Is ANY addiction ALWAYS a sin?

[Rick Otto]

addiction per se is value neutral.

 

[desmalia]

So if you throw something up for a debate, you automatically must adopt the most fundamentalist position?

First of all, when asking if something is a sin, it is not simply a philosophical question. It is perfectly logical to look to God's word.

Second, what a shame that Christians who seek to understand God's will for us through Scripture must be labeled instead of welcomed (on a Christian forum no less!!). As fellow believers should we not always be looking to Scripture to understand our Lord and His will for us? If holding to this ideology makes me a fundamentalist, then I will gladly wear the label. It concerns me that any believer would aspire to anything less.

 

[dies-l]

addiction per se is value neutral.

I don't know if anything is completely value neutral. While it is true that some actions cannot necessarily be classified as per se good or per se bad, I fail to see how this holds true with addictions. It seems to me that if any behavior rises to the level that it comes to be regarded as an addiction, it is necessarily harmful to the person with the "addiction" and/or to others. Thus, whether or not you choose to call it a "sin", I don't see how you could conclude that it is value neutral.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I think his point was that addiction isn't a word or even a meaning in scripture. Therefore, the OP's assumption that all addiction is sin, needed to be clarified. In the case of the OP's scenario, it would only be a sin if it was an idol for him, which he may not know. Merely wanting to drink diet coke everyday, even if his body was addicted to it, doesn't mean he would not give it up if the Lord told him to. He would be crucifying his flesh at that point. Just because our flesh craves something, doesn't mean either that we are called to be without it, or that we would not deny that craving if the Lord clearly spoke to us, through His Word, etc.

 

[Ave Maria]

The very fact that someone has an addiction makes their sin less sinful because they have a dependency on whatever it is they are addicted to.

 

[Romanseight2005]

The very fact that someone has an addiction makes their sin less sinful because they have a dependency on whatever it is they are addicted to.

Please show me the scripture to back this up.

 

[Chie]

Please show me the scripture to back this up.

happy b-day roamseight2005

 

[NHB_MMA]

First of all, when asking if something is a sin, it is not simply a philosophical question. It is perfectly logical to look to God's word.

As mentioned, addiction itself is not expressly discussed in Scripture, to my knowledge. So, nothing is philosophical or argumentative when it comes to what is a sin? Okay, tell me how often you or I have committed glutony in our lives? You can't, because we can't be sure exactly where the line is drawn. What on earth is the point in this Philosophy and Ethics forum if we can't debate the merits of ideas? In case you haven't noticed it, there are like seemingly a billion denominations in Christianity which claim this absurd notion of Sola Scriptura yet, strangely enough, they've managed to come up with different view on what God's Word says. So, if men with multiple graduate degrees in theology cannot figure it out to the most minute detail in some cases, then the idea that anyone would jump my case for throwing something out for discussion is absolutely ridiculous.

Second, what a shame that Christians who seek to understand God's will for us through Scripture must be labeled instead of welcomed (on a Christian forum no less!!). As fellow believers should we not always be looking to Scripture to understand our Lord and His will for us? If holding to this ideology makes me a fundamentalist, then I will gladly wear the label. It concerns me that any believer would aspire to anything less.

Obviously, the meaning of "fundamentalist" I'm referring to is the person that takes any principle mentioned in the Bible and draws it to its most extreme conclusion. I've told the story before, but I always think of a teacher in high school (I went to a small fundamentalist Baptist high school) that made a wager with one of his students over an NFL football game where the one whose team lost would get a pie in the face. They got in trouble for "gambling", though no money was at stake. Not only is gambling not specifically prohibited in the Bible, but those fundamentalists took it to an extreme that didn't even involved money. In fact, I have know of some people that wouldn't even watch an NFL football game because it's an event held on Sunday. I knew of a man that would not patronize a bakery business because the bakery was owned by a man that owned a shopping stripmall and a liquor store was one of several tenants in that shopping center. I was literally reprimanded in high school for tapping a fellow female student on the shoulder to ask her if I could bum a sheet of paper because "the Bible says a man is not to touch a woman". I wish I was joking about some of these things, but I'm not.

