The Steps are about God
David Kay
God. I've been thinking a bit about what this really means.
Three things have occurred to me:
Firstly, the steps are not entirely about God. They are also about
powerlessness, handing over, morality, confession, change, acknowledgment of
guilt, making amends, prayer and meditation, and carrying the message,
amongst other things. God is one idea in the steps amongst many. It would
seem to me that to characterize the steps using only this single aspect of
them, is at best an oversimplification, and at worst misleading.
Secondly, there are no limits to our understanding of God. Essentially this
means that the word is undefined, as it is used in the steps, and we can
each use our own definition. And the steps seems to work using a wide range
of different definitions of God. According to the literature, they should
work using any definition.
To characterize the steps using an entirely undefined concept (the other one
is prayer) seems to me to be questionable. Given that God can mean anything
in the steps, is it perhaps one of the less important concepts contained in
them? Personally, I don't hand things over to the care of God, but simply
hand them over. It doesn't seem to matter what, if anything, is at the
other end of the transaction. Perhaps all that matters is that it is not
me? Perhaps it doesn't matter at all - it's just going through the motions
which is important?
Thirdly, there is one word that is common to all the steps, "We". This
suggests to me that if we had to characterize the steps as being about a
single idea, then the best choice would be addicts, not God. Someone posted
recently that they thought "the steps were about me". This seems to be a
far more accurate characterization, in my opinion.
nick.g
If what you wrote about "God" is true then why use a capitol "G". The
"G" implies a single xtian (or Jewish, or derivitive) god. So the use
of "God" does not allow for any interpretation.
NA was founded by Xtians, so it makes a lot of sense that they would
have used "God". Today many non Xtians go to meetings and have a
conflict. Stay clean through a network of recovering addicts, but be
assaulted with the notion of "God'.
N
jazzzman
postulated:
Actually, I hear Jimmy K was a Buddhist....
jazzzman
"Who you are speaks so loudly I
can't hear what you're saying."
Ralph Waldo Emerson
jazzzman
Now ya went and done it...... we'll have to listen to Reese repeat "The Steps
are about God, the Steps are about God... over and over and over again....
David Kay
>It seems that one of Reese's favourite claims is the the Steps are about
>God. I've been thinking a bit about what this really means.
>
>Three things have occurred to me:
>
>Firstly, the steps are not entirely about God. They are also about
>powerlessness, handing over,
Damomen:
>Handing over what to the care of whom?
Perhaps it doesn't matter? If God can be defined as anything, then the
important thing may be the act of handing over, and what is at the other end
may be irrelevent. At least as far as the effectiveness of the steps are
concerned.
David Kay:
>morality, confession, change,
Damomen:
>Like God changing us through step 7?
Which in terms of the program can mean absolutely anything changing us -
whatever we choose as our definition of God.
David Kay:
>acknowledgment of
>guilt, making amends, prayer and meditation,
Damomen:
>Praying to whom?
The literature also says that there is no limits to our understanding of
what constitutes prayer.
David Kay:
>and carrying the message,
>amongst other things. God is one idea in the steps amongst many.
Damomen:
>And the only idea contained in most of the steps.
No. The most common concept in the steps is "We". It is in all the steps.
I understand what you are saying here - the word God a part of many of the
steps. But God, in terms of the program, can mean absolutely anything, so I
wonder how important it really is. The number of times that it is used
suggests that it is. The fact that it is an entirely undefined concept
suggests that it isn't. It seems like it's just kind of a place-holder.
David Kay:
> It would
>seem to me that to characterize the steps using only this single aspect of
>them, is at best an oversimplification, and at worst misleading.
Damomen:
>Yep.
David Kay:
>Secondly, there are no limits to our understanding of God. Essentially
this
>means that the word is undefined, as it is used in the steps, and we can
>each use our own definition. And the steps seems to work using a wide
range
>of different definitions of God. According to the literature, they should
>work using any definition.
>
>To characterize the steps using an entirely undefined concept (the other
one
>is prayer) seems to me to be questionable. Given that God can mean
anything
>in the steps, is it perhaps one of the less important concepts contained in
>them? Personally, I don't hand things over to the care of God, but simply
>hand them over.
Damomen:
>Then that's not step 3 is it? That isn't what step 3 says we do.
Yes it is. If there are no limits on my understanding of God, then God
could even mean nothing. That's not my understanding of a higher power, by
the way, but it is consistent with the program. The reason that I just hand
over, with little or no thought about what I am handing over to, is because
it's simpler for me, and it seems to work just as well.
David Kay:
> It doesn't seem to matter what, if anything, is at the
>other end of the transaction. Perhaps all that matters is that it is not
>me? Perhaps it doesn't matter at all - it's just going through the motions
>which is important?
Damomen:
>I don't think it matters a lot, let's just call a spade a spade.
You've lost me here. What's the spade?
David Kay:
Reese
wrote:
>One of the things that has become apparent to me recently, is that there is
>at least one significant difference between the two programs. The NA
>literature specifically says that our understanding of our higher power is
>unlimited.
That doesn't make null what the Step says.
It's the God of your understanding, but we're still talking about
God--not coffee cups, not doorknobs.
>I don't think there's anything like that in the AA literature.
>I used to regard the two programs as virtually interchangeable, but having
>found this difference - which I regard as a fundamental one - it seems to me
>that they have parted ways and should be treated seperately.
You'll have to change the Steps.
Reese
remove all of the 3's to reply
Reese
wrote:
>It seems that one of Reese's favourite claims is the the Steps are about
>God. I've been thinking a bit about what this really means.
>
>Three things have occurred to me:
>
>Firstly, the steps are not entirely about God.
No, not all of them.
Reese
>There may be nothing in the AA literature about coffee cup gods, but it
>is frequently heard suggested to sceptical newcomers in AA (as in NA) that
>God can be anything, including a coffee cup or a doorknob.
Why these idiots say such things to newcomers is hard to figure.
>However, these
>kinds of concepts are supposed to be merely starter gods, to open the minds
>of those having trouble with the second and third steps. Later, the
>concept is supposed to be enlarged. You rarely hear of someone who has
>completed the steps still referring to God as a coffee cup.
>
>The trouble with these kinds of "bait & switch" concepts, is that the
>newcomer believes being clean & sober is due to a power outside himself,
>be it a spirit or a coffee cup. I consider that to be a shaky plan.
The really shaky plan for me was to depend on myself.
Reese
wrote:
>nick.g wrote in message <35e156d5...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>If what you wrote about "God" is true then why use a capitol "G".
>
>Convention.
Yep, that's the conventional way of referring to a deity.
>>The
>>"G" implies a single xtian (or Jewish, or derivitive) god. So the use
>>of "God" does not allow for any interpretation.
>
>This is a very weak argument, given that NA literature specifically and
>clearly states that our understanding of God is unlimited.
Yep, but we're talking about God.
>>NA was founded by Xtians, so it makes a lot of sense that they would
>>have used "God".
>
>I believe that AA was founded by christians, but I'm not sure about NA.
>They may have been theists, but not christians. Or maybe they just left God
>there because they didn't want to fuck with the steps, and that's why the NA
>literature makes it clear that the God in the steps need not be a deity.
That's not clear at all from the literature.
>>Today many non Xtians go to meetings and have a
>>conflict. Stay clean through a network of recovering addicts, but be
>>assaulted with the notion of "God'.
>
>I'm a card-carrying atheist. But the more I think about this, the less
>conflict I see. The NA program allows me to define God entirely in my own
>terms. Until I provide my own definition, which need have nothing to do
>with a deity, then, in the context of the steps, the word means nothing.
So you made a decision to turn your will and your life over to the
care of nothing; you humbly asked nothing to remove your defects of
character; you sought though prayer and meditation to improve your
conscious contact with nothing.
Steve
ReesenotEarmuffsnot MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot
GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot GodnotHitlernotHigherPower
notDoorknobnotJazzmannotBuddhanot ReesenotEarmuffsnot
MikeynotStevenotKrshnanot
--
for a good time click on: http://members.xoom.com/zoundman
David Kay
>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>
>If what you wrote about "God" is true then why use a capitol "G".
Convention.
>The
>"G" implies a single xtian (or Jewish, or derivitive) god. So the use
>of "God" does not allow for any interpretation.
This is a very weak argument, given that NA literature specifically and
clearly states that our understanding of God is unlimited.
>NA was founded by Xtians, so it makes a lot of sense that they would
>have used "God".
I believe that AA was founded by christians, but I'm not sure about NA.
They may have been theists, but not christians. Or maybe they just left God
there because they didn't want to fuck with the steps, and that's why the NA
literature makes it clear that the God in the steps need not be a deity.
>Today many non Xtians go to meetings and have a
David Kay
>Firstly, the steps are not entirely about God. They are also about
>powerlessness, handing over,
Damomen:
>Handing over what to the care of whom?
David Kay:
>Perhaps it doesn't matter? If God can be defined as anything, then the
>important thing may be the act of handing over, and what is at the other
end
>may be irrelevent. At least as far as the effectiveness of the steps are
>concerned.
Damomen:
>That's so ridiculous I'm not even gonna get into this yet again.
>Ok, maybe a little.
Why is it "so ridiculous"? Certainly labelling it ridiculous doesn't make
it so.
David Kay:
>morality, confession, change,
>Damomen:
>Like God changing us through step 7?
David Kay:
>Which in terms of the program can mean absolutely anything changing us -
>whatever we choose as our definition of God.
Damomen:
>Absolutely anything is a ridiculous statement.Only in NA can this type
>of illogic be considered wisdom.
No-one said that it was wise, just that this is what the program says.
