Evil substances?

[Shempster]

(This might have belonged in the philosophy section, but it is concerning natural and synthetic substances)
I have always been perplexed at people's views of substances and why some are ok and some are evil. I look at the reasoning behind those reasons and that is where the problem lies.

Some say if the bible mentions them and either condones or forbids them, that is good enough
Some say that it depends if it is good for your body or bad for it. This one is really tough because of the plethora of disinformation out there.
Some are followers of the gov't and the FDA and follows their approved/disapproved lists.
Some follow natural practitioners.
Some Follow doctors orders and eat the pills.
See what I mean?

What is the correct way to decide if a substance is clean or unclean?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

What is the correct way to decide if a substance is clean or unclean?

It is forbidden to disclose this on this forum, or in the USA, and many other countries where pharmakeia controls.

Otherwise, it is simple and easy. (sadly, just not legal, by federal law put in place by pharmacy)

 

[Shempster]

It is forbidden to disclose this on this forum, or in the USA, and many other countries where pharmakeia controls.

Otherwise, it is simple and easy. (sadly, just not legal, by federal law put in place by pharmacy)

I really wasn't going there exactly. This is just more of a philosophical thought in general.

 

[DogmaHunter]

(This might have belonged in the philosophy section, but it is concerning natural and synthetic substances)
I have always been perplexed at people's views of substances and why some are ok and some are evil. I look at the reasoning behind those reasons and that is where the problem lies.

Some say if the bible mentions them and either condones or forbids them, that is good enough
Some say that it depends if it is good for your body or bad for it. This one is really tough because of the plethora of disinformation out there.
Some are followers of the gov't and the FDA and follows their approved/disapproved lists.
Some follow natural practitioners.
Some Follow doctors orders and eat the pills.
See what I mean?

What is the correct way to decide if a substance is clean or unclean?

What do you mean by "clean" and "unclean"?

 

[Strathos]

I don't think any substance is inherently evil, it's how they are used that can be evil.

For example, even something like heroin can be used in extreme cases to treat pain.

 

[Petros2015]

For example, even something like heroin can be used in extreme cases to treat pain.

Ask any junkie, they'll tell you that is exactly what they are doing.

 

[Mountainmanbob]

What is the correct way to decide if a substance is clean or unclean?

Do I truly need the substance or am I just using it to get high? If just to get high -- no no.

One should be very careful for I had some pretty severe side effects because of a drug I took many years ago. In the end it was not worth the benefits. (Homework)

Is this drug or substance okay for me?
And not a sin?
The Christian should ask of the Holy Spirit.
The answer usually comes pretty easily.

M-Bob

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do I truly need the substance or am I just using it to get high? If just to get high -- no no.

Just curious - what is the rationale (if any) behind the idea that 'getting high' with substances is wrong? and does it apply to other means of 'getting high', e.g. roller-coasters, horror movies, group singing & dancing, etc. ?

What is included in 'truly needing' some substance?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Just curious - what is the rationale (if any) behind the idea that 'getting high' with substances is wrong? and does it apply to other means of 'getting high', e.g. roller-coasters, horror movies, group singing & dancing, etc. ?

What is included in 'truly needing' some substance?

Drugs have been around for a long time getting high can be a sin.

The Bible says a little alcohol is good for the stomach yet we know that it also says drunks do not go to heaven.

M-Bob

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Drugs have been around for a long time getting high can be a sin.

That's what I was asking about...

The Bible says a little alcohol is good for the stomach yet we know that it also says drunks do not go to heaven.

One assumes that anything in excess is frowned upon.

Just curious - what is the rationale (if any) behind the idea that 'getting high' with substances is wrong? and does it apply to other means of 'getting high', e.g. roller-coasters, horror movies, adrenaline sports, group singing & dancing, etc. ?

What is included in 'truly needing' some substance?

No answers?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

There are some sins that might be a sin for me but, possibly not for my wife.

These sins may be hard to call at times for man can deceive himself.

If one is filled with the Holy Spirit the answer ( sin or no sin) is right there if asked in a sincere way.

Notes -- if I have to ask myself back and forth if something is a thing to do chances are it's not.

M-Bob

 

[Strathos]

Ask any junkie, they'll tell you that is exactly what they are doing.

Which is why you should not simply trust any given individual's opinion on the matter.

 

[Shempster]

Just curious - what is the rationale (if any) behind the idea that 'getting high' with substances is wrong? and does it apply to other means of 'getting high', e.g. roller-coasters, horror movies, group singing & dancing, etc. ?

What is included in 'truly needing' some substance?

