History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedSin and addiction

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Sin and addiction
    Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 17:27
Hi,

This is the promised sin thread.

I want to bring up the case of addiction because it is concrete, and it will make us talk in concrete terms.

Please share your definitions of sin and whether an addict is sinning or not?

Here is my position to start the discussion:

I see sin as a concept that reflects the fallibility of humans and actions that cause harm to others mainly. And every harm that we make to others is harm to oneself.

Addicts present an interesting case because, from what little we know, there may be a physiological component about it. We don't say that sneezing people are sinning, because it is not their fault that they have a cold.

Can we say that addicts are sinning when engaging in the addiction if their bodies compel them to be addicts?

I have an answer, but I will let other people share theirs to get the conversation going.
To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 19:38
I disagree with your definition of sin.

Sin is not an anti-social deed but some action that is harming the one who does it. This action could be a physical or menthal movement (a thought).

Those deeds that are harming the man who makes them are called sins.

Each sin has a different bad effect. For example, stealing is making you fearfull, lying is affecting your perception of reality (you can start to believe your lies) etc.

The dependence is a psychological syndrom in which the dependent person has the fake impression that he/she cann't reject something he/she does. Actualy he/she can.

Edited by Menumorut - 10-Dec-2007 at 19:39

Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of NĂºmenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1405
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 00:56
Wow, difficult thread Hugo.  I'll probably have to give it some more thought before I can give a proper response, but I guess I would view addiction as a sin in the sense that it is harming oneself and others.  And with everything else aside it is a choice, not matter how difficult or effected by other issues one may be.  So, oh yeah, physiology and also psychology definitely factor into it.
 
Like I said let me think about this some more (I've had plenty of experience with this very topic so I should be able to come up with some sort of response better than simply agreeing with you)Wink
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4003
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 12:18
Hi, Menumorut,

I don't disagree that the person who sins causes harm to himself, but why do you exclude harming others from the definition? I am interested to hear your reasoning on this.

Justinian,

You are right, this is a hard case. Almost like a puzzle case. Most of us want, especially if we have seen the effects that serious addition has on people, want to categorize it as a sin.

At the same time the physical elements of addition tells us that there is some element that doesn't make them fully responsible.

How much can you really sin if your body is, in a way, forcing you to engage in a behavior that is destructive?

Can extreme addiction be similar to a person with a strong illness who can't work anymore because of it bringing misfortune to their families by their not being able to make money anymore?

To judge the fatherless and the oppressed, that the man of the earth may no more oppress.


Back to Top
Menumorut View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Jun-2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1116
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Menumorut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 15:38
Hugo, I think any harm of others has an effect against the person who did it. Someone cann't be happy if he/she harmed someone else. Even the remorses are missing, the life of that person is inevitably bad, because there is a psychological-emotional equilibre which is broken when we make injustices to others.

And the lack of remorses coresponds to a atrophiated (by sins) soul and this is the gravest effect of sin, because remorses are passing in time but this atrophiation is forever, only God could cure it but for that the person should be receptive to a divine intervention (in spiritual way) and for that the person should have a complex religious consciunsess, which is missing at almost all people.


So, I think that these effects are bad enough, we have not to condemn more that person.

Edited by Menumorut - 13-Dec-2007 at 15:44

Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 02:14
Quote Please share your definitions of sin and whether an addict is sinning or not?


Sins are actions human beings take that separate us from God.

An addict is a person who has an uncontrollable urge to perform an action, due to abnormal psychology or physiology.

Thus addicts have a sickness that affects their decision making, and they aren't entirely responsible for the actions they perform. They do have a responsibility to act in their best capacity to prevent further sins. But the addicting behavior itself isn't necessarily a sin.