Don't blame me - I didn't write the literature. The literature clearly and
explicitly states that our understanding of a higher power is *unlimited*.
Some choices may be less wise than others, but they are all within the
parameters of the program.
David Kay:
>acknowledgment of
>guilt, making amends, prayer and meditation,
Damomen:
>Praying to whom?
David Kay:
>The literature also says that there is no limits to our understanding of
>what constitutes prayer.
Damomen:
>did I say that? I said:
>praying to whom?
>Are you ever gonna answer a question I pose to you?
Praying to whatever you choose as your higher power, in whatever way you
like. I have to say this because I know you hate it - it could even be a
coffee cup!
Before you start, I probably think that this would be as absurd a choice for
a higher power as you do. But that doesn't change the fact that within the
parameters of the program, it could quite validly be chosen by someone as a
higher power.
David Kay:
>and carrying the message,
>amongst other things. God is one idea in the steps amongst many.
Damomen:
>And the only idea contained in most of the steps.
>No. The most common concept in the steps is "We". It is in all the steps.
>I understand what you are saying here - the word God a part of many of the
>steps. But God, in terms of the program, can mean absolutely anything, so
I
>wonder how important it really is. The number of times that it is used
>suggests that it is. The fact that it is an entirely undefined concept
>suggests that it isn't. It seems like it's just kind of a place-holder.
Damomen:
>The we in the steps is a grammatical nicety. Don't believe me? read
>Bill Wilson's writings on the steps and why the grammar is the way it
>is. It certainly doesn't take precedence over God.
It's not that I don't believe you - it's just that I don't think it's
particularly relevant. The NA program is based upon the AA program, but it
is certainly not the same thing, and I think that it is incorrect to confuse
the two.
One of the things that has become apparent to me recently, is that there is
at least one significant difference between the two programs. The NA
literature specifically says that our understanding of our higher power is
unlimited. I don't think there's anything like that in the AA literature.
I used to regard the two programs as virtually interchangeable, but having
found this difference - which I regard as a fundamental one - it seems to me
that they have parted ways and should be treated seperately.
Even putting aside the fact that "we" is used in every step, not just some,
does it make any sense to say that a significant part of the steps is an
undefined place-holder? It seems more than a little bizzare to me.
David Kay:
>It would
>seem to me that to characterize the steps using only this single aspect of
>them, is at best an oversimplification, and at worst misleading.
Damomen:
>Yep.
David Kay:
>Yes it is. If there are no limits on my understanding of God, then God
>could even mean nothing.
Damomen:
>God means nothing. What a concept. Wait, it's not a concept, because
>it refers to.......nothing. "Nothing relieved me of my obsession".
>Nice.Real nice.
I know - I'm stretching it to the extreme, now. You could reword your
example to "My obsession left me", and it would make more sense, though.
But, once again, don't blame me. If you have a real problem with this, then
you need to get the NA literature rewritten in a way that is acceptable to
you.
David Kay
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 01:44:44 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>One of the things that has become apparent to me recently, is that there
is
>>at least one significant difference between the two programs. The NA
>>literature specifically says that our understanding of our higher power is
>>unlimited.
>
>That doesn't make null what the Step says.
It certainly doesn't. It clarifies what they mean.
>It's the God of your understanding, but we're still talking about
>God--not coffee cups, not doorknobs.
Here we go again...
"We have complete personal choice and freedom in how we understand our
higher power..."
"...our freedom to have a God of our own understanding is unlimited...
- It Works: How and Why, p 30.
To me that means that we have complete personal choice and freedom in how we
understand our higher power, and that our freedom to have a God of our own
understanding is unlimited. What does it mean to you?
>>I don't think there's anything like that in the AA literature.
>>I used to regard the two programs as virtually interchangeable, but having
>>found this difference - which I regard as a fundamental one - it seems to
me
>>that they have parted ways and should be treated seperately.
>
>You'll have to change the Steps.
No, I just have to read the NA literature to help me understand what they
mean.
David Kay
>Same old. same old. dude, we got tired of this long before you ever
>got here, and I shouldn't have encouraged it. Bring something new to
>the table.
Your standard response when the bottom falls out of your argument. You
can't sensibly address the issue in question, so you simply claim that it is
nothing new and think that you have somehow dealt with it.
David Kay
>There may be nothing in the AA literature about coffee cup gods, but it
>is frequently heard suggested to sceptical newcomers in AA (as in NA) that
>God can be anything, including a coffee cup or a doorknob. However, these
>kinds of concepts are supposed to be merely starter gods, to open the minds
>of those having trouble with the second and third steps. Later, the
>concept is supposed to be enlarged. You rarely hear of someone who has
>completed the steps still referring to God as a coffee cup.
Personally, I don't believe that newcomers are so limited that they can't
cope with a more meaningful concept of a higher power than this.
>The trouble with these kinds of "bait & switch" concepts, is that the
>newcomer believes being clean & sober is due to a power outside himself,
>be it a spirit or a coffee cup. I consider that to be a shaky plan.
Actually, it's not necessarily a power entirely outside of ourselves, it's a
power *greater* than ourselves. My, admittedly vague, concept of a higher
power is something that is within myself and within other people.
David Kay
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:09:02 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>nick.g wrote in message <35e156d5...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>If what you wrote about "God" is true then why use a capitol "G".
>>
>>Convention.
>
>Yep, that's the conventional way of referring to a deity.
And the case of a letter negates what is explicitly stated in the
literature - that there are no limits on our understanding of a higher
power? I don't think so.
>>>The
>>>"G" implies a single xtian (or Jewish, or derivitive) god. So the use
>>>of "God" does not allow for any interpretation.
>>
>>This is a very weak argument, given that NA literature specifically and
>>clearly states that our understanding of God is unlimited.
>
>Yep, but we're talking about God.
I can see I'm going to get sick of posting these quotes, and everyone's
going to get sick of reading them. From "It Works: How and Why", p.30:
"We have complete personal choice and freedom in how we understand our
higher power..."
"...our freedom to have a God of our own understanding is unlimited..."
>>>NA was founded by Xtians, so it makes a lot of sense that they would
>>>have used "God".
>>
>>I believe that AA was founded by christians, but I'm not sure about NA.
>>They may have been theists, but not christians. Or maybe they just left
God
>>there because they didn't want to fuck with the steps, and that's why the
NA
>>literature makes it clear that the God in the steps need not be a deity.
>
>That's not clear at all from the literature.
The literature says that we have *complete* personal choice, that our
freedom to have a God of our own understanding is *unlimited*. It does not
say that we have complete personal choice, except that it must be a deity.
This would, of course, be a limit.
>>>Today many non Xtians go to meetings and have a
>>>conflict. Stay clean through a network of recovering addicts, but be
>>>assaulted with the notion of "God'.
>>
>>I'm a card-carrying atheist. But the more I think about this, the less
>>conflict I see. The NA program allows me to define God entirely in my own
>>terms. Until I provide my own definition, which need have nothing to do
>>with a deity, then, in the context of the steps, the word means nothing.
>
>So you made a decision to turn your will and your life over to the
>care of nothing; you humbly asked nothing to remove your defects of
>character; you sought though prayer and meditation to improve your
>conscious contact with nothing.
Like I said, it means nothing until I provide my own definition. Which is
exactly what I have done. I made a decision to turn my will and my life
over to the care of God as I understood him - and, as the literature clearly
allows, my understanding has nothing to do with a deity. Ditto for the
other steps.
I'm not sure why you object to this so strongly. It is very clear in the
literature, and it certainly has no effect on those whose higher power is a
deity. Do you think that the literature is wrong in this case? That NA has
broadened the meaning of the steps simply means that they are appropriate
for more people.
jazzzman
>David Kay:
>
>>It seems that one of Reese's favourite claims is the the Steps are about
>>God. I've been thinking a bit about what this really means.
>>
>>Three things have occurred to me:
>>
>>Firstly, the steps are not entirely about God. They are also about
>>powerlessness, handing over,
>
>Damomen:
>
>>Handing over what to the care of whom?
>
>Perhaps it doesn't matter? If God can be defined as anything, then the
>important thing may be the act of handing over, and what is at the other end
>may be irrelevent. At least as far as the effectiveness of the steps are
>concerned.
>
I've tried to suggest that faith was the key.....
jazzzman
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 01:44:44 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>One of the things that has become apparent to me recently, is that there is
>>at least one significant difference between the two programs. The NA
>>literature specifically says that our understanding of our higher power is
>>unlimited.
>
>That doesn't make null what the Step says.
>
>It's the God of your understanding, but we're still talking about
>God--not coffee cups, not doorknobs.
>
What about "the group", Reese?
Reese
wrote:
>Actually, it's not necessarily a power entirely outside of ourselves, it's a
>power *greater* than ourselves.
And if it's greater than ourselves, it would be outside ourselves.
That's the NA way, dude. That's not how RR does it, but it's the NA
way.
Reese
wrote:
>Reese wrote in message <361d901d....@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 01:44:44 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>One of the things that has become apparent to me recently, is that there
>is
>>>at least one significant difference between the two programs. The NA
>>>literature specifically says that our understanding of our higher power is
>>>unlimited.
>>
>>That doesn't make null what the Step says.
>
>It certainly doesn't. It clarifies what they mean.
>>It's the God of your understanding, but we're still talking about
>>God--not coffee cups, not doorknobs.
>
>Here we go again...
>
>"We have complete personal choice and freedom in how we understand our
>higher power..."
>
>"...our freedom to have a God of our own understanding is unlimited...
>
>- It Works: How and Why, p 30.
