Medication vs 'Self" medicating

[agedman]

Let's try again. This time, folks, keep it within the parameters of Godliness!!!!!

Here is the problem.

There are some who would actually instruct and (if in their authority) prohibit medications that are prescribed by a medical professional and NOT addictive for certain difficulties.

The medications for ADD, ADHD, OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder), OPD (oppositional personality disorder), Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism can (depending on the type prescribed) be eitheraddictive or non-addictive. The addictive ones are highly regulated.

To derail consideration that ADD, ADHD, OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder), OPD (oppositional personality disorder), Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism is a manifestation of sin, this thread is to take the position that such may certainly be Godly attributes in which the person is strengthened and a testimony for others of God's great grace.

So here is the question.

Why is there opposition to taking medications under the care of a qualified medical professional, and not opposition to those who "self medicate" using wine or some other intoxicant?

 

[revmwc]

Let's try again. This time, folks, keep it within the parameters of Godliness!!!!!

Here is the problem.

There are some who would actually instruct and (if in their authority) prohibit medications that are prescribed by a medical professional and NOT addictive for certain difficulties.

The medications for ADD, ADHD, OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder), OPD (oppositional personality disorder), Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism can (depending on the type prescribed) be eitheraddictive or non-addictive. The addictive ones are highly regulated.

To derail consideration that ADD, ADHD, OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder), OPD (oppositional personality disorder), Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism is a manifestation of sin, this thread is to take the position that such may certainly be Godly attributes in which the person is strengthened and a testimony for others of God's great grace.

So here is the question.

Why is there opposition to taking medications under the care of a qualified medical professional, and not opposition to those who "self medicate" using wine or some other intoxicant?

Sorry but anyone that considers that epilepsy is manifestation of needs to have their proverbial head exmined.

Epilepsy is caused by several things in a person one and the biggest I believe today is from foceps delivery. The next is a severe head trauma. The drugs for epilepsy help keep the proper electrical signals in the nervous system.

Now that being said several of the others like ADHD to me is sometimes just a kid being a kid and the pharmasuetical companies are pushing their product. I said sometimes others it could actually be a medical problem.

ADD is also sometimes a kid being a kid. Kids are and have always been easily distracted. Today we have drug companies in the business of selling their product and doctors who will prescribe it. Not all cases but a lot of them, given time the child will cpome out of it.

One of my grandsons at 2 wasn't talikng and was by himself playing a lot, his doctor wanted to put him on medication for ADD or Autism don't remember for sure and I told my daughter not to at the time. She followed my advice and today he is doing well in school and has made friends. Plays little league and is looking forward to being an RA at church the end of the year.

So sometimes the Doctors are too quick to place a child on medication it is good to be cautious but if their truly is a problem then sin has nothing to with it, these are things that occur in people.

The point of opposing the medication is that once a child is on the medication they are on it for life.

My son is epileptic and seizures are under control with his medication, believe seizures are nothing to play around with. The thing is alcohol is controlling the thought process when used excessively you say for medicinal purposes would that be like a spoonfull for a cough? Or a spoonful for the stomaches sake? Meidcinal needs to be defined.

 

[Amy.G]

I think some of the problem lies with quack doctors who want to just drug up kids, and not the medication itself. There are certainly children that have legitimate medical conditions that need medication, but some want to drug kids just because they're different from the "norm". My son had teachers that said he was "behind" socially. PPPPFFFTTTT! He's now one of the most outgoing, social, friendly people you'll ever meet!

 

[agedman]

Epilepsy is caused by several things in a person one and the biggest I believe today is from foceps delivery. The next is a severe head trauma. The drugs for epilepsy help keep the proper electrical signals in the nervous system.

I totally agree. But one must remember that the EEG was invented after electricity. There were many who disputed it as other than demonic influences before "actual proof."

Now that being said several of the others like ADHD to me is sometimes just a kid being a kid and the pharmasuetical companies are pushing their product. I said sometimes others it could actually be a medical problem.

ADD is also sometimes a kid being a kid. Kids are and have always been easily distracted. Today we have drug companies in the business of selling their product and doctors who will prescribe it. Not all cases but a lot of them, given time the child will cpome out of it.

One of my grandsons at 2 wasn't talikng and was by himself playing a lot, his doctor wanted to put him on medication for ADD or Autism don't remember for sure and I told my daughter not to at the time. She followed my advice and today he is doing well in school and has made friends. Plays little league and is looking forward to being an RA at church the end of the year.

