Split: If you are addicted, is it a sin?

[CopticChristian]

**I am saying that either they were born that way- science hasn’t shown this conclusively but maybe it will. Doesn’t matter. **
I am saying that ONCE the compulsion/problem/habit/decease emerges- is made evident through repeated exposure to alcohol- the culpability of sin is reduced.

Same holds true for mental illness and sin. Same holds true for masturbation and sin.

It depends on whether the will has been compromised.

Ringil,

I do not understand you. “Either they were born that way or???” and it does matter if you believe that this is an innate, congenital, inherited issue as it jades your view.

You are saying that the will once damaged can never recover.

I suggest you read…“Willpower, rediscovering The Greatest Human Strength” by Baumiester…

found here…amazon.com/Willpower-Rediscovering-Greatest-Human-Strength/dp/1594203075

 

[CopticChristian]

I said yes in my prior post, why are you beating this horse?

With all that a person has gained from what you have said if they go back to drinking what will happen? Should they, could they, would they, go back?

Johnny,

We agree on this then…

An addict is a selfish person. When they are not in addiction then they have learned personal strength, understand their weaknesses, has better relations with self, friends, family and is involved in community. When the selfish person is not in addiction they value things differently, lets say job, money, family and understand the wrongs done and what needs to be done that is right. The addiction in resolving this selfish life learns to value life, health, accomplishment and competence. This is how they get better.

The Life Process Program of Stanton Peele does this…

The Life Process Program© provides you with these basic building blocks, which can be regarded as tools to overcome addiction. These seven tools, or recovery elements, are (1) values, (2) motivation, (3) rewards, (4) resources, (5) support, (6) a mature identity, and (7) greater goals.

Self-control and moderation are taught as well as values of accomplishment, competence, awareness, Health, self esteem, relationship values so that interpersonal, family and society relationships are fostered with the community

Necessary Life Skills
Problem Solving, Communication skills, Relaxation skills, acceptance and being alone skills, job skills, refusal skills, self efficacy skills, emotion management skills and relationship skills.

The person with addiction is taught through self reflection the nature of the selfishness with the understanding that this can change by establishing values, with motivation and rewards associated with the necessary resources and support to create a mature identity with a person that has greater goals.

They learn to understand themselves, better communication to engage family, friends, be involved in the community, accept responsibility with the necessary job skills and formation of goals that while in the addicted state they neglected.

This is done without believing or leaving that they are diseased and it is not forever in an 8 week program. It usually takes the 12 step group about 5 years to figure all this out.

 

[CopticChristian]

Do you tell a women who is addicted to morphine because of her cancer she is sinning?

I should not have said “by nature” with my last post but my point is chronic means just that and progressive as well. If a person knows that if they take a drink again it will start a pattern, is that not chronic? They have tried over and over and it won’t go away. It’s chronic.

Johnny,

A person with Chronic Pain addicted to a pain killer is not sinning. She is gaining relief with the understanding that the relief is addicting. In this instance, you may not know, opiates for Cancer implies a short life. This has to be put in perspective. Pain relief with a medication that has side effects is different than taking pain medication because of the side effects.

You are using Chronic in a medical sense that does not make sense in that drinking is taking something to your mouth and swalling it. I don’t agree that taking a drink will cause someone to spin out of control. Studies have been done where alcohol has been presented to test subjects without knowledge and they do not spiral out of control.

I would agree with unrelenting, incessant, persistent but not Chronic as the drinking is an action. Disease in my mind is not an action. Disease is a disorder of the body. Alcohol can cause a disorder, pancreatitis, cirhhosis, enchephalopathy…those are the diseases caused by the drinking the action. The body is a passive receptor of the insult by action with consent.

 

[johnnyjones]

Johnny,

We agree on this then…

The Life Process Program of Stanton Peele does this…

The person with addiction is taught through self reflection the nature of the selfishness with the understanding that this can change by establishing values, with motivation and rewards associated with the necessary resources and support to create a mature identity with a person that has greater goals.

They learn to understand themselves, better communication to engage family, friends, be involved in the community, accept responsibility with the necessary job skills and formation of goals that while in the addicted state they neglected.

