Jehovah's Witness's and smoking

[kestrel]

Someone I know is a Jehovah's Witness, he's married with three adult children and for most of his working life he has owned a Tobacconist selling cigarettes  and associated paraphernalia, tobbacco, lighters etc. They have all been involved in 'knocking doors', promoting their religion which includes telling people that it is wrong to smoke yet this particular family lives on the proceeds of smoking ie profit which equals Mortgage, bills, lifestyle etc. Is this right to tell people that in the bible it say's it's wrong to smoke yet this individual can profit financially from smoking. Any thoughts. PS. I am a non smoker

[Octavius]

Smoking was unknown during the ages when the Bible was being written, but the Bible provides adequate teaching, through principle, about this relatively modern habit if you are of the persuasion to interpret it that way.  It's up to them really.  And it's up to the people who are prepared to listen to them.

 

 

[Octavius]

BTW, if you are really interested, the bible infers that smoking is contrary to healthful practices and acts to weaken or destroy the body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Christians do not own their own bodies their bodies are Christ's, bought and paid for by his death. Christians are not free to use their bodies for pleasure and in any way they choose. They are to glorify God in their bodies and since smoking does not glorify God, smokers are in violation of this precept.  Make of that as you will.  Personally as a non smoker and a roman catholica I think its complete carp (sp)

[SteveD]

There was a long thread about Jehovah's Witnesses recently:

 

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Body-and-Soul/Question78400.html

[gypsy]

the man is just a hypocrite,,if someone believes something is wrong then they should distance themselves from what they believe is wrong,,he is probably profiteering from my ciggarette smoking ..so if i was to purchase ciggarettes in his shop then i dont think he would lecture me on smoking,,no way would he as i probably provide food for his family,,its not right but i am sure they could twist the situation to suit themselves,,,gypsy

[chiron]

you'll have to forgive my lake of subtlety but as Jw's are peddling a false religion (look into their history and it won't take long to realise it's a brainwashing, soul destroying money making scheme) they often make stupid mistakes, eg they banned blood transfusion because it says in the Old testament to stay away from blood sacrifices.  but as a friend there is not much you can do, frankly it is wrong and foolish to be a hypocrite but it's his choice to do so 

[arthurstace]

All religions are false - in so much that they are speculation and myth. There is no God. There are no gods.

[smudge]

Although I often say 'God bless' or Oh, my God, etc., I'm beginning to wonder whether Barrymonkey is right.

[amarillis]

Hi kestrel

As as Jehovah's Witness myself, I can definitely say that according to the beliefs of my religion, what your friend is doing is wrong. Not only is it a hypocritical thing for him to be saying one thing and preaching another, it is against the practices of JW's to smoke or have anything to do with smoking. Please don't judge all JW's based on one person's actions though :-)

[kestrel]

Amarillis. First of all this person is not a friend but someone I know. You say that it is wrong, and you tell me you are a JW  but if that is the case, why does your religion and followers condone this practice as all the members of this families Kingdom Hall, knows what he does. Yet he has been doing it for years. I know your religion has strict rules to do with behaviour and lifestyle but his actions lead people to question the messages you preach.

[Jenny Tools]

Octavius, have you not had suspicions about your milkman Godfrey.   

[Merlin]

AMARILLIS

Could you please clear up a confusion for me?

As I understand it, JWs strive to emulate Jesus Christ. JC gave his blood to save mankind. A JW won't give his blood to save one life.

How are these to be reconciled? - Have I got something wrong?

BARRYMONKEY

Have I seen you on the BBC?

KESTREL

Great name.

[amarillis]

Kestrel, I obviously don't know all the circumstances, maybe you should check why this has been going on with someone from his Kingdom Hall?

 

Merlin, please read the following (sorry it's a bit long) it should explain the blood issue:

God told all mankind that they must not eat blood. Why? Because blood represents life. (Genesis 9:3-6) God's people refused to sustain their lives with blood, not because doing that was unhealthy, but because it was unholy, not because blood was polluted, but because it was precious.
He explained this further in the Law code given to Israel. At the time the Law code was ratified, the blood of sacrificed animals was used on an altar. (Exodus 24:3-8) Laws in that code addressed the fact that all humans are imperfect; they are sinful, as the Bible puts it. God told the Israelites that by means of animal sacrifices offered to him, they could acknowledge the need to have their sins covered. (Leviticus 4:4-7, 13-18, 22-30) Granted, that was what God asked of them back then, not what he asks of true worshipers today. Yet it has vital import for us now.
God himself explained the principle underlying those sacrifices: "The soul [or, life] of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it. That is why I have said to the sons of Israel: 'No soul of you must eat blood.'"�Leviticus 17:11, 12.

continued...

