No mental defense

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

The Alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink.


Why is that?

[Socrates]

On 5/18/2013 10:02 PM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink.

> Why is that?

Drama queens and neurotics have no effective mental defense against life.

Why is that?

[JoeRaisin]

On 5/19/2013 1:02 AM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink.
>
>
> Why is that?
>

Do you really want an answer because you are curious?

Or are you just trolling?

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

Serious. If you know the reason, please respond. I actually know but I think it is a subject worth discussing.

[Mike T.]

The key words are "at certain times", which mean when I am in the
throes of the insane thinking that precedes a drink. If you are truly
powerless over the obsession that comes with alcoholism then there is
scant chance of rational thinking to make different choices. I think
the examples that follow that statement will help you to understand why
those words were written. After having a spiritual awakening we have a
better chance of calling upon a Higher Power or other people to help us
get past the dangerous moments.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 05/19/2013 01:02 AM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink.
>
>
> Why is that?

Just guessing that it is just not alcohol, but any addiction, be it sex,
stupidity at the casino, drugs, food, nicotine, etc. has that effect.

Most people need outside help / restrictions put on them until the
craving subsides a bit...Then, they can start working on the things that
caused them to seek out an unhealthy lifestyle.

--
Dr. Skeezix LaRocca, D.B. (Doctor Of Buffoonery)
Registered Linux Novice & Abuser #526706
We aren't cheap, but we're reasonable
No appointment needed

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

So, would it be fair to say that at certain times the "alcoholic" has no control over himself?

Or as the Big Book says "I saw that will power and self knowledge would not help in those strange mental blank spots. I had never been able to understand people who said that a problem had them hopelessy defeated. I knew then. It was a crushing blow."

[Mike T.]

That is my experience.

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

I wonder how many people here really believe that the Alcoholic has no control over himself?

I have often heard it said at meetings "Just don't take that first drink"

The way I read the Big Book the Alcoholic cannot do that. At least, he cannot do it by his own unaided will power.

How many AA's really believe what the First step says?

Not too many I don't think.

[JoeRaisin]

You show me yours, I'll show you mine.

I don't know what sort of game it is where you continually ask for other
folk's opinion but not giving yours.

How about you start this time?

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 05/19/2013 05:21 PM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> I wonder how many people here really believe that the Alcoholic has no control over himself?
>
> I have often heard it said at meetings "Just don't take that first drink"
>
> The way I read the Big Book the Alcoholic cannot do that. At least, he cannot do it by his own unaided will power.
>
> How many AA's really believe what the First step says?
>
> Not too many I don't think.

I don't know if it is walking lock step with everything the BB says, Ted.

In my own case I run any thoughts of taking a drink through my head &
really think it through.

Do I want the hassle of it all ?...Having to go through withdrawals
again, an expensive divorce, court trouble, bad health ?...Hell no, and
that is if I'm lucky.

As far as managing my life today, I'll go ahead and pat myself on the
back and give myself a C+....Why would I want to sign up for an E ?

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:02:28 PM UTC-7, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink.
>
>
>
>

> you
> Why is that?

Still waiting for a response from someone. If I dont get one I will post mine.

The Big Book does not explain why Alcoholics have a mental defense. It just says they don't.

From what I have seen around AA is that most AA's don't understand it. They usually think "Admitting your powerless" means that if you start drinking you can't stop.

Of course that is not what it is saying. It is saying they cannot stop drinking at all (absent divine intervention).

My question is WHY?

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

Actually, the reason why was explained in one of the personal stories of the Big Book. It was in the first edition and was later deleted.

[Sister.Lyndi]

Because AA obviously doesn't have all the answers.

Lyndi

[Ted L.]

On 5/19/13 11:34 PM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> My question is WHY?

Is this a trick question? Because he or she is an alcoholic, that's why.

--
Ted L.

Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

That's not really an answer.

[Ted L.]

