Real Spirtuality and Modern AA
tedw
up the matter.
"I wholeheartedly agree with what you have to say about this matter. I
think that there was an air of real spirituality in the founding of AA,
esp. in the beginning Oxford group, but now spirituality can and is
anything that anyone says it is in AA, whether that be making ones
'higher power' a doorknob, your sponsor, an organization, a group of
people, or anything else. Spirituality in AA very seldom has anything
to do with Jesus Christ and frequently those in AA meetings who state
such beliefs are the minority and sometimes looked down upon as being
narrow minded and bigoted. "
Bryce L. Martin
:|This comment was e-mailed to me this morning. I think it succintly sums
"Spirituality" is not necessarily Christianity. There are those like you who
try to practice AA as a Christian religion, and this is why it illegal to court
order people to AA meetings in some places (not nearly enough.)
Have a nice day;
Bryce L. Martin
tedw
The point is that authentic spirituality is sometimes looked down on in
AA. You may consider having a "doorknob" as your higher power
"Spirituality" but I certainly dont.
Bryce L. Martin
:|
I don't either. My point is that Christianity belongs in a proper Church, not
in a place that claims to be "spiritual," and then tries to impose Christian
values.
tedw
Weird. True Christians are Spiritual. No room in AA for them?
tedw
Loving your neighbor as yourself? Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you? Not killing unborn Children?
Bryce L. Martin
:|
:|Bryce L. Martin wrote:
Of course there is. All I tried to say was that AA shouldn't be totally a
Christian group. What does this say to those of other faiths who try to join.
People with your kind of attitude are one of the reasons AA is losing its
appeal.
Bryce L. Martin
:|What is it about Christian values you dont like Bryce? Loving God?
:|Loving your neighbor as yourself? Do unto others as you would have them
:|do unto you? Not killing unborn Children?
I am not a totally ardent Christian, but I was baptized a Methodist as a young
boy, and I have gone to that church ever since. I subscribe to all the
Christian values, but I don't believe in coercing others into any religious
faith. What if the AA founders had been Buddhists, Jews, or whatever? Would
you like going to meetings and having their dogma imposed on you? To believe in
a "higher power" is one thing, but to impose ANY religious persuasion on someone
is quite another.
Ted L.
> Christian group. What does this say to those of other faiths who try to
join.
> People with your kind of attitude are one of the reasons AA is losing its
> appeal.
>
Gee, I don't know. My home group has roughly doubled in regular attendance
over the last half year or so. And we even close with the Lord's prayer.
But then, I'm the only Ted there and I generally keep things pretty close to
my chest. (No, not *those* things, even though almost all the new members
are women -- I'd say we're now well over half women.)
--
Ted L.
Benedictus, qui venit in nomine Domini.
Mark Warner
I think you're a liar.
Prove me wrong -- post the entire email, headers and all.
And if your correspondent won't allow it, then he doesn't have the
courage of his convictions.
--
Mark Warner
lose .inhibitions when replying
Chronocidal Charlie
Hash: SHA1
Bryce L. Martin wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2005 12:27:52 -0800, "tedw" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> :|
> :|Bryce L. Martin wrote:
> :|> On 9 Nov 2005 09:34:24 -0800, "tedw" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :|>
> :|> :|
> :|> :|Bryce L. Martin wrote:
> :|> :|> On 9 Nov 2005 09:18:39 -0800, "tedw" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :|> :|>
> :|> :|> :|This comment was e-mailed to me this morning. I think it succintly sums
> :|> :|> :|up the matter.
> :|> :|> :|
> :|> :|> :|
> :|> :|> :|
> :|> :|> :|"I wholeheartedly agree with what you have to say about this matter.
> People with your kind of attitude are one of the reasons AA is losing its
> appeal.
I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but for thirty years, AA
just wasn't all that *appealing* to me. But by the same token, for about
ten years, open heart surgery wasn't too *appealing* to me either.
One saved my life and the application of the other has allowed me to
*live* as a part of rather than apart from for ten out of my sixty four
years now.
Maybe times are a changing now days and an AA membership and hundred
inches of surgical scars should be something sought after, but I kinda
like the feller Abe Lincoln mentioned, who, when asked how it felt as he
was being ridden out of town on a rail remarked, "If it weren't fer the
honor of it, I'd just as soon walk."
Does seem like *recovery* got pretty trendy since my first meeting in
1970 though and appeals to more people. Shit, most everyone I meets at
any kind of high fa luting social setting is blathering 'bout
*recovering* frum sumpin. Kind of like when I was in the Cavalry, "If
you ain't Cav, you ain't shit!" ;-)
How hell kin anything lose an appeal it never had?