[amarillis]

On the ancient festival called Atonement Day, Israel's high priest took blood of sacrificed animals into the most sacred part of the temple, the center of God's worship. Doing that was a symbolic way of asking God to cover the people's sins. (Leviticus 16:3-6, 11-16) Those sacrifices did not actually do away with all sin, so they had to be repeated each year. Still, this use of blood set a meaningful pattern.
A major teaching in the Bible is that God would eventually provide one perfect sacrifice that could fully atone for the sins of all believers. This is called the ransom, and it focuses on the sacrifice of the foretold Messiah, or Christ.
The Bible compares the Messiah's role to what was done on Atonement Day: "When Christ came as a high priest of the good things that have come to pass, through the greater and more perfect [temple] not made with hands, . . . he entered, no, not with the blood of goats and of young bulls, but with his own blood, once for all time into the holy place [heaven] and obtained an everlasting deliverance for us. Yes, nearly all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and unless blood is poured out no forgiveness takes place."�Hebrews 9:11, 12, 22.
It thus becomes plain why we need to have God's view of blood. In accord with his right as Creator, he has determined its exclusive usefulness. Israelites of old may have reaped health benefits by not taking in animal or human blood, but that was not the most important point. (Isaiah 48:17) They had to avoid sustaining their lives with blood, not primarily because doing otherwise was unhealthy, but because it was unholy to God. They were to abstain from blood, not because it was polluted, but because it was precious in obtaining forgiveness.

continued...

[amarillis]

The apostle Paul explained about the ransom: "By means of him [Christ] we have the release by ransom through the blood of that one, yes, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his undeserved kindness." (Ephesians 1:7) The original Greek word found there is properly translated "blood," but a number of Bible versions err in substituting the word "death." Hence, readers might miss the emphasis on our Creator's view of blood and the sacrificial value that he has linked to it.
The Bible's theme revolves around the fact that Christ died as a perfect ransom sacrifice but did not remain dead. Following the pattern that God set on Atonement Day, Jesus was raised to heaven to "appear before the person of God for us." He presented there the value of his sacrificial blood. (Hebrews 9:24) The Bible emphasizes that we must avoid any course that would amount to 'trampling on the Son of God and esteeming his blood as of ordinary value.' Only thus may we keep a good relationship and peace with God.�Hebrews 10:29; Colossians 1:20.
When we understand what God says about blood, we come to have the greatest respect for its lifesaving value. The Scriptures describe Christ as the one who 'loves us and who loosed us from our sins by means of his own blood.' (Revelation 1:5; John 3:16) Yes, by means of Jesus' blood, we can gain full and lasting forgiveness of our sins. The apostle Paul wrote: "Since we have been declared righteous now by his blood, shall we be saved through him from wrath." That is how lasting life can be saved by blood.�Romans 5:9; Hebrews 9:14.

[kestrel]

amarrillis, i dont need to check anything the man in question has had the shop in his family for generations,,also their are elders in his family this is not a wind up its fact,i also presume he is making himself a healthy profit as christmas approaches,with all the cigar sales etc,yet he is not supposed to have christmas either,,oh well as gypsy said i am sure he can justify and twist it to suit, kestrel

[Dark Angel]

Octavius - to answer your last question, have you seen the movie "When Harry met Sally"

[Octavius]

Oh thank GOD for that, for a moment I was prepared to cancel my milk.  Poor Godfrey

[Jay70]

You'll probably find its like most religions.  It's wrong for someone else to do something unless you want to do it, then there is some little get out clause or ambiguity that can be interpreted and manipulated as you wish.  That's why I think God is the voice of your conscience and anyone who can do this can't have one.

[Merlin]

amarillis

Thanks for all the effort of the explanation.

I can't see, however, how all the references to animal sacrifices have a bearing on giving your blood to save a loved one.

The references to not eating bloody meat could be interpreted to mean that you should not ingest blood in any way, but the passages do not say that - they only bar eating bloody meat.

Religion aside, for a moment, do you not feel that it is obviously the right thing to do for a parent to give blood to save the life of her child if that is the only course open? The parent's blood will be replaced naturally, it has not been squandered (on the contrary, in fact) and it has been given in a Christian act.

And Genesis 9.6, then, says that all doctors are doomed??

Surely, saving a child's life is more important than sticking to a misinterpretation of Old Testament scripture - didn't Jesus' self-sacrifice override the old laws according to a new covenant?