Are you trying to say that anybody can use anything they want as their
higher power for purposes of working the steps?
The Steps are about God.
Different people have different understandings of God. But we're
still talking about God. We aren't talking about coffee cups.
>To me that means that we have complete personal choice and freedom in how we
>understand our higher power, and that our freedom to have a God of our own
>understanding is unlimited. What does it mean to you?
It means we're talking about God, and that variant conceptions are
allowed.
But you're trying to turn this around and show that the Steps aren't
referring to God at all.
You've got an uphill climb.
The Steps speak of God with a capital "G".
The Steps speak of prayer.
The Steps are clearly about God.
Reese
wrote:
>Reese wrote in message <3632a836....@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:09:02 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>nick.g wrote in message <35e156d5...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>
>>>>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>If what you wrote about "God" is true then why use a capitol "G".
>>>
>>>Convention.
>>
>>Yep, that's the conventional way of referring to a deity.
>
>And the case of a letter negates what is explicitly stated in the
>literature - that there are no limits on our understanding of a higher
>power? I don't think so.
Yes, I do think so. The founders of NA could have changed the Steps:
they didn't change the God part.
If the NA literature may be a bit murky on the God question, we know
for a fact that the Steps, when they were written, meant "God".
We know that the founders of NA were well aware of this fact.
And we know that NA has not dropped the God reference in the Steps.
David Kay
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:23:57 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Actually, it's not necessarily a power entirely outside of ourselves, it's
a
>>power *greater* than ourselves.
>
>And if it's greater than ourselves, it would be outside ourselves.
Not entirely. It certainly could not be completely contained within
ourselves and also greater than ourselves, but I'm not aware of any reason
why it cannot be, in part, internal to ourselves. I know a number of
people, myself included, whose higher power is exactly that.
>That's the NA way, dude. That's not how RR does it, but it's the NA
>way.
C'mon, Reese, you know as well as I do that appealling to some jingoistic
slogan means nothing.
David Kay
>In article <35e21...@139.134.5.33>, "David says...
>>
>>Actually, it's not necessarily a power entirely outside of ourselves, it's
a
>>power *greater* than ourselves. My, admittedly vague, concept of a higher
>>power is something that is within myself and within other people.
>>
>Yet some people are never able to or allowed (and be socially safe in
>the group, which is very important) to adopt that view. I didn't when I was
>working the steps and trying to live the program.
I wouldn't be too shocked if this was sometimes the case, but I've never
seen it happen, except perhaps, in this newsgroup. And although I think
that this sort of stuff is highly inappropriate in the context of meetings,
I have no problem with it in the newsgroup.
>This is true for many
>folks mainly because the way the program is outlined in the book, it
>sounds as though a power "greater" than oneself is outside oneself. That
>is the way I took it, and because I was sober & clean, I was afraid to
>dick around with it.
I don't think you're on your own.
>And the trouble with that way of thinking is if one
>thinks that whatever it is outside himself is not pleased (the rest of
>the steps seem to reinforce that) then one may not ever become happy,
>joyous and free. How can you be when working the steps is a continous
>requirement? My understanding of the steps, from the instructions in the
>book, were that the steps were "housecleaning," getting the "dirty"
>aspects of oneself out of the way, so that the "sunshine of the spirit"
>could shine in. In our group, we thought of stepwork as "clearing the
>channel" to better understand the will of God.
To extent, I would agree with your description. A significant part of the
steps for me is dealing with shame and guilt. And I have found them to be
reasonably effective for doing this.
I can see that there could be a problem if your concept of a higher power
was a God with a rule-book that must be followed. Even then, the most
common "rule-book" God in western society is some form of the Christian one,
and He is supposed to be forgiving - so even in this case I doubt that it as
straight-forward as it may appear.
But regardless of any of this, I think that if there is a problem, then that
problem is properly attributed to the individuals conception of God, not to
the program.
>I now believe that it is quite harmful to take the steps that seriously.
>It is not "by-the-book" to do them without God,
The literature says that it is. Or at least that your definition of God can
be anything.
>but if one adapts them
>to one's own personal beliefs, and works them with whatever concept they
>want, including "no god," there may be some psychological value to some
>of the steps.
My experience has that there has been a lot of value to them.
>Also, without the other steps, there may be some psychological
>value to step 3 alone, and maybe step 11, if one is religious.
>
>However, I don't think any of it is necessary to recovering from an
>addiction.
Probably not. But it's the best way that I have found for me - and I have
learnt things that are helpful in many areas of my life, not just dealing
with my addiction.
David Kay
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:13:46 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Reese wrote in message <361d901d....@news.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 01:44:44 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>One of the things that has become apparent to me recently, is that there
>>is
>>>>at least one significant difference between the two programs. The NA
>>>>literature specifically says that our understanding of our higher power
is
>>>>unlimited.
>>>
>>>That doesn't make null what the Step says.
>>
>>It certainly doesn't. It clarifies what they mean.
>
>>>It's the God of your understanding, but we're still talking about
>>>God--not coffee cups, not doorknobs.
>>
>>Here we go again...
>>
>>"We have complete personal choice and freedom in how we understand our
>>higher power..."
>>
>>"...our freedom to have a God of our own understanding is unlimited...
>>
>>- It Works: How and Why, p 30.
>
>Are you trying to say that anybody can use anything they want as their
>higher power for purposes of working the steps?
I was, but I've refined the idea a little more. (See my next paragraph.) I
knew that my higher power did not have to be a deity and that the steps
would still be effective, because I've done it. But these statements in the
NA literature explicitly include concepts of a higher power that has nothing
do with a deity.
>The Steps are about God.
>
>Different people have different understandings of God. But we're
>still talking about God. We aren't talking about coffee cups.
I've thought about this a little more in terms of prayer - and despite the
joy that it gives me to use the coffee cup example when talking with
Damomen, I have come to the conclusion that a coffe cup is no good. It
doesn't seem to make any sense to talk about communicating with a coffee
cup, which is how prayer is defined - communicating with our higher power.
But there's still no need for a deity. The fellowship would be fine.
(Personally, I like this interpretation - it eliminates all the really
stupid options.)
Or maybe it is, and I can still torture Damomen. It comes back to whether
the "official" program includes the concept of taking what you like and
leaving the rest? If this is the case, then I would think that anything
goes.
>>To me that means that we have complete personal choice and freedom in how
we
>>understand our higher power, and that our freedom to have a God of our own
>>understanding is unlimited. What does it mean to you?
>
>It means we're talking about God, and that variant conceptions are
>allowed.
>
>But you're trying to turn this around and show that the Steps aren't
>referring to God at all.
>
>You've got an uphill climb.
I was as surprised as you when I found these statements. I thought that the
steps had to be significantly reinterpreted in order to eliminate a deity.
But the wording appears to me leave little room for doubt that a deity is
not necessary.
>The Steps speak of God with a capital "G".
A formal convention, more than anything else, in the light of the fact that
a deity is clearly not fundamental to the program?
>The Steps speak of prayer.
"Anytime we communicate with our Higher Power ... we are praying" So if my
higher power was the group, then sharing could be praying. No need for a
deity here.
>The Steps are clearly about God.
Not according to NA.
David Kay
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:15:57 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> was
>like, you know, totally like:
>Got something new yet? Coffee cups is old biz dude.
>Got a reason why NA would be inappropriate or harmful for an addict?
>No? This ain't arfs dude--no one takes that crap seriously here.
Thank-you for confirming my observation.
David Kay
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:41:39 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Reese wrote in message <3632a836....@news.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:09:02 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>nick.g wrote in message <35e156d5...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>>
>>>>>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>If what you wrote about "God" is true then why use a capitol "G".
>>>>
>>>>Convention.
>>>
>>>Yep, that's the conventional way of referring to a deity.
>>
>>And the case of a letter negates what is explicitly stated in the
>>literature - that there are no limits on our understanding of a higher
>>power? I don't think so.
>
>Yes, I do think so. The founders of NA could have changed the Steps:
>they didn't change the God part.
I'm not sure that the founders intentions are the be-all-and-end-all. Every
time NA releases new literature, doesn't the program evolve in some way,
even if it is a minor change in terms of emphasis or focus. And when they
released "It Works: How and Why", it looks like it was a major change.
>If the NA literature may be a bit murky on the God question, we know
>for a fact that the Steps, when they were written, meant "God".
It's not murky - it's fairly clear. How can you seperate the steps from the
literature that explains them? There are not two programs - the steps on
their own, and the steps in conjunction with the literature.
>We know that the founders of NA were well aware of this fact.
Then it appears that they have been "overruled" by the contemporary
fellowship.
>And we know that NA has not dropped the God reference in the Steps.
But NA has explicitly broadened the scope of the word. From what I can
tell, as long as you can communicate with it, it can be used as a higher
power.
Reese
wrote:
>Reese wrote in message <35ef26b0...@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:23:57 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, it's not necessarily a power entirely outside of ourselves, it's
>a
>>>power *greater* than ourselves.
>>
>>And if it's greater than ourselves, it would be outside ourselves.
>
>Not entirely. It certainly could not be completely contained within
>ourselves and also greater than ourselves, but I'm not aware of any reason
>why it cannot be, in part, internal to ourselves. I know a number of
>people, myself included, whose higher power is exactly that.
So your higher power is yourself? You do your own will these days?
Well, that's real good.
>>That's the NA way, dude. That's not how RR does it, but it's the NA
>>way.
>
>C'mon, Reese, you know as well as I do that appealling to some jingoistic
>slogan means nothing.