But I heard someone 'tuther day in connection with *Mended* *Hearts*
mention raising the bottom to make *it* more appealing fer them folks
who was thinking about lowering they cholesterol level. Membership and
promotion I reckon, but it was treatment center meeting. I suggested
maybe just putting out some OEA literature and maybe a copy of Craig's
brother's movie or the book, "Fast Food Nation" or *shudder* *jest* some
nutritional guides, stuff on dangers of drinking to excess, smoking, and
other types of high risk lifestyles, and the positives of regular
exercise and activity, but got some frowns and told I wasn't in the
*real* *spirit* of things. ;-)
CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDcmjo38XFJek9K9gRAvg4AJwO5If8C87zTB7UN7c2y7xakYTiRACcC2ji
g+URhxKg1vBa2r790VGPChU=
=2hfc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Craig S.
news:uatcf.8926$9Q4.2...@news.sisna.com...
> My home group has roughly doubled in regular attendance
> over the last half year or so... ...almost all the new members
> are women -- I'd say we're now well over half women.
I don't see a home group change in your near future.
Chronocidal Charlie
Hash: SHA1
Yew a man of *hell* of a vision there Cap'n Call. ;-)
CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDcnSm38XFJek9K9gRAvwMAJ9HZVcfCcb87liU4yfwxzdq6zFFnwCeIiFL
+vpkgY5k4lAgaRQbHaG/8E8=
=vS/d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
tedw
Coercion? Who is coercing? Certainly not me. Christianity cannot be
coerced. Who is imposing?
My complaint is that AA (Bill Wilson really) has deliberately deleted
the Christian testimonies out of The Big Book, and that is what
originally made AA effective. It is not effective anymore. At least not
the way it was.
What you forget is that one time I was a newcomer,and an atheist to
boot. Sure AA ought to be open to everyone no disagreement there. But
why the attempt to cover up its Christian roots? Why delete the
Christian testimonies? That is stuff that could really help people.
How do you reconcile your Christian values with AA's acceptance of the
homosexual lifestyle? Dont you think as a Christian you have an
obligation to speak up for whats right?
It seems wimpy to me not to take a stand.
tedw
out if you want: http://Christianrecovery.blogspot.com
Why would I lie to you Mark? Its against my religion.
And thank you for the opportunity to turn the other cheek. Its a
blessing to me.
Bryce L. Martin
:|It was POSTED to my blog and e-mailed to me thru the program. Check it
In another thread you claim to not be pushing Christianity on people. So why
are you constantly trying to steer (spam) people to your "Christian" website??
tedw
Some Guy wrote:
> On 9 Nov 2005 09:18:39 -0800, tedw let slip this dark secret:
> have spirituality without religion.
>
> --
> "Man who shoot off mouth, must expect to lose face."
> - Confucious
You can be religious and be spirtual also. In fact, all authentically
religious people are spiritual.
Why dont you explain the difference between spirituality and religion
to us?
Tommy
> On 9 Nov 2005 12:35:28 -0800, "tedw" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> What is it about Christian values you dont like Bryce? Loving God?
>>> Loving your neighbor as yourself? Do unto others as you would have
>>> them do unto you? Not killing unborn Children?
>
> I am not a totally ardent Christian, but I was baptized a Methodist
> as a young boy, and I have gone to that church ever since. I
> subscribe to all the Christian values, but I don't believe in
> coercing others into any religious faith. What if the AA founders
> had been Buddhists, Jews, or whatever?
You know it's an awful terrible pity they were'nt atheists altogether. OR
wiccans.
Look at how peaceful the newsgroup would be then.
Bryce you do know you're replying to a sockpuppet don't you ???
He or she does this to cause friction.
Cheers
Tommy
Bryce L. Martin
:|
:|You know it's an awful terrible pity they were'nt atheists altogether. OR
:|
:|Look at how peaceful the newsgroup would be then.
:|
:|Bryce you do know you're replying to a sockpuppet don't you ???
:|
:|He or she does this to cause friction.
:|
:|Cheers
:|Tommy
Got to admit you're right there Tommy... on looking at his post again it should
have been obvious that he was just baiting.
Ted L.
news:4372735b$0$41144$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
Damn right about that Craig.
Of course, 90% of them are young enough to be my daughter!
Makes one feel downright avuncular.
Ted L.
news:1131575812.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
> You can be religious and be spirtual also. In fact, all authentically
> religious people are spiritual.
>
> Why dont you explain the difference between spirituality and religion
> to us?
>
I think you ought to explain "authentically religious" first.
Mark Warner
The last entry in your blog is from last Sunday. You said (today) that
you received it today, and that it was emailed to you this morning. Now
you say it was posted to your blog.
You are a liar.
David M
> Of course, 90% of them are young enough to be my daughter!
> Makes one feel downright avuncular.
Sorta like Bob Dole felt about Britney Spears in the Pepsi
commercial?
Virtualoso
tedw <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> This comment was e-mailed to me this morning. I think it succintly sums
> up the matter. ...
Quoting sycophantics in agreement with you means nothing. Other than
that there are two or three of you, or so.
Meanwhile, complaining that "people at AA" aren't doing what you figure
people ought to be doing there, while you're not going and doing that
either, is a bit like shooting off your mouth into your own temple. So
to speak.
If you don't know what I mean by that, since your muddled "discernment"
has conjured its own special vocabulary and interpretation for
everything, I'll have a friend sum it up succinctly for you.