I understand and respect someone in their efforts to be devout, but some of the whackjobs I've mentioned have nothing on the worst of the Saudi clerics when it comes to being extremists. These people have a mentality that has made me use the term "Taliban Christianity" in some cases, because I honestly think if it weren't for separation of church and state, and a shortage of AK-47s, that is about what you would have. Some people take it to a totally unreasonable extreme and I cannot think of anything that does more to DIVIDE the Christian faith than this "one upping" each other. So, you might not like my distain for fundamentalist mentality, but excuse me if I think it's possible the Teletubbie had nothing to do with sexuality at all, or if I feel expelling students from Bob Jones University for holding hands before marriage is excessive. Oh yeah, make sure whites only date whites too while at BJU.

No...I will never wear the "fundamentalist" label with pride.

 

[NHB_MMA]

The very fact that someone has an addiction makes their sin less sinful because they have a dependency on whatever it is they are addicted to.

The commonly accepted definition of sin I've heard many use is "willful disobedience towards God". If that is the standard, it doesn't automatically exclude a compulsion or dependency.

Even if a dependency does not warrant an act to be sinful at that point, it doesn't reduce the sinful nature of it altogether. Think of an extreme example of addiction in a heroin addict. Maybe the heroin addict has lost control over his actions in the present, but it was absolutely sinful to ever experiment with something so dangerous and detrimental to begin with. So the behavior cannot be rationalized away by the dependency factor, IMO.

 

[Romanseight2005]

happy b-day roamseight2005

Thank you Chie!

 

[dies-l]

I think his point was that addiction isn't a word or even a meaning in scripture. Therefore, the OP's assumption that all addiction is sin, needed to be clarified. In the case of the OP's scenario, it would only be a sin if it was an idol for him, which he may not know. Merely wanting to drink diet coke everyday, even if his body was addicted to it, doesn't mean he would not give it up if the Lord told him to. He would be crucifying his flesh at that point. Just because our flesh craves something, doesn't mean either that we are called to be without it, or that we would not deny that craving if the Lord clearly spoke to us, through His Word, etc.

I suppose this all goes to how we are defining an addiction. I assume, for the purpose of this thread that we are not talking about physical dependency, as very few substances are prone to that type of addiction, and diet soda is not one of them (unless it contains caffeine; then, I suppose it could be). I also assume that we are not talking about latent "addictions" (i.e., "I would probably be an alcoholic if I drank, and so I don't" or "I am a recovering alcoholic, so I abstain from alcohol") which are really more temptations at that point, though they carry the potential to lead someone into addictive behavior. Instead, I assume that we are referring to those behaviors that have become so compulsive for us that we feel as though we are unable to exercise free choice over them anymore. If this is how we are to understand addiction, then I would argue that it is always better for us to eliminate these behaviors from our lives, and once we have identified them, we should regard them as obstacles in our walk with God.

In answer to the criticism that addiction is not a concept that is specifically addressed in the Bible: On one level, that is true; I don't believe the word "addiction" ever appears in the Bible. On another level, it is reasonable to come to conclusions based on what the scripture teaches. In regard to addiction, I would look to, e.g., Gal. 5:22-23 ("But the fruit of the Spirit is . . . self-control"). As far as I can tell nothing is more the antithesis of self-control than to indulge in addictive behavior. If something has reached the level that we regard it as an addiction, then we lack self-control over it. And, as such, to be open to the fruits of God's Spirit, it seems reasonable to conclude that we should eliminate that behavior from our lives, at least to the extent that we are unable to exercise self-control.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Yes, if it truly is an addfiction in that we have tried to stop, we have felt led by the spirit to stop, and we can't, then by all means it has become idolatrous. I believe these are what the scripture would call strongholds, and one must repent of his/her idolatry, but ask for God's help in not continuing the behavior. Jesus Christ is the one who can set such a one free.

 

[desmalia]

As mentioned, addiction itself is not expressly discussed in Scripture, to my knowledge. So, nothing is philosophical or argumentative when it comes to what is a sin? Okay, tell me how often you or I have committed glutony in our lives? You can't, because we can't be sure exactly where the line is drawn. What on earth is the point in this Philosophy and Ethics forum if we can't debate the merits of ideas? In case you haven't noticed it, there are like seemingly a billion denominations in Christianity which claim this absurd notion of Sola Scriptura yet, strangely enough, they've managed to come up with different view on what God's Word says. So, if men with multiple graduate degrees in theology cannot figure it out to the most minute detail in some cases, then the idea that anyone would jump my case for throwing something out for discussion is absolutely ridiculous.