Right. "getting high" is really all about the brain releasing neurotransmitters. And yes, certain activities can get you "high" as well assubstances. Gambling. Running. Listening to your brand of politics. Sex. Buying things. Eating alot, ect. And of course, we all pick and choose the ones WE like while condemning the ones we don't.
Same goes for substances. Sugar and caffeine stimulate the same brain chemical release as cocaine.
Sugar is as hard on your liver as alcohol, yet people eat that all day long. Actually, sugar could (and maybe should) be labelled as a schedule 1 drug. Who hasn't felt that surge after some Starbucks nuclear coffee loaded with caramel and topped with whipped cream?

I bring this whole thing up because people are always promoting their own methods of dopamine release while condemning others for theirs. I just find it odd. Obviously coffee and heroin are not on the same level, but the point should be evident. At least it is to me. I would not

So to make any substance a moral or immoral substance does it depend on if it is harmful to us? Maybe. That's why heroin is illegal. It destroys lives and kills people. But sugar is very harmful to our health as well.
If it isn't the health effects on us, then where do we get our assumptions on what is ok or not ok to consume? Is it all merely a social construct that changes over time?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Just curious - what is the rationale (if any) behind the idea that 'getting high' with substances is wrong? and does it apply to other means of 'getting high', e.g. roller-coasters, horror movies, group singing & dancing, etc. ?

Well, I sure hope that we (all know) that those are not the same kind of "highs"?

It's not my thing but there's nothing wrong with a roller coaster high. We have a young couple at our church and it seems that's one of the main things they like to do. That is not a sin!!
M-Bob

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Right. "getting high" is really all about the brain releasing neurotransmitters. And yes, certain activities can get you "high" as well assubstances. Gambling. Running. Listening to your brand of politics. Sex. Buying things. Eating alot, ect. And of course, we all pick and choose the ones WE like while condemning the ones we don't.
Same goes for substances. Sugar and caffeine stimulate the same brain chemical release as cocaine.
Sugar is as hard on your liver as alcohol, yet people eat that all day long. Actually, sugar could (and maybe should) be labelled as a schedule 1 drug. Who hasn't felt that surge after some Starbucks nuclear coffee loaded with caramel and topped with whipped cream?

I bring this whole thing up because people are always promoting their own methods of dopamine release while condemning others for theirs. I just find it odd. Obviously coffee and heroin are not on the same level, but the point should be evident. At least it is to me. I would not

So to make any substance a moral or immoral substance does it depend on if it is harmful to us? Maybe. That's why heroin is illegal. It destroys lives and kills people. But sugar is very harmful to our health as well.
If it isn't the health effects on us, then where do we get our assumptions on what is ok or not ok to consume? Is it all merely a social construct that changes over time?

Thanks, Shempster; you summarise my feelings well. I'm curious to know why some people feel certain ways of getting a buzz are OK, but others not - even though many of those ways would appear to have similar or equivalent potential for adverse effects.

Is it a 'gut' thing? if so, where does it come from? media? social or cultural values?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well, I sure hope that we (all know) that those are not the same kind of "highs"?

They're all different in different ways, and all involve modifications of brain chemistry.

My question is what is the rationale that distinguishes the ones that are acceptable from the ones that are not?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

My question is what is the rationale that distinguishes the ones that are acceptable from the ones that are not?

I thought it was well explain but, it seems like you're not picking it up?

I truly think that you already know?

If you think it's sin then it is sin.

If you think it's not sin then it might not be sin.

M-Bob

 

[ViaCrucis]

There's no such thing as an "evil substance". But there is substance abuse, which is destructive and harmful. Nearly anything can be used to harm, either oneself or another; and that's where the conversation of ethics comes into play in regard to how to treat certain substances from a societal standpoint.

The US currently has a major opioid epidemic, where opioids are abused and are causing real and significant harm to people and communities. That doesn't make opioids evil substances, but it does mean that they are being used in harmful and destructive ways.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I thought it was well explain but, it seems like you're not picking it up?

I truly think that you already know?

If you think it's sin then it is sin.

If you think it's not sin then it might not be sin.

OK; thanks, that's very simple (as an atheist, I don't find 'sin' to be a useful or particularly meaningful concept).

I thought there might be some guiding moral or, ethical principle; e.g. good if it contributes to human happiness, well-being, and flourishing, bad if it detracts from human happiness, well-being, and flourishing.

If it's simply down to individual's feelings, one has to question how some can justify imposing their own feelings ('I think x is a sin') on others ('you mustn't do x because I think it's a sin').

 

[Ophiolite]

If you think it's sin then it is sin.

If you think it's not sin then it might not be sin.

I am not clear why in the first instance one can know with certainty, whereas in the second instance there is doubt? That seems a bit random to me. (And for me, way to subjective a process on which to base a moral code. )