ROUND TWO: Jesus was a non-smoker

Sadly, however, it is not enough to defeat me. 1. Tombeik 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. 2. Cannabis 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. " . http://rationalwiki.org... 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. 5. Wine 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" Nice. :) 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: . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com... . http://www.youtube.com...