I'll remind you yet again that you were the one who specifically asked if people believe addiction is a sin. (And btw the words trinity and abortion are also not in the Bible. But that doesn't mean the Bible has nothing to say about them.) If I had known you prefer to discuss what is sin without using Scripture I would not have bothered commenting in this thread to start with. This is a Christian forum. Most of us believe in the Bible as the authoritative word of God. If you do not then we really can't get any further with this conversation.

What do you hope to accomplish here? Are you wanting everyone to pat you on the back and say "sure, drink all the soda you want!!"? Because you sure have gotten your back up when people have suggested that it's not good for you. And BTW I believe that those who have warned you about the dangers of too much soda/aspartaime were doing so not out of a legalistic bent, but with genuine concern for your health. You can choose to ignore that of course. But they meant well. No one has condemned you for drinking lots of soda.

Obviously, the meaning of "fundamentalist" I'm referring to is the person that takes any principle mentioned in the Bible and draws it to its most extreme conclusion. I've told the story before, but I always think of a teacher in high school (I went to a small fundamentalist Baptist high school) that made a wager with one of his students over an NFL football game where the one whose team lost would get a pie in the face. They got in trouble for "gambling", though no money was at stake. Not only is gambling not specifically prohibited in the Bible, but those fundamentalists took it to an extreme that didn't even involved money. In fact, I have know of some people that wouldn't even watch an NFL football game because it's an event held on Sunday. I knew of a man that would not patronize a bakery business because the bakery was owned by a man that owned a shopping stripmall and a liquor store was one of several tenants in that shopping center. I was literally reprimanded in high school for tapping a fellow female student on the shoulder to ask her if I could bum a sheet of paper because "the Bible says a man is not to touch a woman". I wish I was joking about some of these things, but I'm not.

I understand and respect someone in their efforts to be devout, but some of the whackjobs I've mentioned have nothing on the worst of the Saudi clerics when it comes to being extremists. These people have a mentality that has made me use the term "Taliban Christianity" in some cases, because I honestly think if it weren't for separation of church and state, and a shortage of AK-47s, that is about what you would have. Some people take it to a totally unreasonable extreme and I cannot think of anything that does more to DIVIDE the Christian faith than this "one upping" each other. So, you might not like my distain for fundamentalist mentality, but excuse me if I think it's possible the Teletubbie had nothing to do with sexuality at all, or if I feel expelling students from Bob Jones University for holding hands before marriage is excessive. Oh yeah, make sure whites only date whites too while at BJU.

No...I will never wear the "fundamentalist" label with pride.

I am sorry you have seen so much extremism in your life. I've seen the oposite. People in the churches around here live ultra-liberal lives, engaging in sexual sin (and by that I mean homosexual activity, premarital sex, promiscuity, etc.), idolatry, etc. etc. They don't even know what their Bible's say, never mind what they mean. I for one take the hard line against activities like this because I care about what God tells us in His word. And I am very much a minority for doing that here. To even suggest homosexuality is a sin here can get you thrown in jail. What I am experiencing here is one extreme of the scale - liberalism. What you have experienced is the other end of the scale - legalism. Both are deadly.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. God's word is not to blame for poor human responses. If we can be mature and loving about this, we can discuss real world situations from the Scriptural view. Doing so can bring us in line with God's will for us, which is what we should all be striving for.

 

[Leah]

I'll remind you yet again that you were the one who specifically asked if people believe addiction is a sin. (And btw the words trinity and abortion are also not in the Bible. But that doesn't mean the Bible has nothing to say about them.) If I had known you prefer to discuss what is sin without using Scripture I would not have bothered commenting in this thread to start with. This is a Christian forum. Most of us believe in the Bible as the authoritative word of God. If you do not then we really can't get any further with this conversation.

What do you hope to accomplish here? Are you wanting everyone to pat you on the back and say "sure, drink all the soda you want!!"? Because you sure have gotten your back up when people have suggested that it's not good for you. And BTW I believe that those who have warned you about the dangers of too much soda/aspartaime were doing so not out of a legalistic bent, but with genuine concern for your health. You can choose to ignore that of course. But they meant well. No one has condemned you for drinking lots of soda.