This is done without believing or leaving that they are diseased and it is not forever in an 8 week program. It usually takes the 12 step group about 5 years to figure all this out.

You make a case for your own system of belief but you seem to rely on Peele way too much.

 

[CopticChristian]

From the Stanton Peele “Addiction Website”

I would respectfully request that you do not post any more research or opinions on addiction. You’re not doing anyone any favors here, to say the least.
Thanks

Clem,

Just so you are aware that I am not the only Physician on the side of “not a disease”…

www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/Is-Alcoholism-a-Disease.html

Physician Rejection of the Theory

Many physicians reject the disease theory of alcoholism. Dr. Appleton observes that "Despite all public pronouncements about alcoholism as a disease, medical practice rejects treating it as such. Not only does alcoholism not follow the model of a ‘disease,’ it is not amenable to standard medical treatment."33

When a nation-wide sample of physicians in the U.S. was asked if they personally believe that alcoholism is mainly a disease or mainly a personal or moral weakness, 15% believed that it was the latter. When the sample was asked what proportion of alcoholism itself is a disease and what proportion is a personal weakness, the average proportion that was judged to be personal weakness was 31%. Only 12% of physicians believed that alcoholism is 100% a disease.35

A survey of over 88,000 physicians in the U.S. found that “Only 49% of the physicians characterized alcoholism as a disease.” Over 75% believed that the major causes of alcoholism are "personality and emotional problems."36

A survey of psychiatrists and psychologists employed by the Veterans Administration was conducted by Dr. Wilma Knox. "Their attitudes were remarkably similar. Both groups rejected the disease concept in preference to characterizing alcoholism as a behavior problem, symptom complex, or escape mechanism. Both groups were inconsistent in advocating neuropsychiatric hospitalization while considering treatment benefits very limited. Members of both groups were reluctant to participate personally to any degree in rendering this treatment."37

One survey of physicians found that only about 20% believed substance addiction to be a disease.38 Another survey found that only 27% of physicians believed that alcoholism is a disease. The majority viewed alcoholism as a social or psychological problem rather than disease.39

It is significant that a survey of doctors attending an annual conference of the the International Doctors in Alcoholics Anonymous (IDAA) found that 80% believed that alcoholism is simply bad behavior - - not a disease.40

Although much AA literature defines alcoholism as a disease, as do most members, the organization actually takes no official position about the subject. It states that “Some professionals will tell you that alcoholism is a disease while others contend that it is a choice” and "some doctors will tell you that it is in fact a disease."43 Of course, many doctors will tell you that it is not in fact a disease.

and in conclusion there is agreement with this physician…not a quack…

It has been observed that "not only does the disease theory of alcoholism fail to correspond with mainstream medicine’s concept of a disease, but alcoholism itself resists medical intervention."54 Using a faulty theory and the “treatment” that flows from it is a recipe for failure. AA’s self-claimed success rate of 5% represents a failure because about one-third of alcoholics achieve success completely on their own. Attending AA is less effective than not doing so.

It’s not surprising that the disease theory of alcoholism has proved to be such a disappointing failure. Those few people who achieve their goal of not drinking (or of drinking in moderation) while attending disease theory 12-step programs such as AA do so in spite of those programs.

as a physician addiction is a bad, very bad habit…

as a Catholic addiction is sin caused by consent to an action leading to persistent use and erosion of virtue, ie sin.

 

[johnnyjones]

Johnny,

A person with Chronic Pain addicted to a pain killer is not sinning. She is gaining relief with the understanding that the relief is addicting. In this instance, you may not know, opiates for Cancer implies a short life. This has to be put in perspective. Pain relief with a medication that has side effects is different than taking pain medication because of the side effects.

You are using Chronic in a medical sense that does not make sense in that drinking is taking something to your mouth and swalling it. I don’t agree that taking a drink will cause someone to spin out of control. Studies have been done where alcohol has been presented to test subjects without knowledge and they do not spiral out of control.

I would agree with unrelenting, incessant, persistent but not Chronic as the drinking is an action. Disease in my mind is not an action. Disease is a disorder of the body. Alcohol can cause a disorder, pancreatitis, cirhhosis, enchephalopathy…those are the diseases caused by the drinking the action. The body is a passive receptor of the insult by action with consent.

