Mark75

Yea... Thanx for reminding me of that. Now that gets to be a very prickly matter to discuss, one that has left me regretting those discussions, ones that left the taste of shoe leather in my mouth, LOLOL... See, it turns out that I am not very eloquent in these matters.

Suffice to say that, yes, that is a fundamental difference and the twain shall never meet.... And it does, I think, underscore a very different relationship with God... ie, pledging to God and using our own power vs. bringing His power into the process..

As long as we are sober and happy, I think we can probably get on with things pretty well.

Terminally Unique

If you look at the Big Book and the 12-Step program in the context of the period it was written, it is apparent that they were, to a large extent, trying to counter the "traditional" religious view on alcoholism. They were creating an alternate theology where chronic drunkenness was not considered sin. Some of the most vehement objections to the 12-Step program come not from atheists, but from religious people who consider it a heretical theology.

Sapling

You're giving them a pretty good run for their money though TU.

Mark75

Exactly... Yea I have heard that, I have seen it discussed here on SR.

Alternate theology, lol.... Whose the one that has the alternate theology? I mean, the redeemer and all, you know?

I have a best friend for life, a normie... He is a devout methodist... He is in bible study while I am at a meeting, he's on the board of his church, all that... He even looks the part, LOL, we live in a pretty conservative part of the state.... Anyway, we are both frequently amazed at how much what he is talking about at his meeting and I at mine. God's will, self centeredness, the nature of sin (separation from God), powerlessness (seriously!)... How much they overlap...

But he is one of the least judgmental persons I know.

Terminally Unique

If you read up on your AA history, Sapling, you'll find that none of what I said here is untrue. If you are interested, "Not God: A History of Alcoholics Anonymous" by Ernest Kurtz is a nice (pro AA) look at things in the historical context.

Terminally Unique

Well, I don't personally belong to any such groups, so strictly speaking, I don't view either as a the "alternate" theology. I'm coming at this more from an interest in comparative religion, and it is a little more complicated than just atheism vs theism.

DarrenW

Me too friend.

Terminally Unique

If anyone is interested in the really broad view of how things changed over the years regarding alcoholism, I also recommend "Slaying the Dragon: The History of Addiction Treatment and Recovery in America" by William L. White. It is an excellent historical account of the addiction treatment and recovery landscape, almost from its inception.

DarrenW

I am a pretty strong Christian. I treat booze like other temptations. For the record I m not against AA. If I continue having urges I might go back. I just am very private regarding my past drinking.

I think AA is a great program

wellwisher

Does moral imperative equate with "godless" sin?

Does it really matter if one's "moral imperative" is driven by a diety or by society?

Takes all kinds to make a world-----no one way is right or wrong.

I love hearing what works for people; regardless of the method.

I have years of experience that I can convey to you about what doesn't work; but then again, who wants to hear that????????

Mark75

Me too, and it's a real pleasure, I am not having this discussion to try and make you see things my way, to convert or convince.... and from what I can see, neither are you... It's refreshing, you know.

Yea, it is more complicated than theism vs. atheism... I think sometimes I forget that. Well, I know I do. Just because someone has strong religious or spiritual beliefs doesn't mean that automatically they are gonna respond to the twelve step path. And, as you point out, may actually see it in a very negative light.

Thanx for the discussion.

Terminally Unique

If you mean a violation of a moral imperative, that's one way to look at it. Although sin usually means transgression against divine law, it can also mean transgression against moral law.

Or by oneself?

awuh1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terminally Unique

If you read up on your AA history, Sapling, you'll find that none of what I said here is untrue.

Just in this thread TU you stated....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terminally Unique

Dr. Bob was "white knuckling" it for six or seven years. He just got himself a new hobby to ride things out until the desire to get drunk naturally faded. I have to give him credit for all that willpower, though.

I'm sure he did not see it that way. There’s ample proof of that. Can you tell me a source for the "white knuckling" characterization? Somehow I don't remember that being in not-God or in any other authoritative source.

Terminally Unique

Bill Wilson's speech at Dr. Bob's memorial service, and Dr. Bob's own story in the Big Book both state that he had constant 'cravings' for years. I cited the former, and Sapling cited the latter.

wellwisher

Thanks for saying this. If one is willing to look, one can see many similarities conceptually. For instance, I define the word spiritual to mean being "one of many". That has meaning for me, because at one time I was isolated and alone because I alienated everyone in my life that was dear to me due to my drinking. How does one become one of many? I throw out my miserable outlook on life, I come to believe that it doesn't have to be that way and I can have a life without booze by virtue of a power greater than myself (for me, the Good Orderly Direction provided by AA). If I follow some steps (which basically is structured as thought, commitment and action), then I can become one of many, instead of an isolated, drunken, lonely sick person.

