A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I mean there isn't a jot of evidence to suggest that anything specific to AA that distinguishes it from any other social support group that helps anyone.

Perhaps you could be clearer on which word or phrase there you actually need assistance with because it parses very well for me and I see no way of saying what I mean by it, other than restate it.

If you have specific questions, by all means ask. I am happy to answer.

Again, apologies for jumping in, but the issue lies in what you think AA is supposed to be.

What AA is, or indeed 12-step programs, in general, are, are partly the social support group partly, the set of practical steps aimed at bringing about a change in the addictive thinking and behaviour of the addict.

You seem to continually equate the 12-step approach to nothing more than a social support group while ignoring the practical action that is the core of the 12-steps; namely,

• a thorough self-examination of ones resentments and actions;
• examination of ones own part in those resentments and any harmful actions;
• admitting ones own shortcomings;
• making amends, where possible, for those harmful actions - something which can free the addict from the great burden of guilt that can often drive their addiction;
• continued self-examination and amends for any further harmful actions
• practicing meditation and prayer (as one understands prayer) to improve ones conscious contact with god as they understand god - the practice of meditation and prayer (depending on ones interpretation) can have the effect of increasing awareness of the subconscious thoughts and behaviours that can drive addiction; such conscious awareness can help the addict to become aware of what drives their addiction and avoid engaging in those behaviours.
• bringing the message to other alcoholics. The Dalai Lama has said - and one can verify this for themselves - that practising compassion and helping others is one of the most effective ways to develop true happiness, which is what true recovery is all about.

Are there any parts of those steps which you would say are not helpful in helping an addict recover? If so, which parts?




The steps and the social support function of the 12-step program don't have to be exclusive to AA, indeed, AA doesn't claim that they are. However, if they are successful in general then they are successful in the 12-step approach, because that is what the 12-step approach entails.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There IS a void to be filled. Obviously. You take something out of a persons life that was a large part of it.... you leave a gap. Not seeing your issue with that fact. Do you think all that time and resources they put into that just goes away and life goes on otherwise as normal?

The issue is in your suggestion that such a void can be filled with taking up a trade, getting a hobby, etc. Your statement on this can clearly be seen and I outlined it in the previous post, which you again choose to ignore.

Many people are already engaged in the activities you suggest, while also being active addicts, so the suggestion that these things can simply fill the void is nonsensical; there is simply more to addiction than that. Indeed, for a great many addicts, a prolonged period of sobriety is required before taking up these activities because the danger is that their addiction could sabotage their attempts to do so.

The issue with addiction is the thinking and behaviour of the addict. Taking up a trade or finding a new hobby don't necessarily address this at the root core. A person who joins a football team and who comes home from a training or a match is still left with their addictive mind afterwards.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But that is NOT the same thing as the misrepresentation you made of it which claimed that I think that all one has to do to give up alcohol is get a hobby. I never said this, indicated this, or implied this. That was simply your crass and desperate attempt to misrpresent me to dodge my actual points.

I simply repeat my request: Dont do that. It is not Big. It is not Clever. It is not Honest. I will only defend the points I have made, not the ones you have invented on my behalf.

You outlined what you believed was "key" to giving up addiction, I simply highlighted what you had said and the progression of your discourse, as well as highlighting the fact that a great many addicts, possibly even most, are already engaged in those activities you suggested could fill the void. Indeed, it is the affect addiction has on those activities that often leads the addict to treatment in the first place. So not only is the solution not that simple, it isn't even "key". What is key, is affecting a change in the mindset and behaviours of the addict. Something the 12-steps aims to do, through certain practical means - not just offering a social support function.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor have I claimed it does. You keep attacking positions I neither hold nor have espoused. I very clearly said that what makes them religious, is the text of the 12 steps themselves. The references not just to "god" but the very recognizable theistic attributes this "god" is given in that text.

As I said if you want to ignore those attributes and words to make it compatible with the non-religious.... go for it. I am not taking issue with it. I am taking issue only with pretending that ignoring it is not what you are doing. As I said.... if you act this way you could claim the bible is not a religious text either. You simply have to ignore the bits that are. Just do not try to breath with your head that far in the sand, it is not healthy.