It's hardly just an appeal to a slogan.
jazzzman
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:13:46 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Reese wrote in message <361d901d....@news.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 01:44:44 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>One of the things that has become apparent to me recently, is that there
>>is
>>>>at least one significant difference between the two programs. The NA
>>>>literature specifically says that our understanding of our higher power is
>>>>unlimited.
>>>
>>>That doesn't make null what the Step says.
>>
>>It certainly doesn't. It clarifies what they mean.
>
>
>
>>>It's the God of your understanding, but we're still talking about
>>>God--not coffee cups, not doorknobs.
>>
>>Here we go again...
>>
>>"We have complete personal choice and freedom in how we understand our
>>higher power..."
>>
>>"...our freedom to have a God of our own understanding is unlimited...
>>
>>- It Works: How and Why, p 30.
>
>Are you trying to say that anybody can use anything they want as their
>higher power for purposes of working the steps?
>
>The Steps are about God.
>
>Different people have different understandings of God. But we're
>still talking about God. We aren't talking about coffee cups.
>
>>To me that means that we have complete personal choice and freedom in how we
>>understand our higher power, and that our freedom to have a God of our own
>>understanding is unlimited. What does it mean to you?
>
>It means we're talking about God, and that variant conceptions are
>allowed.
>
>But you're trying to turn this around and show that the Steps aren't
>referring to God at all.
You really must learn how to read sometime, Reese..... No one has said that the
Steps aren't about God at all.... some of us believe they're about other things
as well....
>You've got an uphill climb.
>
>The Steps speak of God with a capital "G".
>The Steps speak of prayer.
>
>The Steps are clearly about God.
>
Which God, Reese? Whose God? Your God?
I don't expect an answer... you've haven't tried to answer that one yet.
PS- what about the groups?
What about nature?
What about.....?
jazzzman
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:23:57 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Actually, it's not necessarily a power entirely outside of ourselves, it's a
>>power *greater* than ourselves.
>
>And if it's greater than ourselves, it would be outside ourselves.
>
Faulty logic..... A Power greater than ourselves is not necessarily limited by
our physical beings...... and that works two ways....
Look at Dr. Who's police call box......
jazzzman
postulated:
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 02:52:43 GMT, re...@pocketprotector.com (Reese) postulated:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:23:57 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, it's not necessarily a power entirely outside of ourselves, it's a
>>>power *greater* than ourselves.
>>
>>And if it's greater than ourselves, it would be outside ourselves.
>>
>
>Faulty logic..... A Power greater than ourselves is not necessarily limited by
>our physical beings...... and that works two ways....
>
>Look at Dr. Who's police call box......
>
Tardis... yeah, that's the word....
Reese
wrote:
>Reese wrote in message <35e7af34...@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:53:15 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Reese wrote in message <35ef26b0...@news.newsguy.com>...
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:23:57 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Actually, it's not necessarily a power entirely outside of ourselves,
>it's
>>>a
>>>>>power *greater* than ourselves.
>>>>
>>>>And if it's greater than ourselves, it would be outside ourselves.
>>>
>>>Not entirely. It certainly could not be completely contained within
>>>ourselves and also greater than ourselves, but I'm not aware of any reason
>>>why it cannot be, in part, internal to ourselves. I know a number of
>>>people, myself included, whose higher power is exactly that.
>>
>>So your higher power is yourself? You do your own will these days?
>>Well, that's real good.
>
>Read the paragraph again. It is not myself. Part of it is within myself.
And so part of it is outside yourself.
>If it was simply myself it could hardly also be greater than myself, could
>it?
Nope.
Reese
wrote:
>Reese wrote in message <35f2297c...@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:41:39 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Reese wrote in message <3632a836....@news.newsguy.com>...
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 00:09:02 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>nick.g wrote in message <35e156d5...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>>>
>>>>>>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If what you wrote about "God" is true then why use a capitol "G".
>>>>>
>>>>>Convention.
>>>>
>>>>Yep, that's the conventional way of referring to a deity.
>>>
>>>And the case of a letter negates what is explicitly stated in the
>>>literature - that there are no limits on our understanding of a higher
>>>power? I don't think so.
>>
>>Yes, I do think so. The founders of NA could have changed the Steps:
>>they didn't change the God part.
>
>I'm not sure that the founders intentions are the be-all-and-end-all.
I'm not either, but certainly it's valid to appeal to what their
intentions clearly were when there's confusion on a topic such as
this.
And there's no confusion about their intentions, is there?
>Every
>time NA releases new literature, doesn't the program evolve in some way,
>even if it is a minor change in terms of emphasis or focus. And when they
>released "It Works: How and Why", it looks like it was a major change.
I've only read part of it, but the parts I read seemed pretty
orthodox. I was involved in the review of it, and most of the
unorthodox stuff didn't make the final cut.
>>If the NA literature may be a bit murky on the God question, we know
>>for a fact that the Steps, when they were written, meant "God".
>
>It's not murky - it's fairly clear. How can you seperate the steps from the
>literature that explains them? There are not two programs - the steps on
>their own, and the steps in conjunction with the literature.
If we have to pick, I'd say we'd have to go with the Steps.
>>We know that the founders of NA were well aware of this fact.
>
>Then it appears that they have been "overruled" by the contemporary
>fellowship.
>
>>And we know that NA has not dropped the God reference in the Steps.
>
>But NA has explicitly broadened the scope of the word. From what I can
>tell, as long as you can communicate with it, it can be used as a higher
>power.
You can communicate with dogs.
David Kay
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 02:52:43 GMT, re...@pocketprotector.com (Reese)
postulated:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:23:57 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, it's not necessarily a power entirely outside of ourselves,
it's a
>>>power *greater* than ourselves.
>>
>>And if it's greater than ourselves, it would be outside ourselves.
>>
>
>Faulty logic..... A Power greater than ourselves is not necessarily limited
by
>our physical beings...... and that works two ways....
True. I didn't think of that because I am a materialist.
David Kay
>You do your own will these days?
Far too often.
David Kay
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:53:15 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Reese wrote in message <35ef26b0...@news.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:23:57 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Actually, it's not necessarily a power entirely outside of ourselves,
it's
>>a
>>>>power *greater* than ourselves.
>>>
>>>And if it's greater than ourselves, it would be outside ourselves.
>>
>>Not entirely. It certainly could not be completely contained within
>>ourselves and also greater than ourselves, but I'm not aware of any reason
>>why it cannot be, in part, internal to ourselves. I know a number of
>>people, myself included, whose higher power is exactly that.
>
>So your higher power is yourself? You do your own will these days?
>Well, that's real good.
Read the paragraph again. It is not myself. Part of it is within myself.
David Kay
>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 19:04:40 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> was
>like, you know, totally like:
>
>
>>I've thought about this a little more in terms of prayer - and despite the
>>joy that it gives me to use the coffee cup example when talking with
>>Damomen, I have come to the conclusion that a coffe cup is no good. It
>>doesn't seem to make any sense to talk about communicating with a coffee
>>cup, which is how prayer is defined - communicating with our higher power.
>>But there's still no need for a deity. The fellowship would be fine.
>>(Personally, I like this interpretation - it eliminates all the really
>>stupid options.)
>
>It's not torture. It's entertaining to watch. But you're starting to
>make sense, so I guess that's over.
Don't be too sure!
>>Or maybe it is, and I can still torture Damomen. It comes back to whether
>>the "official" program includes the concept of taking what you like and
>>leaving the rest? If this is the case, then I would think that anything
>>goes.
>
>Oops, you're going right back to entertainment.
Am I? I have been told a million times to take what I like and leave the
rest. I'm not sure if that makes it part of the program or not. Can only
what is written in the literature be legitimately regarded as part of the
program? Or is there other stuff that is part of the "group conscience" or
something like that? Serious question.
>>Reese:
>>>The Steps are clearly about God.
>>
>>Not according to NA.
>
>Yep, entertainment. You can't possibly argue this with a straight
>face, and I don't read it with one.
My mistake. I was responding to what I thought Reese was saying - that they
were about a deity - not to what he actually said.
Try this:
The steps are not necessarily about a deity: the God in the steps can be
very different to conventional ideas of God. And the steps are also about
many other things. A statement like "the steps are about God" is an
incomplete and misleading characterization of them.
David Kay
>If what you wrote about "God" is true then why use a capitol "G".
David Kay:
>Convention.
Reese:
>Yep, that's the conventional way of referring to a deity.
David Kay:
>And the case of a letter negates what is explicitly stated in the
>literature - that there are no limits on our understanding of a higher
>power? I don't think so.
Reese:
>Yes, I do think so. The founders of NA could have changed the Steps:
>they didn't change the God part.
David Kay:
>I'm not sure that the founders intentions are the be-all-and-end-all.
Reese:
>I'm not either, but certainly it's valid to appeal to what their
>intentions clearly were when there's confusion on a topic such as
>this.
Yes, I think it is valid in that case. But I don't think that this topic is
unclear, given what is written in the literature.
Reese:
>And there's no confusion about their intentions, is there?
I don't think so.
David Kay:
>Every
>time NA releases new literature, doesn't the program evolve in some way,
>even if it is a minor change in terms of emphasis or focus. And when they
>released "It Works: How and Why", it looks like it was a major change.
Reese:
>I've only read part of it, but the parts I read seemed pretty
>orthodox. I was involved in the review of it, and most of the
>unorthodox stuff didn't make the final cut.
Yeah, I think most of it is. I was a little surprised when I found the
quotes myself. I have certainly never seen anything else this explicit in
any other literature. It looks to me like what I guess has been practiced
in twelve-step groups for a long while - probably since the first atheist
got clean sober in AA - has become formalized in the NA literature.