So sometimes the Doctors are too quick to place a child on medication it is good to be cautious but if their truly is a problem then sin has nothing to with it, these are things that occur in people.

One of the problems that most don't seem to understand is that the medication doesn't work the same way on those who are ADD and the normal child. The normal child will react by become more unruly, more impetuous, more defiant, and the ADD child will actually settle down and more importantly have a sense of being normal.

This nuance is missed by the general public. Most still think the medication "dopes" the child, when it is actually providing the appropriate levels of chemical to the brain that the "normal" child naturally enjoys.

The chemicals are heightened to the "normal" levels when the person engages in socially dangerous or unacceptable behaviors and life choices - intoxicants (drugs, alcohol) heightened sexual activities and deviancy, high risk taking pleasures, ... which help the person for a bit of time "feel normal."

The point of opposing the medication is that once a child is on the medication they are on it for life.

You state this as a negative, but it isn't. You mentioned that the epileptic takes medications - It is assumed that they take them for life.

ADD and other such problems do not go away with maturation. One does not grow out of being ADD.

What can and does often happen, especially as a person matures, becomes aware and to a degree a comprehensive understanding of their weaknesses and strengths, and under the leadership of God's influences - that person elects to moderate and even leave the medication.

HOWEVER - just as the epileptic - there is no magic cure. And one who does not stay alert and ever present with the Lord and extremely considerate of the leading of the Holy Spirit will find them self in huge personal turmoil - perhaps even a disgrace to the testimony of Christ.

My son is epileptic and seizures are under control with his medication, believe seizures are nothing to play around with. The thing is alcohol is controlling the thought process when used excessively you say for medicinal purposes would that be like a spoonfull for a cough? Or a spoonful for the stomaches sake? Meidcinal needs to be defined.

I agree. And for such definitions modern (as did the OT folks) look to the medical professionals (called apothecaries in the OT).

What I am attempting to ferret out is why some would consider it righteous to take an intoxicant without medical opinion or prescription, and yet be critical of medical helps to others.

In effect, they would agree that "self medication" is approved, but doctor directed and regulated medication is ungodly.

 

[agedman]

I think some of the problem lies with quack doctors who want to just drug up kids, and not the medication itself. There are certainly children that have legitimate medical conditions that need medication, but some want to drug kids just because they're different from the "norm". My son had teachers that said he was "behind" socially. PPPPFFFTTTT! He's now one of the most outgoing, social, friendly people you'll ever meet!

Teachers generally view the child in a social setting of 25 or more. They often see the problems that just are not manifested in the family or around parents.

When a child is "behind" socially, that doesn't always mean that there is some need of doctor care, but may mean that the child's maturation of emotion is lagging at that point in their life. It may be no more than a signal for the parent to engage the child in reading books that lend more toward character analysis and problem solving.

Your stated success of the child at this time shows there was no medical need, and that it was truly a socialization phenomena that was taking place at that time.

People mature at different rates, and that doesn't always mean physically.

 

[preacher4truth]

Why is there opposition to taking medications under the care of a qualified medical professional, and not opposition to those who "self medicate" using wine or some other intoxicant?

There is actually opposition to both.

There is no opposition (I presume) to taking meds for cancer, headaches, GERD, arthritis, and other conditions.

Someone may come along and surprise me though.

When it comes to chemical problems such as ADD, ADHD and other things you've mentioned, then out come those who believe all of these to be due to sin of some sort. We have a son who suffers with ADHD. On meds he is just 'OK'. Off of them, or misses a dose and things are not good at all. It is a task to keep him on track and under control while on meds, as he struggles with aspergers or autism or perhaps a mild case of CP. No one is certain, but the meds do help him.

If someone came along and told me it was his sin that causes this, then, well...uh...it wouldn't be pretty if this person pressed the issue too hard. :thumbs:

Pharisaical persons love to chime in and call all of this an excuse for sin, that others are looking for an excuse to sin (but the person claiming this is of course excluded) that they are those who 'truly' believe the Bible, and after ludicrous statements await a rebuke to fluff their feathers with a disingenuous 'God bless you' while wearing their Pharisaical garb &c and blah blah blah. Looking at the behavior of some of these and their cruel and abrasive spirit toward others tells me quite a bit about them simply by looking at the fruit they bear.