In the point about the religiosity of the steps you singled out my statement that "the twelve steps were, as discussed, adapted from the steps of the oxford groups". To which you replied "my point exactly".

The rest of my point consisted of outlining that the compromised language of "higher power", "power greater than ourselves", and "as we understood him" were added because of the original atheist/agnostic members who did not like "the whole God business". It finished with a quote from one of the founding members stating that "as we understood him" is perhaps the most important expression in AA vocab. And I doubt very much that that was "exactly [your] point"

So, if you are so concerned about being misrepresented, you might want to be a little clearer, or more careful, in the points you are actually trying to make.


But to return to what you have "very clearly said": as has been mentioned, the text of the 12-steps was finalised in consultation with members who didn't believe in God, so the compromised language was included, so as to dilute it's religiosity, for those that were not overly religious, but also to allow for those who were not religious at all. Again, the steps are as religious as each individual member chooses.

One such example of a non-religious interpretation, which requires no burying of ones head in the sand, no trying to squeeze square pegs into round holes, is a pantheistic interpretation, which is, or can be, a non-religious philosophical position. To these people, pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical. In other words: that the Universe is what people and religions call "God" - or at least, that this was what the original meaning of "God" was, before the concept became misinterpreted and distorted.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

At least you have. And edited them to suit yourself. Or massively misrepsented them. The only floundering here is from you, as you flounder about trying to attack positions I do not hold in a desperate and fetid effort to look like you are having an argument and winning it.

When you seem to be accusing most people of misrepresenting you sometimes it's helpful to take a step back and ask what part, if any, you yourself play in the misinterpretation. Perhaps your floundering posts, and sometimes unclear replies lend themselves all to easily to misinterpretation.

Anyway, I have quoted your position without editing, in the most recent posts, and have outlined the progression of your arguments on those points you claim to have been misrepresented on. The reasoning hasn't changed.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again for example on this thread my main question has been "If you take the things that make AA what it is, that distinguish it from just being a simple social support group, is there a _single jot of evidence anywhere_ to show that these things are beneficial?" and all I see from you (and others) in response is a floundering and palpable desperation to dodge even attempting to answer such a question.

Although this point was, somewhat, addressed previously, a more detailed subsequent reply followed after your last response. I'll post it here, again, for posterity:

roosh wrote: »

Again, apologies for jumping in, but the issue lies in what you think AA is supposed to be.

What AA is, or indeed 12-step programs, in general, are, are partly the social support group partly, the set of practical steps aimed at bringing about a change in the addictive thinking and behaviour of the addict.

You seem to continually equate the 12-step approach to nothing more than a social support group while ignoring the practical action that is the core of the 12-steps; namely,

• a thorough self-examination of ones resentments and actions;
• examination of ones own part in those resentments and any harmful actions;
• admitting ones own shortcomings;
• making amends, where possible, for those harmful actions - something which can free the addict from the great burden of guilt that can often drive their addiction;
• continued self-examination and amends for any further harmful actions
• practicing meditation and prayer (as one understands prayer) to improve ones conscious contact with god as they understand god - the practice of meditation and prayer (depending on ones interpretation) can have the effect of increasing awareness of the subconscious thoughts and behaviours that can drive addiction; such conscious awareness can help the addict to become aware of what drives their addiction and avoid engaging in those behaviours.
• bringing the message to other alcoholics. The Dalai Lama has said - and one can verify this for themselves - that practising compassion and helping others is one of the most effective ways to develop true happiness, which is what true recovery is all about.

Are there any parts of those steps which you would say are not helpful in helping an addict recover? If so, which parts?




The steps and the social support function of the 12-step program don't have to be exclusive to AA, indeed, AA doesn't claim that they are. However, if they are successful in general then they are successful in the 12-step approach, because that is what the 12-step approach entails.

This was the original point, which preceded the reply to which I am now responding.

roosh wrote: »

This might come down to what you think AA is, or rather, is supposed to be. AA is, specifically, a support group for alcoholics with a set of steps that are supposed to bring about a transformation in the thinking and behaviour of the addict. It is more than just a social support group, because the steps work on self-investigation, making amends, meditation, prayer (depends on your understanding), and helping others. That is what the 12-step program is.

marienbad wrote: »

What kind of support groups do you have in mind ?

