Sign in to follow this  
wenglund

Sin and Sickness: are they related?

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Read the entire sentence. 

 

Clearly a joke. 

While I suspected it was a joke, it was anything but clear--which is why I wanted to give you a chance to clarify. Now, go and sobber up, you idiot. ;)

Than ks -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
Just now, wenglund said:

sobber up, you idiot.

Thank God you didn't say sober. :: phew:: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Thank God you didn't say sober. :: phew:: 

It was the slurred spelling...which should tell you something about my own inebriated state of mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

Edited by wenglund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It wasn't an insult, we both agree that adultery/fornication/sex outside of marriage is wrong. So we're clear about that, and we agree. I didn't justify Mark or Steves actions. 

Clearly my awesome skills at creative responses fails me once again. I understood you weren't insulting me and I thought I was responding with the same tone.  I didn't think you were justifying Mark or Steve. I thought I was bantering back with you.

33 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Luck plays a huge role in life, and religious people sometimes (key word, sometimes) fail to see that. That's why Mark can sleep with a lot of girls and for whatever reason, still be healthy.  That's also why car crash and take the life of a 4 year old while the driver driver who killed them walks away from the crash. The outcome of sin is damnation, not disease. Though sin itself is a type of disease. 

We agree that ultimately "unrepented" sin will result with a person being damned. The outcome of sin can also be a disease contracted from sin. Luck or no luck isn't the central focus. The question needing to be asked, "If Steve didn't fornicate would he have contracted HIV"? According to the scenario provided, he would not have. People being lucky really the question the OP is providing.

The scourge (a disease, a sickness) mentioned in scripture, pertaining to the last days, will be a result of the wickedness (sin) of the sons and daughters of God. If the sons and daughters of God were choosing righteousness the scourge prophesied of would not take place.

33 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And I don't really know you @Anddenex. You keep turning down my invitations to go out drinking together. Jerk. 

Wait, what? You didn't receive my email of acceptance? I thought you kept deleting my response and was ignoring me, but maybe it is in cyber space limbo. Refresh your browser or check your spam, you will see I accepted Mr. MG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
29 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

You haven't receive my email of acceptance? I thought you kept deleting my response and was ignoring me, but maybe it is in cyber space limbo. Refresh your browser or check your spam, you will see I accepted Mr. MG.

And to think, you deleted my offer of a private Learjet taking you and your family on a fully paid trip to Disney World.  Poor guy. 

 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And to think, you deleted my offer of a private Learjet taking you and your family on a fully paid trip to Disney World.  Poor guy. 

 

My response must be still in cyber space limbo...poor guy indeed. Please send again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, this doesn't even touch on possible mental illnesses that may be sin related, if not caused. 

That's a very bold statement to make. Psychological conditions of any kind are largely multi-factorial. In some cases, there are genetic and biological causes (predisposition) and in other cases there are social-environmental causes.

Millions of people (including young children) around the world suffer from  bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD, and we are seeing many people (due to severe abuse) with dissociative identity disorder (DID). None of these conditions are caused by sin and even though I understand that psychological pathology can be complex, we also need to be aware that those who suffer from mental disorders oftentimes blame themselves for their condition. I think statements like the one above can be damaging (even though I'm sure you didn't mean it in a bad way).

Edited by Suzie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Suzie said:

And, this doesn't even touch on possible mental illnesses that may be sin related, if not caused. 

That's a very bold statement to make. Psychological conditions of any kind are largely multi-factorial. In some cases, there are genetic and biological causes (predisposition) and in other cases there are social-environmental causes.

Millions of people (including young children) around the world suffer from  bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, PTSD, and we are seeing many people (due to severe abuse) with dissociative identity disorder (DID). None of these conditions are caused by sin and even though I understand that psychological pathology can be complex, we also need to be aware that those who suffer from mental disorders oftentimes blame themselves for their condition. I think statements like the one above can be damaging (even though I'm sure you didn't mean it in a bad way).

If you look carefully, you will notice that I didn't use the word "all" or even "most." Rather, I spoke of "possible" mental illnesses.

And, you might also notice that I didn't use the words "only" or "sole" or even "primary" or "prevailing." Rather, I used the unqualified "related" and "if not cause."

This means that while you make some good points that I agree with, they don't apply to what I actually said. 

In fact, further down the thread,  I went on to point out a couple of examples, citing mental health professionals, in response to your request for further clarification.  Did you not see it?