Virtualoso
<te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
So? AA's book still and always has plainly suggested a much more
distinct option for that. And ruinous drunks have always tended to
avoid that. And apparently your "Christian" Paulian cult "recovery"
works (although Saul/Paul disclaims works) just don't yet appear to be
either attracting many of these ruinous drunks nor succeeding at even
the basic item of them sobering up, in much numbers to mention. Rather,
an awful lot of stones are thrown by you and motes in others' eyes
pointed at.
"By their works you shall know them."
- Jesus Christ
Virtualoso
Martin <not...@anymore.net> wrote:
LOL. Hey, who's passin' out the popcorn on THIS smackdown! I love it.
Virtualoso
<te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
It's usually all the Paulian cult churchianity non-Christian stuff.
Virtualoso
tedw <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> ... Dont you think as a Christian you have an
> obligation to speak up for whats right?
>
> It seems wimpy to me not to take a stand.
Like a little ol' lady wimpy? Say... St. Mother Theresa?
ByTor
not...@anymore.net, Bryce L. Martin says...
> To believe in a "higher power" is one thing, but to impose
> ANY religious persuasion on someone is quite another.
THIS is the root of Teddy's evil.......And what's "really" pathetic is
that he probably doesn't even realize he's doing it or just plain don't
give a shit.........Sorta like if you are not of my persuasion I want
nothing to do with ya, ya know, like Adolf Hitler & the master
race.......
Heartless prejudice bastards the real religious fanatics are............
--
*************************************************
The Tobes of Hades, lit by flickering torchlight
The netherworld is gathered in the glare
Prince By-Tor takes the cavern to the north light
The sign of Eth is rising in the air.
By-Tor, knight of darkness,
Centurion of evil, devil's prince.
Virtualoso
tedw <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Oops. You may have caught him in a lie, Craig. Yes, he's a liar. A poor
one, at that. Like when he's lied about "the other apostleS" accepting
Saul/Paul as an apostle... when even Saul/Paul in his own writing
admitted they didn't and he was excommunicated by them.
tedw
Oh, I go to a meeting. Although the Central Office refused to list it
as an AA meeting. Why you ask? We allow people to mention Christ.
tedw
It was e-mailed to me this morning just like I said. Here is the
e-mail. Notice the date is 11/09/2005.
I wholeheartedly agree with what you have to say about this matter. I
think that there was an air of real spirituality in the founding of AA,
esp. in the beginning Oxford group, but now spirituality can and is
anything that anyone says it is in AA, whether that be making ones
'higher power' a doorknob, your sponsor, an organization, a group of
people, or anything else. Spirituality in AA very seldom has anything
to do with Jesus Christ and frequently those in AA meetings who state
such beliefs are the minority and sometimes looked down upon as being
narrow minded and bigoted.
--
Posted by Anonymous to Christian Recovery at 11/09/2005 02:21:24 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There it is Mark. Now are you man enough to apologize?
Mark Warner
If it was posted as a comment to one of your blog entries, please pass
on the url to the blog entry it was in response to. I want to see the
comment in context.
If it was sent to you as an email, please post the headers.
I still think you are a liar. Prove me wrong and I will stand corrected.
For me at least, you're guilty until proven otherwise.
Mark Warner
> tedw <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>Why would I lie to you Mark? Its against my religion.
>>
>>And thank you for the opportunity to turn the other cheek. Its a
>>blessing to me.
>
> Oops. You may have caught him in a lie, Craig.
Oops is right. Craig's the one in the tutu.
Virtualoso
tedw <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Of course I was talking about AA meetings. Obviously, your outfit isn't
AA and you're promoting something else. Meanwhile, you "criticisms of
AA" really amount to that it isn't Some Else. Well, duh...
Virtualoso
<mhwarner.i...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Virtualoso wrote:
> > tedw <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>Why would I lie to you Mark? Its against my religion.
> >>
> >>And thank you for the opportunity to turn the other cheek. Its a
> >>blessing to me.
> >
> > Oops. You may have caught him in a lie, Craig.
>
> Oops is right. Craig's the one in the tutu.
Well, your lies about "the ApostleS" acknowleging Saul/Paul as an
Apostle remain just that - a Paulian Lie. Untrue. The opposite of the
truth. Satanic. Evil.
And, so far, you're unrepentent about that. Surprise, surprise.
Mark Warner
> Mark Warner wrote:
>> Virtualoso wrote:
>>> tedw wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Why would I lie to you Mark? Its against my religion.
>>>>
>>>> And thank you for the opportunity to turn the other cheek. Its a
>>>> blessing to me.
>>>
>>> Oops. You may have caught him in a lie, Craig.
>>
>> Oops is right. Craig's the one in the tutu.
>
> Well, your lies about "the ApostleS" acknowleging Saul/Paul as an
> Apostle remain just that - a Paulian Lie. Untrue. The opposite of the
> truth. Satanic. Evil.
>
> And, so far, you're unrepentent about that. Surprise, surprise.
Uhm... Virt? You having trouble following this thread?
tedw
Anonymous anonymou...@blogger.com
Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:21 AM
te...@earthlink.net te...@earthlink.net
[Christian Recovery] 11/09/2005 02:21:24 AM
iS this the headers you wanted to see?. I wonder if I will get an
apology for your rudeness and slander? I
Craig S.