This all borders on the fence of toxic faith...just believe like them and all is well physically, mentally and all, there is a cure for all of it, and those who still suffer in this world are cast offs and the accusation points to (from them) that they are simply unsaved. If any struggle with the flesh, well well, then let's call their salvation into question...I mean, there is no way they are saved if they have struggles according to the implication of others.

It's interesting other physical ailments aren't included in their list of what we should not suffer from such as some things I've listed above.

But such is life in the church and the church has more than enough Pharisees within her.

 

[Arbo]

Why is there opposition to taking medications under the care of a qualified medical professional, and not opposition to those who "self medicate" using wine or some other intoxicant?

To the first part of the question:
Based on observation of recent threads, I'd say a misunderstanding of mental disorders, their symptoms, and proper treatment. Also observed is a sense of self-righteousness.

Also observed in recent threads, there seems in some to be a sense of sport in getting a rise out of others who are suffering. This is done under the guise of Christian love and concern, but seems to be in fact bullying.

As to the second part, I guess I've not seen any discussion about it.

 

[DiamondLady]

We have an autistic grandson. Sweet as the day is long but Shawn has no boundaries. He doesn't see danger in anything, he lacks the "common sense" portion of his brain. (he walked straight into the swimming pool one day). He doesn't NEED medication, he needs close monitoring of his actions and for dangerous things to be kept away. He attends classes to help him. (I suspect his mother could use a bit of medication now and again!! LOL)

We have niece that suffered from epileptic seizures as a child (febrile). She took medication to combat them and keep them under control. She outgrew it and no longer needs the meds.

Sometimes you needs the meds, sometimes you don't. If you were allergic to dogs you wouldn't own a dog. However, if your allergy is grass you can't very well never be around grass, so you take medication to help you with your symptoms.

Sometimes..like allergies....you self-medicate. I don't need to run to the doctor for him to tell me to take a Tylenol if I have a headache. I wouldn't want someone to self-medicate if they have epilepsy....it doesn't help.

 

[mont974x4]

I have chronic and severe pain. If I could legally do it I would trade marijuana and a cold beer for all my other meds. In fact, I have two doctors who have told me to have a drink before bed every night. I also have a pain management doctor. All three agree that marijuana is safer than the "legal" meds I take. I get regular blood tests to watch for cancer as well as liver and kidney damage from the legal meds I take.

Addiction is not an issue. According to 2 of my doctors, the 3rd I have not asked, the pain processes of the body impact the way meds act. The person with an injury that will heal will obviously have a change in body chemistry etc and addiction becomes an issue. That is not the case for those with a chronic issue that will not heal.


I wonder if mental illnesses have a similar situation.

 

[Arbo]

Preacher4truth- Excellent post.:thumbs:

 

[agedman]

There is actually opposition to both.

There is no opposition (I presume) to taking meds for cancer, headaches, GERD, arthritis, and other conditions.

Someone may come along and surprise me though.

When it comes to chemical problems such as ADD, ADHD and other things you've mentioned, then out come those who believe all of these to be due to sin of some sort. ...

Pharisaical persons love to chime in and call all of this an excuse for sin, that others are looking for an excuse to sin ...

THis all borders on the fence of toxic faith...just believe like them and all is well physically, mentally and all, there is a cure for all of it, and those who still suffer in this world are cast offs and the accusation points to (from them) that they are simply unsaved. ...

It's interesting other physical ailments aren't included in their list of what we should not suffer from such as some things I've listed above.

Thank you for your post, it does point to a problem we all must face in the assembly. There are those who are critical, mean spirited, and even vengeful if something doesn't fit in the box.

I am reminded of the difference between Peter and John. At the last supper, John ask of the Lord, "Is it I?" In my opinion the question is one of dismay that he would be so shamed. Peter when asked by Christ, "Do you love me?" could only say "As a friend" and yet, he had the gall (impudence) to ask, "What shall this man do?"

A person who comes from or through a struggling hurtful background will always carry with them a bit of an edge, and when that person becomes a believer that edge can unconsciously be transformed into what is or is not righteous.

God uses whom He has chosen for His purpose, and in my opinion such a person should be respected and listened, too. Many times, hidden in the bluster, is sincere earnest desire to glorify Christ and show how the victory over all evil is found in Him - alone.