One of my other favorite parallels is looking at the disease concept of alcoholism and comparing it to the Beast of AVRT. Now, much ado is made over the concept of disease in secular connections, and I have heard it said that the disease concept makes people stay actively in addiction, and that the disease concept takes responsibility AWAY from the addict. I don't see how the Beast is any different. If I choose to accept the disease model, it does not mean it takes responsibility for how I live away from me. I disassociate myself from the disease, I take care of myself emotionally and physically = I am responsible. I am not my disease; much in the same way the addict is NOT the Beast of AVRT. If someone continues to drink, is their Beast in control?

Sometimes I think the overthinking of concepts lays a trap for us; the dissection of words become a folly in semantics. Go with what resonates with you, and what works for you.

Like I said earlier, I could go on and on about what didn't work for me, but I won't waste your time. I'm ALL FOR what gets you to stop.

awuh1

TU I’m specifically interested in the characterization of “white knuckling” as you(?) put it, and an objective specific source for that. I take it that it's not in Ernie’s "Not-God", but I would still like to know the source.

In the first years of sobriety Dr. Bob was enormously happy, by all accounts. “White knuckling” implies something else. That’s the danger with characterizations. They imply things that are inaccurate. Avoiding misleading characterizations would seem particularly important within the newcomers forum. Even more so when used by someone who is not a proponent of the method which is the subject of the thread.

Sapling

I have to agree with this...It gets old.

coming_clean

LOL

LOL

and

LOL

going in the quote book this one

coming_clean

a higher power enables the process of surrendering,
and the process of healing.

Terminally Unique

Awuh1, my response to Sapling was in regards to my points on a theology that does not consider drunkenness sin. There is ample evidence, even from the AA doctrinal literature itself, that they were reacting against this view, and they they thought they would transform society in doing so.


In any case, you then redirected that response to a separate post a couple of pages back (why didn't you respond when I posted it?)...


Objective specific source? What are you talking about? Nothing is objective. Besides, what you are really requesting is a characterization from an AA member, which would probably not be objective. Not-God is not 'authoritative', either. It is AA propaganda, heavily skewed, but it is nevertheless quite comprehensive in its coverage. Since I don't have to read only things that support my view, however, I can therefore recommend it.

When I read Children of the Healer: The Story of Dr.Bob's Kids, by Bob Smith and Sue Smith, he didn't sound all that enormously happy to me. In any case, "getting happy" has absolutely nothing to do with not getting drunk, nor with not struggling against cravings. Dr. Bob seems to have understood this a little better than some of today's crowd.

"I spend a great deal of time passing on what I learned to others who want and need it badly. I do it... Because every time I do it I take out a little more insurance for myself against a possible slip." (BB 1st Ed, Pg 180-181)

It is also notable that he says, in his story, *I* did not get over *my* craving, not 'G-d didn't remove my craving', like some people today who want the desire to be 'lifted'.

"Unlike most of our crowd, I did not get over my craving for liquor much during the first two and one half years of abstinence. It was almost always with me." (BB 1st Ed, Pg 181)

He knew that his drinking was entirely on him, and that his not drinking was as well. He understood that he had no room to complain about those cravings, which is commendable.

"I used to get terribly upset when I saw my friends drink and knew I could not, but I schooled myself to believe that though I once had the same privilege, I had abused it so frightfully that it was withdrawn. So it doesn’t behoove me to squawk about it for, after all, nobody ever had to throw me down and pour liquor down my throat." (BB 1st Ed, Pg 181)

He also wrote elsewhere in the AA Grapevine warning about "sponsor worship" and relying on others to stay sober.

I don't think it was inaccurate. Dr. Bob said he relied on G-d, but the fact remains that he constantly struggled against cravings, and that he got himself some new activities to distract himself from those cravings. He did what he had to do. Nothing wrong with that.

And here you reveal your true concern -- discussion of AA by someone who is not in AA any longer. I was in AA for years, awuh1, and I can discuss it all I want. This idea that one needs to be a "proponent" of something in order to talk about it is preposterous. What is this, communist Russia?