> Damn right about that Craig.
> Of course, 90% of them are young enough to be my daughter!
> Makes one feel downright avuncular.
Avuncular - that must mean "like a dirty old man."
Mark Warner
>
> Anonymous anonymou...@blogger.com
> Wednesday, November 09, 2005 2:21 AM
> te...@earthlink.net te...@earthlink.net
> [Christian Recovery] 11/09/2005 02:21:24 AM
>
>
> iS this the headers you wanted to see?. I wonder if I will get an
> apology for your rudeness and slander? I
And this was in response to which of your articles?
tedw
call it that.
tedw
Kai Ruuska
It's easy to confuse you Paulian fundies.
--
Kai
"Ach," says Strangelove. "I think their minds have snapped under the
strain. Perhaps they will have to be institutionalized."
Ted L.
news:tUzcf.764$Ae3...@fe06.lga...
Sssh. Don't tell anyone. It's a nice big word I don't get to use very
often.
But, ya, there's one of 'em in particular that definitely has me thinking
non-paternal thoughts.
Virtualoso
<te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Any 2 alcoholics meeting together is an AA meeting if they choose to
> call it that.
You're being dishonest. Again. Just like you probably were dishonest
about just why AA wouldn't even list your meeting. You said it was
mereloy because you allow mentioning Christ, but I've been to countless
AA meetings that allowed mention of Christ. Isn't the fact, that the
meeting is more like devoted to mentioning Christ?
And you still haven't apologized for your lies about the Apostles.
Pray for the ability to actually tell the truth, ted.
Virtualoso
tedw <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Any 2 alcoholics meeting together is an AA meeting if they choose to
> call it that.
Heck, just about anyone meeting with anyone can choose to call
themselves that. But, so? It doesn't make it true. Not that you appear
to have much regard for being true.
Mark Warner
> Mark Warner kirjoitti:
>> Virtualoso wrote:
>>> Mark Warner wrote:
>>>> Virtualoso wrote:
>>>>> tedw wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would I lie to you Mark? Its against my religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And thank you for the opportunity to turn the other cheek. Its a
>>>>>> blessing to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oops. You may have caught him in a lie, Craig.
>>>>
>>>> Oops is right. Craig's the one in the tutu.
>>>
>>> Well, your lies about "the ApostleS" acknowleging Saul/Paul as an
>>> Apostle remain just that - a Paulian Lie. Untrue. The opposite of
>>> the truth. Satanic. Evil.
>>>
>>> And, so far, you're unrepentent about that. Surprise, surprise.
>>
>> Uhm... Virt? You having trouble following this thread?
>
> It's easy to confuse you Paulian fundies.
Me, Craig, and tedw started our own little Hive. I think you'd fit right
in. Wanna invite?
Andy F.
"tedw" <te...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131556719.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> This comment was e-mailed to me this morning. I think it succintly sums
> up the matter.
>
>
>
> think that there was an air of real spirituality in the founding of AA,
> esp. in the beginning Oxford group, but now spirituality can and is
> anything that anyone says it is in AA, whether that be making ones
> 'higher power' a doorknob, your sponsor, an organization, a group of
> people, or anything else. Spirituality in AA very seldom has anything
> to do with Jesus Christ and frequently those in AA meetings who state
> such beliefs are the minority and sometimes looked down upon as being
> narrow minded and bigoted. "
>
it was suggested to Bill W. by Ebby in 1935, before AA even started.(See
'Bill's Story' in the BB)
Virtualoso
<mhwarner.i...@insightbb.com> wrote:
I make ONE diabolical yet midly amusing goofup in all the years I've
been diligently posting contributions of the most valuable, even
necessary kind, in as philanthropic and generous and kindly a way as
possible. And now I'm Excluded!?!?!
Fock Yoo.
For Thine is Bzzzzzzzzz Forever. A man.
Virtualoso
<never...@tesco.net> wrote:
The "new" or unique aspect of AA was/is the particular combo of key
elements. Otherwise, it's all generally acknowledged as borrowed from
other sources. Even Loaner Higher Powers.
Mark Warner
> Mark Warner wrote:
>>Kai Ruuska wrote:
>>>Mark Warner kirjoitti:
>>>>Virtualoso wrote:
>>>>>Mark Warner wrote:
>>>>>>Virtualoso wrote:
>>>>>>>tedw wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why would I lie to you Mark? Its against my religion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And thank you for the opportunity to turn the other cheek. Its a
>>>>>>>>blessing to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oops. You may have caught him in a lie, Craig.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oops is right. Craig's the one in the tutu.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, your lies about "the ApostleS" acknowleging Saul/Paul as an
>>>>>Apostle remain just that - a Paulian Lie. Untrue. The opposite of
>>>>>the truth. Satanic. Evil.
>>>>>
>>>>>And, so far, you're unrepentent about that. Surprise, surprise.
>>>>
>>>>Uhm... Virt? You having trouble following this thread?
>>>
>>>It's easy to confuse you Paulian fundies.
