Spirituality
27 Sep 16
03 Oct 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAddiction is not drinking. If someone stops drinking they do not stop being addicted.
If someone claimed to be addicted to drinking and you held a gun to their head and told them either stop drinking or a take a bullet to the head, do you think they won't be able to choose not to drink and take the bullet?
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes they do, it's called rehab. I know quite a few alcoholics and heroin addicts (and chain smokers) that no longer have an addiction, because they stopped using (and they found Jesus to fill the vacuum that used to be filled by the drugs).
Addiction is not drinking. If someone stops drinking they do not stop being addicted.
03 Oct 16
originally posted by twhitehead
All diseases are a set of characteristic symptoms.
Yes, but stating it that way can be misleading. Having a set of characteristic symptoms does not imply that there is a disease involved. If you have a stubbed toe, right, you have a set of characteristic symptoms but that does not indicate you have a disease.
What does indicate a disease? I've offered this: infectious agent, or pathological biological process, or biologically degenerative condition. I don't know if that's complete or sufficient. I believe though that if you abuse a substance you chose to do so and your behavior should not be pinned on a disease.
AIDS is a disease, HIV is not.
What distinction are you seeing there?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkAs usual, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.
Yes they do, it's called rehab. I know quite a few alcoholics and heroin addicts (and chain smokers) that no longer have an addiction, because they stopped using (and they found Jesus to fill the vacuum that used to be filled by the drugs).
03 Oct 16
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistThat is because we classify that particular disease as 'injury' and typically do not call it a disease. But there is not a clear line between the two.
Yes, but stating it that way can be misleading. Having a set of characteristic symptoms does not imply that there is a disease involved. If you have a stubbed toe, right, you have a set of characteristic symptoms but that does not indicate you have a disease.
What does indicate a disease?
A set of characteristic symptoms.
I've offered this: infectious agent, or pathological biological process, or biologically degenerative condition.
So why doesn't stubbing your toe fit that? Surely it is a form of degenerative condition?
I don't know if that's complete or sufficient. I believe though that if you abuse a substance you chose to do so and your behavior should not be pinned on a disease.
Many many degenerative conditions are a direct result of behaviour, including substance abuse.
I am not 'pinning' alcoholism on a disease. Alcoholism is a disease.
What distinction are you seeing there?
AIDS is the disease. It is the symptoms. HIV is the disease causing agent. You can get HIV and not have AIDS.
03 Oct 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI would like to see tw respond to this.
If someone claimed to be addicted to drinking and you held a gun to their head and told them either stop drinking or a take a bullet to the head, do you think they won't be able to choose not to drink and take the bullet?
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkThis is not true. Addiction causes irreversible changes in the brain. A reformed addict may be able to resist his or her addiction, but the condition remains with them forever.
Yes they do, it's called rehab. I know quite a few alcoholics and heroin addicts (and chain smokers) that no longer have an addiction, because they stopped using (and they found Jesus to fill the vacuum that used to be filled by the drugs).
03 Oct 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't think so. Degenerative implies it gets worse, but a stubbed toe just naturally heals.
I've offered this: infectious agent, or pathological biological process, or biologically degenerative condition.
So why doesn't stubbing your toe fit that? Surely it is a form of degenerative condition?