Gottalife

While not religious, I can go along with the idea that sin has a role. Part of my recovery involved a fourth step inventory. In that I discovered I had a pattern of behaving and thinking, when I was between binges, that was not conducive to happy living. I recall, as I was trying to understand these character defects and how they affected me, the we took a look at the seven deadly sins.

A few rang bells, sloth, adultery, covetousness, come to mind. While I lived that way, happiness was elusive. That is just a fact. Whether this just forms part of a basic moral code, and adhering to that code will fix everything, or whether one is beyond doing that and the help of a higher power is the solution, really only gets decided by trial and error.

In my case I was like the AA hopeless alcoholic who could not quit no matter how great the wish. I was too stupified to apply any serious adult thinking to the problem, I had lost the ability to reason and think things through, and I had no defense against the fatal first drink that would last more than a few hours.

I could see no way out. I didn't believe AA would work either. When I went to AA, I just wanted the misery to stop. I seemed to get the idea that the God thing is important, and that He could be found through the steps and would solve my problem. To stupid to argue about or challenge this idea, I began seeking this higher power through the the steps. Like, IME, 75 % or more of people that come to AA and actually do this, I recovered. No one was more surprised than me to discover I had gone three months without thinking about drinking. My sponsor had to tell me as I never took a note of the date.

Recognizing those sins, and asking Him to remove them, has played and important role in my recovery. I don't know if sin was the cause, but I do believe that practicing any of the seven deadly sins would probably have deadly consequences for me.

NYCDoglvr

The American Medical Association classifies it as a disease (a mental illness) and that's good enough for me.

Algorithm

I submit that they are all mistaken on this count. I read this fancy type of sophistry early on, many years before before becoming chronically addicted to alcohol. Much to my detriment, I believed this, and concluded at the time that I would be safe, and kept on drinking.

There is no difference between the alcoholic and the non-alcoholic, or between the hard drinker and the real alcoholic, if you prefer, although some people certainly have an amazing tolerance to or affinity for the stuff. In my particular case, I had both.

Then again, perhaps my Addictive Voice was fully operational even back then, and I simply did not recognize it at the time.

Sudz No More

No need two add my thoughts again since Jeffrey already did. Not a disease, not a sin, just a really bad habit that eventually becomes detrimental to a person. Where people start calling it a disease is the result of the mentally ingrained impulse to imbibe causing repeated relapses. It's just another OCD rearing it's ugly head after you've altered your brain chemistry from too much imbibing.

soberlicious

Well, I always relate this to a disorder that I'm very familiar with, Autism. For a span of about 30 years, the medical community held the "refrigerator mother" theory of Autism as medical fact. This egregious misinformation not only thwarted any move toward effective treatment, it caused untold serious damage to many many people.

My point is, the medical community isn't always right, and researches often recant previously held beliefs. So there's that.

Algorithm

The problem lies in arbitrarily exempting drinking from moral appraisal. It is logical to conclude that if one's behavior under the influence of alcohol is immoral, then in all probability, the drinking itself is immoral, at least for those people who tend to behave immorally while under the influence.

For a very long time, I saw nothing wrong, nothing wrong at all with getting drunk. This was a mistake, because all those immoral "errors of judgment" while under the influence could easily be avoided by not obliterating my moral conscience with alcohol in the first place.

silentrun

I have to agree with you. I have heard people say that a person can't become an alcoholic. I had an off switch at one point. I can't say for certain that I ever had a normal relationship with alcohol because I'm not in anyone else's head but I felt something change in me after I started abusing alcohol. I went from being "good" after a couple of drinks and not wanting to get drunk to "the more I get the more I want".

Mountainmanbob

How things have changed a couple of hundred years ago and I think most people would have considered being a drunk sinful behavior today almost nobody does interesting are we smarter today?

M-Bob

soberlicious

No, we are not smarter in this regard. In fact, addiction is as widespread and occurs as frequently with as much intensity as it ever did, if not more. I think society has made personal responsibility politically incorrect these days.

Fusion

Yes, Silentrun, you described it so well. Once upon a time, decades ago, I had an 'off switch' which flicked itself once I'd had a few drinks and I'd stop, satisfied.

When I overrided that off-switch (for whatever reason or none) too many times, it seems my tolerance to alcohol increased. Increased tolerance (the bodies medically proven automatic response to increased alcohol) meant that eventually that off-switch operated at a higher consumption level. And so it went, more alcohol, higher off-switch, increasing alcohol drive, increasing alcohol intake, until my brain was so addicted, it viewed alcohol as essential to my life.

An addiction, new rogue mis-directed survival drive was thus born. This alcohol drive hijacked my brain, put alcohol before any previously normal pleasure. Food, good company, any company, cleanliness, basis routines, non mattered because alcohol became paramount; alcohol releases massive amounts of feel good chemicals in my brain.

But increasing tolerance meant I needed more and more and more......such that had I continued, I'd have died due to the resultant addiction.

Did this path to destruction cross my moral code? Absolutely, yes. Every step of the downwards spiral. But mis-directed survival drives aren't concerned with niceties and trounced my nagging, insistent moral conscience that I ought to desist. I constantly felt guilty, whilst practising my addiction. I was destroying my self, my body and those around me. How can that be right, it's immoral for sure.

So I do believe there's a moral element to drinking so much that an addiction is created; for not stopping drinking for years, when my mind was screaming at me to do so.