>>
>>Me, Craig, and tedw started our own little Hive. I think you'd fit right
>>in. Wanna invite?
>
Actually it was two.
> ...diabolical yet midly amusing goofup in all the years I've
> been diligently posting contributions of the most valuable, even
> necessary kind, in as philanthropic and generous and kindly a way as
> possible.
Much like myself. I too understand the frustration of being
underappreciated.
> And now I'm Excluded!?!?!
>
> Fock Yoo.
>
> For Thine is Bzzzzzzzzz Forever. A man.
Sorry, Virt. I think you'd fit right in too. Wanna invite?
Then I can get you and Kai mixed up. (Although Kai can usually be
spotted by his superior command of the language.)
Mark Warner
>
> The idea of choosing your own 'higher power' isn't a new one at all.
> In fact it was suggested to Bill W. by Ebby in 1935, before AA even
> started.(See 'Bill's Story' in the BB)
And we all know that Ebby was a member of the Oxford Group, an
unabashedly Christian organization. One that tedw thinks got it "right".
So how does this "higher power" of one's own concept fit in there?
tedw
convenience.
Thoughts on AA
In case you wondered here are my thoughts on AA:
I think most of the principles in AA are good. I actually like the Big
Book (3rd edition) and like the 1st edition even more.The new 4th
editon is quite a downgrade from the original 1st editon. I dont
however think AA is an organization full of spiritually enlightened
beings. I think when you walk into a room of Alcoholics Anonymous you
are walking into a room full of very sick (evil) people.
As you can tell by my recent posts regarding AA and homosexuality, I
think it has become a somewhat liberal organization over the last 25
years. It has become accepting of things that most truly religious and
spiritual people find an anthema to authentic spirituality. Worse, this
is in violation of its own traditons, and AA has little ,if any,
ability to look at itself and be reformed. It probably wont be.
AA has built up a lot of goodwill over the decades and many people dont
realize what has happened to it in recent years.
Below is a link to the GSO website where being Gay is equated to being
black, native American, Jewish,or even young or old. The only trouble
is that all those other conditions are natural whereas being a
homosexual is a result of corruption and trauma; it is a perversion. It
is evil.
www.alcoholics-anonymous.org/default/en_about_aa_sub.cfm?subpageid=75&pageid=12
Although most of the ideas in the older literature are good. Some are
not. This whole idea of the disease concept is a false teaching and
harmful to the alcoholic. Dr. Bob , one of the founders of AA, had the
following to say about this:
"Doc dwelt on the idea that this was an illness, but Doc was pretty
frank with me.He found that I had enough faith in the Almighty to be
fairly frank. He pointed out to me that probably it was more of a MORAL
OR SPIRITUAL ILLNESS than it was a physical one."
That I can buy, but not all this nonsense about a disease and genetics
that people want you to believe without convincing proof. In my opinion
its a smokescreen and false belief for people unwilling to face up to
the truth that there is something really wrong with them, not their
body.BTW, I dont think Dr. Bob would be very welcome in many AA
meetings today. Certainly the things he said would not be very welcome.
So yes AA has some value in my opinion. If it can help you find
sobriety and start you on the spiritual path, God Bless you. In
particular , the teaching about resentment and anger found in the
fourth step is magnificent. If you can grasp that and apply it to your
life, then I think you will be on your way to a Godly and blessed
life.You could also get this self-same teaching out of the New
Testament, and probably should.
However, if you make AA your whole life and attend 7 meetings a week
and get your whole identity out of AA, then I dont think thats a good
thing.I know there are some truly searching people who get their start
in AA and grow beyond it. I think they are pretty rare however.
So there are my thoughts in summary. I dont expect this to be popular
or well received by AA'S To a large degree, I dont think Truth is much
welcome in AA today
tedw
headed in right direction with most of their ideas.
Most likely they believed in Trinitarian theology although Im not sure
about that. I believe that is error.
stuart
A know it all like you would know ted
Virtualoso
<mhwarner.i...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Andy F. wrote:
> >
> > The idea of choosing your own 'higher power' isn't a new one at all.
> > In fact it was suggested to Bill W. by Ebby in 1935, before AA even
> > started.(See 'Bill's Story' in the BB)
>
> And we all know that Ebby was a member of the Oxford Group, an
> unabashedly Christian organization. One that tedw thinks got it "right".
> So how does this "higher power" of one's own concept fit in there?
Well, it's pretty plain that the basic deal is "your own concept of
God". The "higher power" euphemistic replacement has trended more
colloquially, gingerly side stepping the "G spot".
Virtualoso
tedw <te...@earthlink.net> wrote:
The problem, ted, appears to be about how much you're putting down so
many people, on the basis of what you personally happen to Believe. As
if that kind of complaining and detraction stands much, if any chance,
of doing anyone any good, as far as that goes.
Any folks that "make their whole like AA" just are, apparently. Hearing
that you or anyone else doesn't think that's a good thing doesn't
appear to make much difference... to them. Yet, "here", that's not who
you're engaging anyway, by and large.
