ROUND TWO: Jesus was a non-smoker
Con may rebut at will.
Pro says that I may rebut at will, so I will begin with my arguments. I will be arguing that Jesus may have, indeed, smoked "cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos."
1. No Proof that Jesus Didn't Smoke
Exactly what it says: there is no proof that Jesus was not a smoker. Furthermore, my opponent has not pointed out any reasons why Jesus was not a smoker. There is no verse in the Bible, or in any other historical document or artifact, which confirms Jesus to be a non-smoker.
2. Tobacco a Creation of God
According to Genesis 1:31, God saw all that He made as being "good". Furthermore, in 1 Timothy 4:4, it reads that "everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving." Therefore, if a cigar, cigarette, or cigarillo was presented to Jesus in thanksgiving, then Jesus would probably not have rejected it.
Not to mention, if God sees all that he made as being good, and Jesus is God as per the holy trinity, then Jesus would see tobacco as good, not bad. Meaning, Jesus would have no moral reasons or health reasons to refuse a cigar/cigarette/cigarillo.
3. Jesus Approved of a Drug More Dangerous than Tobacco/Nicotine
Namely alcohol. John 2:7-10 reads,
" 7 Jesus told the servants to fill them to the top with water. Then after the jars had been filled, 8 he said, “Now take some water and give it to the man in charge of the feast.”The servants did as Jesus told them, 9 and the man in charge drank some of the water that had now turned into wine. He did not know where the wine had come from, but the servants did. He called the bridegroom over 10 and said, “The best wine is always served first. Then after the guests have had plenty, the other wine is served. But you have kept the best until last!” ."
The final verse of this passage implies that this wine was provided to the partygoers after they already were under the influence of alcohol as it was. According to a study mentioned in an article on DailyTech.com, based on societal impact alone, alcohol is more dangerous than tobacco, marijuana, ecstasy, psilocybin mushrooms, crystal meth, powder cocaine, and amphetamines/speed.
If Jesus willingly advocated for - and implicitly drank in his lifetime - a drug more dangerous to society than any of these other drugs, then who is to say why Jesus would not have chosen to smoke a cigar/cigarette/cigarillo, which is considerably less dangerous? After all, Jesus was not as concerned about the physical human condition as much as he was concerned about the spiritual human condition, and alcohol is clearly more dangerous to the spiritual human condition than the physcal human condition in comparison to the tobacco and carcinogens in cigars/cigarettes/cigarillos.
4. Jesus is Immortal/Eternal
This seems irrelavant at first, so please allow me to explain. Cigars, cigarettes, and cigarillos may have not necesarilly existed in bible times, although they certainly do today. It would seem impossible for Jesus to smoke any of these at first glance because of his lifetime on Earth, but, since Jesus is immortal and eternal, he is not bound by time. That said, he could entirely be smoking either of these as we speak in heaven. Bam.
Furthermore, Jesus' immortality equates to the impossibility of smoking tobacco causing any damage to his body whatsoever, so Jesus would have no reason not to smoke tobacco, his own creation as per the holy trinity essentially making him God.
 - http://www.dailytech.com...
Anyway. . . .
1. The Con writes, "there is no proof that Jesus was not a smoker. Furthermore, my opponent has not pointed out any reasons why Jesus was not a smoker. There is no verse in the Bible, or in any other historical document or artifact, which confirms Jesus to be a non-smoker."
I am sorry, but this will simply not do. Tobbacro wasn't introduced to Eurasia until late 17th century. http://en.wikipedia.org...
By your same reasoning, Jesus may have a a Twitch account, a Youtube channel, a beanie baby collection, pogs, an Atari Jaguar, sandles, etc.
Sorry, bud, you're wrong. Life may work that way in your nutty head, but in the real world, where I clearly live, facts are facts, and if you can't substantiate something positively, there is no basis for believing it ever happened.
2. The Con writes, "Not to mention, if God sees all that he made as being good, and Jesus is God as per the holy trinity, then Jesus would see tobacco as good, not bad. Meaning, Jesus would have no moral reasons or health reasons to refuse a cigar/cigarette/cigarillo."
However, walrus fuzz is also a creation of God. We wouldn't expect Jesus to accept a bag of walrus fuzz in thanksgiving, merely because it was created by God. And while it may be argued that tobaccro has a smoother smoke, the idea that simply because something is created that it is thereby acceptable is laughably absurd. LAUGHABLY. ABSURD. I can think of over twelve things that are created that I wouldn't accept, and so can you.