I sat with cancer patients in their last days while they took opiates when I worked in as a hospital peace officer during nursing staff shortages. I used an extreme example but never the less an addiction is an addiction, now your retooling words. What of a medical marijuana patient who suffers pain but develops dependency? That’s why earlier I talked about severity, measures, and case by case accounts. I would take it you discount predisposition, I’ve seen it and lived it, so I don’t. Addiction is sin if acted upon because it is harmful and destructive.

What do you mean by “spiral out of control?” You don’t immediately turn into a beast with hair. Alcohol, to those it has not worked for can act as a trigger in the sense that the one who ingests it starts to believe they can handle it. In my youth this cycle was repeated ad nauseum to no positive conclusion. Me an 20 million others. Again, all people are not the same ,but for those afflicted they must be on guard.

 

[CopticChristian]

You make a case for your own system of belief but you seem to rely on Peele way too much.

Johnny,

Peele, Hester, St. Jude, St. Gregory, Baldwin Research, and the varied and sundried references…read The Truth About Addiction and Love Addiction by Peele and get back to me.

BTW it is not my system of belief. It is the belief contrary to the notion that addiction is a disease. Never has been, never will be, except in the minds that accept the campaign to accept it as so. It just does not make any sense as posted in #145

www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Con…a-Disease.html

Dr. Herbert Fingarette has observed that the disease theory of alcoholism is embodied in four propositions:

Heavy problem drinkers show a single distinctive pattern of ever greater alcohol use leading to ever greater bodily, mental, and social deterioration.

The condition once it appears, persists involuntarily: the craving is irresistible and the drinking is uncontrollable once it has begun.

Medical expertise is needed to understand and relieve the condition (‘cure the disease’) or at least ameliorate its symptoms.

Alcoholics are no more responsible legally or morally for their drinking and its consequences than epileptics are responsible for the consequences of their movements during seizures." 1

Proposition one is based on faulty science and is not true.

The first proposition gained some credibility in the 1940s when E.M. Jellinek,2 often considered the father of the disease model of alcoholism, published a study of the “phases of alcoholism” in which he hypothesized an inevitable sequence of increasingly uncontrolled drinking progressively leading to such symptoms as blackouts, tolerance, withdrawal distress, insanity and death.3

Ironically, Jellineck came to recognize the inadequacies of his hypothesis and later distanced himself from it. Nevertheless, the false belief "has become part of the enduring mythology of alcoholism."5

Proposition 2 debunked…

The second proposition, that drinking necessarily becomes uncontrollable once it has begun, had been disproved over a quarter century ago by more than 100 research studies reporting that a significant proportion of alcoholics return to moderate or controlled drinking without problems.6 Since then, the number of such studies has more than doubled.

The proposition has also been disproved by a nation-wide survey of alcoholics conducted by the United States government. It found that 17.7% of alcoholics are now drinking in moderation.

Proposition 3 is not true…

The third proposition, that medical help is necessary to deal with alcoholism, is clearly not the case. Indeed, most alcoholics control or modify their behavior without any help from anyone else other than themselves.

Proposition 4…wrong and The Supreme Court says AA is a religion…

The fourth proposition, that alcoholics aren’t responsible for their behavior, is certainly not true. In 1988, the United States Supreme Court found that alcoholism is always the result of the alcoholics “own willful misconduct.” It reaffirmed the lower court’s finding that there exists "a substantial body of medical literature that even contests the proposition that alcoholism is a disease, much less that it is a disease for which the victim bears no responsibility."11 It also noted that "Indeed, even among many who consider alcoholism a ‘disease’ to which its victims are genetically predisposed, the consumption of alcohol is not regarded as wholly involuntary."12

The Supreme Court also held the arguments presented in favor of the disease theory of alcoholism constitute a syllogism or deceptive argument and that "the inescapable fact is that there is no agreement among members of the medical profession about what it means to say that ‘alcoholism’ is a ‘disease.’"13

Look I did this all without referring to Peele…

Addiction is a sin

 

[CopticChristian]

I sat with cancer patients in their last days while they took opiates when I worked in as a hospital peace officer during nursing staff shortages. I used an extreme example but never the less an addiction is an addiction, now your retooling words. What of a medical marijuana patient who suffers pain but develops dependency? That’s why earlier I talked about severity, measures, and case by case accounts. I would take it you discount predisposition, I’ve seen it and lived it, so I don’t. Addiction is sin if acted upon because it is harmful and destructive.