I am sorry you have seen so much extremism in your life. I've seen the oposite. People in the churches around here live ultra-liberal lives, engaging in sexual sin (and by that I mean homosexual activity, premarital sex, promiscuity, etc.), idolatry, etc. etc. They don't even know what their Bible's say, never mind what they mean. I for one take the hard line against activities like this because I care about what God tells us in His word. And I am very much a minority for doing that here. To even suggest homosexuality is a sin here can get you thrown in jail. What I am experiencing here is one extreme of the scale - liberalism. What you have experienced is the other end of the scale - legalism. Both are deadly.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. God's word is not to blame for poor human responses. If we can be mature and loving about this, we can discuss real world situations from the Scriptural view. Doing so can bring us in line with God's will for us, which is what we should all be striving for.

*applauding*

This is, by far, the second most intelligent and christ-like post I've seen in here for quite some time.

I am sorry you have seen so much extremism in your life. I've seen the oposite. People in the churches around here live ultra-liberal lives, engaging in sexual sin (and by that I mean homosexual activity, premarital sex, promiscuity, etc.), idolatry, etc. etc. They don't even know what their Bible's say, never mind what they mean. I for one take the hard line against activities like this because I care about what God tells us in His word. And I am very much a minority for doing that here.

What's in bold letters: That makes two of us, Des.

Excellent post, Desmalia!

 

[dies-l]

Yes, if it truly is an addfiction in that we have tried to stop, we have felt led by the spirit to stop, and we can't, then by all means it has become idolatrous. I believe these are what the scripture would call strongholds, and one must repent of his/her idolatry, but ask for God's help in not continuing the behavior. Jesus Christ is the one who can set such a one free.

On the other hand, there is often little or no utility in calling an addictive behavior "sin." This is not because such activities are not harmful or sinful, but because the person who is placed into bondage by them is often already aware of the fact that they are harmful, and even sinful. What that person needs is not someone who will judge her or even to say to her, "you need to stop," but rather someone who will show her the love of Christ that will enable her to overcome the addiction.

For example, as part of my work in Jr. High ministry, I have attended several training sessions on dealing with hurting kids. One common addiction among teens and preteens is self-ijury, or "cutting". Although I am not an expert in the area (although I was a "cutter" myself for much of my adolescence and early adulthood), experts that have taught on this issue indicate that Christian teens that cut or otherwise self-injure generally know that it is sinful, and the nature of addiction is such that being reminded of that by a well-intentioned youth pastor or other counselor generally deepens their guilt, which is often one of their biggest triggers in the first place. Thus, in many situations, to insist on using the "s-word" (i.e., "calling sin, sin") can lead a person to continue in their addictive behavior. Worse yet, indiscriminate use of the "s-word" by those in a position of counseling the addictive or compulsive "sinner" (e.g., pastors, counselors, youth pastors, youth ministers) can create a environment in which trust is destroyed, and one's effectiveness in helping "addicts" is decreased or eliminated.

As such, I would generally say that discussion of whether an addictive behavior is sinful should be limited to the theoretical (such as here) or to situations in which it is abundantly clear that a person has not yet come to understand the destructiveness of her addictive behaviors (e.g., an "intervention"). For anyone in a position to counsel someone struggling with addiction (which likely may include all Christians), it seems to me that it is better to err on the side of avoiding too much talk of "sin" and such and instead to focus on loving the person while allowing God and/or a more qualified counselor to lead that person to a point of conviction about his or her addictive behaviors.

I know that this is somewhat beyond the scope of this thread, but as a recovering addict myself, and as one having experience in ministering to addicts and other hurting people, I felt compelled to share this point.

 

[Romanseight2005]

This is why I said that the person in this situation must call out to God for His help. because the person in this situation has obviously tried to stop and can't seem to. This is a fine line to walk though.

 

[Girly3302]

Yes every addiction is a sin. If it were not so how can we judge any addiction to be a sin. Do we just pick the addictions we personally do not have a problem with and say they are not a sin but the other ones we don't have a problem with are a sin?
Our bodies are a temple and we must respect them. All addictions seem to have a way of eventually catching up with you and affecting you health and well being.

I would watch your intake of diet pop. I read someway that nutrasweet can cause tumors over a number of years of use.

 

[NHB_MMA]

I'll remind you yet again that you were the one who specifically asked if people believe addiction is a sin.