Reese:
>If the NA literature may be a bit murky on the God question, we know
>for a fact that the Steps, when they were written, meant "God".
David Kay:
>It's not murky - it's fairly clear. How can you seperate the steps from
the
>literature that explains them? There are not two programs - the steps on
>their own, and the steps in conjunction with the literature.
Reese:
>If we have to pick, I'd say we'd have to go with the Steps.
If I saw a conflict, I'd probably pick whichever suited me most.
Reese:
>We know that the founders of NA were well aware of this fact.
David Kay:
>Then it appears that they have been "overruled" by the contemporary
>fellowship.
Reese:
>And we know that NA has not dropped the God reference in the Steps.
David Kay:
>But NA has explicitly broadened the scope of the word. From what I can
>tell, as long as you can communicate with it, it can be used as a higher
>power.
Reese:
>You can communicate with dogs.
Well, it looks like there is still the option of picking stupid higher
powers after all!
In which case, excuse me, I'm off to taunt Damomen...
David Kay
>On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 01:05:48 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Reese wrote in message <35e7af34...@news.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 17:53:15 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Reese wrote in message <35ef26b0...@news.newsguy.com>...
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 25 Aug 1998 11:23:57 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, it's not necessarily a power entirely outside of ourselves,
>>it's
>>>>a
>>>>>>power *greater* than ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>>And if it's greater than ourselves, it would be outside ourselves.
>>>>
>>>>Not entirely. It certainly could not be completely contained within
>>>>ourselves and also greater than ourselves, but I'm not aware of any
reason
>>>>why it cannot be, in part, internal to ourselves. I know a number of
>>>>people, myself included, whose higher power is exactly that.
>>>
>>>So your higher power is yourself? You do your own will these days?
>>>Well, that's real good.
>>
>>Read the paragraph again. It is not myself. Part of it is within myself.
>
>And so part of it is outside yourself.
Definitely.
nick.g
>Like I said, it means nothing until I provide my own definition. Which is
>exactly what I have done. I made a decision to turn my will and my life
>over to the care of God as I understood him - and, as the literature clearly
>allows, my understanding has nothing to do with a deity. Ditto for the
>other steps.
>
Did you not state that you are an atheist in a previous post. Make up
your mind.
N
David Kay
I'm not sure why you see aproblem with this. Have a look at what I said
again. Particularly the part about "my understanding has nothing to do with
a deity."
nick.g
>
>I'm not sure why you see aproblem with this. Have a look at what I said
>again. Particularly the part about "my understanding has nothing to do with
>a deity."
>
>
>
I have a logical delema with someone who states he is an atheist and
then says he has a "God" of his own understanding. (read your own
post)
I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
N
David Kay
>I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
>other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
The NA literature contradicts you. Guess which interpretation I'm taking
notice of?
nick.g
For the NA to "say what it means" the text would have to be revised.
N
daniel
mean that my understanding is not your understanding and vice versa.
There does not seem to be anything that says what this understanding must
adhere to, is there?
If this is ture, it would follow that any references to god, or God in
any book with an NA label would be in this context. So in other words,
even if i wrote about god as being 'this or that,' it would not change
the fact that it was god as i understood god, this is the god that i am
saying is 'this or that.'
So saying the steps are about God seems to me to be a misnomer, because
it is really saying the steps are about god as i (you) understand god, and
that includes no god at all (as it is possible to understand god as no
god).
--
daniel
aug 2, 1986
"When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
Jenni
Thank you for Sharing!
jenni
--
The Light of the Universe Radiates in us all !!!
Let us be Silent and Hear the Whispers of God!!!
Wanna see a bit of me? Well..........
http://members.xoom.com/_Varuna_
RJwalleye
direct and honest about it's belief that some sort of diety is the major
vehicle through which we achieve sobriety. I just don't think that we're
"stuck" with the steps and this concept. I think we're blessed by them.
RJ
jazzzman wrote in message <35e5c9b6...@news.earthlink.net>...
>On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 00:23:06 GMT, re...@pocketprotector.com (Reese)
postulated:
>
>>On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:30:14 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>nick.g wrote in message <35e3fbf...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>
>>>>I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
>>>>other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
>>>
>>>
>>>The NA literature contradicts you. Guess which interpretation I'm taking
>>>notice of?
>>
>>sentences you quote are one of the lamest points in all of NA
>>literature.
>>
>>It's very clear when you read the NA literature that they were scared
>>half to death of offending anybody.
>>
>>While the AA literature addresses the issue of God head on and with no
>>apologies, NA literature sidesteps the issue to as great an extent as
>>it possibly can, apologizing and qualifying over and over. The AA
>>literature leaves the doors wide open to anyone who is willing to
>>believe there might be a God; the NA literature can leave somebody
>>with the impression that you don't even have to walk through the
>>doors, God isn't even necessary. However, at no point in the NA
>>literature does it say directly that God isn't necessary. Such a
>>statement would directly contradict the Steps.
>>
>>We're stuck with the Steps, and the Steps clearly acknowledge God.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, I'd have to agree with ya there, Reese....
DerekM
nick.g >No they say "God" not "god"
>
>
>N
>
why does this frighten you?
Derek
daniel
(Reese) wrote:
> Now why don't you take your lame course in miracles ass back over to
> araa with your own kind?
>
> And by your own kind, I'm not talking about alkies--I'm talking about
> all you touchy-feely, warm fuzzy dunderheads who look like those
> people who used to pin flowers on you in airports.
LOL. However, i understand tradition three says the only requirement
for membership is a desire to stop drinking. Not if Reese is
uncomfortable you can't play.
daniel
dawg....@mindspring.com wrote:
> ju...@skMeForIt.com (daniel) wrote:
>
>
> > So saying the steps are about God seems to me to be a misnomer, because
> >it is really saying the steps are about god as i (you) understand god, and
> >that includes no god at all (as it is possible to understand god as no
> >god).
> >
> >--
> >daniel
> >aug 2, 1986
> >
>
>
> No they say "God" not "god"
They certainly do. That is their concept of god, not mine though :) I
actually practice this statement right here made in the same chapter:
"When therefore we speak to you of God, we mean your own conception of
God. That applies, too, to other spiritual expressions which you find in
this book."
daniel
(damomen) wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 05:24:53 -0400, ju...@skMeForIt.com (daniel) was
> like, you know, totally like:
>
> > Just a thought: isn't it god as *you* understand god? I take this to
> >mean that my understanding is not your understanding and vice versa.
> >There does not seem to be anything that says what this understanding must
> >adhere to, is there?
> >
> > If this is ture, it would follow that any references to god, or God in
> >any book with an NA label would be in this context. So in other words,
> >even if i wrote about god as being 'this or that,' it would not change
> >the fact that it was god as i understood god, this is the god that i am
> >saying is 'this or that.'
> >
> > So saying the steps are about God seems to me to be a misnomer, because
> >it is really saying the steps are about god as i (you) understand god, and
> >that includes no god at all (as it is possible to understand god as no
> >god).
>
> Huh?
> "Hey, look at that tree-"
> "what tree?"
> "that tree! "
> "dude, I don't see a tree"
> "well, I understand that empty field there to be a tree"
> "really?"
> "yep"
> "dude, take another hit"
I don't expect you to agree with my concept of god. If you are
disatisfied with it, perhaps you would do well to find your own instead of
knocking mine :)
daniel
> daniel wrote in message ...
>
> > So saying the steps are about God seems to me to be a misnomer, because
> >it is really saying the steps are about god as i (you) understand god, and
> >that includes no god at all (as it is possible to understand god as no
> >god).
>
> You're point about the about the broad scope of the defintion of God within
> the steps is, I think, unarguable. However, I'm not sure that it can mean
> nothing. Prayer is defined as communicating with our higher power. How can
> we communicate with nothing? And if we can't pray then how can we work the
> 11th step?
I do :) I work the 11th step btrough being present to what is
happening. But, you don't have to work the 11th step. The only
requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking. And if it really
still bothers you, you could try Rational Recovery or SMART or nothing.
The steps are not the only way; but from your post, it appears you know
that too.
daniel
> nick.g wrote in message <35e4d46b...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
> >ju...@skMeForIt.com (daniel) wrote:
> >
> >> So saying the steps are about God seems to me to be a misnomer, because
> >>it is really saying the steps are about god as i (you) understand god, and
> >>that includes no god at all (as it is possible to understand god as no
> >>god).
>
> And despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary, you regard the case of
> one letter as conclusive?
Shit, what do i know. I 'm just a recovering addict. I don't even
understand what *you* are saying.
Reese
> Just a thought: isn't it god as *you* understand god? I take this to
>mean that my understanding is not your understanding and vice versa.
>There does not seem to be anything that says what this understanding must
>adhere to, is there?
>
> If this is ture, it would follow that any references to god, or God in
>any book with an NA label would be in this context. So in other words,
>even if i wrote about god as being 'this or that,' it would not change
>the fact that it was god as i understood god, this is the god that i am
>saying is 'this or that.'
>
> So saying the steps are about God seems to me to be a misnomer, because
>it is really saying the steps are about god as i (you) understand god, and
>that includes no god at all (as it is possible to understand god as no
>god).
Yep.
Now why don't you take your lame course in miracles ass back over to
araa with your own kind?
And by your own kind, I'm not talking about alkies--I'm talking about
all you touchy-feely, warm fuzzy dunderheads who look like those
people who used to pin flowers on you in airports.
Reese
wrote:
>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>
>>nick.g wrote in message <35e3fbf...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>>I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
>>>other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
>>
>>
>>The NA literature contradicts you. Guess which interpretation I'm taking
>>notice of?