Yes it is. Would you have rather I said "because he or she is addicted
to alcohol"? But then I'd have to have explained what addiction is.

[Socrates]

On 5/20/2013 9:17 AM, Ted L. wrote:

> Yes it is. Would you have rather I said "because he or she is addicted
> to alcohol"? But then I'd have to have explained what addiction is.

Here's my question. Why would anyone choose to indulge in mental
masturbation with someone who's mental impotence is so transparent,
who's egocentric, ulterior motives are so conspicuous? Just asking.

[Ted L.]

On 5/20/13 12:41 PM, Socrates wrote:
> Here's my question. Why would anyone choose to indulge in mental
> masturbation with someone who's mental impotence is so transparent,
> who's egocentric, ulterior motives are so conspicuous? Just asking.

Because I sometimes forget who I'm reading or replying to...

[Charlie M. 1958]

Okay, here goes:

Debating with a reasonable person is really not much of a challenge. You
each state your position and listen to the each other. Maybe one (or
both) of you comes away with slightly altered viewpoint, or maybe you
just agree to disagree. End of story. To make an exercise analogy, a
normal argument is like doing a few reps with 10 lb. barbells. But
debating tedw is more like isometrics. You know he's not going to move,
but pushing against his idiotic and immovable positions is good exercise.

[Socrates]

LOL, Ok then, following this logic, why do people get divorced when they
could remain married and revel in the thrill of isometrics? :)

Games like chess and checkers provide "good exercise" but they also have
a winner and loser. Ted's idea of winning is keeping people in a game
that never ends, where the imaginary spotlight remains focused on him
and his delusional version of reality.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/20/2013 2:16 PM, Socrates wrote:

>
> LOL, Ok then, following this logic, why do people get divorced when they
> could remain married and revel in the thrill of isometrics? :)

The Bickersons... Everybody Loves Raymond.... Some people /do/ stay in a
marriage for that thrill. :-)

>
> Games like chess and checkers provide "good exercise" but they also have
> a winner and loser. Ted's idea of winning is keeping people in a game
> that never ends, where the imaginary spotlight remains focused on him
> and his delusional version of reality.
>

He knows he can't win, but a stalemate in the spotlight is better than
obscurity.

[Socrates]

On 5/20/2013 12:30 PM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
> On 5/20/2013 2:16 PM, Socrates wrote:

>> LOL, Ok then, following this logic, why do people get divorced when they
>> could remain married and revel in the thrill of isometrics? :)

> The Bickersons... Everybody Loves Raymond.... Some people /do/ stay in a
> marriage for that thrill. :-)

Detailed self-knowledge via personal experience? <eg>

>> Games like chess and checkers provide "good exercise" but they also have
>> a winner and loser. Ted's idea of winning is keeping people in a game
>> that never ends, where the imaginary spotlight remains focused on him
>> and his delusional version of reality.

> He knows he can't win, but a stalemate in the spotlight is better than
> obscurity.

BINGO! A self anointed modern rendition of Sisyphus.

[JoeRaisin]

On 5/20/2013 12:34 AM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 10:02:28 PM UTC-7, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The Alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> you
>> Why is that?
>
> Still waiting for a response from someone. If I dont get one I will post mine.
>

LOL - which is exactly what I asked you to do.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 05/20/2013 03:30 PM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

>
> He knows he can't win, but a stalemate in the spotlight is better than
> obscurity.
>

For myself, I find it amazing, and yes, sometimes even entertaining how
Ted W. can craft the same exact question with different angles and words.

More or less, in his world, everything happens / does not happen because
of God, or a persons belief / non belief in him, her, it.

Say what you want, but he stays with his plan.

[Socrates]

On 5/20/2013 6:52 PM, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
> On 05/20/2013 03:30 PM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

>> He knows he can't win, but a stalemate in the spotlight is better than
>> obscurity.