The question comes down to what really is evil. What really is sin.

Do parents (guardians) of one who is ADD sin by not providing all the helps that would allow that child to grow and mature. Do they sin by not providing guidance that will help the child understand their own character weakness is not as other children, and therefore they must be far more aware of the work of the Holy Spirit and the attributes of Christ?

I think so.

It is so very unpleasant to sit across from a broken father who is facing the prospects of leaving the ministry because the children have caused him shame. The same parent that was implored to get help for the children when they were pre-teen, ignored the access with statements such as: "boys will be boys" and "men will be men" until it was beyond his control.

 

[freeatlast]

Let's try again. This time, folks, keep it within the parameters of Godliness!!!!!

Here is the problem.

There are some who would actually instruct and (if in their authority) prohibit medications that are prescribed by a medical professional and NOT addictive for certain difficulties.

The medications for ADD, ADHD, OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder), OPD (oppositional personality disorder), Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism can (depending on the type prescribed) be eitheraddictive or non-addictive. The addictive ones are highly regulated.

To derail consideration that ADD, ADHD, OCD (obsessive-compulsive disorder), OPD (oppositional personality disorder), Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism is a manifestation of sin, this thread is to take the position that such may certainly be Godly attributes in which the person is strengthened and a testimony for others of God's great grace.

So here is the question.

Why is there opposition to taking medications under the care of a qualified medical professional, and not opposition to those who "self medicate" using wine or some other intoxicant?

First off who said that Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism was due to sin?

Also who said there is no opposition to self medicating? The opposition you claim is more of an informative issue because the bible disagrees with covering sin and drugs that hinder behavior issues cover sin. No drug can deal with the issue of sin. All it can do is hinder, cover , or mask what really is within the person.
So the question is mute as I have not read of anyone who suggests that self medicating to cover sin is acceptable.

 

[agedman]

First off who said that Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism was due to sin?

Also who said there is no opposition to self medicating? The opposition you claim is more of an informative issue because the bible disagrees with covering sin and drugs that hinder behavior issues cover sin. No drug can deal with the issue of sin. All it can do is hinder, cover , or mask what really is within the person.
So the question is mute as I have no read anyone who suggests that self medicating to cover sin is acceptable.

Then by your view it would be no problem taking wine - which is an intoxicant and does alter the rational and social aspects of a person's behavior and impulse control, but would have a problem with someone who took a non addictive medication under doctor's care to help with impulse control.

Impulse is not a sin. The diminished control will bring a person into all types of evil effects and it would seem that is a sin.

So, by extrapolation of your view, it would be right to take that which is actually made to diminish control while it is not right to take that which is provided to heighten control.

 

[freeatlast]

Then by your view it would be no problem taking wine - which is an intoxicant and does alter the rational and social aspects of a person's behavior and impulse control, but would have a problem with someone who took a non addictive medication under doctor's care to help with impulse control.

Impulse is not a sin. The diminished control will bring a person into all types of evil effects and it would seem that is a sin.

So, by extrapolation of your view, it would be right to take that which is actually made to diminish control while it is not right to take that which is provided to heighten control.

Not exactly. It is not my view, but the bibles view that permits alcohol to sedate someone who is dying or in physical pain. Today we would use other more sophisticated drugs. Also Timothy was told to take a little wine for the stomach sake so we know using drugs to sooth one's discomfort from physical illness is permitted.

However for the believer to use a substance to cover, or control as you put it, their behavior goes against all scriptural counsel as to how to deal with sin which is confession and forsaking.
No person who has ever been given any substance to aid in the control of behavior has ever had that substance deal with the real issue which is indwelling sin which can only be dealt with by confession and forsaking. Drugs mask the real problem, indwelling sin, and the person can never really deal biblically with the issue.
The fact that someone is recognized as a Doctor does not give him authority to override the prescription for dealing with sin that God has given. There is only one answer for the believer and that is confession and forsaking the sin. If they did that no drug would be sought. Dealing with certain sins can be a struggle and some people just do not want to do it God's way so they turn to drugs to mask the problem.
Can you tell me who said that who said that Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism was due to sin?

 

[agedman]

Not exactly. It is not my view, but the bibles view that permits alcohol to sedate someone who is dying or in physical pain. Today we would use other more sophisticated drugs. Also Timothy was told to take a little wine for the stomach sake so we know using drugs to sooth one's discomfort from physical illness is permitted.

