Posted on 08/01/2017 3:51:14 PM PDT by evangmlw
How is that for covering all the bases? :)
It’s a mysterious meat product.
And delicious I might add.
SPAM lightly grilled with some coarse ground mustard
and green onions on crusty French or Vienna bread.
(Hush, Dear! Don’t make a foose - I’ll have your SPAM
instead. I love it! I’m having SPAM, SPAM, SPAM,
Baked Beans SPAM, SPAM & SPAM!)
Tellin ya, it’s easy to stand in judgment of others. Easy to point a finger at others without looking deeper at the source of the wounds. Addiction: Sin or Disease?
I submit, Addiction: satanic snare or pshycological prison?
...I agree...where and why are you saying I’m standing in judgement of others?...in a few lines i simply said i do not call such things diseases...no more, no less.
The disease label started with treatment for alcoholism. The terminology was soon expanded to other addictive drugs. A traditional difference, now eroding, between alcohol and rest is that alcohol has generally been regarded as socially acceptable (with a nod to very large abstaining communities) and legal (except during Prohibition). It is not only socially acceptable but is widely celebrated and encouraged.
But the casualty rate is pretty high, and always has been. Alcohol is almost universally addictive, for example, among American Indians, Australian aborigines, and other native people who were not exposed to it prior to European contact. It also clearly runs in families, and among human populations that have historically used alcohol, the incidence of addiction varies by race.
It is easy, when alcohol is a traditional and accepted drug, for those who can use it safely to look down their noses at people who can't. "I can do it; you must be a moral defective if you can't." Those attracted to this line of argument should take it to an Indian reservation and try it out there. Obviously, individual susceptibility to addiction varies widely. Obviously the dosage is important. And obviously, cultural and psychological factors come into play. That makes it complicated. But it is clear that the genetic component is real.
Among the other addictive drugs, individual susceptibility also varies widely. It's best to stay away from them altogether, but medical addiction provides plenty of examples of people who are taken despite being on a moral high horse about how they are too moral to get hooked. It doesn't work that way.
The addict does have a moral obligation to stop using. But that is very hard in the face of a serious physical addiction.
Spoken like a zealot with no actual personal experience - They be sinners! Send them to hell!
...
Right that must be it...the martyr reads a few sentences and concludes and judges he whom he accuses of judging...perhaps reread all I’ve written or go try out for the next bodysnatchers movie. Look for the scene Donald Sutherland cries out to identify the evil ones...
Amazing...say these items are not diseases and this is what it gets you. Are we no better than liberals?
I am sure they do. There are two kinds of addiction, physical and emotional.
People who need opiates over long courses can become physically addicted and need detox to get off of them, if needed.
Emotionally addicted people have difficulty facing the world without its edges softened. or obliterated.
An addict can be one or both.
Not the ones who are so deluded they think they manage to recoil fro all sinfulness by virtue of their own willpower and condemn those who are addicted instead of reaching out with the Good News of the Gospel of the New Covenant, they use the lashes of the pharisees and commit the same sins as the pharisees - prideful piety....
Amazing...say these items are not diseases and this is what it gets you. Are we no better than liberals?
Not the ones who are so deluded they think they manage to recoil fro all sinfulness by virtue of their own willpower and condemn those who are addicted instead of reaching out with the Good News of the Gospel of the New Covenant, they use the lashes of the pharisees and commit the same sins as the pharisees - prideful piety....
Sorry...that was a global broad brush statement. Didn’t mean to sound as if I was pointing at you. My apologies.
We learn in the Bible that disease and sin are not very different from each other.
Click on my name at the bottom of this post and study the guidelines for posting on the Religion Forum.
Do not post on the RF until you read the guidelines and can follow them.
Only in reference to a spiritual disease, not a physical disease. The Bible lumps drunkenness (addiction) with murder, lying, adultery, and other sins. Is adultery, murder and lying a disease? No, it’s SIN as the Bible labels it.
I am the author. The only resemblance to which addiction can be referenced as a disease is a spiritual disease defined as SIN. Drug addiction is linked to the Greek “phamakeia,” from which we derive the word pharmacy, and in Scripture is linked to sorcery. Drunkenness falls in the same category, as alcohol in reality a drug. No one has ever become an addict or drunkard unless they took they partook of the source responsible. Addiction and drunkenness may lead to diseases, but addiction is not a physical or mental disease -— but rather SIN, as defined by the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.