> For myself, I find it amazing, and yes, sometimes even entertaining how
> Ted W. can craft the same exact question with different angles and words.

> More or less, in his world, everything happens / does not happen because
> of God, or a persons belief / non belief in him, her, it.

Ever notice how even the lamest preacher you could ever imagine can
still fill a small church on Sunday? When poor Ted was but a boy and
they were singing "I will make you fishers of men" he, sadly, took it
seriously, he saw a career opportunity. I didn't, but that might have
been because I thought we were singing /fissures/ of men. I just sang
along, pretending to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL7uV5jF8Rk

> Say what you want, but he stays with his plan.

Seems he's contented with the results.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 05/20/2013 10:25 PM, Socrates wrote:
> *SNIP* I didn't, but that might have

> been because I thought we were singing /fissures/ of men. I just sang

> along, pretending to understand. *SNIP*

Gotta hand it to you...Not bad. :)

>
> Seems he's contented with the results.
>
>

If a guy bats 300, he's a star.

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

Isn't it amazing how when I bring a point up for discussion it almost always degenerates into personal attacks against me? How Christian is that?

At any rate, not one person seems to be able to address the issue of why the Alcoholic has no mental defense against the first drink.

Furthermore, based on my observation of AA over the years, I would say that many

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

(continued)I would say that many (maybe most) AA's have a faulty understanding of the firt step and what it means to be powerless. Of the ones I have talked to, most seem to believe it means that if you take a drink you cant stop.

What the Big Book says however is that the "Alcoholic" is UNABLE TO STOP AT ALL. And that absent Divine Intervention, he is doomed to keep drinking.

[Ted L.]

On 5/21/13 8:27 AM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> At any rate, not one person seems to be able to address the issue of why the Alcoholic has no mental defense against the first drink.

I did: because he or she is addicted to alcohol. Isn't that a good
enough answer?

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/21/2013 8:33 AM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Isn't it amazing how when I bring a point up for discussion it almost always degenerates into personal attacks against me? How Christian is that?
>>

Because if anyone gives their opinion, and it differs from your beliefs,
you just tell them they're wrong. So why should anyone engage you?

Rational people say things like "This is what I think" or "This is what
I believe." You say "This is the truth."

Why pose your questions in the first place, Ted? You're not looking for
any else's point of view. You're just looking for an opening to express
what /you/ believe. So why not spare us all the loaded questions and
just post what you want to say?

[Mike T.]

Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

>Because if anyone gives their opinion, and it differs from your
>beliefs, you just tell them they're wrong. So why should anyone
>engage you?

How is this different than left wingers like Frank or Mark?

[XXX'r]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:02:28 AM UTC-4, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink.
>
>
>
>
>
> Why is that?

SATAN

[Sister.Lyndi]

Socrates wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL7uV5jF8Rk

Thanks! I sang along with it and even did all the actions we did to the
song when we were kids.

Sister Lyndi

[Charlie M. 1958]

I've debated both of the people you mention on different points from
time to time. We've agreed to disagree on occasion, but neither has ever
told me their position was the truth and mine was a lie.

[Jimbo]

On 21 May, 10:05, "Charlie M. 1958" wrote:
> Rational people say things like "This is what I think" or "This is what
> I believe." You say "This is the truth."

When the student is ready, the teacher appears :-)

[Mike T.]

They both condescend and belittle those that don't share their extreme
left wing views.

[Charlie M. 1958]

Almost everyone in this NG can be condescending and belittling at times,
myself included. But those responses are usually the result of clashing
/attitudes/ rather than clashing /opinions/.

tedw takes speculative questions (the kind to which there are no
provable, factual answers) and presents his opinions as if they were
undeniable, unquestionable facts. No one else here really does that.
There's a world of difference between saying "I firmly believe" and "I
know".