Once I finally took responsibility for my plight and learnt the mechanism of addiction and then the way out, I became a non-drinker and returned to my intrinsic moral self. There is no room for regrets, this precious life is far too short and I've wasted far too much of it.

If I was religious (thank you MountainmanBob for the earlier bible extracts) then yes, I'd probably use the word 'sin' in place of 'morality'. But as I'm not religious, but spiritual, I'll stick with breaching my morals.

Mountainmanbob

My sponsor is an old guy and over the years he has brought that to my attention and I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point.
M-Bob

Ken33xx

There is...

Whatever works for you

Gottalife

I don't think the idea is to exempt drinking from moral appraisal. Drunken behaviour has consequences. Guilt and remorse are a couple of motivators to get sober. Betraying my own morals/values and the ensuing remorse was what eventually lead me to get help.

I have heard it said "that my behaviour deteriorated faster than I could lower my standards"

But here's the thing. There was a complete lack of intent to indulge in immoral behaviour. The idea was to simply have a good time. None of the ensuing drama was planned. On the occasions where there was any thought about consequences, such thoughts were easily overcome by an insane delusion that this time would be manageable, not like the last thousand times. Often there was no thought at all, even after I had sworn off for the day, I would find myself on my third drink before I rembered I wasn't going to drink today.

The first drink is not a rational choice, it is an insane decision. No logical sane thought could justify me picking up a drink. I had so much to live for, so much potential, and there I was at it again.

I detect a bit of a double standard here too. The medical profession, apparently, is quite likely to be wrong about its classification of alcoholism as a disease, supported by many years of research, yet it is almost a heresy to suggest the same folks might be wrong in their dispensing of medication to alcoholics.

Centered3

I view alcoholism and addiction in any form as a disease. It's a mental illness. Some addictions are both a mental illness and a physical allergy, as in alcohol, sugar, drugs.

If alcohol was my only problem, I'd feel better without the alcohol.

Since the problem actually centers in my mind (as the big book states), with all the "ism's" of alcoholism, to me it is a disease/illness.

The mental illness part of the disease of alcoholism is our complete and utter OCD like obsession about alcohol, or whatever substance or behavior, as well as the unmanageability we created in our life due to how we reacted to life and everyone in it, and due to our thinking/perceptions.

I view the word "sin" as "separation from God" or "living out of ego vs living in God's will". So, yes, in that respect I'd also call alcoholism and addiction "sin" but it's not the type of definition "sin" is usually referred to.

This brings to mind my absolute favorite "wisdom of the rooms" I have ever heard in my journey from years ago:
"We are not bad people trying to be good, we are sick people trying to be well."

Centered3

Mountainbob, I'm curious what is your definition of sin?

And just to clarify, your question was about "alcoholism", not "alcohol"?

Mountainmanbob

Sin -- anything that I know of to be wrong.
Remember as discussed before -- what may be sin for me may not be sin for you. (explained in the bible)
Causing others to be lead astray -- which I have done = sin.
Any sin mentioned in the bible -- there are many.
A healthy conscience is a gift that not all have.
Or possibly some were born with but, killed their conscience.

Alcoholism -- if we may in the old days referred to as the town drunk.
Putting booze before everything and everyone (including God).

Alcohol -- most do not have a problem with an occasional drink or two.
Thus, the drink for most is not an issue.

I see this everyday when I wash our dishes
I pour 1/2 a glass of my wife's wine
down the drain -- not finished from the day before.
She is happy with 1/2 to one glass a day.
I drank two tall cans of beer in the shower each morning
before going to work at 5AM. (sinner)
6 to 12 more at work each day (sinner)
many, many more at home during the evenings and on weekends. (sinner)

Still sin often (not with booze) Repent should be my middle name.
I think that my mother now realizes that.

M-Bob

soberlicious

This is why there are differing opinions on the subject of what addiction is to people. Many of us don't believe in the "ism" of alcohol addiction. I see addiction to alcohol the same way I see addiction to any other substance or behavior.

There are many people who have loads of "character flaws" or the "ism factor", who never become addicted. There are loads of people who have never had problems with honesty or selfishness who find themselves hopelessly addicted. There are people who have had serious trauma or childhood abuse who never turn to substances. Conversely, there are people with no notable trauma and what would be described as a healthy childhood who become addicted. What to make of this?

Are we to say that one who quits drinking without relying on a higher power or a program of some sort wasn't a "real alcoholic" in the first place? That line of thinking concerns me on many levels.

red3215

I think it's very complex, although I like to make things as simple as possible.
I doubt there are many alcoholics who drink deliberately when they can see clearly that the results will likely bring devastation.

It's called a sickness because right before a person imbibes, they've lost touch with reality somewhat.
Denial probably plays some role but there's also this conditioned response similar to Pavlov's dogs salivating and expecting food at the sound of a bell,( or whatever the details of that were ). Also a craving for sugar, endorphins, etc that a person mistakes for alcohol craving.

Mountainmanbob

I have read and studied the AA Big Book and although I recommend the AA Program to one and all who are problem drinkers, I in no way put the Big Book on the same level as the Bible. That's just me for I do know many that regard the Big Book as their one and only bible. Big Book written in 1939 by what I would call common folks. But true, this book has helped many to recover.

The Bible has helped many, many, many more to recover.

Combination of the two Books as used by the original AA members works well for me.

Doctor Bob especially and Bill W. to a certain extent studied the Bible and understood very well the "sinner" and what it is to be a "sinner."

A nice sober day wished for all,
M-Bob

silentrun

WootWoot congratulations on your year!