What do you mean by “spiral out of control?” You don’t immediately turn into a beast with hair. Alcohol, to those it has not worked for can act as a trigger in the sense that the one who ingests it starts to believe they can handle it. In my youth this cycle was repeated ad nauseum to no positive conclusion. Me an 20 million others. Again, all people are not the same ,but for those afflicted they must be on guard.

Johnny,

One of the myths is that you can never drink again. Ok, if you want to believe that and if that keeps you from drinking. If you recall there were reasons why you drank and when those reasons change then the drink is not the problem. Having resolved the “why” you drank, the drink is less of an issue than the why.

There is a thread somewhere about medical marijuana. Look for it. There is a strain of marijuana that relieves pain without the side effects of euphoria. You may want to look at that.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am saying that either they were born that way- science hasn’t shown this conclusively but maybe it will. Doesn’t matter.

I am saying that ONCE the compulsion/problem/habit/decease emerges- is made evident through repeated exposure to alcohol- the culpability of sin is reduced.

Same holds true for mental illness and sin. Same holds true for masturbation and sin.

It depends on whether the will has been compromised.

Ring,

Here is some history that most don’t know. When the Harrison Act was passed, the act that controls Narcotics…Addiction was said not to be a disease…see here.

The act appears to be concerned about the marketing of opiates. However a clause applying to doctors allowed distribution “in the course of his professional practice only.” This clause was interpreted after 1917 to mean that a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addict, since addiction was not considered a disease./

QUOTE]

druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cu8.html

The provision protecting physicians, however, contained a joker hidden in the phrase, “in the course of his professional practice only .” 7 After passage of the law, this clause was interpreted by law-enforcement officers to mean that a doctor could not prescribe opiates to an addict to maintain his addiction. Since addiction was not a disease,

the argument went, an addict was not a patient, and opiates dispensed to or prescribed for him by a physician were therefore not being supplied “in the course of his professional practice.” Thus a law apparently intended to ensure the orderly marketing of narcotics was converted into a law prohibiting the supplying of narcotics to addicts, even on a physician’s prescription.

druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/e1910/harrisonact.htm

It shall be unlawful for any person to obtain by means of said order forms any of the aforesaid drugs for any purpose other than the use, sale, or distribution thereof by him in the conduct of a lawful business in said drugs or in the legitimate practice of his profession.

So, can you imagine what in the world is going on for those of us trying to figure out what is what. The government says addiction is not a disease with the Harrison act. Some guy produces bad science and now addiction is being touted as a disease. No study has been produced to confirm that it is a disease. The Supreme Court rules it is not a disease and AA is a religion.

Jesus Christ the Bearer of the Water of life says it is sin and salvation

The acceptance of the disease model is not uniform with exception of those that believe it without fact…and it is by

Faith…we believe in sin and salvation…

and I believe addiction is sin…or for the non religous a very bad habit…

 

[Christmastwin]

Johnny,

One of the myths is that you can never drink again. Ok, if you want to believe that and if that keeps you from drinking. If you recall there were reasons why you drank and when those reasons change then the drink is not the problem. Having resolved the “why” you drank, the drink is less of an issue than the why.

There is a thread somewhere about medical marijuana. Look for it. There is a strain of marijuana that relieves pain without the side effects of euphoria. You may want to look at that.

I tried moderation after almost 20 years of sobriety and it did NOT work for me and almost killed me. It is dangerous to even suggest that to someone who is alcoholic. I don’t give a **** about the Disease/Non-Disease aspect of it. An alcoholic cannot safely ingest alcohol. You are not an alcoholic. You cannot possibly understand. I am talking from personal experience, not books or psychologists or statistics.

