Originally posted by SaggyWoman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SaggyWoman:
And I will say this, unless you have been there, done that, you really don't have a clue.
Blatant nonsense! Such a statement is like saying you can't condemn homosexuality unless you've been one! Well, I've never been homosexual but I can definitely condemn it as sin based on God's Word! </font>[/QUOTE]Well, recovery programs aren't blatantly sin.
Have you ever been addicted to drugs or alcohol? Have you ever been a codependant? Have you ever been sexually or emotionally abused? </font>[/QUOTE]In a word, no. But, this is immaterial and irrelevant to the question. As I clearly expressed, one does not need to experience a behavior in order to know and understand it. Presuppositional to your whole argument is the view that emotions and feelings are the most important thing.
WRONG! Your purview is entirely a human perspective. This is known as humanism where things human are of the highest importance. The most important thing is what God has said. Glorifying and obeying God is more important than the adversities we face. Sometimes things are hard and tough. However, there are other situations much tougher to bear than drug habits or alcohol habits. I am thinking of a kid who was born with
spina bifida. The craving or desire for a chemical substance is not a greater burden than a physical affliction. Furthermore, this girl did nothing to bring this affliction upon her whereas the so-called addictions were initiated and acquired through sinful behavior.
The idea behind the recovery movement is the notion of the chemical addiction component. Most people think this is a scientific view when in fact the scientific data is the opposite. We cannot find a provable addiction theory, whether genetic or biochemical. The research keeps coming up short. The answer keeps coming back to habitual behavior.
Regardless what your feelings tell you, for those who have experienced it, the facts simply point to habitual behavior. Now, I have experienced the agony of breaking habitual behaviors. It’s tough to handle but it’s not genetic or biochemical.
The genetic or biochemical addiction theories merely give us an excuse when we fail.
Research, for example, has been done with both supposedly non-addicted and addicted drinkers. The amount of alcohol was varied in the drinks that were served. The drinkers did not know whether they were drinking alcoholic drinks or not.
The study showed no difference in consumption between alcoholic and non-alcoholic placebos. The addicted drinkers drank the non-alcoholic in the same proportion as if the drinks had been alcoholic. In other words, they drank on the basis of what they believed the drinks to contain, not the actual alcoholic content.
Therefore, this study indicates that it is the drinker’s belief and desire to achieve a specific effect as the controlling factor, not the actual chemical content.
Addiction theory based on genetic or biochemical factors is akin to tolerating homosexuality on the basis of genetic predisposition. Again, homosexual behavior is a choice—a sinful one. There is no real scientific evidence that genes have anything to do with homosexuality. However, let’s suppose that we did find a gene that predisposes people to homosexual characteristics. This does not excuse the sinfulness of homosexual behavior any more than it is innate for a man to lust after a woman.
Hormones and so-call body chemistry make it easy and natural for a man to know sexual lust and commit adultery with a woman. It is the flesh crying out to be satisfied. However, it is still wickedness and sin before a righteous and holy God. It is not excusable. Therefore, the whole chemical argument excuse for addiction or homosexuality is flushed down the drain!
Perhaps you should think more and feel less. Righteousness is not found by what feels right. It is based on the reasoning of God’s revealed wisdom from His Word.