And and all other support groups that are out there. I am not limiting my discourse to any single one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

1) The original. Is AA religious? AA is a 12 step program. The 12 steps are expressely and blatantly religious. Therefore AA is religious. Thread question answered in my view. If X is an example of Y, and Z is an attribute of Y, then Z is an attribute of X.

And the point which rebuts this is the point about pantheism, the "non-religious philosophical position. [where] pantheism is the view that the Universe and God are identical; in other words: that the Universe is what people and religions call 'God'" - or what was originally meant by the term "God".

There is no need for square pegs in round holes here, bcos such a pantheist philosophy doesn't require it.

The fact that the text of the 12-steps was devised, after consultation with people who didn't subscribe to the monotheistic idea of God (that you presume the 12-steps prescribes), to include the compromised language that allows for people without such a belief, further rebuts this. As does the quote form one of the founding members, who was, I believe, a subscriber to the monotheist conception, which states that "as we understood him" was "the most important statement in AA vocabulary".

I have no doubt that some people will probably look at this as a thin end of the wedge attempt at conversion, but the non-religious philosophical position of pantheism renders that point immaterial.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

2) Is AA effective is the tangential topic. We can split this, as you do above, into the fact it is a social support group, and it has a set of practical steps. We can evaluate the efficacy of both. I have no doubt myself that the form does help people. The questions I have been asking is whether the latter is effective at all. A question that not only has not been answered, but people like yourself have been desperately flapping about attempting to misrepresent me in order to dodge answering it.

I have outlined the practicality of the steps above and have asked you, on more than one occasion, to point out which ones you believe are not effective [in bringing about the required change in the thinking and behaviour of an addict].

I have also asked you to outline what the current "best practices" are for treating addiction and how the 12-steps deviate from them. Something you have continually ignored.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If we separate out the fact it is a social support group and isolate the things that are specific to AA.... such as your "practical steps".... is there any evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer to suggest those specific things are helpful?

Firstly, the support group function is a part of the 12-step approach. So if it is effective and helpful, then it adds to the efficacy of the 12-step approach, rather than detracts from it.

There is a potential other issue that could be raised here, but insofar as you agree that support groups like AA are, in general, effective and helpful, then there is no need to go into it just yet. We can address it at a later point. The point, in general is voluntary support groups vs paid for support groups.

The second point is with regard to the specific steps in the 12-step approach. To answer that question we need only look at the data on addiction treatment in general. Again, this is where best practices come in. If we can see what the data shows are best practices then we can see how the specific steps compare to that.

In the absence of such data we can look at the practical steps and ask if such actions are beneficial to the addict or not, and if they could potentially bring about a change in the addicts thinking and behaviour, which drives their addiction.

One such step is the step which recommends meditation. I believe you have already agreed that that is beneficial. The other steps are as outlined above. You can highlight which ones you take issue with.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Exactly! You are catching up at last.

Once again misrepsentation of me and my views as is your normal modus operandi. I have ignored no such thing. The questions I have been asking on this thread, over and over and over and over again have specifically focused on this element.

You would do well to ask yourself why you have this constant need to ignore what I write, or misrepresent or dodge it. You may find the answer personally revealing and might grow as a result.

Once again, in the hope that if I repeat it 1000 times it might eventually bypass your misrepresentation firewall you have installed on your necktop.....

Is this imagined helpfulness of AA, in other words, grounded in anything at all except the fact it is a social support group? Do the 12 steps help at all? Does anything else about AA help at all? That is my questions, and by asking those questions I am doing the very exact opposite of "ignoring" the things you are desperately trying to represent me as ignoring when I have done no such thing.



No the issue is that you falsely and dishonestly claimed that all one has to do to recover from this addiction is get a hobby. That is the issue I take, and it highlights blatant, wanton and contrived dishonesty on your part and is the single clearest example I currently have of this ongoing misrepresentation of my posts which you have consistently engaged in.



The only one ignoring it is you, by pretending I said something I did not rather than addressing what I actually said which is a very valid point you have yet to even attempt to rebut.