I found it interesting because we tend to talk about the addictions of the most harmful things in so many discussions, but not so often about the lesser things. I have a friend that is so addicted (IMO) to video games that he almost never does anything but play video games from the time he gets home from work (which he'll probably skip on the release of Madden '08 or Halo 3) till bed and sometimes on weekends he'll play for 24 hours or more straight. It seems like an addiction to me, but when is and is not an addiction is a little bit of a judgment call. At any rate, this is somewhat of a lesser addiction and I began to wonder if is sinful, solely because it's an addiction. I have concluded that it is, based on the lack of time he spends with his loved ones and the extreme waste of his life. Then I began thinking about lesser things. Some people seem to be addicted to talking to other people, just always needing to talk to someone. Is that a sin just because they feel it to be a compulsive behavior and for absolutely no other reason?

If I had known you prefer to discuss what is sin without using Scripture I would not have bothered commenting in this thread to start with. This is a Christian forum. Most of us believe in the Bible as the authoritative word of God. If you do not then we really can't get any further with this conversation.

I used my diet soda as an example, because I sat there and thought to myself "NHB, are you addicted to ANYTHING? Well...I do drink a lot of pop." Am I actually addicted? I don't know. I guess I would have to go through psychological screening to determine it. I would give up so many other things before soda. When I actually did give it up for dieting purposes, I found I drank about 2 gallons of water per day and sometimes more. When I made an effort to cut back on it, I would drink about 3 cans of soda and 8 glasses of water during a shift at work. So, I clearly did substitute water with no problem. While soda is my favorite beverage by far, am I actually addicted to it or is there just something about my biology that makes me thirst?

Some things aren't addressed in the Bible, as we've already mentioned. Scripture wasn't brought into this, because I don't believed it's clearly addressed. Now, savedfromdestruction posted the following verse:

The answer to your question is in Rom 14:23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

And I clearly responded that I didn't doubt, but was just asking about "addiction" in any possible circumstance. His verse said if you feel a conviction and ignore it, then it's a sin. I clearly stated I didn't feel a conviction about it, but just used it as an example for the point I was addressing. Then all I get is that the answer lies in Scripture. That is when I asked if posting something means we automatically take the most fundamentlist position.

I could be wrong, but I think most people use the world "fundamentalist" to pretty much mean "whack job" for lack of a better term. I mean, there is a reason why the news doesn't say "Muslims blow up building" but instead says "Fundamentalists muslims blow up building". Truly, the term has a negative connotation. I would suggest sensible people should find an alternative term, such as perhaps "conservative" (as in interpretation) or "Biblical literalist".

The people I mentioned in my examples proudly call themselves "fundamentalists" and I thought this extremism was the only portion of Christianity that called themselves "fundamentalists". Those particular people I mentioned.........only the most insane and ill people would ever look from the outside and say "that's what I need in my life".

What do you hope to accomplish here? Are you wanting everyone to pat you on the back and say "sure, drink all the soda you want!!

No. I had hoped people would really discuss the merit of the underlying point, rather than focus on the soda. I was hoping for some examples of strong compulsions many feel that most of us would never stop to think of as being sinful and see if they really could be.

And BTW I believe that those who have warned you about the dangers of too much soda/aspartaime were doing so not out of a legalistic bent, but with genuine concern for your health.

Sure. I can believe that. I don't think anyone was trying to be a jerk or anything.

I am sorry you have seen so much extremism in your life.

I am sorry for others that have seen it...if that is all they ever saw of Christianity. Because, again, no sensible person would ever opt for that and I think it has kept people from the faith. I think this "Taliban Christianity" has been incredibly damaging to the faith and I personally think people may be accountable for wrecking the faith. Look, I have my own issues and I'm far from perfect, but I suspect that Judgment Day might be full of twists, turns, and surprises and it will be interesting to see what happens to those that have repelled others from the faith.

I've seen the oposite. People in the churches around here live ultra-liberal lives, engaging in sexual sin (and by that I mean homosexual activity, premarital sex, promiscuity, etc.), idolatry, etc. etc. They don't even know what their Bible's say, never mind what they mean. I for one take the hard line against activities like this because I care about what God tells us in His word. And I am very much a minority for doing that here. To even suggest homosexuality is a sin here can get you thrown in jail. What I am experiencing here is one extreme of the scale - liberalism.

Oh, I can diagnose it in one word: Canada. Don't get me wrong, I love visiting your country for all the fishing and tourism spots, but it is definitely far more liberal where you're at. I mean, Toronto is like a cold version of San Francisco that actually decided to invest in cleaning the streets.