I’m sure you’ve heard of the Audrey Kishline story, founder of Moderation Management. A real tragedy.

 

[ringil]

Ringil,

I do not understand you. “Either they were born that way or???” and it does matter if you believe that this is an innate, congenital, inherited issue as it jades your view.

You are saying that the will once damaged can never recover.

The will can be damaged through habit and compulsion and then regain, yes, through psychological means and through the Grace of God. The best example is masturbation. Oftentimes the culpability of that objectively grave act is lessened during adolescence- when hormones are racing and such. The CCC says this. For some kids, however, the sin may be grave as they do not suffer in this way. But as one grows up TYPICALLY this compulsion “calms down”. At that point the sins would increase in severity as the “choice” of the individual becomes clearer.

Now, in addiction to alcohol and drugs (saying true addiction) that persons’ will has been inexorably damaged. In the throws of addiction each relapse wouldn’t necessarily be grave.

Now once the individual has been sober for a time- perhaps- saying perhaps because I can’t speak to the mystical nature of sin in that detailed of a way- the choice to begin drinking/drugging again would be mortal- maybe- here I don’t know. I can say that EACH time a person relapses it would not be mortal sin.

 

[johnnyjones]

Johnny,

One of the myths is that you can never drink again. Ok, if you want to believe that and if that keeps you from drinking. If you recall there were reasons why you drank and when those reasons change then the drink is not the problem. Having resolved the “why” you drank, the drink is less of an issue than the why.

There is a thread somewhere about medical marijuana. Look for it. There is a strain of marijuana that relieves pain without the side effects of euphoria. You may want to look at that.

Some find the “whys” like myself, but some don’t. I maintain that even if you find the why, in most cases you can not take in alcohol without it having mentally and physically putting you back into solution.

I didn’t drink for 15 years and consider myself as one having a high level of consciousness along with being in tune to my psychological state of mind. I like the taste of beer. I decided to drink a “non alcoholic” beer which in actuality contains 0.5% alcohol. Over repeated use, I changed. I felt the cravings and old compulsions return and had I not been an informed person it is likely I would have returned to regular beer and whiskey.

There are people who can return to moderate drinking I would agree with you but the overwhelming percentage can not. Not because they are “brainwashed” to believe that but because they have tried it repeatedly to no avail. I would be skeptical myself had I not experienced the mental obsession. Yes, that is “AA speak” but they are right about that.

If an adulterer ceased his behavior, why would someone think he could go back to that even if it was a one time dabbling ( putting aside the obvious moral component)?

It is still not cut and dry for me and although I see some of your points I can not fully remove what I have seen and experienced first hand.

 

[ringil]

The acceptance of the disease model is not uniform with exception of those that believe it without fact…and it is by

Faith…we believe in sin and salvation…

and I believe addiction is sin…or for the non religous a very bad habit…

I’m not in the boat of “it’s a decease,” as to me that’s not so important.

Yes, addiction does carry some hallmarks of decease as it is chronic.

Let’s call it a habit then. Is it a sin- I would say so in a way- but as I said earlier- along with many sins- one must look at culpability which in some cases can even TOTALLY remove the sinful nature- OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, while objectively remaining either grave or venial sin.

 

[CopticChristian]

I tried moderation after almost 20 years of sobriety and it did NOT work for me and almost killed me. It is dangerous to even suggest that to someone who is alcoholic. I don’t give a **** about the Disease/Non-Disease aspect of it. An alcoholic cannot safely ingest alcohol. You are not an alcoholic. You cannot possibly understand. I am talking from personal experience, not books or psychologists or statistics.

I’m sure you’ve heard of the Audrey Kishline story, founder of Moderation Management. A real tragedy.

Christ,

Then you must admit that you are unable to drink in moderation. Your experience does not equal the world experience nor does it imply what is right for you is right for everyone. Empiricism vs Rationalism is always at odds. Testimonials is not what success is built on.

Glad you figured yourself out.