[Socrates]

We are each sarcastic towards extremest views period, left /or/ right.
If you paid attention, if you actually had any interest in the views of
others you would know that. That you label anyone who takes issue with
you as "extreme left" just underlines what I've said all along, that
with you, everything is black and white *or* "extreme" left/right.

The knee jerk reflex to label anyone with a perspective different than
yours as "extreme left" illustrates just how extreme right your own
views are.

[Mike T.]

Socrates wrote:

>We are each sarcastic towards extremest views period, left or right.
>If *you* paid attention, if *you* actually had any interest in the
views
>of others *you* would know that. That *you* label anyone who takes
issue
>with *you* as "extreme left" just underlines what I've said all along,
>that with *you*, everything is black and white or "extreme" left/right.

>
>The knee jerk reflex to label anyone with a perspective different

>than *yours* as "extreme left" illustrates just how extreme right
*your*
>own views are.

you... you... you... you... you... you... your... your...

You sound just like a wife.

[CW]

If you're hearing the same complaint from more than one person,
you might want to consider the possibilty that there's something
to it....

[Tommy]

"Charlie M. 1958" <alw...@impatient.com> wrote in message
news:kng86t$e7b$1...@dont-email.me...

You do know you are dealing with a person with extremist views and
opinions - who won't argue a point - but will point out where everyone else
is left/right wing and ill advised hahahaha

But our mikey has the patent on irony :-))

Cheers

Tommy

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 05/21/2013 09:33 AM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> What the Big Book says however is that the "Alcoholic" is UNABLE TO
> STOP AT ALL. And that absent Divine Intervention, he is doomed to
> keep drinking.
>
>

Well, the BB just may be wrong...Putting 100% of my faith into divine
intervention is a fool's bet....Think Oklahoma Tornado.

[Sister.Lyndi]

Mike T. wrote:
> How is this different than left wingers like Frank or Mark?

Mark? Left wing?

Bwahahahahaha

S. Lyndi

[Sister.Lyndi]

Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 09:33 AM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> What the Big Book says however is that the "Alcoholic" is UNABLE TO
>> STOP AT ALL. And that absent Divine Intervention, he is doomed to
>> keep drinking.

>
> Well, the BB just may be wrong...Putting 100% of my faith into divine
> intervention is a fool's bet....Think Oklahoma Tornado.

I've never known God to intervene in an "Act of God." :-)

If the power of prayer worked as folks expect, I would be a holy roller
with no illness. That's what the people who have been praying "for" me
and "about" me have been asking for, for the last 35 years.

I guess God keeps telling them "no," but they're not listening. :-)

S. Lyndi

[Charlie M. 1958]

That was my though, too, but I'm glad to hear it from someone who should
know.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/21/2013 8:47 PM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

>
> That was my though, too, but I'm glad to hear it from someone who should
> know.

thoughT, dammit!

[Mark Warner]

On 05/21/2013 09:47 PM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 8:20 PM, Sister.Lyndi wrote:
>> Mike T. wrote:
>>> How is this different than left wingers like Frank or Mark?
>>
>> Mark? Left wing?
>>
>> Bwahahahahaha
>

> That was my thought, too, but I'm glad to hear it from someone who should
> know.

I just now saw this. I first wondered who he was confusing me with.

Then Frank explained it.

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

Actually, that is correct. Who else would be behind those destructive thoughts?

Of course, that is impossible for those who are not awake to see.

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

Should I pretend I believe when I know. There are some things I know, there are other things I believe. Are you suggesting I pretend otherwise?

You don't seem to like it when people have certainty. Apparently, you don't have a lot of it.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/21/2013 9:47 PM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> You don't seem to like it when people have certainty. Apparently, you don't have a lot of it.
>

Guilty as charged!

[Mike T.]

This reminds me of the day I went to my friend Pat and told him the Air
Force was sending me to a treatment center because they thought I had
an alcoholic problem. When I asked him if he thought I was an
alcoholic he laughed and said, "You're not an alcoholic, you drink just
like the rest of us!"