Is it true that "offensive speech" is not protected by the Constitution? Americans would find that idea appalling beyond belief. I'm just asking cause I've heard it rumored that offensive speech is unlawful and that's where they nail churches on the homosexuality thing. I used to work with some girl that would go to voice clinics/seminars for her church singing and got to know a couple from Manitoba that was just dying to move to Virginia or North Carolina near this vocal instruction because they said they felt like complete strangers and outcasts and had to drive a couple hours to find a reasonably conservative church.

What you have experienced is the other end of the scale - legalism.

How does "legalism" differ from "fundamentalism", which is the word I've always associated with the atrocities I described?

But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. God's word is not to blame for poor human responses.

Oh, I understand it's not the Bible that's to blame. The examples I listed were all taking any given concept and taking it to its most extreme conclusions. That's all interpretation.

Believe me, I would have no part of Christianity if they all thought that way. I probably would convert to the most radical, fundamentalist Islam figuring they pretty much think the same and what if you really do get 72 virgins.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Yes every addiction is a sin. If it were not so how can we judge any addiction to be a sin. Do we just pick the addictions we personally do not have a problem with and say they are not a sin but the other ones we don't have a problem with are a sin?
Our bodies are a temple and we must respect them. All addictions seem to have a way of eventually catching up with you and affecting you health and well being.

I would watch your intake of diet pop. I read someway that nutrasweet can cause tumors over a number of years of use.

Well, some things are sins period. For instance, if you had an addiction to adultery, then doing it one time would be a sin. If your addiction was to chocolate, then it would only be a sin if you were idolatrous with it. Eating the chocolate one time would not be sinful. So it goes back to defining addiction. I drink coffee everyday pretty much, and my body may well be addicted to it. Does this mean that I could not stop if God told me to? It would only be idolatrous in that case. If it isn't idolatrous, it's not a sin.

 

[desmalia]

I found it interesting because we tend to talk about the addictions of the most harmful things in so many discussions, but not so often about the lesser things. I have a friend that is so addicted (IMO) to video games that he almost never does anything but play video games from the time he gets home from work (which he'll probably skip on the release of Madden '08 or Halo 3) till bed and sometimes on weekends he'll play for 24 hours or more straight. It seems like an addiction to me, but when is and is not an addiction is a little bit of a judgment call. At any rate, this is somewhat of a lesser addiction and I began to wonder if is sinful, solely because it's an addiction. I have concluded that it is, based on the lack of time he spends with his loved ones and the extreme waste of his life. Then I began thinking about lesser things. Some people seem to be addicted to talking to other people, just always needing to talk to someone. Is that a sin just because they feel it to be a compulsive behavior and for absolutely no other reason?

You know, that might have been a better example to offer than the soda. It sounds like you don't consider your situation to be an addiction, so it might not be the best one to use. And here we have yet another thing to consider before even looking at whether addiction is or can be a sin. What is addiction?

Anyway, I think you made a solid judgement (and yes, Biblical principles fall in line with what you have said about your friend, actually). You looked at the whole situation and how it affects his life. Very important, IMHO.

I used my diet soda as an example, because I sat there and thought to myself "NHB, are you addicted to ANYTHING? Well...I do drink a lot of pop." Am I actually addicted? I don't know. I guess I would have to go through psychological screening to determine it. I would give up so many other things before soda. When I actually did give it up for dieting purposes, I found I drank about 2 gallons of water per day and sometimes more. When I made an effort to cut back on it, I would drink about 3 cans of soda and 8 glasses of water during a shift at work. So, I clearly did substitute water with no problem. While soda is my favorite beverage by far, am I actually addicted to it or is there just something about my biology that makes me thirst?

Some things aren't addressed in the Bible, as we've already mentioned. Scripture wasn't brought into this, because I don't believed it's clearly addressed. Now, savedfromdestruction posted the following verse:

The answer to your question is in Rom 14:23And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith: for whatsoever [is] not of faith is sin.

And I clearly responded that I didn't doubt, but was just asking about "addiction" in any possible circumstance. His verse said if you feel a conviction and ignore it, then it's a sin. I clearly stated I didn't feel a conviction about it, but just used it as an example for the point I was addressing. Then all I get is that the answer lies in Scripture. That is when I asked if posting something means we automatically take the most fundamentlist position.