Your inability to understand my simple english posts does not equate to my need to be clearer. Just to your need to try harder. My points are very clear:

1) AA is a 12 step program, the 12 steps are explicitly religious and theistic, therefore AA is a religious theistic program.

2) The sudden removal of alcohol from the life of a person who consistently invests large amounts of time, resources and energy into its consumption will leave a massive hole in that persons life. And if that void is not addressed somehow then I feel the likelyhood of their successful abstience from alcohol is low.

It is entirely opaque to me which part of those two points is so difficult for you to understand, but I am as ever here for you to help.



Once again the only person floundering here is you, in your desperate and fetid need to continue to pretend I said things I never did. I once again merely repeat my polite request for you to stop doing this, and engage with my actual points.

I have no problem conceding these points if it allows us to refocus on the two main points, as you have outlined above.

gaynorvader wrote: »

God requires intelligence. A volcano is not a god, unless it is being worshipped as a god, and if it is, it is generally believed that it can be influenced, requiring intelligence. If you are claiming the universe is a god that is unintelligent, you are simply using the label "god" on the entity "universe", it's meaningless.

Again, that depends on your understanding of what God is and your understanding of what it means for such a god to require intelligence.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't think that it does.

The concept of god in pantheism doesn't require intelligence. The concept of god is simply the idea that everything in the universe, ourselves included, are part of one overall whole. This is often termed monism.

Pantheistic philosophies are old, as is their concept of "god", but that is what their concept of "god" was/is, everything in the universe existing as a whole. That isn't an argument from age, bcos I'm not saying that the pantheistic conception of god is the correct one, I'm simply saying that such a concept exists.

Meditation is the practice associated with those philosophies, and the means through which "god" is experienced. It is experienced by breaking our subconscious attachment to concepts which affect our perception of the universe.


This is where I distinguish between religion and spirituality. The former appears to be based on ritual and dogma, while the latter, to my experience, is based on practice and insight. Personally, I believe that religion was born out of a misinterpretation of spirituality. You probably had guys practicing meditation for hours and years on end who then tried to communicate to those who hadn't been doing the same thing. This, inevitably, would lead to misinterpretations of what was being said; people interpreting what was being said through the lens of their pre-existing concepts. Much the same way that people misinterpret scientific theories because they haven't studied them to the same extent that scientists have. But that is neither here nor there.


The basic point is that the concept of god in pantheism, or at least my understanding of it, doesn't require the intelligence you suggest, insofar as I am interpreting what you mean.

roosh wrote: »

I'm simply saying that there is a philosophical idea that dates back a very, very long time from which, it could be argued, the concept of "god" originated.

I think all river/sun/mountain gods, etc had intelligence, otherwise why worship them?

roosh wrote: »

I'm not sure where you got that from.

Obviously a misunderstanding on my part so, apologies.

roosh wrote: »

That depends on what you mean by "the one directing our lives". Our subconscious thinking drives, probably, most of our actions. The forces external to "us" affect our decisions and actions.

The idea of "god's will for us", in the steps is, or rather can be, interpreted on the basis of the juxtaposition of our actions being directed by our conditioned, subconscious thinking and the direction of our behaviour as the attachment to our subconscious thoughts is loosened through practices such as meditation, self-reflection, helping others, making amends, etc.

Are you claiming god is our subconscious? Or external environment influences us therefore god? I'm really not following your line of reasoning, I'll try again Monday when I'm not so tired.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I think all river/sun/mountain gods, etc had intelligence, otherwise why worship them?

Indeed, people probably did believe that they did, but the philosophy of pantheism isn't the same.

The idea is that what was meant by "God", originally, came from people who engaged in spiritual practices, such as meditation. It wasn't the idea of worshipping things like the sun, mountains, rivers etc. The experiences that these people had, they labelled "God" but when trying to explain their insights to others, who were not engaging in the same practices those people misinterpreted what was being said and idea like a magic man in the sky developed.