So you're just being preachy and soapboxy. Seemingly to no purpose
worthwhile enough to warrant that. And that's assuming that that
particular kind of dour pursuit would even well serve anything that
might somehow warrant it.
Meanwhile, I met plenty of folks at AA who aren't at all distracted by
"disease concepts" other than the coupla' mentions of "spiritual
disease". And I met plenty of folks that paid a lot of attention to the
"drinking is buy a symptom" and heeded that advice to check themselves
out thoroughly and make specific efforts to correct. Plenty.
Those there doing that, at best possibly exampling with their own
participation and willingly sharing what anyone else might like to take
up with them, are many times more valuable - and probably better
examples - than your decrying from afar self-righteously to some
mysterious "audience" you must be fantasizing to some kind of effect.
>
Mark Warner
> In response to my article "Thoughts on AA". Reposted here for your
> convenience.
This one?:
http://christianrecovery.blogspot.com/2005/03/thoughts-on-aa.html
The one that has ZERO comments?
You are a liar.
Robert McGregor
news:101120052309292240%n...@dot.com...snippety doo dah-blin
>
> Those there doing that, at best possibly exampling with their own
> participation and willingly sharing what anyone else might like to
> take
> up with them, are many times more valuable - and probably better
> examples - than your decrying from afar self-righteously to some
> mysterious "audience" you must be fantasizing to some kind of
> effect.
>
Similar is that not, to exampling unself-righteous decrying to afar,
regardless of the existence of a "mysterious" audience, or not - and
probably maybe if not must be exampling equally delusional
fantasising - to identical effect?
Bob the Subverted.
Craig S.
news:3thp6iF...@individual.net...
> The idea of choosing your own 'higher power' isn't a new one at all. In
fact
> it was suggested to Bill W. by Ebby in 1935, before AA even started.(See
> 'Bill's Story' in the BB)
Just as long as the "higher power" one chooses happens to be "God." The BB
makes it clear enough that God means God, and that Higher Power means God.
People are welcome to play all the silly semantic games they want, but that
doesn't change the intent of the BB.
"But there is One who has all power - that One is God. May you find Him
now!"
Virtualoso
<robert_...@knickers.yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Only if ya' squint your eyes and hold your mouth just right.
Kai Ruuska
Dunno. Would that mean I'd have to start drinking near beer?
--
Kai
Ted L.
news:4374e248$0$41150$1472...@news.sunsite.dk...
>
> Just as long as the "higher power" one chooses happens to be "God." The
BB
> makes it clear enough that God means God, and that Higher Power means God.
> People are welcome to play all the silly semantic games they want, but
that
> doesn't change the intent of the BB.
>
> "But there is One who has all power - that One is God. May you find Him
> now!"
>
Time to trot out the thing that most annoys me in an AA meeting: the person
who says "my higher power whom I choose to call God."
Other than that we know his name is Harold, what else could you call God
except God?
Chronocidal Charlie
Hash: SHA1
GaryE wrote:
> And more. YOu get to choose you own conception of God. It can
> Jewish, Xian, Muslim.......
I didn't find them words in thar Gar. I did find...
"When, therefore, we speak to you of God, we mean your own conception of
God. This applies, too, to other spiritual expressions which you find in
this book. Do not let any prejudice you may have against spiritual terms
deter you from honestly asking yourself what they mean to you. At the
start, this was all we needed to commence spiritual growth, to effect
our first conscious relation with God as we understood Him. Afterward,
we found ourselves accepting many things which then seemed entirely out
of reach. That was growth, but if we wished to grow we had to begin
somewhere. So we used our own conception, however limited it was."
I did find seven *conception* words in Chapter 4, and then after making
the above statement and clarification, the next being...
"We know how he feels. We have shared his honest doubt and prejudice.
Some of us have been violently anti-religious. To others, the word "God"
brought up a particular idea of Him with which someone had tried to
impress them during childhood. Perhaps we rejected this particular
conception because it seemed inadequate. With that rejection we imagined
we had abandoned the God idea entirely. We were bothered with the
thought that faith and dependence upon a Power beyond ourselves was
somewhat weak, even cowardly. We looked upon this world of warring
individuals, warring theological systems, and inexplicable calamity,
with deep skepticism, We looked askance at many individuals who claimed
to be godly. How could a Supreme Being have anything to do with it all?
And who could comprehend a Supreme Being anyhow? Yet, in other moments,
we found ourselves thinking, when enchanted by a starlit night, "Who,
then, make all this?" There was a feeling of awe and wonder, but it was
fleeting and soon lost."
Now don't quit reading here, 'cause I gonna do a denouement on dis at de
end. ;-)
Next I find the root word *concept* here...
"This is the how and the why of it. First of all, we had to quit playing
God. It didn't work. Next, we decided that hereafter in this drama of
life, God was going to be our Director. He is the Principal; we are His
agents. He is the Father, and we are His children. Most Good ideas are
simple, and this *concept* was the keystone of the new and triumphant
arch through which we passed to freedom."
