Quote
Let me see if I understand you correctly. You are actually arguing that because people have smoked for thousands of years (yes Joe, I know about Columbus and Sir Walter Raleigh too) that it is "natural" to smoke in the same sense that eating is natural? Oh really? How interesting, I never thought of it that way Joe.
No, Gerry that is not the point <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

I was using history to show that people have “natural tendencies” given by God for certain things. We are all born with “general tendencies” and develop others throughout life. You like and dislike certain foods? As an infant you could not give me certain baby foods or you would get them back quick <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/puke.gif" alt="" /> We are each born with certain chemical make-ups that make us prone, some to sweets, some to vegetables, some to…. Some people have a natural inclination for tobacco type products—as shown from the brief history that was already posted (the point). Again, there is nothing wrong with this as balanced by what was said already in the other posts.

Quote
Second, you tell us that you don't smoke, but I seem to recall when I posted on this subject some months back, in which I mentioned specifically smoking in relation to desecrating our temple, perhaps you recall, but anyway I seem to recall you mentioning smoking a pipe at that time, and you also tell us that your doctor has approved your smoking 1 pipe per week? Well, I guess I'm a little confused here. Why would your Dr. approve something you don't do?
I am very confused by this as well, [color:"FF0000"]as I never stated it[/color]. Please feel free to do a search and locate it…. and when you do not find it feel free to post an apology for your misrepresentation of the facts. Also, where did you ever get the notion that my doctor said I could smoke a pipe once a week? I have extremely HBP and it is very difficult to regulate. No doctor in his right mind would EVER say smoke to someone in my condition!!! I guess we are playing Gerry's Guessing Game? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" />

Quote
When Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his stomachs sake and for his many ailments, he didn't say take a little smoke. Maybe there is a good reason why.
I have never heard of tobacco as a cure for an ailing stomach? Wine is a proven remedy for this. Maybe Timothy was like me and did not like the taste of tobacco? Of course, if your logic is so clear to you then this should assist you in seeing how irrational it is: Paul did not say, “post on the Highway forum for your stomach’s sake” either. Thus, you should not make any more posts.... We will see if that is really what you believe?

Quote
As to your wife's glandular problem, if you're refering to low thyroid, I haven't looked up the data so if your Dr. says 1 in 20 I won't argue with him, but it seems that obiesity is much more common in this country than 1 in 20, which was my point, and further, I don't believe that obiesity, or mentioning it as a sin, makes me a legalist.
The point is that Spurgeon could have been in the 1 in 20. He could have had a low metabolism. He could have had a problem with his enzymes. The simple fact is YOU do not really know and for you to state emphatically that he was a glutton and in error for overeating makes you a false accuser of the brethren. All you have done is “speculate” off a picture with no medical data and against his very word that he said he would not openly sin in this way. There is no defense for this (1) it is sin (2) it is irrational (3) it is being dishonest with the facts that you “really” have. In the end, we may find that Spurgeon knew that tobacco was bad for him and that he overate on purpose (though he has stated otherwise), but this will not correct the fat nature of your "illogical" thought.

Reformed and Always Reforming,