I had thought to also mention professional studies on the deleterious effects of pornography on the brain (i.e. stress disorder, addiction, desensitization, etc.)  If interested, Information is available here: Your Brain on Porn.. And, while the mental health diagnostic tool, DSM-5, illogically avoided classifying internet porn as a disorder in its last edition (ibid. this may change in the future due to additional studies), the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains the new diagnosis of “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.”  (ibid)

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, wenglund said:

If you look carefully, you will notice that I didn't use the word "all" or even "most." Rather, I spoke of "possible" mental illnesses.

And, you might also notice that I didn't use the words "only" or "sole" or even "primary" or "prevailing." Rather, I used the unqualified "related" and "if not cause."

This means that while you make some good points that I agree with, they don't apply to what I actually said. 

In fact, further down the thread,  I went on to point out a couple of examples, citing mental health professionals, in response to your request for further clarification.  Did you not see it?

I had thought to also mention professional studies on the deleterious effects of pornography on the brain (i.e. stress disorder, addiction, desensitization, etc.)  If interested, Information is available here: Your Brain on Porn.. And, while the mental health diagnostic tool, DSM-5, illogically avoided classifying internet porn as a disorder in its last edition (ibid. this may change in the future due to additional studies), the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains the new diagnosis of “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.”  (ibid)

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Somewhat off topic...

When a site attributes things like your hair stops falling out...my suspicions instantly get raised.

Currently there is a disconnect that I see between actual science and what Christianity WANTS science to say.  Thus, many Christian religions are trying to get evidence to support their ideas with ideas taken out of context or scientists who are not in that specific field commenting on something beyond their knowledge, or outliers to the scientific community on what is or is not an addiction.

is porn addiction real or pseudoscience

Quote

But, according a new paper published in the scholarly, peer-reviewed journal Porn Studies, the concept of "porn addiction" is based not on evidence but on pseudoscience—and, according to the author, telling people they have a porn addiction does more damage than it does good.

The paper's author, psychologist and sexpert David Ley, looked at contemporary research in the field, and found a few notable trends. For one, people who seek treatment for porn addiction actually view less porn that average, "they just feel worse about it," Ley writes. The shame, he concludes, isn't because there's something inherently immoral about porn; rather, they're just getting the wrong messages. "A majority of self-identified sex and porn addicts in treatment centres are religious, usually heterosexual, and mostly married white men," Ley writes. "Similarly, sex addiction therapists tend to come from sexually moralistic and religiously conservative backgrounds."

 

Ley also explored the idea frequently espoused by anti-porn crusaders that "porn addiction" (and all addiction) is a disease. You have a pornography/gambling/alcohol/drug problem because there is something disordered with your brain. "Unfortunately," Ley writes, "this belief is unsupported by science, as addiction cannot be reliably diagnosed or distinguished through neurological markers." But, he adds, describing porn or any addiction as a brain disease could actually increase the stigma towards people struggling with porn because, under the biological model, it seems both permanent and intractable.

 

is "Porn addiction" a real thing?

Quote

"In the case of porn addictions, the brain looks similar to other addictions but only up to a point and then it diverges. When you look at porn, you get increases in learning and reward... but you don't see some of the other hallmarks," she told BBC Trending radio.

"In other addictions such as gambling, when you see a cue, for people who have a problem, the brain is more responsive. In the case of porn, with people who say they have problems, their responsiveness is decreased."

Prause says the brain science means that porn is not addictive according to current models, and that treating it as an addiction can be counter-productive.

Science currently does NOT back up the idea that there is such a thing as Porn addiction.  However, as the articles tend to mention, that is of no comfort to those who are experiencing such compulsions and cannot overcome them or have trouble dealing with such things.

It is currently NOT listed as an addiction in the Manual for Psychiatric Disorders.  Factually, in relation to science, then, calling it an addiction probably is incorrect.  When a site goes all out to try to claim that it is an addiction and that science states this clearly, you know that these people may not actually be proving something by...scientific means.

That does not mean it is not a problem or difficulty, but I think it means that when I am talking to someone in a private discussion and they say they have problems with pornography I am not going to tell them it is not so bad because they are probably addicted to it.