3. The Con writes, "Jesus Approved of a Drug More Dangerous than Tobacco/Nicotine"
Actually, wine has medicinal value if done in moderation:
Jesus nowhere said or implied that we are not to drink in moderation and, therefore, he was simply being ahead of his time. In fact, his Apostle Paul said specifically not to get drunk.
"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;" (Ephesians 5:18)
Cigarettes, however, have no medicinal value except some unsubstantiated studies that they stave off alzheimers, and I think it is blasphemous to imagine Jesus with alzheimers.
4. The Con writes, "Jesus is immortal and eternal, he is not bound by time. That said, he could entirely be smoking either of these as we speak in heaven. Bam."
Jesus, you will note, is no longer precisely what he was while on earth. On earth, he had two natures --- one divine, one human. On earth, neither the human nor the divine natures smoked, for cigarettes and whatnot hadn't been invented (at least not in Israel). After death, his human nature perished, and he retained his divine nature in heaven. Let me quote the Chalcedonian Creed of A.D. 451, highlighting the most important part for our debate:
"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."
Now, if Christ retained his human nature, he could not exist in heaven now, for "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Corinthians 15:50)
Thus Jesus in heaven now has a body of ubiquitous presence which is:
"the fulness of him that filleth all in all" /
"the same God which worketh all in all" /
"that God may be all in all".
(1 Corinthians 12:6, 1 Corinthians 15:28, Ephesians 1:23)
To imagine that he is spending time now smoking cigarettes is, frankly, ignorant as night soil. If he has no flesh and blood, what lungs does he have to take in the smoke? What lips or hands hold the cigarette?
Of course, you can argue, "Jesus is infinity so he's probably smoking", but consider all the other unhealthy things he must be doing, too, if that is correct.
On second thought, don't.
1. Tobacco and Smoking in the Middle East
My opponent asserts that tobacco was not actually introduced to the middle east until the 17th century, and that this is proof that Jesus was/is not a smoker. Maybe tobacco didn't exist in those days, however, there was a prominent form of tobacco called "tombeik" which was naturally grown locally in Persia (today known as Iran) and smoked traditionally via a hookah (a form of smoking which historically has been specific to India and the Middle East).
The omnipotent and omnipresent status of Jesus, who is God, would have allowed Jesus to have manifested all of the tobacco that he wanted, under the right circumstances. If Jesus can turn water to wine, what do you think he could do with that fig leaf over there? And don't forget the smoking of cannabis, too - there actually is historical evidence that the Jews commonly used cannabis in order to improve their spiritual condition. The exclusive smoking of tobacco at the beginning of this debate was implied, but never clarified.
Ultimately, my opponent seems to be lacking understanding of is that he/she made the absolute claim, "Jesus was a Non-Smoker". Therefore, the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Jesus was, absolutely, not a smoker. Likewise, it is my responsibility prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Jesus could have been a smoker, which is exactly what I've done so far.
My opponent says, "facts are facts, and if you can't substantiate something positively, there is no basis for believing it ever happened."
I agree. So... would you happen to have any of these aforementioned facts to substantiate positively that Jesus was/is not a smoker? Absolutley, beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Tobacco = Walrus Fuzz?
In response to my second argument, my opponent essentially compares apples to oranges by comparing tobacco and walrus fuzz. Anyone who's ever smoked tobacco and walrus fuzz to compare the two would probably notice that tobacco is not like walrus fuzz. This is really nothing short of a strawman argument to knock down my claim. My opponent's rationale could also be used to prove why Jesus never drank wine, ate meat, ate vegetables, slept in a feather bed, etc.
In context, 1 Timothy 4:3-5 says, "Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: 5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."
Clearly, the purpose of tobacco is for medicine (which I will elaborate on in my next rebuttal) and for enjoyment, as is alcohol. Walrus fuzz - well - not so much. Although to be honest, I cannot prove that Jesus never smoked walrus fuzz, but I do think I can show that it is highly, highly, highly unlikely that Jesus ever smoked walrus fuzz.
So, more to the point: Jesus would have had an understandable reason for smoking tobacco. For smoking walrus fuzz - significantly less so. In fact it puts a strange image in my head when I imagine anyone shaving the hair off of a walrus and smoking it. I mean - why would someone do that? Just why?
3. Drinking in moderation; medicinal qualities of Tobacco
This argument has become two pronged: alcohol is OK in moderation, and tobacco has no medicinal value.
Firstly, I never said it was bad to get drunk. Personally, if someone wants to get drunk, I say go for it but at least try to be safe about it.