I agree.

However, those on the BB who post about the Scriptures approval of the general acceptance of "wine" do not limit it to pain and sedation.

However for the believer to use a substance to cover or control as you put it their behavior goes against all scriptural counsel as to how to deal with sin which is confession and forsaking.

That is the question of the post and doesn't the same thinking apply to those who would consume wine or some other intoxicant for pleasure?

But more to the point. Is it sin to have a help to prevent sin?

That is, the Scriptures teach that the believers are to help each other and strengthen a weakness that another believer may have. That is part of what Paul was discussing when visiting the matter of eating meats.

Why should the use of medication that can help one to be in control over the impulsive behavior that results in perversions and access unto sin, be a sin?

No person who has ever been given any substance to aid in the control of behavior has ever had that substance deal with the real issue which is indwelling sin which can only be dealt with by confession and forsaking. Drugs mask the real problem, indwelling sin, and the person can never really deal biblically with the issue.

This is a really extreme statement that is unsupportable. There are more than a few that have taken medications that aid in the person able to control their own behavior and therefore no sin is even considered, much less brought to an actuality.

Drugs don't necessarily mask "indwelling sin" if there has been no "sin."

That is, if an ADD child has been properly medicated and properly raised, then they will grow in wisdom and understanding of their own weakness and through the work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God learn to deal appropriately with the sin that occurs.

The fact that someone is recognized as a Doctor does not give him authority to override the prescription for dealing with sin that God has given. There is only one answer for the believer and that is confession and forsaking the sin.

I agree. And I know of no believer who would disagree. The assumption that a prescription can "override" is a bit problematic. Over prescribing certainly may be a problem, but to the believer and their family it is not necessarily the norm.

Can you tell me who said that who said that Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism was due to sin?
[/QUOTE]

Throughout the millenniums and including even to this day, the lack of understanding by even folks of the Bible has resulted in many expressions of such items being no more than sin, or possession of the devil.

 

[freeatlast]

I agree.

However, those on the BB who post about the Scriptures approval of the general acceptance of "wine" do not limit it to pain and sedation.

Yes we know that some will add to scripture out of personal desire.


That is the question of the post and doesn't the same thinking apply to those who would consume wine or some other intoxicant for pleasure?

I am not understanding the question.

But more to the point. Is it sin to have a help to prevent sin?

Drugs do not help prevent sin. They simply cover it. I realize we live in a burger king society, "I want it my way" and that has crept into the church. It is said that some of the Pharisees thought that they could prevent sin by covering their eyes and walk around so as not to look on a woman and lust. The issue is inside and covering the eyes with a cloak or taking drugs to mask the heart does not take away the sin. So yes it is sin for not doing it God's way. Confession and forsaking.

That is, the Scriptures teach that the believers are to help each other and strengthen a weakness that another believer may have. That is part of what Paul was discussing when visiting the matter of eating meats.

I am not sure what you are refering too in regards to drugs.

Why should the use of medication that can help one to be in control over the impulsive behavior that results in perversions and access unto sin, be a sin?

Read my third answer.


This is a really extreme statement that is unsupportable. There are more than a few that have taken medications that aid in the person able to control their own behavior and therefore no sin is even considered, much less brought to an actuality.

Not true. Just because the sin is not acted out for others to see does not mean it is not there. If it was not there then they would not be taking the drugs to cover it. Only confessing and forsaking will overcome.

Drugs don't necessarily mask "indwelling sin" if there has been no "sin."

If there was not sin there then no drug would be taken. You don't seek a drug t control a behavior that is not already there.

That is, if an ADD child has been properly medicated and properly raised, then they will grow in wisdom and understanding of their own weakness and through the work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God learn to deal appropriately with the sin that occurs.

If they are properly raised they will grow in wisdom and understanding of how to deal with the sin without a drug as they would know that confessing and forsaking will overcome their sins.

I agree. And I know of no believer who would disagree. The assumption that a prescription can "override" is a bit problematic. Over prescribing certainly may be a problem, but to the believer and their family it is not necessarily the norm.

For a believer it is not necessary at all if they will obey the Lord. Confess and forsake to overcome.

You still did nto answer my question.
Can you tell me who said that who said that Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism was due to sin?