And then it go back to talking about *conception* agin later on. ;-)
"Tell him exactly what happened to you. Stress the spiritual feature
freely. If the man be agnostic or atheist, make it emphatic that he does
not have to agree with your *conception* of God. He can choose any
conception he likes, provided it makes sense to him. The main thing is
that he be willing to believe in a Power greater than himself and that
he live by spiritual principles."
There is a whole bunch of god in there spelt wiff a capital *G* and that
give a whole bunch of defiant *leverage* to Guys like me to resist with.
Which I did right up to the point where I sed "Summer 95" lemme look at
this shit agin....
and then read read step 2 out of the corner of my mind since I no longer
had a *big* *book* and was relying on my photo memory and didn't really
have any lines to read between in search for sumpin what wasn't there,
nor need to wrassle wiff it, and it sed...
2. Came to believe a *Power* greater than ourselves could restore us to
sanity.
Then it say...
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of
God as we *understood* Him.
Denouement now. ;-)
Well, hell, I've already written most of it down. No need to repeat
myself. ;-)
http://shorterlink.com/?UQZ737
Sum it up short, the last time I tackled step two and three, was with my
*own* Gary, read, *OWN* *Concept* and my own *understanding* and not the
one from the Lost Prairie Baptist Church nor Brother Lester Roloff's,
nor anyone else's *concept* of god with a big letter *G* that scared the
hell out of me, and I was able to move on 'cause my own didn't bother me.
But I also no longer any need for defiant leverage, nor rebelliousness
neither nor fuel for argument nor debate on the matter neither since I
didn't want a drink no more. ;-)
But I guess some folks might call they *concept* Yahweh or Allah or
Gotama or Poignée à la Porte or Jeebus or Das Ewige Licht or....
Gifts of a lesser god
Old nearsighted me,
'bout all I could see,
Was a word called *sanity*
Today I'm real glad,
That's all my god had,
And didn't gift me,
With some folks *Sobriety*
But my beans need stirring and an onion put in them so I gotta go.
CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDdP/W38XFJek9K9gRAhoqAKCJI1peprUdrWk8eDJ50bSnEho99QCfWZ+P
Pms2u33bazmjgQqptrDEl4s=
=NWd2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David M
> Other than that we know his name is Harold, what else could
> you call God except God?
From and Australian web site:
What does the "H" stand for when Americans exclaim "Jesus H
Christ!"?
The H stands for Harold, after His father. As in, "Our Father, who
art in heaven, Harold be Thy name".
Mark Warner
> Mark Warner kirjoitti:
>>
>> in. Wanna invite?
>
> Dunno. Would that mean I'd have to start drinking near beer?
No. But you might have to start wearing tights or reading the Bible.
(Of course, you could translate it any way you want.)
Craig S.
news:3tkdjlF...@individual.net...
It's Howard, David.
Craig S.
news:pe7df.2855$th3....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> But I also no longer any need for defiant leverage, nor rebelliousness
> neither nor fuel for argument nor debate on the matter neither since I
> didn't want a drink no more. ;-)
I'm not looking to ever acquire quite that much personal growth.
Virtualoso
<mhwarner.i...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Kai Ruuska wrote:
> > Mark Warner kirjoitti:
> >>
> >> Me, Craig, and tedw started our own little Hive. I think you'd fit right
> >> in. Wanna invite?
> >
> > Dunno. Would that mean I'd have to start drinking near beer?
>
> No. But you might have to start wearing tights or reading the Bible.
> (Of course, you could translate it any way you want.)
Yeah, but can you select just *which* Bible, in the first place?
F.H.
> Kai Ruuska wrote:
>
>> Mark Warner kirjoitti:
>>
>>>
>>> Me, Craig, and tedw started our own little Hive. I think you'd fit right
>>> in. Wanna invite?
>>
>>
>> Dunno. Would that mean I'd have to start drinking near beer?
>
>
> No. But you might have to start wearing tights or reading the Bible. (Of
> course, you could translate it any way you want.)
"A book is a mirror: If an ass peers into it, you can't expect an
apostle to look out."
This may be my new standard reply to all teds posts.
Chronocidal Charlie
Hash: SHA1
Let me know if you decide for sure so's I don't go clicking, scrolling
and a reading the same joke over an over looking for a new punch line
each time. ;-)
CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDdUgW38XFJek9K9gRAisdAJ9zE7vi85hudxBpf17Nism3qYupPQCaApwd
TqB1tWskvEu0RAtC/+qZmxA=
=etkr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
F.H.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> F.H. wrote:
>
>>Mark Warner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Kai Ruuska wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark Warner kirjoitti:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Me, Craig, and tedw started our own little Hive. I think you'd fit
>>>>>right
>>>>>in. Wanna invite?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dunno. Would that mean I'd have to start drinking near beer?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No. But you might have to start wearing tights or reading the Bible.
>>>(Of course, you could translate it any way you want.)
>>
>>
>>"A book is a mirror: If an ass peers into it, you can't expect an
>>apostle to look out."
>>
>>This may be my new standard reply to all teds posts.