During the addicting behaviors addicts are not rational, and thus have no responsibility in sins they commit. Only when they have rational minds can they be held responsible for their actions.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
Justinian View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
King of NĂºmenor

Joined: 11-Nov-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1405
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Justinian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 04:14
Originally posted by hugoestr hugoestr wrote:


Justinian,

You are right, this is a hard case. Almost like a puzzle case. Most of us want, especially if we have seen the effects that serious addition has on people, want to categorize it as a sin.

At the same time the physical elements of addition tells us that there is some element that doesn't make them fully responsible.

How much can you really sin if your body is, in a way, forcing you to engage in a behavior that is destructive?

Can extreme addiction be similar to a person with a strong illness who can't work anymore because of it bringing misfortune to their families by their not being able to make money anymore?

I agree, I was just commenting that the person makes a choice originally, before the addiction.  Generally, not always.  I also agree that once a person is addicted there is a physiological and/or psychological factor that makes it less of a decision.  At this point its like a person being pushed along by another force, (another person for this example) and unless the person turns around firmly and punches this person pushing them, the addiction will not end.  (terrible simile but it should make sense)  Use drugs, smoking, alcohol, etc. as examples and you see this repeated time and again.  Even when the person wants to stop the addiction it is incredibly difficult for them to end it.  Factor in a person who doesn't want to stop it, whether it be self-loathing or something else, and there is just about zero percent chance of them breaking that addiction. 
 
Okay, clearly I need more time, tomorrow I should have a decent response.Wink
"War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann

Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 14:30

I agree that addictions lead to compulsive behavior. How to qualify that is still a point of contention for me. Most AA or NA therapists believe that the root of the problem is manyfold; physiological, social, psychological and genetic. The treatment process takes into consideration those underlying components.

Do various dispositions take away individual responsibility? Is an addicted person irrational? Well, they are not healthy. I wouldn't go so far as to say they are irrational or beyond personal responsibility though. As long as the addictive person is not currently under the influence and that the addictive behavior did not lead to long lasting detrimental losses in cognition, then that person does have his/her mental faculties intact. Thus his/her ability in making future rational decisions is not impaired. Eventually, most healthcare workers would agree, the road to recovery leads with cessation of the addicting activity. No matter how difficult this is, recovery is still a choice that each addicted person has the potential to make whether court ordered or by desire. Once the person agrees with a treatment plan the next key component is coping with withdrawl symptoms. This path then leads to total abstinence. Anything short of total abstinence runs the risk of triggering physiological circuits and psychological dependency once again. The key is to return to healthy functioning. This enables healthy choices and a lifetime process in active recovery.
Copyright © 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Brian J Checco View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
Eli Manning

Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 926
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Brian J Checco Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Dec-2007 at 16:02
I'm a smoker; does that mean that I am "sinning?"
I think I live "healthily;" I stay active, exercise from time to time, don't drink to excess (the Posting Drunk thread in the Tavern being the exception to the rule...), don't smoke pot, no drugs, so I don't even think I'm harming myself too bad- but yes, it's certainly an addiction. But does that mean that I'm transgressing against a higher power in some way? BY being addicted to a substance such as nicotine? I don't act irrationally when I haven't had a cigarette for a few days (which definitely happens- on a college budget, sometimes you're just flat-out broke), I wouldn't steal to get money for smokes, nor kill, rape, etc. Like hugo said, this is a topic that deals in concrete facts; not metaphysics, not the abstract- this can be resolved by simple empirical observation, I believe.

I think that first we had ought to try a working definition for 'sin.' What is a 'sin?' Are we looking at it from a religious standpoint, or from a societal standpoint, or from an individual standpoint? What are the consequences of sin? And finally, what constitutes a sin? Until we have a concrete definition we will remainn in the realm of abstraction and metaphysics.
Back to Top
JanusRook View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 2424
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JanusRook Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Dec-2007 at 04:22
Quote
I wouldn't go so far as to say they are irrational or beyond personal responsibility though.


Not personal responsibility, moral responsibility I use rational in the theological sense not in the psychological sense.
Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative.

Unless otherwise noted source is wiki.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.203 seconds.