 

[CopticChristian]

The will can be damaged through habit and compulsion and then regain, yes, through psychological means and through the Grace of God. The best example is masturbation. Oftentimes the culpability of that objectively grave act is lessened during adolescence- when hormones are racing and such. The CCC says this. For some kids, however, the sin may be grave as they do not suffer in this way. But as one grows up TYPICALLY this compulsion “calms down”. At that point the sins would increase in severity as the “choice” of the individual becomes clearer.

Now, in addiction to alcohol and drugs (saying true addiction) that persons’ will has been inexorably damaged. In the throws of addiction each relapse wouldn’t necessarily be grave.

Now once the individual has been sober for a time- perhaps- saying perhaps because I can’t speak to the mystical nature of sin in that detailed of a way- the choice to begin drinking/drugging again would be mortal- maybe- here I don’t know. I can say that EACH time a person relapses it would not be mortal sin.

Ringil,

I have no idea where you get this notion of damaged goods for the will. If you believe it and you are happy then wonderful. I would not suggest to someone that they have a damaged will. I would suggest that if they read Baumiester they would understand what science says about the will and I would say that if you read “Owners Manaul of the Brain”, a compendium of things like chemical aspects good and bad and “Users Manual of the Brain, Vol I & II” that they would know that there are things you can do to enhance brain function.

 

[CopticChristian]

Some find the “whys” like myself, but some don’t. I maintain that even if you find the why, in most cases you can not take in alcohol without it having mentally and physically putting you back into solution.

I didn’t drink for 15 years and consider myself as one having a high level of consciousness along with being in tune to my psychological state of mind. I like the taste of beer. I decided to drink a “non alcoholic” beer which in actuality contains 0.5% alcohol. Over repeated use, I changed. I felt the cravings and old compulsions return and had I not been an informed person it is likely I would have returned to regular beer and whiskey.

There are people who can return to moderate drinking I would agree with you but the overwhelming percentage can not. Not because they are “brainwashed” to believe that but because they have tried it repeatedly to no avail. I would be skeptical myself had I not experienced the mental obsession. Yes, that is “AA speak” but they are right about that.

If an adulterer ceased his behavior, why would someone think he could go back to that even if it was a one time dabbling ( putting aside the obvious moral component)?

It is still not cut and dry for me and although I see some of your points I can not fully remove what I have seen and experienced first hand.

Johnny,

Your notion of the overwhelming experience does not bear out in what is known and is as you say it is experience and again you understand that there is always information gathered empirically vs rationally. This does not equate to what is known by gathering large volumes of information.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not in the boat of “it’s a decease,” as to me that’s not so important.

Yes, addiction does carry some hallmarks of decease as it is chronic.

Let’s call it a habit then. Is it a sin- I would say so in a way- but as I said earlier- along with many sins- one must look at culpability which in some cases can even TOTALLY remove the sinful nature- OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, while objectively remaining either grave or venial sin.

Ringil,

This notion of Chronic is misinformation that keeps getting transmitted. Resposibility is the issue, I agree.

I would pray that everyone understand that the original OP that was split was the question of murder while under the influence of LSD. That is responsibility and that would be sin.

I also pray that everyone see that I showed no anger in any of my postings, just rational answers knowing that anyone that suggests that the 12 step/AA disease model is wrong would be attacked. Anyone that reads the past postings will see just how hard it is to change a belief that has been transmitted in books, meetings, media and accepted as true just resists change.

Any past or future experience with “born again” or “evangelical” Protestants you see in any posting have the same mindset. You will experience what I experienced. It is difficult to present information to these groups because they resist not wanting to change their belief.

I pray that any observer to these posts realize that it is difficult to know what to do for a member of the family or even themselves when there is so much misinformation. Lives are at stake and the argument has less to do with a particular paradigm as to what is true. If what is true is sought then lives are spared and suffering avoided.

I pray that anyone sufffering in any way come to the Church because in my opinion Christ is all sufficient. In the meantime there are a many and sundry ways to approach this problerm until that recognition is accepted.

For those that have no religiion then understand that AA/12 steps and the disease model is religion and any religion should be approached with caution. Too many " I used to be Catholics" have been seem by me, empiricism in operation here, in the halls of AA meetings. I believe that there is a threat to the loss of Faith in AA.