>>
>>
>>
>
>For the NA to "say what it means" the text would have to be revised.
You got that right, dude. It's boring as it can be. Very disjointed.
Good one liners here and there.
I never have read all of it.
Reese
wrote:
>nick.g wrote in message <35e3fbf...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>>I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
>>other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
>
>
>The NA literature contradicts you. Guess which interpretation I'm taking
>notice of?
The NA literature is so lame at some points it's sad, and the
sentences you quote are one of the lamest points in all of NA
literature.
It's very clear when you read the NA literature that they were scared
half to death of offending anybody.
While the AA literature addresses the issue of God head on and with no
apologies, NA literature sidesteps the issue to as great an extent as
it possibly can, apologizing and qualifying over and over. The AA
literature leaves the doors wide open to anyone who is willing to
believe there might be a God; the NA literature can leave somebody
with the impression that you don't even have to walk through the
doors, God isn't even necessary. However, at no point in the NA
literature does it say directly that God isn't necessary. Such a
statement would directly contradict the Steps.
We're stuck with the Steps, and the Steps clearly acknowledge God.
jazzzman
postulated:
>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I'm not sure why you see aproblem with this. Have a look at what I said
>>again. Particularly the part about "my understanding has nothing to do with
>>a deity."
>>
>>
>>
>
>I have a logical delema with someone who states he is an atheist and
>then says he has a "God" of his own understanding. (read your own
>post)
>
>I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
>other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
>
Excuse me....? Where did you pick up that crap?
nick.g
> So saying the steps are about God seems to me to be a misnomer, because
>it is really saying the steps are about god as i (you) understand god, and
>that includes no god at all (as it is possible to understand god as no
>god).
>
>--
>daniel
>aug 2, 1986
>
No they say "God" not "god"
N
turtleduv
program, and we can maintain our group in dignity only with group
conscience and God's love.
--
Frank F.
To reply: get the "red." out
Reese <re...@pocketprotector.com> wrote in article
<35e4a41...@news.newsguy.com>...
> On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:30:14 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >nick.g wrote in message <35e3fbf...@news.mindspring.com>...
> >
> >>I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
> >>other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
> >
> >
jazzzman
>On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:30:14 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>nick.g wrote in message <35e3fbf...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>>I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
>>>other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
>>
>>
>>The NA literature contradicts you. Guess which interpretation I'm taking
>>notice of?
>
>The NA literature is so lame at some points it's sad, and the
>sentences you quote are one of the lamest points in all of NA
>literature.
>
>It's very clear when you read the NA literature that they were scared
>half to death of offending anybody.
>
>While the AA literature addresses the issue of God head on and with no
>apologies, NA literature sidesteps the issue to as great an extent as
>it possibly can, apologizing and qualifying over and over. The AA
>literature leaves the doors wide open to anyone who is willing to
>believe there might be a God; the NA literature can leave somebody
>with the impression that you don't even have to walk through the
>doors, God isn't even necessary. However, at no point in the NA
>literature does it say directly that God isn't necessary. Such a
>statement would directly contradict the Steps.
>
>We're stuck with the Steps, and the Steps clearly acknowledge God.
>
>
Actually, I'd have to agree with ya there, Reese....
jazzzman
jazzzman
David Kay
>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>
>>nick.g wrote in message <35e3fbf...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>>I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
>>>other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
>>
>>The NA literature contradicts you. Guess which interpretation I'm taking
>>notice of?
>
>For the NA to "say what it means" the text would have to be revised.
That's my point: the NA literature does not say what "God" means - in fact
it explicitly leaves that word undefined within very broad parameters. You
are saying what God means, not NA.
David Kay
>On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:30:14 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>nick.g wrote in message <35e3fbf...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>>I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
>>>other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
>>
>>
>>The NA literature contradicts you. Guess which interpretation I'm taking
>>notice of?
>
>The NA literature is so lame at some points it's sad,
Yes.
>and the
>sentences you quote are one of the lamest points in all of NA
>literature.
Not for me.
>It's very clear when you read the NA literature that they were scared
>half to death of offending anybody.
My explanation is perhaps a little less negative than yours. I see it more
as an attempt to make the program appropriate to a greater number of people.
>While the AA literature addresses the issue of God head on and with no
>apologies,
From what I've read of the AA literature, which includes the Big Book, a
deity is mandatory within the parameters of the AA program. The only
possible way around this is the "take what you like, and leave the rest"
approach. I think it is significant that they have a section for agnostics,
but nothing for atheists. Possibly the authors of the steps, given their
own understanding of God, were unable to conceive that the steps could also
be an appropriate program of recovery for athiests. But I know at least one
for whom they are.
>NA literature sidesteps the issue to as great an extent as
>it possibly can, apologizing and qualifying over and over. The AA
>literature leaves the doors wide open to anyone who is willing to
>believe there might be a God; the NA literature can leave somebody
>with the impression that you don't even have to walk through the
>doors, God isn't even necessary. However, at no point in the NA
>literature does it say directly that God isn't necessary. Such a
>statement would directly contradict the Steps.
What I like about the NA approach, is that it makes the program suitable for
people like myself, without making any difference to theists, as far as I
can tell.
Not everyone who does not believe in a deity is unwilling to do so. When I
first got clean, I was genuinely willing. I would have gone a lot further
than changing my position on the question of a deity to get clean. I
reserved my judgement, I prayed, I acted "as if", but it just didn't gel for
me. Utimately, I came to the conclusion that I could not honestly profess
to a beleif that I did not hold.
It's a difficult thing to explain: I think a better word would be unable,
rather than unwilling. My lack of belief in a deity is not a conscious
decision, although I think that I can justify it consciously. Theists and
atheists can both argue for their positions, but I suspect that in both
cases it is more an issue of temperament than a conclusion draw from an
evaluation of the evidence.
Some people would see my situation as a handicap, others as an advantage.
But what NA have done, by watering down the concept of "God", is to allow me
to work the program without contradiction. I have only recently come to
this conclusion, and have spent a lot of energy trying to reconcile my
beliefs with the program, in a way that I have discovered is unnecessary.
>We're stuck with the Steps, and the Steps clearly acknowledge God.
I'm sure there could be worse things to be stuck with!
And as I am free to define the term "God" within limits that are appropriate
for me, then personally have no problem with it. But I think a simplistic
characterization, like your sentence above, obscures the point that within
the context of the NA program, "God" does not have to mean a deity.
David Kay
> So saying the steps are about God seems to me to be a misnomer, because
>it is really saying the steps are about god as i (you) understand god, and
>that includes no god at all (as it is possible to understand god as no
>god).
You're point about the about the broad scope of the defintion of God within
the steps is, I think, unarguable. However, I'm not sure that it can mean
nothing. Prayer is defined as communicating with our higher power. How can
we communicate with nothing? And if we can't pray then how can we work the
11th step?
On the other hand, the Basic Text includes the story of an atheist who
specifically says that he doesn't pray. This could be interpreted as
"official" endorsement by NA.
Curiouser and curiouser...
David Kay
>ju...@skMeForIt.com (daniel) wrote:
>
>> So saying the steps are about God seems to me to be a misnomer, because
>>it is really saying the steps are about god as i (you) understand god, and
>>that includes no god at all (as it is possible to understand god as no
>>god).
And despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary, you regard the case of
one letter as conclusive?
nick.g
nick.g
>>
>>No they say "God" not "god"
>>
>
>And your point....
>
>
Ok. . . My point for thoes of you who are a little slower than most.
A capitol "G" means only one god. Not any god.
N
nick.g
>
>That's my point: the NA literature does not say what "God" means - in fact
>it explicitly leaves that word undefined within very broad parameters. You
>are saying what God means, not NA.
>
>
>
For this to be true then "God" would have to be expressed as "god".
N
nick.g
>And as I am free to define the term "God" within limits that are appropriate
>for me, then personally have no problem with it. But I think a simplistic
>characterization, like your sentence above, obscures the point that within
>the context of the NA program, "God" does not have to mean a deity.
>
>
>
According to the english language it does.
N
nick.g
>On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:17:34 GMT, dawg....@mindspring.com (nick.g)
>postulated:
>
>>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure why you see aproblem with this. Have a look at what I said
>>>again. Particularly the part about "my understanding has nothing to do with
>>>a deity."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I have a logical delema with someone who states he is an atheist and
>>then says he has a "God" of his own understanding. (read your own
>>post)
>>
>>I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
>>other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
>>
>
>Excuse me....? Where did you pick up that crap?
>
>
>jazzzman
>
>"Who you are speaks so loudly I
> can't hear what you're saying."
>
> Ralph Waldo Emerson
Exactly my point.
N
Taroya
Reese wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:01:03 GMT, dawg....@mindspring.com (nick.g)
> wrote:
>
> >"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>nick.g wrote in message <35e3fbf...@news.mindspring.com>...
> >>
> >>>I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
> >>>other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
> >>
> >>
> >>The NA literature contradicts you. Guess which interpretation I'm taking
> >>notice of?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >For the NA to "say what it means" the text would have to be revised.
>
> You got that right, dude. It's boring as it can be. Very disjointed.
> Good one liners here and there.
>
> I never have read all of it.
>
> Reese
That is obvious.
Taroya
--
Your position in hell is determined by the bodyguard you bring with you.
DerekM
nick.g wrote in message <35e55b1...@news.mindspring.com>...
It's a letter in the English alphabet.
Derek
nick.g
> LOL. However, i understand tradition three says the only requirement
>for membership is a desire to stop drinking.
>
Not in NA.