I may advise them to try a 12 step program similar to Alcoholics Anonymous, or that I may ask them to try to pray and have faith and read the scriptures more, talk to their friends and family to support them and refrain from doing things out of site, but I'll probably not feel that they have an addiction like someone who has a heroin addiction has.

I like what this individual has to say.

Is pronography addiction real

Quote

There is much debate about whether or not pornography is addictive.  Pornography addiction is controversial even among professional therapists. This debate heated up when the Fifth Edition of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual for Psychiatric Disorders (DSM-V) for therapists did not include sexual addiction as a clinical diagnosis. Many professionals wondered out loud what this means for professional therapists and their clients who are seeking help for sexual addiction, including pornography addiction (see Alexandra Katehakis article Sex Addiction Beyond DSM-V).

The two reasons that sexual compulsivity were not included in the DSM-V stem from the lack of research and lack of an agreed upon list of symptomatic behaviors. This should be expected since the study of sexual compulsivity is relatively new.  However, not being included in the DSM-V does not mean it doesn’t exist. For example, compare this situation our society’s gradual realization about the dangers of smoking. For years, smoking was accepted and society wasn’t aware of the health risks. In fact, from the 1920’s until the early 1970’s tobacco companies used medical doctors to promote smoking for throat irritation. (See Tobacco Led Throat Doctors to Blow Smoke)

We know now that millions have lost their lives to smoking cigarettes.  It’s easy to shake our heads and say, “What were they thinking?” Criticizing the decision makers won’t bring back the lost lives, but looking and observing our current blind spots as a society might help us prevent loss of individuals and families to sexual compulsivity. Perhaps one of our blind spots is minimizing the challenge that individuals and couples experience as a result of hypersexuality

In this he avoids outright stating pornography addiction is scientifically real or correct at this point.  He DOES acknowledge that there are many who suffer and struggle with compulsivity.  In fact, he addresses it as such, that it is a compulsion that many seem to suffer from.  Saying that they have no problems does no one any good, but as there is not enough research yet and that, thus far, science does not seem to indicate that those who have pornography compulsion or compulsory behaviors have the agreed upon symptomatic behaviors means that right now, it is not listed as a clinical diagnosis of addiction.

Instead of calling it an addiction it is more correct to call it a COMPULSION.  It is a different set of motivations and symptoms.

I think it is controversial in science right now.  It seems that the push to call it an addiction is NOT being pushed by science but more specifically religious conservatives.  These are the same groups that pushed for years that masturbation caused insanity and various other disorders that eventually were blatantly obviously wrong when scientific research was completed.  It does not mean that they are completely wrong in their ideas about pornography addiction, but it casts a strong shadow of doubt when groups go around trying to proclaim it as such when the prognosis on such is still undecided.

In relation to us.  We, collectively talking as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, see pornography as a sin.  Looking upon a woman (or a man) to lust after them (if not married specifically to that individual) is sinful.  Watching or looking at pornography is something we need to repent of.  We have various ways to try to help those who have problems with pornography, and we want them to repent and overcome this problem.  I think in many instances we may call it pornography addiction among ourselves, but we are not scientifically centered on this.  We are a religion and are trying to help people come to the Lord.

However, when I see groups saying they are utilizing a dialogue of science but instead pushing pseudoscience, I tend to be more disgusted with them and those behind those companies and theories.  I find it like the snake oil salesmen who tries to convince others that their well water was a great medicine created by the greatest scientific men who traveled the old west, rather than proficient doctors of medicine that try to help people in our modern day.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Science currently does NOT back up the idea that there is such a thing as Porn addiction. 

This is another example of why I don't put my trust in the arm of flesh -- peer reviewed studies -- that people want to call SCIENCE.

From one of the articles, "The shame, he concludes, isn't because there's something inherently immoral about porn; rather, they're just getting the wrong messages." (emphasis mine). A peer reviewed journal states there is nothing "inherently immoral" about porn. Porn is immoral, and the shame one feels when they understand who they are -- sons and daughters of God -- is because they know pornography is immoral. Pornography is inherently immoral. Its not inherently immoral to the natural man, as the natural man is an enemy to God.

Second, the denial of pornography as an addiction. Addiction cause compulsion toward something. So we view from this article splitting hairs, "Instead of calling it an addiction it is more correct to call it a COMPULSION." Well, yes, if you are addicted you are being compelled to do something. I mean, this person is merely compulsed, but isn't addicted, but can't stop. His compulsion is so strong that he/she can't stop, but there not addicted -- that's just a strong compulsion.