I saw Pat ten years later when I was playing on a golf course at
Pensacola Naval Air Station. A couple years after I finished my
enlistment he had been discharged from the Air Force for repeated
substance abuse charges and was working grounds maintenance.

It's hard to see a problem when you're part of it as well.

[Socrates]

On 5/21/2013 7:47 PM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> Should I pretend I believe when I know.

The one question litmus test for narcissism.

[Socrates]

In this post you posit, (subtly and habitually) that you are wise,
smarter than your old friend Pat, have done better in life than your old
friend Pat, and know Mark better than Lyndi. Are you signing autographs
Mr. Wonderful?

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 05/21/2013 09:24 PM, Sister.Lyndi wrote:

>
> I've never known God to intervene in an "Act of God." :-)
>
> If the power of prayer worked as folks expect, I would be a holy roller
> with no illness. That's what the people who have been praying "for" me
> and "about" me have been asking for, for the last 35 years.
>
> I guess God keeps telling them "no," but they're not listening. :-)
>
> S. Lyndi

No kidding :) Someone sent me a link to a video in which an old lady was
on camera, amongst the present OK. tornado rubble, understandably very
sad because her dog was missing, then she heard a whimper and her dog
was alive under some debris...She started in with praises to God about
answering her prayers to save the dog.

The first thing I thought was that God must be a real asshole to save
one dog, but to *kill* 50 school kids.

[Mike T.]

Skeezix LaRocca wrote:

>On 05/21/2013 09:24 PM, Sister.Lyndi wrote:
>
>>
>>I've never known God to intervene in an "Act of God." :-)
>>
>>If the power of prayer worked as folks expect, I would be a holy
>>roller with no illness. That's what the people who have been
>>praying "for" me and "about" me have been asking for, for the last
>>35 years.
>>
>>I guess God keeps telling them "no," but they're not listening. :-)
>>
>>S. Lyndi
>
>No kidding :) Someone sent me a link to a video in which an old lady
>was on camera, amongst the present OK. tornado rubble, understandably
>very sad because her dog was missing, then she heard a whimper and
>her dog was alive under some debris...She started in with praises to
>God about answering her prayers to save the dog.
>
>The first thing I thought was that God must be a real asshole to save

>one dog, but to kill 50 school kids.

That was Mother Nature that did all the killing.

[Crus...@nomail.com]

>No kidding :) Someone sent me a link to a video in which an old lady
>was on camera, amongst the present OK. tornado rubble, understandably
>very sad because her dog was missing, then she heard a whimper and
>her dog was alive under some debris...She started in with praises to
>God about answering her prayers to save the dog.
>
>The first thing I thought was that God must be a real asshole to save
>one dog, but to kill 50 school kids.

I saw that video on tv. I was glad the dog was saved.

Actually the death toll of children is now 8, and around 24 people
total. They mis-counted yesterday somehow.

But even one death is too many.

Yes, if God does exist, HE IS A REAL ASSHOLE. In fact, if someone was
able to prove the existance of God, I'd be the first to attempt to kill
the fucker. GOD IS EVIL - THE BIBLE IS EVIL - RELIGION IS EVIL - AA IS
EVIL. Yet idiots continue to worship the evil cocksucker!

God must be destroyed!

[JoeRaisin]

That's 'cause you never went to see the Reverend Izear.

"You don't get something for nothing. The bigger your gift to me, the
bigger God's blessing to you." (He used to actually say that)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxOwsUvbkYE

[JoeRaisin]

I'm throwing a bullshit flag.

Are you telling me that Mother Nature is more powerful than God?

[Bob]

Your Heavenly Father is stuck with a recalcitrant Wife?

Guess there's a Prosperity Gospel outcome for you though, Mike T. Video
clips of marital counselling sessions at your church would definitely go
viral!

[Mike T.]