N
nick.g
>nick.g wrote in message <35e55cd...@news.mindspring.com>...
>And according to the NA literature it doesn't. By definition, the NA
>program is whatever the NA fellowship says that it is. The NA fellowship is
>the final arbiter of what the NA program means, not you. Otherwise it
>wouldn't be the NA program, would it?
>
>It is entirely nonsensical to claim that the NA program means what you say
>it means, when that is in direct contradiction to what NA itself states.
>However much you might like it to be limited to a deity, you cannot make it
>so. You are not the group conscience.
>
>Thank-you, but I think I'll stick with the NA program, and you are free to
>stick with the nick.g program.
>
>
>
It is not my program nor have I ever stated it as such. The NA
program uses the English language, and in this language "God" means
one god. You can say it does not but it still does. The text
contradicts its self. If it truly meant any god it would have spelled
it that way.
I am not in contardiction. I do not believe in God. This is just
about the language used to describe something.
N
daniel
dawg....@mindspring.com wrote:
Oh Ya. Same thing.
--
daniel
aug 2, 1986
"When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
nick.g
>In article <35e5c8a8...@news.mindspring.com>,
>dawg....@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> ju...@skMeForIt.com (daniel) wrote:
>>
>>
>> > LOL. However, i understand tradition three says the only requirement
>> >for membership is a desire to stop drinking.
>> >
>>
>> Not in NA.
>>
>> N
>
> Oh Ya. Same thing.
>
If it were the same thing there would not be a need for two programs.
N
daniel
dawg....@mindspring.com wrote:
> If it were the same thing there would not be a need for two programs.
I disagree. But no matter. The original point is the same: The only
requirement for membership is a desire to stop using; not whether one
agrees with you or me.
nick.g
>In article <35e5d5a5...@news.mindspring.com>,
>dawg....@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> If it were the same thing there would not be a need for two programs.
>
> I disagree. But no matter. The original point is the same: The only
>requirement for membership is a desire to stop using; not whether one
>agrees with you or me.
>
do you think there should only be one program?
N
daniel
dawg....@mindspring.com wrote:
> do you think there should only be one program?
I think the word should is a dangerous jungle. At any rate, i lean
towards this: *whatever* gets a person sober must be necessasary and
valuable. We merely have an approach that worked with us.
daniel
dawg....@mindspring.com wrote:
> ju...@skMeForIt.com (daniel) wrote:
>
> >In article <35e5e3f9...@news.mindspring.com>,
> >dawg....@mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >> do you think there should only be one program?
> >
> >
> > I think the word should is a dangerous jungle. At any rate, i lean
> >towards this: *whatever* gets a person sober must be necessasary and
> >valuable. We merely have an approach that worked with us.
> >
> What? Did I miss something?
Ya, you missed the controversy surrounding that question. Don't worry,
you'll get used to it ;)
daniel
(Reese) wrote:
> Daniel has, like, gotten real spiritual on us here. You see, the
> basic idea is to present some impossible situation as if it were some
> type of paradox that can be understood only by the enlightened. If
> you don't understand it, that means you ain't enlightened.
Nothing too complex about what is written in NA. If you are new to NA
or this newsgroup, we have only one requirement for membership: that is a
desire to stop using. What that means is that you can call yourself an NA
member the moment *you* say you are. We can't keep you out. No matter
what you do or don't believe. The other important thing to remember is
that we suggest finding a god as *you* understand god. That means not as
daniel or Reese understand god, but as you do.
daniel
(damomen) wrote:
> > I don't expect you to agree with my concept of god. If you are
> >disatisfied with it, perhaps you would do well to find your own instead of
> >knocking mine :)
>
> Is God nothing?
> Null? Void?Absence?
> That doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Why don't you give us poor
> slobs some larnin' and explain it to us?
God is as you understand god. If that concept does not make sense to
you then you certainly can find a new one. However, you will have to do
the work of finding your own concept of god. Mine ain't for sale.
David Kay
nick.g
>In article <35e5e3f9...@news.mindspring.com>,
>dawg....@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>
>> do you think there should only be one program?
>
>
> I think the word should is a dangerous jungle. At any rate, i lean
>towards this: *whatever* gets a person sober must be necessasary and
>valuable. We merely have an approach that worked with us.
>
What? Did I miss something?
N
David Kay
>It is not my program nor have I ever stated it as such. The NA
>program uses the English language, and in this language "God" means
>one god. You can say it does not but it still does. The text
>contradicts its self. If it truly meant any god it would have spelled
>it that way.
>
>I am not in contardiction. I do not believe in God. This is just
>about the language used to describe something.
You have to be very careful about basing arguments on language, because it's
a moving target. Language is not static. Words are constantly adapted to
new purposes, and used in contexts which were previously "incorrect". I'm
not sure that this is the case here, but it is not impossible.
Maybe as the program has evolved so has the meaning of the word God, at
least in this context. I think that when the steps were written, the word
"God" meant a deity, and probably when they were adapted to NA it did too.
But since then it appears that the meaning of the term has been broadened by
the fellowship.
On the other hand, maybe it's just a contradiction.
It doesn't really matter, though. If an atheist wants to work the program,
they are going use a higher power that is not a deity regardless of what
anyone else thinks. We can discuss the nuances of the language till
judgement day, and in the meantime atheists will continue using the steps,
regardless of whether you or I regard it as "proper".
jazzzman
postulated:
>tige...@unforgettable.com (jazzzman) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>No they say "God" not "god"
>>>
>>
>>And your point....
>>
>>
>
>
>Ok. . . My point for thoes of you who are a little slower than most.
>A capitol "G" means only one god. Not any god.
>
Only because it doesn't say gods....
jazzzman
postulated:
>tige...@unforgettable.com (jazzzman) wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>No they say "God" not "god"
>>>
>>
>>And your point....
>>
>>
>
>
>Ok. . . My point for thoes of you who are a little slower than most.
>A capitol "G" means only one god. Not any god.
>
What dictionary are you using....?
god (gòd) noun
1. God. a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator
and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in
monotheistic religions. b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of
this being. c. Christian Science. "Infinite Mind; Spirit; Soul; Principle; Life;
Truth; Love" (Mary Baker Eddy).
2.A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a
people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or
reality.
3.An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4.One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: money was their god.
5.A very handsome man.
6.A powerful ruler or despot.
[Middle English, from Old English.]
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third
Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from
INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the
Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
God
God, center and focus of religious faith, a holy being or ultimate reality to
whom worship and prayer are addressed. Many people consider God the creator or
source of all that exists.
Conceptions of God
Many religious thinkers have believed that God is a mystery beyond the powers of
human conception. Most philosophers and theologians assume that a limited
knowledge of God is possible and formulate different conceptions in terms of
divine attributes and paths of knowledge. Some theologians attempt to combine
philosophical and experiential approaches to God.
God may be considered transcendent (beyond the world), emphasizing independence
and power over the world order; or as immanent (present within the world),
emphasizing presence and participation within the world process. In the major
monotheistic religions, God is considered the One, the supreme unity embracing
or creating all things. Polytheism, the belief in many gods, has also flourished
throughout history.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is conceived primarily in terms of
transcendence, personality, and unity. The Hebrew Scriptures present God as
creator, and the created world is a product of God's will. Human beings are made
in God's image. Thus, the Hebrew understanding of God is anthropomorphic
(humanoid). God's primary attributes are righteousness, justice, mercy, truth,
and faithfulness.
Christianity began as a Jewish sect, incorporating the Hebrew God and Jewish
Scriptures. Jesus Christ was probably considered a prophet of God, but by the
end of the 1st century, Christians viewed him as a divine being (see
Christology). Although Christian theology speaks of the three "persons" of the
Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, these are not persons in the literal
sense, but three manifestations of one God.
In Islam, Allah, which means "the God," is personal, transcendent, and unique.
Allah has seven basic attributes: life, knowledge, power, will, hearing, seeing,
and speech. Allah's will is absolute, even to the extent that believers and
unbelievers are predestined to faith or unbelief.
Asian and Other Religions
The major religions of Asia encompass a different realm of theological ideas.
The word Holy Being in an Asian religious context can include both the idea of a
personal God and the idea of an impersonal or suprapersonal absolute.
In Hinduism, Holy Being is understood as Brahma, the one eternal, absolute
reality embracing everything. All other gods are actually manifestations of
Brahma. The three principal gods, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, are joined as the
Trimurti, or three powers. In bhakti Hinduism, the god Ishvara is conceived as
personal, similar to the Judeo-Christian God.
In Theravada Buddhism, Holy Being is the impersonal cosmic order. In Mahayana
Buddhism, the Buddha himself was transformed into a divine being. In Taoism,
Holy Being is the rhythm of the universe; in Confucianism, it is the moral law
of heaven.
In polytheism, there are many holy beings, each manifesting a certain divine
attribute or caring for some aspect of nature or human affairs. Polytheism
probably developed out of animism, the belief in a multitude of spiritual
forces. In animism, the sense of Holy Being is diffused throughout the
environment.
Grounds for Belief
Some degree of belief in a Holy Being has existed in almost all societies
throughout history. The primary basis for belief in God is founded in
experience, especially religious experience. This belief has been challenged by
philosophical doctrines of skepticism, materialism, atheism, and other forms of
disbelief. Atheists absolutely deny the existence of God. Agnostics believe the
evidence for and against God's existence is inconclusive. Positivists believe it
is meaningless either to affirm or deny the existence of God.
Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © & 1996-97 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
Reese
wrote:
>daniel wrote in message ...
