True change requires spiritual transformation

[Nixie]

"Overcoming addiction almost always requires a complete spiritual transformation."


As such, the assertion the doctor made led me wonder about a few things...

What is a spiritual transformation?
How is this transformation related to faith?
How does this transformation change a person's very cognition and behavior to the point they could even overcome addiction?
Does true change require spiritual transformation?

I do not have an addiction but my experience with other's who have addiction issues leads me to the following conclusion.

Addicts are selfish. Addiction is a selfish process which binds the individual up in a negative pattern. I think the misunderstanding comes from equating spirituality with religion---they are two different things IMO. An addict is wrapped up in themself, they only care about feeding their addiction and don't give a damn who it hurts or what it costs. The action of re-connecting to their better selves via spirituality is meant to break the cycle of selfishness by replacing it with selflessness. The addict must focus on themselves to get better but not in some obnoxious "my world is crap and bad things happened to me" blah, blah, blah way. Rather, they must learn to re-connect to their more noble selves, the part of them that recognizes the value and importance of being productive and healthy. The part that values and cherishes their loved ones and is willing to make sacrifices (not engaging in destructive behavior, working thru emotional pain and such) in their life to be successful. The transformation needed is to find strength and courage in one's inner sense of faith and spirituality to navigate the trials and tribulations of this life without relying on the destructive crutch of addiction. It has nothing to do with religion per se but religion can certainly be a cornerstone of one's faith but that isn't required.

 

[Morgain]

I do not have an addiction but my experience with other's who have addiction issues leads me to the following conclusion.

Addicts are selfish. Addiction is a selfish process which binds the individual up in a negative pattern. I think the misunderstanding comes from equating spirituality with religion---they are two different things IMO. An addict is wrapped up in themself, they only care about feeding their addiction and don't give a damn who it hurts or what it costs. The action of re-connecting to their better selves via spirituality is meant to break the cycle of selfishness by replacing it with selflessness. The addict must focus on themselves to get better but not in some obnoxious "my world is crap and bad things happened to me" blah, blah, blah way. Rather, they must learn to re-connect to their more noble selves, the part of them that recognizes the value and importance of being productive and healthy. The part that values and cherishes their loved ones and is willing to make sacrifices (not engaging in destructive behavior, working thru emotional pain and such) in their life to be successful. The transformation needed is to find strength and courage in one's inner sense of faith and spirituality to navigate the trials and tribulations of this life without relying on the destructive crutch of addiction. It has nothing to do with religion per se but religion can certainly be a cornerstone of one's faith but that isn't required.

my point exactly!

 

[Samuel]

There are truths which are observable from our vantage point.
The first of them is the law of opposition. Positive and negative, up and down, left and right, backwards and forwards, happy and sad, subjective and objective, etc. If it were not for opposition, then everything would be compound in one--void and undefined. It is in opposition we find the definition of our world. It is observable on large and small scales (what do you know, opposition-- large and small).
The second of them is change. Time is just one change relative to another. If it weren't for change, then there wouldn't be any time.

Now the question arrises: is the universe finite or infinite ( oh look! Opposition!) ? Or is there some aspect of both?

For one to exist the other must as well.
If it is finite then the same stupid thing will happen over and over again (for an infinite number of times).
Like a chess board there are only a certain number of moves.
75 trillion years from now we might be having this same debate.



I laugh at those who think the world is the th result of chance. Chance doesn't really exist

 

[Nixie]

By chance that I read your post [MENTION=4326]Samuel[/MENTION]

 

[Satya]

...they only care about feeding their addiction and don't give a damn who it hurts or what it costs.

This statement indicates to me that you know very little about addiction. In fact, this statement is a generalization which leads me to believe you have developed a prejudice towards addicts based on some personal experience.

 

[Nixie]

No. I don't believe I am biased nor wrong in my statement.

There is a pathology to addiction which causes negative patterns to develop. Addiction is selfish. There is very little concern for the feelings of others or the needs of others when one is addicted to something. It isn't a matter of being prejudiced but being honest about how the addict behaves.

There isn't room for sugar coating the fact that the reason they are addicts is because they are unable to manage their lives and consistently choose to engage in the addicting behavior regardless of the negative consequences.

A drunk will drink even if it means embarassing their child at some social event. A meth addict will do meth even if they have to steal the money to do it. A gambling addict will gamble even if it means gambling the rent money away.

There are degrees of addiction and degrees of how low an specific individual will stoop to feed their addiction but make no mistake, they will engage in the behavior even when it means negative consequences for themselves and others.

My comment isn't a value judgment regarding addicts but rather a statement regarding a factual manner in which addicts behave. If they could manage their behavior and their actions didn't cause negativity in their lives, they wouldn't be addicts.

 

[AUM]

No. I don't believe I am biased nor wrong in my statement.