If we look at the philosophies that accompany spiritual practices like mediation, and what is said about them, then we can see that they are aimed at breaking the subconscious attachment to conceptual ideas. There are also certain insights that form part of the philosophy, which are supposed to help us break the attachment to concepts. One such example is the idea of "the self", an entity which is separate and distinct from everything else in the universe. Investigating this concept leads to the conclusion that there is no "self" that everything exists as a single overall entity, which in the pantheist philosophy is "God".

gaynorvader wrote: »

Obviously a misunderstanding on my part so, apologies.

No worries. The topic of conversation is wrought with such misunderstanding.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Are you claiming god is our subconscious? Or external environment influences us therefore god? I'm really not following your line of reasoning, I'll try again Monday when I'm not so tired.

No, it's more that we have a subconscious attachment to certain concepts and ideas, which drive our behaviour. One such concept is the idea of a separate and distinct "self". Breaking the attachment to the idea of a separate and distinct "self" leads to the idea of the universe as a single entity, which is what is termed "God", in this philosophy.

Breaking this attachment, through practices such as meditation, also gives rise to certain experiences, which some people have labelled "experiencing God". Misunderstandings of what was meant by "God" have lead to various different ideas such as a magic man in the sky, among other reasons.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again the relevance is questionable. The 12 steps are very clear on what kind of theistic god we are talking about. It is given a personal pronoun, sex, intention, abilities, that are all consistent with theism. The 12 steps are theistic. You can ignore sections of them to make them compatible with non theism if you like, no one is saying otherwise, but I am not pretending that is not what is being done. You can have the pretense, I merely acknowledge the pretense.

The 12-steps are as much pantheistic as they are theistic.

The point about intention has been addressed. It can be viewed in the context of the idea of "the self" and the subconscious attachment we have to the idea of a "self", as well as other concepts. Our own will, or the will of "the self" is driven by our subconscious attachment to beliefs. As these subconscious attachments are loosened, or even broken, then the will is no longer driven by those attachments. When the subconscious attachment to beliefs about who/what we are, and when we realise our true nature, in pantheistic philosophies, this true nature is said to be one and the same as the nature of "God" - what pantheistic philosophy labels "god". When our actions are driven from this more consciously aware state of mind, and not the subconscious habitual mind, this is what is meant by "the will of god", at least in a pantheistic interpretation.

With regard to abilities i.e. the ability to remove defects of character, the steps don't suggest that they are magically removed by some magic man, rather that they are removed by working through the other steps i.e. self-examination, making amends, meditation, etc. It is through these practical steps that "defects of character" are removed. If someone believes that it is a magic man that does this or if they believe that it happens bcos of how the human mind has evolved, it doesn't make a difference, because the practical steps, which are responsible, are the same. But again, a person can choose to believe either, depending on their own interpretation of what "God" means.

As has been mentioned, there is no need to get hung up on the male personal pronoun, bcos it can be viewed just as much as a matter of convention as it can an indication of the sex of "God". As the previous quote indicates, "as we understood him" is the most important part of the 12-step vernacular bcos it allows people to understand God however they choose.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you think they are effective then the onus of proof lies on you to demonstrate this, not on me to demonstrate they are not. I can not rebut blank assertion. If they are effective, demonstrate this. I am all ears.

As mentioned, we can look at it another way. We can ask what the current "best practices" for the treatment of addiction are and see how the 12-steps deviate from that. I am not familiar with any such best practices, given the difficult nature in treating addiction. If you are familiar with them, please, by all means outline what they are.

Otherwise we are in the position where we have to accept that the best practices are not known and the only other option open to us is a discussion of why certain steps may or may not be effective in the treatment of addiction.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And it is a function of groups that do not use the 12 steps too. If you get them together in a group to support each other... then they will. Nothing to do with the 12 steps whatsoever. AA is not the sole social support group for addicts in the world. The question I am asking, but you dodge here, is whether AA has any attributes unique to AA that have any effects at all (beneficial or otherwise) and how this has been measured.

No one has claimed that AA is the sole social support group for addicts, least of all AA - although at the time it appeared as though it may have been.

The point is that if social support groups are beneficial then that is one tick in the column of the 12-step approach, because that is an integral part of the 12-step approach. The question is whether the other parts are beneficial, or harmful. To answer that we can look at what the best practices for addiction treatment are and how the 12-steps deviate from that. In the absence of best practices the only other option, to my mind, is discuss whether the other steps are beneficial or not.

