Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A.A(Alcoholics Anonymous) meetings religious?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I think you more than remotely implied it.
No. I did not. You merely invented it. The choice now of course is yours to either A) listen to me telling you what my point is or
continue to misrepresent me by presuming to tell me what my own points are when I clearly know them better than you.
One option is conducive to conversation and makes you look honest. The other does not.
Again I was making a perfectly valid point in the post which you quote. Simple removal of alcohol from the life of an alcoholic without any other changes to the persons life.... is likely doomed to fail. That gap in the persons life has to be filled somehow.
The point I am making, and you can attempt to rebut it if you like as I currently see nothing wrong with it, is that merely addressing alcohol consumption in the life of an alcoholic is rarely solution enough. More often than not alcohol addiction is a symptom of the issues in a persons life, rather than being the issue itself. Addressing the symptom without addressing the cause is often unhelpful and doomed to failure.The twelve steps were, as discussed, adapted from the steps of the oxford groups
My point exactly. So not even clear what you are disagreeing with any more. But my point is more focused on what they say today, not their historical etymology. The main topic of the thread is whether AA is religious. The fact is that AA is a 12 step program at its core. And those 12 steps are not subtly, but blatantly religious.
As I said if you can file down the square peg into a circle one to force it through the circle hole, then by all means do so. Wholesale ignore the religious references in the 12 steps in order to make them compatible with non religious people. Go for it. No one is stopping you and I have no issue with that.
But I do take issue with lying to ourselves that this is exactly what we are doing. Pretending that wholesale ignoring attributes of the 12 steps in order to force them into compatibility.... means that they actually _are_ compatible. That is fantasy woo woo land and I am happy to point this out as often as you are happy to call upon me to repeat the point.
It is only by an extreme application of pedantry that we can make your point appear valid and true therefore. But if we apply that then lines like this become so dilute........So, again, the 12-step program is as religious as each individual member chooses.
....... that they can apply to just about anything. For example, applying your "rationale" I can just as validly declare "So, again, the Bible is as religious as each individual reader chooses".
And clearly if application of your "rationale" allows us to make statements so comically useless... then clearly there is some issue with the original rationale.
But as I said, by all means continue to ignore what is blatantly there, in order to force compatibility for people who have issue with it actually being there. Fantasy is a powerful thing and you appear keen to apply it.On the other hand you say that there isn't a jot of evidence to suggest that AA helps anyone.
There does appear to be a cartel on the thread determined to repeat and repeat this misrepresentation of my views, regardless of how often I correct it or clarify it. I have moved past assuming this is a misunderstanding on your part, and have begun to suspect it is willful, contrived, and intentional.
To repeat it again for anyone who is fooled by the lie you perpetuate here: I have not once said "there isn't a jot of evidence to suggest that AA helps anyone.". I have said, repeatedly, in simple understandable english, that "There isn't a jot of evidence to suggest that anything specific to AA that distibguishes it from any other social support group that helps anyone."
So quit misrepresenting me by dropping the part of the text that differentiates my actual point, from the one you want to invent and shove into my mouth.Not at all, it's just not abundantly clear, from your floundering posts, what some of your points are.
The only floundering at work here is by those determined to ignore my points and pretend my points are something they have themselves invented. That is to say: You. You. And.... oh yes... you.
I am however a patient and untrollable character. I am happy to politely and repeatedly request you at some point get around to actually addressing my points in the future, and desist from attacking positions I have never espoused, held, or implied.
In your own time.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
The point you made in the post, as can clearly be seen, was simply that when alcohol is removed there is a void to be filled; the solution you suggested, for filling this void, was "take up a trade, a language, go back to college or training, start playing football".nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »No. I did not. You merely invented it. The choice now of course is yours to either A) listen to me telling you what my point is or continue to misrepresent me by presuming to tell me what my own points are when I clearly know them better than you.
One option is conducive to conversation and makes you look honest. The other does not.
Again I was making a perfectly valid point in the post which you quote. Simple removal of alcohol from the life of an alcoholic without any other changes to the persons life.... is likely doomed to fail. That gap in the persons life has to be filled somehow.
The point I am making, and you can attempt to rebut it if you like as I currently see nothing wrong with it, is that merely addressing alcohol consumption in the life of an alcoholic is rarely solution enough. More often than not alcohol addiction is a symptom of the issues in a persons life, rather than being the issue itself. Addressing the symptom without addressing the cause is often unhelpful and doomed to failure.
Indeed, when the point was raised that addiction is just a symptom of the problem you replied, "Often it is yes. But not exclusively...Sometimes Addiction IS the problem. Sometimes as you say Addiction is only the symptom of a problem."
From there, however, your line of discourse centred around knowing people "who have given up their addiction (again mainly alcohol) by joining a football club" as well as the above suggestion that the key to giving up alcohol was to fill the void with such activities as "[taking] up a trade, a language, [going] back to college or training, [starting to play] football".
The point that was raised, by others, with regard to this, was to distinguish between "heavy drinkers" and the "addict", as the AA literature itself does. The implication being that, someone who is a heavy drinker may not necessarily be an addict. And again, there are many who are already engaged in the activities you suggest who are active addicts.
It might also be worth noting that those things you suggest are often activities that people return to after enjoying a period of sobriety, be it through a 12-step program or some other treatment program.
If you would, however, like to return to the idea that alcohol is a symptom of an underlying problem, that might actually make for a fruitful conversation. Indeed, I dare say that every addiction treatment program, be it CBT, the 12-steps, or whatever, would view addiction in that manner, as a symptom of an underlying problem. That underlying problem is usually seen as a psychological one (or spiritual - depending on your understanding of that term) - although some research would suggest genes can play a factor.