There is a pathology to addiction which causes negative patterns to develop. Addiction is selfish. There is very little concern for the feelings of others or the needs of others when one is addicted to something. It isn't a matter of being prejudiced but being honest about how the addict behaves.

There isn't room for sugar coating the fact that the reason they are addicts is because they are unable to manage their lives and consistently choose to engage in the addicting behavior regardless of the negative consequences.

A drunk will drink even if it means embarassing their child at some social event. A meth addict will do meth even if they have to steal the money to do it. A gambling addict will gamble even if it means gambling the rent money away.

There are degrees of addiction and degrees of how low an specific individual will stoop to feed their addiction but make no mistake, they will engage in the behavior even when it means negative consequences for themselves and others.

My comment isn't a value judgment regarding addicts but rather a statement regarding a factual manner in which addicts behave. If they could manage their behavior and their actions didn't cause negativity in their lives, they wouldn't be addicts.

I'm afraid that addictive behavior is a bit more complicated than what you seem to suggest. The psychological and physiological wiring of an addict is a lot different from a normal individual in that the addictive behavior becomes part of that person's identity. They may very well want to stop their negative behavior, but their biological make-up would demand the intake of whatever substance they are addicted to. It's not a simple "I will stop smoking because it's affecting my family", this is something a lot more serious than will power and not being selfish, but it has to do with deep embedded habits that has become ingrained in that person's brain chemistry.

 

[Nixie]

I didn't make any assertation that addiction was something "easily" understood--hence the word "pathology".

Your argument still doesn't change the basic tenent that

1. the addictive behavior creates the problems and
2. addicts will engage in the behavior (over and over)
3. regardless of the negative consequences.

This statement regarding behavior isn't contigent upon biological factors. Biological factors still don't change the addictive behavior. They can explain some of the underlying causes of the behavior but don't impact the basic outline of addictive behavior.

I never stated something as banal as "I will stop smoking because it is affecting my family" either. My statement is more "An addict will continue to smoke regardless of how it negatively impacts themselves or their family". Again, I am not demonizing addicts but the root of being able to overcome adversary lies in the ability to define the problem. I haven't said anything about causes of addiction which are definately variable in nature.

I also never stated anything about "will power" or "not being selfish" either. As far as selfish--again, it a descriptor not a value judgement. The behavior of an addict is focused on meeting a specific need of theirs, and theirs only, regardless of how that is accomplished. Selfish is the correct terminolgy to describe the behavior.

 

[AUM]

[MENTION=3096]NDN NT[/MENTION] I guess my confusion was the way that you worded things, and some of the semantic definitions that you used in that post.

No biggie, I was just on a different page. I will take note on this mistake from my part, it will not happen again.

 

[bickelz]

Sounds like plain old narcissism to me. Perhaps ego centrism.

Probz.

You think you have it bad. In the Bible a man named Abraham bound his son, Issac, to a rock and was preparing to sacrifice him for God. Christianity demands that a person's relationship with God takes absolute priority over all other relationships. I don't let it get to me. I'm sure a lot of children put their relationship with Santa Claus ahead of their relationship with their parents. It's kind of the same thing in my mind.

Well, he actually did threaten to kill me a few times with the "I brought you into this world, I can take you out" line. I understand that it's "required" in the bible to put your relationship with god first but that seems ironic, almost paradoxical considering Jesus' message was love and selflessness. If you put your relationship with a person you've never met before above the people you can touch around you, isn't that selfishness instead of selflessness?


I wash my hands of this nonsense though. Every time I get into it, the thing just makes me mad.

 

[randomsomeone]

I understand that it's "required" in the bible to put your relationship with god first but that seems ironic, almost paradoxical considering Jesus' message was love and selflessness.

A good point. Invariably, these references relate to our ability to make a fundamental shift, a reorientation of life (re: the Kingdom of God) and facing obstacles that may hold us back. We are invited to leave behind a former pattern of life and embrace a new one. In this process though (here's the paradox), we are called into a life in which love is paramount. Seen in this light, I think Jesus' attitude towards rigid, legalistic religious practices of the day, his acceptance of outcasts, the parable of the Good Samaritan (and the list goes on) are indicators of what he is actually inviting people into. So, you are right in your observation...one set of ideas relates to the challenges of this life-shift, and another relates to how life is lived in this new world which is about love and selflessness. It's something to consider.

As for life experiences.....we have got to come to grips with the fact that much of what circulates these days as Christianity often contains huge gaps that are the product of odd historical circumstances and anomalies. These inauthenticities play off of the limitations of people (in many ways Jesus directly told his disciples to guard against such distortions). If we are interested at all in spiritual awakening (for ourselves or others) we must carefully seek out the more credible persons and resources out there. These are the times we live in and we just are going to have to deal with that. At the same time there are, thankfully, some very good and sound resources available, one just has to search a bit.