If we can narrow down which steps it is you believe are effective and which ones you question, then we can proceed from there. Now, you have already stated that you believe meditation is a positive. I would be fully in agreement with that. That would represent another tick in the "effective" column for the 12-steps.

We can leave the "God" steps til the end bcos we already know that they represent a bone of contention. Which of the following do you question, and what is the basis for questioning those. Bear in mind, in the absence of you providing best practices we are only left with a discussion of each step, as far as I can see.

• Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves
• Admitted to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
• Were entirely ready to have our defects of character removed - we can discuss the god par separately
• Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
• Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
• Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
• Practiced meditation - again we can discuss the god part separately
• tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs - we can discuss spiritual awakening afterwards.

Firstly, are there any of those steps which you would consider to be harmful to people in general, or ill advised? Bear in mind, I am aware of the difference between being good advice in general and being an effective treatment for addiction, but I wish to first determine whether you would consider the harmful and why?


Secondly, do you think they would be effective in the treatment of addiction, if not, why not?

gaynorvader wrote: »

3-This is where the 12 steps first deviate from Pantheism, how can an unintelligent being possibly take charge of our will and lives? This is incompatible with Pantheism as I understand it.

Make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to god as we understand him.

Again, the point about what "our" will is. We can look at this in terms of the subconscious conditioning of the human mind, which drives our behaviour. Handing "our" will over to God is simply making a decision to work through the steps and attempt to break that subconscious conditioning.

gaynorvader wrote: »

5-Again, doesn't really gel with Pantheistic beliefs, how can you admit something to the cosmos?

It might be worth highlighting that admitting to oneself and to another person are just as important, possibly even moreso, depending on your belief. It can be viewed as a purely symbolic act. Bear in mind that the steps were written in consultation with both christian theists and non-theists and compromises were made to accommodate both - probably more to accommodate the non-theists than the theists. Again, this is where "as we understood him" is "the most important" part of the 12-step vernacular.

It could also be see as admitting it to a "deeper part" of yourself. In pantheism "god" is seen as being the same as our true nature, where "our true nature" is realised by breaking the subconscious attachment we have to the beliefs and concepts about ourselves and others.

gaynorvader wrote: »

6-Really doesn't fit with Pantheism again, the 12 steps are quite clearly referring to a personal God here. Pantheism doesn't seem to allow for a God that changes our lives on a personal level.

The idea of a personal god, as in having a personality, should be distinguished from the idea of a persons life being changed on a personal level. Any changes that occur, in the thinking and behaviour of an addict, do so on a personal level for the addict i.e. it is their own personal thinking and behaviour that is changed.

Being ready to have the defects of character removed is simply being ready to move on with the steps, because it is the practical work done in the steps which leads to the, alleged, change in thinking and behaviour. Whether this is ascribed to a magic man in the sky or whether it is seen as being a result of how the human mind has evolved is dependent on the personal understanding of each member.

gaynorvader wrote: »

7-Same as 6

Again, this could be seen as a purely symbolic step, depending on the personal understanding each member has of God. It could also be seen in terms of the meditation practice known as "Loving Kindness".

In the practice of "Loving Kindness" a symbol of love is imagined dissolving into light and entering the body. A person then directs this love to different individuals, themselves, a person they love, someone they feel neutral towards, someone they feel somewhat negative towards and someone they can't really stand. The love is then directed outwards to the world and every sentient being in the universe. This is accompanied by the phrases "may I be happy, may I be well, may I be safe" (or some variation of that). It then progresses with "may [insert persons name] be happy...." etc. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that an intelligent agent is being asked to make everyone happy, the practice is aimed at transforming the mind of the individual that does the practice. It can indeed transform a persons relationship with, say, that person they can't really stand.

Asking god to remove defects of character can be seen in the same light, "may I be happy, may I be well, may my defects of character be removed". A person is encouraged to really imagine what this would mean.

gaynorvader wrote: »

11-Mostly fits with Pantheism, apart from when it talks about God's will. A Pantheistic God has no will.