JoeRaisin wrote:

>>That was Mother Nature that did all the killing.
>>
>
>I'm throwing a bullshit flag.
>
>Are you telling me that Mother Nature is more powerful than God?

I don't think so. But Mother Nature has certain powers that have been
put into effect and they will occur naturally on certain cycles.
Occasionally God will make a minor change (miracles) to suit a specific
purpose He has in mind, a purpose that we are unable to understand with
our limited knowledge. The final outcome of His purpose may not be
evident for quite some time or it may be something immediate, such as
placing people in positions to be of service to others who can't help
themselves.

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/21/2013 11:21 PM, Socrates wrote:

> In this post you posit, (subtly and habitually) that you are wise,
> smarter than your old friend Pat, have done better in life than your old
> friend Pat, and know Mark better than Lyndi. Are you signing autographs
> Mr. Wonderful?

He also implies that being a liberal is a problem in the same way being
an alcoholic is a problem.

*Note: Liberal is defined as anyone whose opinion differs from the tea
party line on two or more issues.

[Mike T.]

Liberalism is a mental disease.

[CW]

conservativism: arrested intellectual development
w/ comorbid hardening of the heart

[Charlie M. 1958]

On 5/22/2013 7:48 AM, Mike T. wrote:

> Liberalism is a mental disease.
>

My opinions would be considered very conservative on some issues, and
very liberal on others. Does that make me a schizophrenic? :-)

[Mike T.]

In your world it probably means being a /moderate/. Others would say
you have no core values and are confused or easily swayed.

[Charlie M. 1958]

Yeah... it's like tedw said. I have little certainty. Poor me.

[Socrates]

You just missed a big celebration with like minded thinkers:

http://tinyurl.com/qhsx9pn

[Mark Warner]

And yet you take umbrage when accused of "black and white thinking". Why
is that?

--
Mark Warner
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[Mark Warner]

On 5/22/2013 7:00 AM, Mike T. wrote:
>
> I don't think so. But Mother Nature has certain powers that have been
> put into effect and they will occur naturally on certain cycles.
> Occasionally God will make a minor change (miracles) to suit a specific
> purpose He has in mind, a purpose that we are unable to understand with
> our limited knowledge. The final outcome of His purpose may not be
> evident for quite some time or it may be something immediate, such as
> placing people in positions to be of service to others who can't help
> themselves.

All the mental gymnastics aside, bottom line is that God is an Asshole
(tm).

[tedwe...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:54:53 PM UTC-7, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
> On 05/21/2013 09:33 AM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > What the Big Book says however is that the "Alcoholic" is UNABLE TO
>
> > STOP AT ALL. And that absent Divine Intervention, he is doomed to
>
> > keep drinking.
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Well, the BB just may be wrong...Putting 100% of my faith into divine
>
> intervention is a fool's bet....Think Oklahoma Tornado.
>
>
>

> --
>
> Dr. Skeezix LaRocca, D.B. (Doctor Of Buffoonery)
>
> Registered Linux Novice & Abuser #526706
>
> We aren't cheap, but we're reasonable
>
> No appointment needed

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865580402/How-to-do-Gods-work-Oklahoma-tornado-teaches-valuable-truths.html


Worth reading La Rocca. A somewhat different attitude than yours.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 05/22/2013 05:55 AM, Mike T. wrote:

>
> That was Mother Nature that did all the killing.

Nice try.

[Mike T.]

Mark Warner wrote:

>On 5/22/2013 9:46 AM, Mike T. wrote:
>>Charlie M. 1958 wrote:
>>>On 5/22/2013 7:48 AM, Mike T. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Liberalism is a mental disease.
>>>
>>>My opinions would be considered very conservative on some issues,
>>>and very liberal on others. Does that make me a schizophrenic?
>>>:-)
>>

>>In your world it probably means being a moderate. Others would say

>>you have no core values and are confused or easily swayed.
>
>And yet you take umbrage when accused of "black and white thinking".
>Why is that?