Here is what we can read from modern prophets:

1) Breaking a Pornography Addiction (source), "With sincere repentance and the help of the Savior and His chosen servants, you can overcome this addiction."

2) Pornography addiction: https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2015-03-005-pornography-addiction-is-there-hope?lang=eng&_r=1

But I assume the Church is just another Christian venue to WANT science to say what pornography is not -- inherently immoral or an addiction. Well, if the arm of flesh isn't pushing it as an "addiction" is must not be an addiction then.

So, once again I have a choice to believe and accept arm of flesh (science) -- or living apostles and prophets:

1) President Hinckley, "Plead with the Lord out of the depths of your soul that He will remove from you the addiction which enslaves you."

2) "Many children, youth, and adults are innocently exposed to pornography, but a growing number of both men and women are choosing to view it and are drawn back repeatedly until it becomes an addiction." (Source)

3) President Hinckley, "Continued exposure leads to addiction that is almost impossible to break. Men, so very many, find they cannot leave it alone. Their energies and their interests are consumed in their dead-end pursuit of this raw and sleazy fare."

Well, I guess our leaders are just pushing a Christian agenda and pseudoscience. They simply are disconnected from true "science." ;)

 

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 4:46 PM, Jane_Doe said:

The number of cases where illness are caused by sin are a tiny tiny minority.  Christ when He heals someone is doing TWO things: healing the physical AND spiritual ills.  

Actually when we carefully read the scripture - it is not just by him that the spiritual ills were healed - only the physical ills.  Concerning that which was spiritual Jesus said, "Thy faith has made you whole".  Jesus was able to heal all physical ailments but to heal our spirits required our participation through our faith.   This is a critical and important principle of priesthood (divine) blessings.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Science currently does NOT back up the idea that there is such a thing as Porn addiction. 

Of course not - Science does not even have a clear definition of exactly what is porn.  And as a son of an artist - I would suggest that neither does art.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LiterateParakeet

Right now science is still debating whether pornography is an addiction or not.  Like Anddenex, I think our Leaders have made their position very clear. And I support them, for SOME it is an addiction.

But back to the scientific perspective:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meaningful-you/201309/the-hidden-wisd

And here's another:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art

 

 

Edited by LiterateParakeet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problems I have are not with the church's stance at all, but private businesses that portray something as science when in truth they are practicing pseudoscience. 

The church has a clear cut position on Pornography (it is sinful and one who is engaged in such stuff should repent).  I have no problem with this and support this belief. 

However, I've seen several businesses pop up in recent years under the guise of non-profit or other such things which seem EXTREMELY corrupt.  These companies try to state in absolute terms that it is an addiction and then try to say that this is confirmed by science. 

They lie, they deceive, and I feel they are doing a grave disservice to religion in general.  They paint those who are religious as fanatics who ignore the real science and instead push personal religious belief on those who do not believe, feel, or agree with those beliefs.  I've seen these companies go to schools and other places where they push their beliefs on others.

I feel people should be free to have their beliefs, but when it starts intruding into government places such as schools...I draw the line.  I don't want someone who may or may NOT share my religious beliefs pushing those beliefs on everyone else's children under the guise that this is some sort of resolved science and that science says it is such and such a way.  I went to one of these programs presented at our university and 90% of it was absolute drek.  Though there are a few that buy into it, I found that most of those who questioned it found that this program had no real scientific basis for what it was teaching or trying to provide and instead had no basis in science in how they decided to treat someone or anything dealing with their process or even with their actual studies.  It was mostly bunk.  Hence, it is in regards to these companies that I highly do not like or agree with.

In this I'm not centering on the church except to point out that we see it as a sin.  WE are NOT centered on a scientific aspect of it.  We do not push that.  We see it as a religious issue and as a religion we are trying to help people come to the Lord.  We are NOT hiding what we believe or how our process works.  We are NOT the same as these companies or 'non-profits' that deceive and push personal ideas rather than things based or dependent on science or scientific principles.

That is a deep contrast to these groups (and that webpage SCREAMED to me that it was such a group when I saw one 'testimonial" on there claiming that when they stopped watching pornography that their hair loss stopped...as far as I know, that is not how hair loss occurs normally in regards to scientific norms) that spread pseudoscience under the guise that they are discussing REAL science and what we do in our church and our religion.