"Jesus nowhere said or implied that we are not to drink in moderation and, therefore, he was simply being ahead of his time. In fact, his Apostle Paul said specifically not to get drunk."
...What? My opponent seems to be saying "Jesus never said to drink in moderation, therefore he was ahead of his time by espousing responsible drinking." All respect to my opponent, but... this rationale is confusing at best. Jesus never said to drink soda; does that mean it's bad to drink soda?
Although to clarify, I'm not saying the Bible is telling people to go and get drunk. My original argument only put forward the notion that Jesus approved of a drug more dangerous to society than the nicotine in Tobacco, and that if Jesus is approving of that, then it is logical to concluide that Jesus would approve of something less dangerous to - and possibly even good for - society as we know it.
This brings us to the second point of my opponent's argument about tobacco's lack of medicinal value. I've actually done a couple of debates already on the risks/benefits of tobacco, so I have some idea of what I'm talking about here as it is.
In all honesty, the tobacco plant gets a bad rap from the big tobacco industry and the anti-tobacco industries alike. Tobacco, believe it or not, was originally used not only ceremonially, but also medicinally. Cultivated by native american indians, the tobacco plant was originally used to treat "earaches, snake bites, cuts and burns, respiratory diseases, fever, convulsions, nervous ailments, urinary ailments, and skin diseases." Tobacco was seen as so medicinally incredible that people even began to call it "The Holy Herb", as well as "God's Cure", all because of the medicinal versitility of nicotine. Consider it a pre-WWII version of cannabis, if you will. Today however, the additives in tobacco products provided by the tobacco industry, plus the carcinogens carried by the carbon in the smoke, cause a kind of grotesque faustian health deal when choosing to smoke tobacco.
4. "For nothing is impossible with God" Luke 1:37
My opponent presents a very long argument here, so I will sum it up in short: he says that Jesus no longer abides in his human form, and because of this, Jesus is unable to smoke cigarettes. To defend his/her position, my opponent recites the Chalcedonian Creed as well as 1 Corinthians 15:50.
My response is twofold. For one, there is strong theological support to suggest that Jesus still exists in his divine and human form (going back to my opponent's italicized section of the Chalcedonian Creed, here), so he technically would be able to smoke cigarettes as we speak; and I'm not alone in asserting this either. The Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry itself declares, and I quote:
"One of the lesser-known biblical doctrines concerns Jesus as a man right now. Many do not know that right now in heaven Jesus is a man though in a glorified body. Some object to this and cite various reasons (answered at the end of this paper) for denying His present humanity. They are in error. Following is a biblical demonstration that Jesus is still both divine and human in nature:
It is biblically correct to say that Jesus is a man right now in heaven--though a glorified man . But, it would be wrong to say He was only a man. He is both divine and human in nature at the same time (Col. 2:9); He is both God and man right now."
The link I've provided from the CARM website has a long and complicated reasoning behind all of this as well which I really don't want to get into - it would take up a LOT of space - but I think my opponent and audience get the idea.
Besides, even if Jesus was no longer human, I would still argue that he could smoke cigarettes. To say otherwise would be to say that there is something which is impossible with God - which we understand not to be true.
 - https://www.hookahcompany.com...
 - http://www.sott.net...
 - http://carm.org...
I must admit that researching Tombac (Tombeik) almost made me have a relapse into my old, tobbaco smoking ways. The Con should have points docked for being a bad influence upon me and weakening my resolve. Nonetheless, I can find no references to use of actual tobacco in Persia prior to 1536 A.D. This, as you will note, is long after Jesus left this world. And even if it could be proven that it was in use in Persia during the time of Jesus, the Con has provided no reason at all to believe that Jesus, or any Jews of that time, used it in any capacity whatsoever.
This is irrelevant. The Con writes, "The exclusive smoking of tobacco at the beginning of this debate was implied, but never clarified." I did indeed clarify that Jesus did not smoke "cigarettes, cigars, and cigarillos." --- all of which are tobbaco containing products. Obviously, Jesus did smoke some things because he was a pal of a lot of fisherman and smoked fish is delicious. And hopefully he will smoke all of the members of ISIS in hell for a few eons at the very least.
It is a common cheap trick used by debators on this site to try inflate the terms of the debate or harp on a perceived lack of clarity. Any red-blooded American man, woman or child would've read my statement as applying strictly to tobacco. Sorry, Con, you're not going to win with these methods.