How does that relate to having core values?

[Mike T.]

Perhaps to those who don't believe in God, but then if you don't
believe in God why even bother labeling Him?

[Mark Warner]

How about you tell me what constitutes "core values"? Are they
"immutable truths"?

[Mark Warner]

Point taken. It's actually more a characterization of the only logical
conclusion one can come up with.

[Mike T.]

Mark Warner wrote:

>How about you tell me what constitutes "core values"? Are they
>"immutable truths"?

Morality, something not taught in atheist schools.

[Mark Warner]

Can you give me a specific? How about killing? Is that moral? Or does it
depend on circumstances?

Oh, and about these "atheist schools", should we do away with them? Just
have religious schools? Madrasas?

[Sister.Lyndi]

Mike T. wrote:
> In your world it probably means being a /moderate/. Others would say
> you have no core values and are confused or easily swayed.

http://corevalueslist.com/

[Sister.Lyndi]

Mike T. wrote:
> Morality, something not taught in atheist schools.

I'm not sure if there are any "atheist" schools per se. The "non
religious" schools I attended all taught that it wasn't okay to lie,
cheat, tease, steal, physically hurt others, etc.

My kids went to a Lutheran high school. My kids are agnostic/atheist.
The two of them both consistently got the highest marks in the school in
Christian Ethics class.

Go figure.

S. Lyndi

[Tommy]

"Mark Warner" <mhwarner.i...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b04avs...@mid.individual.net...

The J'fa and the G'ould have the same powers- we just are not able and never
will be able to understand their purpose.

The Continuum is so complicated that english cant describe it.

Only for the Advanced Civilizations of Sharakara we would never have known
about them...

Ek Gorg 'U Dikr Shella Kabooky

Cheers
Tommy

[Socrates]

On 5/22/2013 1:52 PM, Tommy wrote:

> The J'fa and the G'ould have the same powers- we just are not able and
> never will be able to understand their purpose.
>
> The Continuum is so complicated that english cant describe it.
>
> Only for the Advanced Civilizations of Sharakara we would never have
> known about them...
>
> Ek Gorg 'U Dikr Shella Kabooky

Finally!!! Somebody is making some sense around here.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 05/22/2013 01:52 PM, Mike T. wrote:

>
> Morality, something not taught in atheist schools.

I'll not take the tasty bait you have chummed the waters with, because
it'd be like trying to talk sense to an old cat lady.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 05/21/2013 10:43 PM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Actually, that is correct. Who else would be behind those destructive thoughts?
>
> Of course, that is impossible for those who are not awake to see.

Of course...Thanks for reminding me....How dare I forget the evil force
behind the curtain ?

[Charlie M. 1958]

If one's mind is made up on any given issue, just call it a core value
and move on, huh? Nice and easy.

[Mark Warner]

One of my core values is that there are no core values.

--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying

[Mark Warner]

On 05/21/2013 10:43 PM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:30:23 AM UTC-7, XXX'r wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:02:28 AM UTC-4, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> The Alcoholic at certain times has no effective mental defense against the first drink.
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> SATAN

>
> Actually, that is correct. Who else would be behind those destructive thoughts?
>
> Of course, that is impossible for those who are not awake to see.

Well, at least you've got Hic on board, tedw. Congrats.

[Charlie M. 1958]

Mt core value is the Golden Rule. Everything else is open for debate.

[Mark Warner]

Boy, talk about confused or easily swayed... sheesh...

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 05/22/2013 05:38 PM, Charlie M. 1958 wrote:

>

> If one's mind is made up on any given issue, just call it a core value
> and move on, huh? Nice and easy.

It's a Neo-Con trait.