>
>
> Let me know if you decide for sure so's I don't go clicking, scrolling
> and a reading the same joke over an over looking for a new punch line
> each time. ;-)
>
> CC
I'll only do it on the 2 meg posts so I can piss Tommy off as well. :)
Kai Ruuska
> Kai Ruuska wrote:
>> Mark Warner kirjoitti:
>>>
>>> Me, Craig, and tedw started our own little Hive. I think you'd fit right
>>> in. Wanna invite?
>>
>> Dunno. Would that mean I'd have to start drinking near beer?
>
> No. But you might have to start wearing tights or reading the Bible. (Of
> course, you could translate it any way you want.)
>
I already have several pairs of tights I wear when running. Count me
in, Brother!
--
Kai
Grace
But are they fishnets?
Kai Ruuska
Sorry, Grace, confidential information. Hive only.
--
Kai
Tommy
"F.H." >
> I'll only do it on the 2 meg posts so I can piss Tommy off as well. :)
Hehh heh Frank, If I tell you a secrety little secret will you promise to
keep it to yourself.
I have 20 MbpsCable and Rip wave wireless here in the house. I signed up
for 10 and always got way more than that, but I saw an ad that said we all
got upped to 20 for free. :-))
The cable is probably the one item of advertised technology that is actually
as good as it is purported to be. I live in an area tha thas very few
subscribers so I share with only 4 others at night, I think.
I wish I could say the same for the ripwave (wifi)
It's supposed to be 512/128, I have two boxes in our offices. We have an
office within 100 yds of my house, and another one about a mile away. The
wireless is relatively cheap (18 dollars per mth) always on, but we close at
about 5pm, so myself and one other take the boxes home and divert the phones
to one of our houses. This way there is always at least one person to take
an emergency call, or redirect it.
Because I live within the square mile area, and have the software installed
on several boxes, the modem doesn't even stutter, it goes straight on
without a fuss.
I'm spoiled with technology :-)
And Dean has gotten to the stage of MP3 players etc, and portable DVD
players and karaoke. All I can say is godddamandblast them feckers who
invented this stuff. Its costing me moneyyyyyyyyyy
I often tried topost a binary pic of meself here on araa, but it wouldn't be
accepted
Worse luck
Cheers
Tommy
Chronocidal Charlie
Hash: SHA1
GaryE wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:33:25 GMT, Chronocidal Charlie
> <cle...@hot.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Sum it up short, the last time I tackled step two and three, was with my
>>*own* Gary, read, *OWN* *Concept* and my own *understanding* and not the
>>one from the Lost Prairie Baptist Church nor Brother Lester Roloff's,
>>nor anyone else's *concept* of god with a big letter *G* that scared the
>>hell out of me, and I was able to move on 'cause my own didn't bother me.
>
>
> Don't take it so personal Charlie.
Okay.
> I was just suggesting that the conception idea was not about making up
> your own God (capital G which I think has some significance otherwise it
> would have been a little g) but your own conception of the one and only
> God to which the BB constantly refers.
What if there *is* only one God?
A rough estimate of the population of the world, as of July 2005, was
6,446,131,400 people and unless God, whatever God *is* should decide to
suddenly meld all of us to one mind, one body, one soul and one vision,
I have sneaking suspicions, taking into account the number of that
figure who give a shit enough to, or are competent enough, or are
capable of forming in their minds an image, idea or notion of a being,
divinity, deity, object of worship or idol possessing supernatural
power, to be propitiated by sacrifice, worship, etc, that there would be
a few different concepts of God regardless of whether the word be used
as a proper or improper noun.
> Do you doubt that Bill and Bob had anyone else in mind, but Yahweh?
Probably not Gary, my doubt lies in either of them having the same
concept of Yahweh as the other, or as you or I. But saying that, I'm
expressing an uncertainty as to belief, or a doubt, rather than a concept.
> I don't. But then that would be my conception, right?
I believe that implies you have no doubt in your mind, therefore I
believe it would be your belief rather than a concept.
> So you take yours and I'll take mine.
Can I interpret that as permission to form my own concepts, rather than
take them?
> Heh.
Okay. ;-)
CC
> Best,
> GaryE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDdrZJ38XFJek9K9gRAjaIAJ0XL73pA2AJ/stMyXK2tVcPNJOEHwCfdrgU
uOeHszj3TYoMOwr+VmR6g3A=
=nDJF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tommy
"GaryE" >
> I have no doubt that the Bible is about a particular God. I
> personally don't think that is a true story but myth, but then if you
> go by numbers, I'm badly outnumbered in that position. Of course,
> being outnumbered in a position doesn't make it always wrong. Flat
> earth and all that....
>>Can I interpret that as permission to form my own concepts, rather than
>>take them?
>>
> If you really need my permission, you always have it.
>
> Best,
> GaryE
I have doubts that the Bible is about anyone or everyone.
The story in it is too similar to other 'gods' and other systems of good,
many of them producing a 'son' from either the river, or a cloud, or a deer
or in some cases from a female virgin' god...
These 'myths' have a way of gaining momentum. I doubt that man would have
progressed as far or as fast if there weren't morals, right and wrongs.
Even prison and beatings wouldn't deter some peoples, but fear of the
eternal flames of hell did in some cases,,