. Remember what Christ did at Cana? His first miracle was changing water to wine for a wedding feast. THAT had to be a lot of wine.
I’d quickly agree that some people can not handle their liquor and remain moderate, but until they cross that line, I absolutely do not see drinking as a sin.
On tobacco, that is an addiction in almost all cases. I used some form of tobacco or another for a very long time, until I once thought about what it would do to my wife to have to take care of me if I got cancer from it, and how wrong/selfish it was of me to keep doing it anyway. So I quit, right then.
- Status