It is a popular thing in many conservative religions (and those who are members of the church of Jesus Christ are a very small group and in reality, are not really part of the larger evangelical movement that is pushing some of these things) to paint sexual compulsive disorder as pornography addiction due to belief.  As long as it stays as a belief, I see they can believe as they want.  When they start companies to bank on this belief and try to paint it as a scientific thing rather than something that really is based on their beliefs rather than anything dealing with science...that's when I start having a massive headache at what they are doing.

It's a corrupt thing to do in my opinion, and if they are making lies and deceit part of their business to begin with...how much more of their business is corrupt and relies on deceit?

Just come out and say it is not science that they are doing this for, but rather because they have a belief and a religious feeling about it. 

This is the BIG difference between these companies I was complaining about and their "science" as opposed to how we, as the Church do it.  I feel we, in the church, at least in our basic way of teaching repentance, are doing it correctly in that manner.  I won't address the classes that some stakes have had, though that also normally stresses belief over science from what I've seen, but in regards to the basic way we deal with it where we teach to avoid pornography and repent, we do not put up a façade that this is based on some sort of science in any way.  Instead, we teach that it is a sin and something that we should repent of.  Our way of acting towards it and about it is based completely on our religion, our belief, and our faith.  We do not rely on any science for this, instead showing it via scripture, teachings of religious leaders, and religious principles. 

It is a GREAT and MASSIVE contrast to these conmen (or I feel they are conmen or conpeople) that are pushing a pseudoscientific ideology on others.

Hopefully that clarifies my original thoughts and opinion on the matter.  Hopefully it also explains why I went into the diatribe of the scientific terms of pornography addiction vs. that of a sexual compulsion or sexual compulsive disorder.  I very much dislike having bunk tossed at me under the guise of being some sort of scientific organization when it really is based on people's beliefs and faith instead.

It was a sidetrek or side off topic from that one link discussing it. 

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Somewhat off topic...

When a site attributes things like your hair stops falling out...my suspicions instantly get raised.

Currently there is a disconnect that I see between actual science and what Christianity WANTS science to say.  Thus, many Christian religions are trying to get evidence to support their ideas with ideas taken out of context or scientists who are not in that specific field commenting on something beyond their knowledge, or outliers to the scientific community on what is or is not an addiction.

is porn addiction real or pseudoscience

 

is "Porn addiction" a real thing?

Science currently does NOT back up the idea that there is such a thing as Porn addiction.  However, as the articles tend to mention, that is of no comfort to those who are experiencing such compulsions and cannot overcome them or have trouble dealing with such things.

It is currently NOT listed as an addiction in the Manual for Psychiatric Disorders.  Factually, in relation to science, then, calling it an addiction probably is incorrect.  When a site goes all out to try to claim that it is an addiction and that science states this clearly, you know that these people may not actually be proving something by...scientific means.

That does not mean it is not a problem or difficulty, but I think it means that when I am talking to someone in a private discussion and they say they have problems with pornography I am not going to tell them it is not so bad because they are probably addicted to it.

I may advise them to try a 12 step program similar to Alcoholics Anonymous, or that I may ask them to try to pray and have faith and read the scriptures more, talk to their friends and family to support them and refrain from doing things out of site, but I'll probably not feel that they have an addiction like someone who has a heroin addiction has.

I like what this individual has to say.

Is pronography addiction real

In this he avoids outright stating pornography addiction is scientifically real or correct at this point.  He DOES acknowledge that there are many who suffer and struggle with compulsivity.  In fact, he addresses it as such, that it is a compulsion that many seem to suffer from.  Saying that they have no problems does no one any good, but as there is not enough research yet and that, thus far, science does not seem to indicate that those who have pornography compulsion or compulsory behaviors have the agreed upon symptomatic behaviors means that right now, it is not listed as a clinical diagnosis of addiction.

Instead of calling it an addiction it is more correct to call it a COMPULSION.  It is a different set of motivations and symptoms.

I think it is controversial in science right now.  It seems that the push to call it an addiction is NOT being pushed by science but more specifically religious conservatives.  These are the same groups that pushed for years that masturbation caused insanity and various other disorders that eventually were blatantly obviously wrong when scientific research was completed.  It does not mean that they are completely wrong in their ideas about pornography addiction, but it casts a strong shadow of doubt when groups go around trying to proclaim it as such when the prognosis on such is still undecided.