[Socrates]

Just move on is no doubt a good idea. I've never seen inflexibility as
a value. Mikey went from one inflexible position to another, getting
sober was the equivalent of moving his heavy metal psyche from one end
of the teeter totter to the other. For an alcoholic to suddenly become
fanatical in his temperance is common. With accumulated sobriety and
introspect most move beyond thinking of themselves as "Saints."

"Saint," Mikey has a large shadow and he neatly projects it (that's how
it works) upon others so he does not have to take responsibility for it
himself:

Essential Secrets of Psychotherapy: What is the "Shadow"?
http://tinyurl.com/cnf4rho

[Mike T.]

Ah yes, relativism. No sense of right or wrong. All that matters is what I
get out of it. Fuck everyone else.

[Socrates]

On 5/22/2013 5:35 PM, Mike T. wrote:
> Mark Warner wrote:

>> One of my core values is that there are no core values.

> Ah yes, relativism. No sense of right or wrong. All that matters is what I
> get out of it. Fuck everyone else.

Moment of clarity?

[Sister.Lyndi]

Socrates wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 7:47 PM, tedwe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Should I pretend I believe when I know.
>
> The one question litmus test for narcissism.

Amen Brother :-)

Sister Lyndi

[Sister.Lyndi]

Mike T. wrote:
> Skeezix LaRocca wrote:
>> The first thing I thought was that God must be a real asshole to save
>> one dog, but to kill 50 school kids.

>
> That was Mother Nature that did all the killing.

According to all things Christian, God IS Mother Nature. We just don't
like to say "God did it" when nature doesn't behave the way we want it
to behave.

But if it's a pretty flower or a Monarch butterfly.....

S. Lyndi

[Charlie M. 1958]

It would seem, according to Mike, God created Mother
Nature to do his dirty work.

[nipntuk]

Sounds considerably more Pagan or Pantheistic than necessarily
'Christian', which may view nature as an aspect of God, but tends to
view God as being above nature.
Christ himself didn't much speak to the topic.

[nipntuk]

On 5/22/13 3:42 AM, Skeezix LaRocca wrote:

>
> No kidding :) Someone sent me a link to a video in which an old lady was
> on camera, amongst the present OK. tornado rubble, understandably very
> sad because her dog was missing, then she heard a whimper and her dog
> was alive under some debris...She started in with praises to God about
> answering her prayers to save the dog.

>
> The first thing I thought was that God must be a real asshole to save

> one dog, but to *kill* 50 school kids.

Ultimately, /nothing/ is saved. The only thing that doesn't die is life
itself, which is a thing shared in an unbroken chain going back to the
first viable cell.
We have a fear and abhorrence for death because it means the lack of our
own, personal continuance, so naturally we would tend to want to blame
God (or whatever) for it, and curse Him, (or whatever). That we actually
know and understand very little about the purpose for it would not
automatically make God 'an asshole', it just makes us limited.
If we believe that death is a necessary part of a natural process that
allows *everything* to live and evolve, then we would have to admit that
death was a good thing. So it seems that it would be a bit of a twist to
love nature and revere it's processes, yet to 'hate' God and despise
his, for the very same thing.
...At least, this would be one avenue of thinking on it.

[Skeezix LaRocca]

On 05/22/2013 06:34 PM, Socrates wrote:

>
> Just move on is no doubt a good idea. I've never seen inflexibility as a
> value. Mikey went from one inflexible position to another, getting sober
> was the equivalent of moving his heavy metal psyche from one end of the
> teeter totter to the other. For an alcoholic to suddenly become
> fanatical in his temperance is common. With accumulated sobriety and
> introspect most move beyond thinking of themselves as "Saints."
>
> "Saint," Mikey has a large shadow and he neatly projects it (that's how
> it works) upon others so he does not have to take responsibility for it
> himself:
>
> Essential Secrets of Psychotherapy: What is the "Shadow"?
> http://tinyurl.com/cnf4rho

In all reality these *steadfast* never back down guys are the most fun
to poke with a stick, and I admit it, I am just childish enough to poke
away.