3. Burden of proof
The Con writes, "the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Jesus was, absolutely, not a smoker." The fact that cigarettes, cigarillos and cigars did not exist in first century Israel is enough to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus did not smoke them. According to the Con's logic, unless the Bible says, "Jesus didn't use a cellphone, by the way", we might as well imagine that he did. Since the Bible never says, "Jesus didn't wear Crocs", we have good reason to believe he did. This type of logic has infinite applications and would lead to a total break down of society. The Con is clearly arguing for anarchy by such actions and should be docked for being-up-to-no-good, mischief-making, and general tomfoolery.
4. Walrus fuzz
The Con writes, "My opponent's rationale could also be used to prove why Jesus never drank wine, ate meat, ate vegetables, slept in a feather bed" --- no, wine, meat, vegetables and feather beds all existed during the time of Jesus. During that time, he may have done all four at once, for all we know. However, since there were no cigarettes, no cigars, and no cigarillos, we can be reasonably certain that he did not smoke such.
The Con also writes, "Although to be honest, I cannot prove that Jesus never smoked walrus fuzz" --- obviously, you cannot prove a negative and there's no need to do so:
"A negative proof (known classically as appeal to ignorance) is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of: X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
I ask the Con if he has actually sat down and thought of all the things which we cannot prove. We cannot prove, for instance, that Abraham Lincoln wasn't a tarantula when no one was looking at him, and we cannot prove that the sky doesn't turn into a gigantic net of squirming meal-worms the moment everyone quits looking at it. This is literally insane.
When the Con reads over my statement again, it is clear that Jesus never advocated the usage of wine in a way which would be "more dangerous to society than the nicotine in Tobacco" and, in fact, his Apostle Paul (whom he revealed himself to and gave the authority to write Scripture!!!) spoke directly against becoming drunk. To say that wine is "dangerous to society" because people abuse it is like saying certain allergy medications are dangerous because people turn it into meth. You cannot define the value of a substance based on its abuse. This is why we regulate certain substances, making them lawful only in a medical setting. I am not saying this applies to wine, but you cannot argue that since Jesus said its ok to drink wine, its ok to smoke tobacco. Moderate wine use is actually healthy, whereas even being in the presence of second hand smoke is potentially adverse to one's health. SHA-BAM!
6. "grotesque faustian health deal"
7. Medicinal tobacco
The Con hasn't shown that ANY of these uses involved smoking it in any form, much less in the form of cigarettes, cigars and cigarillos.
8. The still-embodied Jesus
The CARM website is not an authority on Scripture. Scripture is an authority on Scripture. The Councils, insofar as they accurately define Scripture, are an authority, but only because they meet the needs of ignorant times for greater philosophical clarity, whereas the true Christian attitude should be one of humble and loving acceptance, like a child (Matthew 18:3).
It is a cardinal tenant of all Protestantism that Scripture must interpret Scripture. Anything which deviates from this principle can potentially lead to heresy and, worse, atrocities. Many Old Testament wars were used by so-called "Christians" to justify subjugation of Native Americans and other people, in direct contradiction of Jesus' statement to not use the sword to spread the faith:
"My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight" (John 18:36)
But even so, I will grant that Jesus has a glorified body in heaven. But to say this body consists of actual flesh and blood would be to directly contradict Scripture, leading inevitably to a pro-smoking-Jesus position. The danger here is not small, Con.
Even if we grant that the glorified body of Jesus could potentially smoke a cigarette, cigar or cigarillo, there is ZERO basis for imagining that he would, or for imagining that those "hid in Christ" will also be smoking. Generally speaking, smoking does not arise out of any physical need --- at least not at first. We need water and we need food, but we never need smoke. That is a fact.
Now, consider these words of Isaiah, referring to the glorified state:
"They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor sun smite them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them." (Isaiah 49:10)
Not even hunger or thirst will attend the glorified body --- a body which, I might add, cannot be "flesh and blood" as we know it. If not even hunger and thirst will be present, which are natural and pure desires, how can the desire to smoke and look "cool" be present? It's absurd. And, as we all know, we all start smoking as kids to look cool. It is the same reason we grease our hairs, wear leather jackets and listen to Rockabilly --- not because its good music or such fashions are even remotely comfortable.
In conclusion, just in case I may have not made clear, the cat videos included should be enough to devastate any refutations the Con may seek to lodge against me. These are my favorite variety of cat, the "Exotic Shorthair". It is related to the Persian, albeit with far shorter hair. More information on these wonderful cats can be found on the brilliant and accurate wikipedia page devoted to them:
Impact94 forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||3|