For those that choose to approach the problem without religion then there are avenues that have a scientific basis that have a proven track record for success and I hope they find the real religion in the OHCAC and then they will realize that

They never had a disease
They had bad habits
They were made in the image and likeness of God
God provided an avenue of relief by confessing their sin
Coming to Christ through the Church, the mystery hidden for all ages, through which the manifold wisdom of God is known, the means by which Gentiles are made fellow heirs of Christ

and they realize as I do that as Jesus Christ The Bearer of the Water of Life says…

Addiction and Recovery should be abandoned in favor of

Sin and Salvation…

Do we not pray for salvation for all…

 

[clem456]

I’ve been lurking on this thread for a couple of days, but I’m glad one of the participants finally said this. Very distracting - it becomes hard to separate the good points from those more contentious and worthy of fuller inquiry.

I think some of the main debaters would do well to define their terms. It’s easy to say addiction vs. sin, habit vs. disease. How do these terms overlap (if at all)? How are they completely dissimilar (if at all)? I’m just wondering if these terms were defined, there might not be a lot more agreement and the conversation could evolve and be more pure.

Let me make an attempt at on of the main points of confusion:

The Christian understanding of willpower. Or will, and power.

God creates all that is, including man and his will. The will is a gift from God.

God gives man the desire and the means to know Him. God desires His will and man’s to be united in a communion. In the Garden, man’s will and God’s are indeed in communion. God choosing man, man choosing God.

Man has used his own will independent of God’s power, and thus misused his will, not simply because he ate fruit, but because he believed the lie that he (man), can be like God, and still be in communion with God, while using his own will in disobeying God.

Man’s will is corrupted. He has misused the gift and separated himself from the only real power behind his will, God. (This seems to be a bone of contention, whether or not God is the real power behind man’s will or not… not the power of mere decision making, but the power of having a truly free will.)

Man now needs redemption due to the choices made by his corrupted will. Man does not have the power to save himself, to will salvation. Jesus is the only power to set things right.

The addict has so badly separated and corrupted his will from the true power behind it, that the will must be surrendered to God, to be made whole in communion with Him.

And I have to go to work. Free free to comment.

 

[CopticChristian]

Let me make an attempt at on of the main points of confusion:

The Christian understanding of willpower. Or will, and power.

God creates all that is, including man and his will. The will is a gift from God.

God gives man the desire and the means to know Him. God desires His will and man’s to be united in a communion. In the Garden, man’s will and God’s are indeed in communion. God choosing man, man choosing God.

Man has used his own will independent of God’s power, and thus misused his will, not simply because he ate fruit, but because he believed the lie that he (man), can be like God, and still be in communion with God, while using his own will in disobeying God.

Man’s will is corrupted. He has misused the gift and separated himself from the only real power behind his will, God. (This seems to be a bone of contention, whether or not God is the real power behind man’s will or not… not the power of mere decision making, but the power of having a truly free will.)

Man now needs redemption due to the choices made by his corrupted will. Man does not have the power to save himself, to will salvation. Jesus is the only power to set things right.

The addict has so badly separated and corrupted his will from the true power behind it, that the will must be surrendered to God, to be made whole in communion with Him.

And I have to go to work. Free free to comment.

Clem,

Lets say that you, me, any sinner will do well to allow our will to align with the will of God…turning your will over is 12 step think speak…aligning your will is Church language and the language of

Veritatis Splendor and in that I found more useful information than any of the various paradigms including the scientific ones.

Veritatis splendor works, and it works if you work it, keep coming back, if you want what those that work it got…if you want what they got then all is well.

Veritatis Splendor, I agree, all should read and follow this…

 

[johnnyjones]

Johnny,

Your notion of the overwhelming experience does not bear out in what is known and is as you say it is experience and again you understand that there is always information gathered empirically vs rationally. This does not equate to what is known by gathering large volumes of information.

With that logic you should just come out and say the large percentage of alcoholics could just go right back to drinking with no problems. If one had a huge problem with gambling, should they regulary buy scratch off tickets? Is engaging in behavior that was once harmful to you a good thing? If that mentality was embraced we would all be in bad shape.