Again, "the will of God" can be juxtaposed with the idea of "the will of 'the self'", where "the self" is seen as the subconscious, conditioned beliefs we have about ourselves, which isn't necessarily our "true selves". These subconscious beliefs drive our actions and behaviour every day and is a major part of what drives the addictive behaviour. When the subconscious attachment is loosened, or even broken, the driving force behind our actions is no longer "the self" (or the ego, as it is often termed), but rather our actions are driven by our "true nature", the unconditioned mind, which is what, in pantheistic philosophy is said to be the same as "god".


Again, the steps were written in consultation with both theists and non-theists, so there is a compromise in the language. While the theists may have had one idea of what it meant to pray for knowledge of gods will, the theists would have had another, and not necessarily a pantheistic idea either. This would just be my own personal interpretation of what "god" is. It is again why "as we understood him" is the most important part of the 12-step vernacular.

gaynorvader wrote: »

Your entire post seems to hinge on the idea that pantheism is the belief that God is our subconscious. I can't find any literature anywhere supporting such a view. Do you have a link?

We know that the Universe - which is made up of all things - is present to all things. We know that humans are an inseparable part of this whole and of nature on this planet. The Universe is omnipresent, and we are inseparably part of it.

Pantheism.net - God and the cosmos: the real divine attributes

You would express Pantheism through seasonal rituals which would link you to the earth and universe of which you are part, and through meditation techniques which allow a direct mystical experience of nature and matter.

Pantheism.net - FAQs

We can also establish connection with Being independently of ritual, through pantheistic meditation. The mystical experience has common features across all religions. At its core is the experience of passing beyond the self and of uniting with the divine. But the experience is often said to be difficult to achieve and to maintain.


Mystical union is more accessible through pantheism. The process does not depend on imagination or mood. It is simple to understand, open to all, and repeatable.


Mystical union with Reality consists in total abandonment of consciousness to the sensory experience of nature or material reality. The self becomes simply the vehicle for the self-awareness of reality. The self is transcended, and re-united with the whole of which it is part.

Pantheism.net - Scientific pantheism: basic principles




I wouldn't necessarily subscribe to everything which the author(s) on that website say, mainly bcos I haven't read it all. I have developed my own understanding of the idea from reading about the philosophies of a number of religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and from what I have come across with regard to the mystical tradictions of the 3 main monotheistic religions. I wouldn't consider myself an adherent to any of those religions, however. I personally believe that at the core of all those religions is actually a pantheistic philosophy which has always held that God and the universe are one, just that the philosophy has become misunderstood and concepts like the magic man in the sky have developed.


All of those religion point to the idea of transcending "the self" or "ego" and connecting to the "divine" within us; where this "divinity" is just our innate goodness and capacity for love. These "spiritual" experiences are, in these traditions, synonymous with experiencing "God" and it is done through the practice of meditation.

roosh wrote: »

Pantheism.net - God and the cosmos: the real divine attributes


Pantheism.net - FAQs


Pantheism.net - Scientific pantheism: basic principles




I wouldn't necessarily subscribe to everything which the author(s) on that website say, mainly bcos I haven't read it all. I have developed my own understanding of the idea from reading about the philosophies of a number of religions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and from what I have come across with regard to the mystical tradictions of the 3 main monotheistic religions. I wouldn't consider myself an adherent to any of those religions, however. I personally believe that at the core of all those religions is actually a pantheistic philosophy which has always held that God and the universe are one, just that the philosophy has become misunderstood and concepts like the magic man in the sky have developed.


All of those religion point to the idea of transcending "the self" or "ego" and connecting to the "divine" within us; where this "divinity" is just our innate goodness and capacity for love. These "spiritual" experiences are, in these traditions, synonymous with experiencing "God" and it is done through the practice of meditation.

All pointing to the individual subconscious being a very small part of the Pantheistic God. It's like claiming you can control the flow of the ocean by flinging a cup of seawater.

marienbad wrote: »

{...}

We swear on the bible for hundreds of years now but does anyone contend that the oath of the non believer is any less valid.

{...}

Yes. Me swearing on a bible would be a lie. Luckily there are alternatives.