Well here is where some of the problem lies. I don't think you really came across very clearly about the soda thing. Your responses suggested an emotional attachment to soda to the degree that you were getting argumentative. Now I know how easy it is to misunderstand each other when posting on forums. So hopefully we can move beyond that now and get to the real issue.

I could be wrong, but I think most people use the world "fundamentalist" to pretty much mean "whack job" for lack of a better term. I mean, there is a reason why the news doesn't say "Muslims blow up building" but instead says "Fundamentalists muslims blow up building". Truly, the term has a negative connotation. I would suggest sensible people should find an alternative term, such as perhaps "conservative" (as in interpretation) or "Biblical literalist".

Ah, now see here we have a classic example of misunderstanding in forums. Up here in Canada the word "conservative" is considered a very bad word (mainly because we have a political party by that name tha many hate). In addition, the average Christian that I meet in these parts who calls himself or herself conservative is generally conservative when it comes to lifestyle and morals, but still doesn't know the Bible or care much about it. So what other word is there for someone who considers Scripture to be inerrant and a vital part of the Christian walk? I don't think there is one other than fundamentalist.

The people I mentioned in my examples proudly call themselves "fundamentalists" and I thought this extremism was the only portion of Christianity that called themselves "fundamentalists". Those particular people I mentioned.........only the most insane and ill people would ever look from the outside and say "that's what I need in my life".

I do understand that. There are even a few in the fundie forum on CF that I worry about. But most are actually not extremist like that. Extremists give true fundamentalism a bad name.

No. I had hoped people would really discuss the merit of the underlying point, rather than focus on the soda. I was hoping for some examples of strong compulsions many feel that most of us would never stop to think of as being sinful and see if they really could be.

OK, thanks for clarifying. Maybe that got lost in the message.

Sure. I can believe that. I don't think anyone was trying to be a jerk or anything.

Cool.

I am sorry for others that have seen it...if that is all they ever saw of Christianity. Because, again, no sensible person would ever opt for that and I think it has kept people from the faith. I think this "Taliban Christianity" has been incredibly damaging to the faith and I personally think people may be accountable for wrecking the faith. Look, I have my own issues and I'm far from perfect, but I suspect that Judgment Day might be full of twists, turns, and surprises and it will be interesting to see what happens to those that have repelled others from the faith.

I think it's very important not ot mix up fundamentalist Islam with Christianity. Two very different things. Anyway I am in agreement with you that extremism is a bad thing. I think we mainly just differ on the semantics.

Oh, I can diagnose it in one word: Canada. Don't get me wrong, I love visiting your country for all the fishing and tourism spots, but it is definitely far more liberal where you're at. I mean, Toronto is like a cold version of San Francisco that actually decided to invest in cleaning the streets.

Is it true that "offensive speech" is not protected by the Constitution? Americans would find that idea appalling beyond belief. I'm just asking cause I've heard it rumored that offensive speech is unlawful and that's where they nail churches on the homosexuality thing. I used to work with some girl that would go to voice clinics/seminars for her church singing and got to know a couple from Manitoba that was just dying to move to Virginia or North Carolina near this vocal instruction because they said they felt like complete strangers and outcasts and had to drive a couple hours to find a reasonably conservative church.

Sounds like you understand where my country is at. I too would absolutely love to live in the US again so we could find a good, solid church. Even WA state, one of the more liberal states, is like a breath of fresh air compared to here. And yes, free speech is a thing of the past here, as you mentioned. It is illegal for pastors to preach about anything the Bible says in relation to homosexuality. And the rest of us have pretty much as hard a time. It's like in communist countries where citizens are so brainwashed that they will not allow anyone to speak truth, even behind closed doors.

How does "legalism" differ from "fundamentalism", which is the word I've always associated with the atrocities I described?

I already touched ont his. There seems to be no other word than fundamentalism to describe someone who holds the Bible as the highest authority. That's not legalism. I don't know what other word to use.

Oh, I understand it's not the Bible that's to blame. The examples I listed were all taking any given concept and taking it to its most extreme conclusions. That's all interpretation.

Cool.

Believe me, I would have no part of Christianity if they all thought that way. I probably would convert to the most radical, fundamentalist Islam figuring they pretty much think the same and what if you really do get 72 virgins.

Well exactly. Legalism is not what Christ taught and has nothing to do with the faith.