In relation to us.  We, collectively talking as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, see pornography as a sin.  Looking upon a woman (or a man) to lust after them (if not married specifically to that individual) is sinful.  Watching or looking at pornography is something we need to repent of.  We have various ways to try to help those who have problems with pornography, and we want them to repent and overcome this problem.  I think in many instances we may call it pornography addiction among ourselves, but we are not scientifically centered on this.  We are a religion and are trying to help people come to the Lord.

However, when I see groups saying they are utilizing a dialogue of science but instead pushing pseudoscience, I tend to be more disgusted with them and those behind those companies and theories.  I find it like the snake oil salesmen who tries to convince others that their well water was a great medicine created by the greatest scientific men who traveled the old west, rather than proficient doctors of medicine that try to help people in our modern day.

I see these kinds of word games as entirely missing the point. Call it compulsion or call it addiction or cal it a Streetcar named Desire. The issue, to me, has less to do with the label nit pickers wish to affix and more to do with the  harm resulting from what ever one wishes to call it.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently I was involved in a little accident that left me with what the doctor at the emergency care facility called a severior wound.  By definition a "severior wound" requires stitches - I got 7 of them.  I may have already posted a little about this in another thread - but I bring it up here because it seems to me that there is some interesting connections (similarities) between physical and spiritual illnesses and wounds.    

Generally speaking, we do not think of physical illnesses and wounds as sins even though it is obvious that something is definitely "WRONG" and needs fixing and healing.   The process of fixing and healing physical wrong conditions is in every bit so similar to fixing spiritual wrong conditions that I wonder why there is such a adverse reaction to those needing spiritual healing and fixing.   Let me give an example - if we were to come upon a bicyclist that was hit by a car - we would immediately take action.  We would call on our cell phones for medical help, we would do whatever we could to save that person's life.  We would talk to them and comfort them.  We may take even greater interest and visit them at the hospital and send flowers and get well cards.  But if we were to come upon someone hurt and damaged by what is labeled as LGBTQ we more likely to turn away thinking to ourselves that they got what they deserved - even if they reached out to us pleading for help.

I find it interesting that we can so easily forgive someone for doing something foolish and getting physically wounded - there is no stigma of calling them a sinner or that they are "rebelling" against G-d and everything intelligent and decent.   The same if someone was to get sick.  Even though there are many healthy choices that may have been ignored - there is not that label of being a sinner and a threat to "good" not sick people.  But, and this is especially more prominent in religious communities, there is a much different reaction to spiritually wounded or spiritually sick individuals.  Forgiving someone for doing something foolish and getting spiritually wounded is so much more difficult - and it would seem this is most prevalent for the self declared spiritually healthy.   

It seems to me that Jesus thought and taught that there is similarities concurrent with the physical and spiritual with such comments as, "The whole need not a physician but they that are sick".  Who would think that he was only referencing those with physical illnesses?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sin carries many consequences, some of which is physical ailments.  But not all physical ailments are a consequence of sin.  My father, for instance died of lung cancer.  Non-smoker, non-drinker, lived a healthy lifestyle, devout to his Catholic faith, spent his life in service to others, loved by many.  I just have to shake my head everytime I hear somebody say, "Oh, I didn't know he smoked.".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sin carries many consequences, some of which is physical ailments.  But not all physical ailments are a consequence of sin.  My father, for instance died of lung cancer.  Non-smoker, non-drinker, lived a healthy lifestyle, devout to his Catholic faith, spent his life in service to others, loved by many.  I just have to shake my head everytime I hear somebody say, "Oh, I didn't know he smoked.".

Not all the consequences of sin harm exclusively only the sinner.  That others may be physically harmed more than the one that commits the sin does not mean that there was no sin.  Perhaps the greater part of the atonement of Christ is to free us from the blood and sins of our generation - it is possible that this part of the atonement is a blessing that may not be realized until the resurrection.  I am inclined to believe that pain and suffering will always have some connection to sin - this includes the pain and suffering of Christ that was without sin.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Not all the consequences of sin harm exclusively only the sinner. 

This is a peeve of mine.  I grew up with a godmother who refused to get her many ailments treated by a doctor because she said it is her penance for MY SINS.  I love my godmother and I believe she's being faithful to what she knows but I refuse to believe her spiritual garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this