Throughout the millenniums and including even to this day, the lack of understanding by even folks of the Bible has resulted in many expressions of such items being no more than sin, or possession of the devil.

The fact that some in times past have miss-represented the word of God does not justify the ignoring of it today for our own way. Confessing and forsaking will overcome, not drugs.

I would add this. Jim62 has written a good article on sin in post 20 at this link http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1844690#post1844690 It will help you better understand why drugs cannot do away with sin, but only mask it.

 

[agedman]

Drugs do not help prevent sin. They simply cover it. Confession and forsaking.

No, sin is certainly laying at the heart of the person who commits any evil. However, that doesn't mean that certain medications will not aid in focus and awareness when one without the medication is not even aware they are acting in an inappropriate manner.

For instance, we all have a certain "personal space" in which we construct a comfort zone. ADD folks do not generally understand that zone and will often and without any evil intent invade that space. To the outsider, the closeness is a signal that some inappropriate behavior is going on. But when a video of the nearness is shown to the ADD person, they are shocked that they were that close - they were unaware. That is but one very tiny part of an ADD type.

Now, did anyone sin? Of course!

However, if the ADD person was taking medication that would allow them the awareness, would there have been an occasion to suggest evil? Probably not, for the impulse control is what is being self regulated - just as a "normal" person.

That in no way is an excuse for sin, nor is it a covering of evil intent.

This is a really extreme statement that is unsupportable. There are more than a few that have taken medications that aid in the person able to control their own behavior and therefore no sin is even considered, much less brought to an actuality.

Not true. Just because the sin is not acted out for others to see does not mean it is not there. If it was not there then they would not be taking the drugs to cover it. Only confessing and forsaking will overcome.

Again, you are mistaking the ability of the typical medication. It isn't dope that causes the person to be in some "drugged state." If it is, then the medication is wrong in either dosage or type.

There is no disagreement that sin must be confessed and forsaken.

There is no disagreement that the believer is to live a life of victory in Christ.

Drugs don't necessarily mask "indwelling sin" if there has been no "sin."

If there was not sin there then no drug would be taken. You don't seek a drug t control a behavior that is not already there.

You are mistaking the use of the medication. Perhaps you think the drug controls the behavior. That is not true.

Little Jo must control his own behavior. The medication is merely to allow him to focus.

In a real way, Jo becomes far more accountable for the sin of both omission and commission.

That is, if an ADD child has been properly medicated and properly raised, then they will grow in wisdom and understanding of their own weakness and through the work of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God learn to deal appropriately with the sin that occurs.

If they are properly raised they will grow in wisdom and understanding of how to deal with the sin without a drug as they would know that confessing and forsaking will overcome their sins.

There isn't any argument. All the medication serves is a help to all who guide.

You still did nto answer my question.
Can you tell me who said that who said that Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism was due to sin?


Throughout the millenniums and including even to this day, the lack of understanding by even folks of the Bible has resulted in many expressions of such items being no more than sin, or possession of the devil.

The fact that some in times past have miss-represented the word of God does not justify the ignoring of it today for our own way. Confessing and forsaking will overcome, not drugs.

First, if such were not continued to be by some even on this day, then I wouldn't have included it.



Second, there is no argument that drugs cannot "take away sin." I am not certain that anyone really is in disagreement with confession and forsaking.

 

[freeatlast]

Drugs mask sin Confession and forsaking sets free..

 

[agedman]

Drugs mask sin Confession and forsaking sets free..

That seems like a statement that may not be supportable.

Not all drugs "mask sin" and there is no disagreement that confession and forsaking set free.

We both know that inappropriate use of any intoxicant and any medication is wrong.

The question is why intoxicants gets a pass as being righteous, while medications do not.

 

[freeatlast]

That seems like a statement that may not be supportable.

Not all drugs "mask sin" and there is no disagreement that confession and forsaking set free.

We both know that inappropriate use of any intoxicant and any medication is wrong.

The question is why intoxicants gets a pass as being righteous, while medications do not.

First your question is in error as it sates soemthing that is false. Second that was explained in a prior post so I would point you back to them. If drugs can help limit sin in the believer then we ALL need to be on drugs and any pastor who is not preaching that would be negligent in their calling, if that was true, but it is not. Drugs mask the sin, they do not fix it.
You still did not answer my question.
Can you tell me who said that Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, and autism was due to sin?