>
>> So saying the steps are about God seems to me to be a misnomer, because
>>it is really saying the steps are about god as i (you) understand god, and
>>that includes no god at all (as it is possible to understand god as no
>>god).
>
>You're point about the about the broad scope of the defintion of God within
>the steps is, I think, unarguable. However, I'm not sure that it can mean
>nothing. Prayer is defined as communicating with our higher power. How can
>we communicate with nothing? And if we can't pray then how can we work the
>11th step?
Daniel has, like, gotten real spiritual on us here. You see, the
basic idea is to present some impossible situation as if it were some
type of paradox that can be understood only by the enlightened. If
you don't understand it, that means you ain't enlightened.
>On the other hand, the Basic Text includes the story of an atheist who
>specifically says that he doesn't pray. This could be interpreted as
>"official" endorsement by NA.
It's really hard to figure what they were thinking when they included
that story or even if they were thinking at all. Why would they
include the story of somebody who doesn't make any bones about not
working the Steps?
Reese
remove all of the 3's to reply
Reese
>> No they say "God" not "god"
>
> They certainly do. That is their concept of god, not mine though :) I
>actually practice this statement right here made in the same chapter:
>"When therefore we speak to you of God, we mean your own conception of
>God.
Capital "G" there too.
thew...@cybernothing.org
: dawg....@mindspring.com (nick.g) wrote:
:
: >Ok. . . My point for thoes of you who are a little slower than most.
: >A capitol "G" means only one god. Not any god.
: Unless of course there are multiple gods, warring with one another
: over who gets to hold the supreme title of God and encouraging their
: followers to do the same.
:
: ZEUS!
: ZEUS!
: ZEUS!
JUPITER!
JUPITER!
JUPITER!
Come visit my new favorite
newsgroup alt.fan.porkwoman
DerekM
nick.g wrote
>It is not my program nor have I ever stated it as such. The NA
>program uses the English language, and in this language "God" means
>one god. You can say it does not but it still does. The text
>contradicts its self. If it truly meant any god it would have spelled
>it that way.
>
>I am not in contardiction. I do not believe in God. This is just
>about the language used to describe something.
>
>
The NA program is written in more than just English. Just because YOU read
the English language version does not make your interpretation correct.
Derek
jazzzman
>In article <35eb48eb...@news.newsguy.com>, dam...@damomen.com
>(damomen) wrote:
>
>
>> > I don't expect you to agree with my concept of god. If you are
>> >disatisfied with it, perhaps you would do well to find your own instead of
>> >knocking mine :)
>>
>> Is God nothing?
>> Null? Void?Absence?
>> That doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Why don't you give us poor
>> slobs some larnin' and explain it to us?
>
> God is as you understand god. If that concept does not make sense to
>you then you certainly can find a new one. However, you will have to do
>the work of finding your own concept of god. Mine ain't for sale.
I give mine away.....
nick.g
I am not making a judgement about God just the language, and yes I do
read English. You?
N
Reese
wrote:
>Reese wrote in message <35e4a41...@news.newsguy.com>...
>
>>On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 21:30:14 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>nick.g wrote in message <35e3fbf...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>
>>>>I will say this again. God with a capitol "G" does not allow for any
>>>>other interpretation. Its the one and only.....
>>>
>>>
>>>The NA literature contradicts you. Guess which interpretation I'm taking
>>>notice of?
>>
>>The NA literature is so lame at some points it's sad,
>
>Yes.
>
>>and the
>>sentences you quote are one of the lamest points in all of NA
>>literature.
>
>Not for me.
>
>>It's very clear when you read the NA literature that they were scared
>>half to death of offending anybody.
>
>My explanation is perhaps a little less negative than yours. I see it more
>as an attempt to make the program appropriate to a greater number of people.
If we did away with the First Step, we could make it "appropiate" for
even more people.
Reese
wrote:
>nick.g wrote in message <35e55cd...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>And as I am free to define the term "God" within limits that are
>appropriate
>>>for me, then personally have no problem with it. But I think a simplistic
>>>characterization, like your sentence above, obscures the point that within
>>>the context of the NA program, "God" does not have to mean a deity.
>>
>>According to the english language it does.
>
>
>And according to the NA literature it doesn't. By definition, the NA
>program is whatever the NA fellowship says that it is. The NA fellowship is
>the final arbiter of what the NA program means, not you. Otherwise it
>wouldn't be the NA program, would it?
The NA fellowship hasn't changed the wording of the Steps, has it?
Reese
>In article <35ef2003...@news.newsguy.com>, re...@pocketprotector.com
>(Reese) wrote:
>
>> Daniel has, like, gotten real spiritual on us here. You see, the
>> basic idea is to present some impossible situation as if it were some
>> type of paradox that can be understood only by the enlightened. If
>> you don't understand it, that means you ain't enlightened.
>
>
> Nothing too complex about what is written in NA. If you are new to NA
>or this newsgroup, we have only one requirement for membership: that is a
>desire to stop using. What that means is that you can call yourself an NA
>member the moment *you* say you are. We can't keep you out. No matter
>what you do or don't believe. The other important thing to remember is
>that we suggest finding a god as *you* understand god. That means not as
>daniel or Reese understand god, but as you do.
It's "God", Daniel.
Capital "G".
Reese
wrote:
>nick.g wrote in message <35e5c98e...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>>It is not my program nor have I ever stated it as such. The NA
>>program uses the English language, and in this language "God" means
>>one god. You can say it does not but it still does. The text
>>contradicts its self. If it truly meant any god it would have spelled
>>it that way.
>>
>>I am not in contardiction. I do not believe in God. This is just
>>about the language used to describe something.
>
>
>You have to be very careful about basing arguments on language, because it's
>a moving target. Language is not static. Words are constantly adapted to
>new purposes, and used in contexts which were previously "incorrect". I'm
>not sure that this is the case here, but it is not impossible.
But language is slow moving, and the meaning of none of the words of
the Steps has changed since they were written.
jazzzman
postulated:
>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>No, but it appears to have changed what the steps mean. NA says that our
>>freedom to have a higher power of our own understanding is *unlimited*. I
>>honestly don't see how you can reasonably ignore something as definitive and
>>explicit as that. This is part of the NA program, because NA says that it
>>is so.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>No it must be "loving and caring". That is not "unlimited".
>
>
Keep comin' back.....
jazzzman
The only means of strengthening one's intellect
is to make up one's mind about nothing-
to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts.
Not a select party.
John Keats (1795-1821), English poet.
Letter, 17-27 Sept. 1819, to his brother and sister-in-law,
George and Georgiana Keats
(published in Letters of John Keats, no. 156, ed.
by Frederick Page, 1954).
Dragon
> Greg P (gap...@iglou.com) wrote:
> : dawg....@mindspring.com (nick.g) wrote:
> :
> : >Ok. . . My point for thoes of you who are a little slower than
> most.
> : >A capitol "G" means only one god. Not any god.
> :
> : Unless of course there are multiple gods, warring with one another
> : over who gets to hold the supreme title of God and encouraging their
>
> : followers to do the same.
> :
> : ZEUS!
> : ZEUS!
> : ZEUS!
>
> JUPITER!
> JUPITER!
> JUPITER!
>
> --
> TheW...@endor.com
MORR-I-GAN!MORR-I-GAN!
MORR-I-GAN!
Dragon
Goddess, grant me the Serenity to
accept the things I cannot change,
The Courage to change the things I can,
and the Wisdom to hide the bodies of those
people I had to kill because they pissed me off
David Kay
>On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 00:01:19 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Reese wrote in message <35ed9a3b...@news.newsguy.com>...
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 01:25:21 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>nick.g wrote in message <35e55cd...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>>>
>>>>>"David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>And as I am free to define the term "God" within limits that are
>>>>appropriate
>>>>>>for me, then personally have no problem with it. But I think a
>>simplistic
>>>>>>characterization, like your sentence above, obscures the point that
>>within
>>>>>>the context of the NA program, "God" does not have to mean a deity.
>>>>>
>>>>>According to the english language it does.
>>>>
>>>>And according to the NA literature it doesn't. By definition, the NA
>>>>program is whatever the NA fellowship says that it is. The NA
fellowship
>>is
>>>>the final arbiter of what the NA program means, not you. Otherwise it
>>>>wouldn't be the NA program, would it?
>>>
>>>The NA fellowship hasn't changed the wording of the Steps, has it?
>>
>>No, but it appears to have changed what the steps mean. NA says that our
>>freedom to have a higher power of our own understanding is *unlimited*.
>
>It says your right to a "God" of your understanding is total and
>without catches. Let's not change what it says, OK?
>
>We're talking about God here.
This is one of the things that it says:
"We have complete personal choice and freedom in how we understand our
Higher Power."
>>I
>>honestly don't see how you can reasonably ignore something as definitive
and
>>explicit as that.
>
>But you're the one who's ignoring it.
Then how do you explain the above sentence,?
David Kay
>On Sun, 30 Aug 1998 00:16:37 +1000, "David Kay" <da...@dtk.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Sorry! Snipped the paragraph that I was responding to - the one by
nick.g.
>>Here's what it should have looked like:
>>
>>nick.g wrote in message <35e4d46b...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>>ju...@skMeForIt.com (daniel) wrote:
>>>
>>>> So saying the steps are about God seems to me to be a misnomer,
because
>>>>it is really saying the steps are about god as i (you) understand god,
and
>>>>that includes no god at all (as it is possible to understand god as no
>>>>god).
>>>
>>>No they say "God" not "god"
>>
>>And despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary, you regard the case
of
>>one letter as conclusive?
>
>You really confused about the evidence.
How can you tell? By your own admission you haven't read all of it.