The key to abstaining from alcohol is then about bringing about a change in the thinking and behaviour of the addict. Which CBT seeks to do, as does the 12-step approach - again, there is more to the 12-step approach than just a social support group function.
That the 12-steps are adapted from the Oxford group steps doesn't make them religious. As has been mentioned, the steps were written after consultation with the members of the initial AA groups, some of whom were vehemently opposed to how much God was mentioned in the book as well as the steps. For this reason the compromise was reached to include the terms "higher power", "power greater than ourselves", and "as we understood him". This was because those members were not religious and did not have the same ideas about God as some of the other members.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »My point exactly. So not even clear what you are disagreeing with any more. But my point is more focused on what they say today, not their historical etymology. The main topic of the thread is whether AA is religious. The fact is that AA is a 12 step program at its core. And those 12 steps are not subtly, but blatantly religious.
As I said if you can file down the square peg into a circle one to force it through the circle hole, then by all means do so. Wholesale ignore the religious references in the 12 steps in order to make them compatible with non religious people. Go for it. No one is stopping you and I have no issue with that.
But I do take issue with lying to ourselves that this is exactly what we are doing. Pretending that wholesale ignoring attributes of the 12 steps in order to force them into compatibility.... means that they actually _are_ compatible. That is fantasy woo woo land and I am happy to point this out as often as you are happy to call upon me to repeat the point.
It is only by an extreme application of pedantry that we can make your point appear valid and true therefore. But if we apply that then lines like this become so dilute........
As the quote from Bill Wilson above demonstrates, "as we understood him" is essential to the interpretation of the concept of "God". Every member is free to develop their own interpretation. Some might interpret it in the context of monotheistic religions but this isn't a necessity. A perfectly naturalist, pantheistic interpretation, that requires no religion whatsoever is perfectly compatible, without the need for filing down.
If you can tell which part of the pantheistic interpretation requires filing down, then I might be able to highlight why this is incorrect.
If there were a passage in the beginning of the Bible that said, "this book, as you choose to understand it..." then it would be as religious as each individual reader chooses, but I am not familiar with any such passages.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »....... that they can apply to just about anything. For example, applying your "rationale" I can just as validly declare "So, again, the Bible is as religious as each individual reader chooses".
And clearly if application of your "rationale" allows us to make statements so comically useless... then clearly there is some issue with the original rationale.
But as I said, by all means continue to ignore what is blatantly there, in order to force compatibility for people who have issue with it actually being there. Fantasy is a powerful thing and you appear keen to apply it.
If such a passage did exist and a huge number of people chose to interpret it and create a religion around it, but others chose not to, then the book itself would not necessarily be religious, rather some people chose to interpret it religiously.
The practice of meditation might be a good comparison here. Some people might see it as a religious practice, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is. Indeed, it is the quintessential spiritual practice. Again, a persons interpretation of the concept of spirituality is critical here. If one looks at such practices one can see that they are concerned with the transformation of the mind, and of thinking. Is that religious? Not necessarily.
The 12-steps are equally focused with such a transformation. The cause of that transformation is viewed differently by different people. Some might attribute it to a magic man in the sky - after doing the practical steps of personal reflection, making amends, meditation, helping others, etc. while others might see it as being attributable to how the human mind has evolved. The latter is certainly not religious, I'm sure you would agree.
Indeed, what is comically useless in all of this is the unqualified term "religion". If it is seen as anything that simply uses the term "God", then that would make the pantheistic interpretation, which sees the natural universe as God, where evolution, thermodynamics, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. are the natural laws, religious.
Again, the issue lies in your category error; in what you think the 12-step approach is supposed to be, as opposed to what it is.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »There does appear to be a cartel on the thread determined to repeat and repeat this misrepresentation of my views, regardless of how often I correct it or clarify it. I have moved past assuming this is a misunderstanding on your part, and have begun to suspect it is willful, contrived, and intentional.
To repeat it again for anyone who is fooled by the lie you perpetuate here: I have not once said "there isn't a jot of evidence to suggest that AA helps anyone.". I have said, repeatedly, in simple understandable english, that "There isn't a jot of evidence to suggest that anything specific to AA that distibguishes it from any other social support group that helps anyone."
So quit misrepresenting me by dropping the part of the text that differentiates my actual point, from the one you want to invent and shove into my mouth.
The 12-step approach offers the social support function, as well as other practical steps aimed at achieving sobriety and recovery. It is nothing more than that, and doesn't claim to be anything different. It doesn't claim to have invented personal reflection, making amends, helping others, mediation, etc. it simply suggests that if these are done then sobriety can be achieved and maintained. If these are successful with other programs then they are successful with the 12-step approach.
The issue again, comes back to your cayenne pepper analogy. Does AA suggest something that is not necessarily helpful to recovery but get attributed the success because of the other key elements? Again, the issue lies in the term "God", but as has been repeatedly clarified, it is a God of the understanding of each individual - which can be a pantheistic, natural interpretation.
There is a point which you have continued to ignore, which I will raise again here; that is to do with the point of best practices for addiction treatment. What are the current best practices for addiction treatment and how does the 12-step approach deviate from them?
No one has ignored your points, least of all me. You floundering has made them, at times, difficult to pin down, as has your willful ignorance of certain key points that have been raised.nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »The only floundering at work here is by those determined to ignore my points and pretend my points are something they have themselves invented. That is to say: You. You. And.... oh yes... you.
I am however a patient and untrollable character. I am happy to politely and repeatedly request you at some point get around to actually addressing my points in the future, and desist from attacking positions I have never espoused, held, or implied.
In your own time.
However, I too am patient and will continue to highlight the issues as I see them.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement