9-23-03

[rosie readandpost]

************************************************** *********

As Bill Sees It
Aspects of Tolerance, p. 175

All kinds of people have found their way into A.A. Not too long ago, I sat talking in my
office with a member who bears the title of Countess. That same night, I went to an A.A.
meeting. It was winter, and there was a mild-looking little gent taking the coats. I said,
"Who's that?"

And somebody answered, "Oh, he's been around for a long time. Everybody likes him.
He used to be one of Al Capone's mob." That's how universal A.A. is today.

<< << << >> >> >>

We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only one way by which faith can
be acquired. All of us, whatever our race, creed, or color, are the children of a living
Creator, with whom we may form a relationship upon simple and understandable terms
as soon as we are willing and honest enough to try.

1. A.A. Comes Of Age, p. 102
2. Alcoholics Anonymous, p. 28




























































































































************************************************** *********

[Kev]

rosie readandpost wrote:
>
> We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only one
> way by which faith can be acquired.
>

So much for not being a religious program

--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Moonraker]

"Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bkpj1b$4f796$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> rosie readandpost wrote:
> >
> > We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only one
> > way by which faith can be acquired.
> >
>
> So much for not being a religious program
>
> --
> Kev
> Brighton UK
>
>

So "faith" equates to "religion"?

[rosie readandpost]

beware of "the verbiage" in these meditations that are posted.
i practice a program of ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS that i KNOW is not religious.
it is spiritual but NOT religious.

i skip over alot of the GOD references, as well as the sexist references.
its easy! (if you make your mind up)

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie
http://www.moveon.org/

every reform was once a private opinion.
....................ralph waldo emerson




"Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bkpj1b$4f796$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> rosie readandpost wrote:
> >
> > We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only one
> > way by which faith can be acquired.
> >
>
> So much for not being a religious program
>
> --
> Kev
> Brighton UK
>
>

[Virtualoso]

In article <cTYbb.20559$eX1.1854@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

> i practice a program of ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS ....
>
> i skip over alot of the GOD references...

That's what the book and the program of Alcoholics Anonymous is about,
to help you find... "That one is God. May you find Him now."

[Blue Moon]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:51:01 +0100, "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote:

>rosie readandpost wrote:
>>
>> We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only one
>> way by which faith can be acquired.
>
>So much for not being a religious program

How is "we have no desire to convince anyone that there is only one
way" in any way related to religion? Most religions I've encountered
adopt the exact opposite attitude ... 'the One God', 'renouncing false
gods' etc. attitude.

There are religious people in AA, but that is a far cry from AA being
religious. It does annoy me when fools bring their religion into AA.
Someone at their first meeting .... "first impressions count" etc. A
little "stick with it" is necessary to see beyond false perception.

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:35:52 GMT, "rosie readandpost"
<readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

>beware of "the verbiage" in these meditations that are posted.

You posted them! Posting implies endorsement, particularly if you
don't specifically distance yourself from that implied endorsement.

--
Blue Moon

[Kai]

Virtualoso wrote:
> In article <cTYbb.20559$eX1.1854@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
> readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> i practice a program of ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS ....
>>
>> i skip over alot of the GOD references...
>
> That's what the book and the program of Alcoholics Anonymous is about,
> to help you find... "That one is God. May you find Him now."

And God is male too, obviously. Can I get a hallelujah!

Kai

[rosie readandpost]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:34448d643925ba02de5eacbb111fc045@news.teranew s.com...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:35:52 GMT, "rosie readandpost"
> <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >beware of "the verbiage" in these meditations that are posted.
>
> You posted them! Posting implies endorsement, particularly if you
> don't specifically distance yourself from that implied endorsement.
>
> --
> Blue Moon



oy vey!
could you be more dramatic?

[Blue Moon]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:36:46 GMT, "rosie readandpost"
<readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:34448d643925ba02de5eacbb111fc045@news.teranew s.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:35:52 GMT, "rosie readandpost"
>> <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >beware of "the verbiage" in these meditations that are posted.
>>
>> You posted them! Posting implies endorsement, particularly if you
>> don't specifically distance yourself from that implied endorsement.
>
>oy vey!
>could you be more dramatic?

Dramatic?

--
Blue Moon

[Kev]

Moonraker wrote:
>>>
>>> We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only
>>> one way by which faith can be acquired.
>>>
>>
>> So much for not being a religious program
>>
>
> So "faith" equates to "religion"?

Bill W is talking about faith in god. He goes on to say we "are the children
of a living Creator, with whom we may form a relationship". Sounds religious
to me
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[rosie readandpost]

> Bill W is talking about faith in god. He goes on to say we "are the children
> of a living Creator, with whom we may form a relationship". Sounds religious
> to me
> --
> Kev
> Brighton UK
>
>


kev,
i think you might be confusing "religious" with "spiritual".

[Kai]

Kev wrote:
> Moonraker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only
>>>> one way by which faith can be acquired.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So much for not being a religious program
>>>
>>
>> So "faith" equates to "religion"?
>
> Bill W is talking about faith in god. He goes on to say we "are the children
> of a living Creator, with whom we may form a relationship". Sounds religious
> to me

Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of getting stuck
with everything Bill W. wrote.

Kai

[Kev]

rosie readandpost wrote:
>> Bill W is talking about faith in god. He goes on to say we "are the
>> children of a living Creator, with whom we may form a relationship".
>> Sounds religious to me
>> --
>> Kev
>> Brighton UK
>>
>>
>
>
> kev,
> i think you might be confusing "religious" with "spiritual".

Dont think so
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Kev]

Kai wrote:
> Kev wrote:
>> Moonraker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only
>>>>> one way by which faith can be acquired.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So much for not being a religious program
>>>>
>>>
>>> So "faith" equates to "religion"?
>>
>> Bill W is talking about faith in god. He goes on to say we "are the
>> children of a living Creator, with whom we may form a relationship".
>> Sounds religious to me
>
> Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of
> getting stuck with everything Bill W. wrote.
>
> Kai

I do think with my own brain. I was commenting on what had been posted
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Blue Moon]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:46:25 +0100, "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Moonraker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only
>>>> one way by which faith can be acquired.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So much for not being a religious program
>>>
>>
>> So "faith" equates to "religion"?
>
>Bill W is talking about faith in god. He goes on to say we "are the children
>of a living Creator, with whom we may form a relationship". Sounds religious
>to me

I found that discarding much of the nonsense Bill wrote about
"creator" and such-like were immensely freeing in the ability to find
recovery as a result of the Actions prescribed within the AA program.

After all, I do not have a Higher Power of Bill W's understanding.

Consequently, I recovered from the insidious insanity of alcohol
temptation whereas many religious types think that a belief in God
somehow absolves them from the necessity of taking any such Actions.

I stayed agnostically sober whilst they stayed religiously drunk.

--
Blue Moon

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
<soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
>
>
>Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of getting stuck
>with everything Bill W. wrote.

What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why merely
to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues it
with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain' than just
spout quotes.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Kev]

Jonathan Bratt wrote:
> In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
> <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
>>
>>
>> Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of
>> getting stuck with everything Bill W. wrote.
>
> What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why
> merely
> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues it
> with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain' than
> just spout quotes.

Does'nt AA say "your best thinking got you here"
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[rosie readandpost]

> I have never understood why merely
> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues it
> with some sense of authority.


i think those of us with alcoholism, somehow look for ANY excuse, NOT to get started on the road to recovery.
i know that i did.

ie: the BIG BOOK verbiage is sexist, bill w. is an egomaniac, AA is religious.................and on and on.
i know that i was looking for LITERAL interpretation of EVERYTHING, and i know now, that it was one of my final
"rebellion phases" (an attempt "to protect my drug")......................

(picking apart a solution, and then i don't have to do anything!)

the meditations/reflections that i post daily are merely "tools" used by thousands as a daily source of renewal.

they are NOT WRITTEN IN STONE,
they are NOT "GOSPELS" ACCORDING TO GOD,
they are NOT INFALLIBLE.
of course, all this is just my opinion, and YMMV.
rosie

[rosie readandpost]

i agree!
it is NOT necessary to believe every word, every nuance that is uttered in the daily reflections that i post.
"take what you need, and leave the rest!"

--
read and post daily, it works!
rosie
http://www.moveon.org/

every reform was once a private opinion.
....................ralph waldo emerson




"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message news:pfEVkYFaIKc$EwAG@aol.com...
> In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
> <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
> >
> >
> >Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of getting stuck
> >with everything Bill W. wrote.
>
> What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why merely
> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues it
> with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain' than just
> spout quotes.
> --
> Jonathan Bratt

[Virtualoso]

In article <095c6b982ee94c69fae40b3200060b0c@news.teranews.com >, Blue
Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:51:01 +0100, "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >rosie readandpost wrote:
> >>
> >> We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only one
> >> way by which faith can be acquired.
> >
> >So much for not being a religious program
>
> How is "we have no desire to convince anyone that there is only one
> way" in any way related to religion? Most religions I've encountered
> adopt the exact opposite attitude ... 'the One God', 'renouncing false
> gods' etc. attitude.
>
> There are religious people in AA, but that is a far cry from AA being
> religious. It does annoy me when fools bring their religion into AA.
> Someone at their first meeting .... "first impressions count" etc. A
> little "stick with it" is necessary to see beyond false perception.

Of course, "false perception" is a whole different thing than "fals
gods."

[Virtualoso]

In article <bkq0qk$4h4r7$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
<none@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Moonraker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only
> >>> one way by which faith can be acquired.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So much for not being a religious program
> >>
> >
> > So "faith" equates to "religion"?
>
> Bill W is talking about faith in god. He goes on to say we "are the children
> of a living Creator, with whom we may form a relationship". Sounds religious
> to me

You're as welcome to your religious concepts as anyone else, naturally.

[Virtualoso]

In article <pfEVkYFaIKc$EwAG@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
<jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:

> In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
> <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
> >
> >
> >Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of getting stuck
> >with everything Bill W. wrote.
>
> What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why merely
> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues it
> with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain' than just
> spout quotes.

Isn't that pretty much what Kai just said?

[Virtualoso]

In article <bkqbve$4tjpu$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
<none@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jonathan Bratt wrote:
> > In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
> > <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of
> >> getting stuck with everything Bill W. wrote.
> >
> > What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why
> > merely
> > to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues it
> > with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain' than
> > just spout quotes.
>
> Does'nt AA say "your best thinking got you here"

Only if it did. Does your best thinking have just anything said/heard
automatically becoming instructions you figure apply to you, all else
aside?

[Virtualoso]

In article <0bcc2f622c6293369e3c26417b7bed42@news.teranews.com >, Blue
Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 18:46:25 +0100, "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Moonraker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> We have no desire to convince anyone that there is only
> >>>> one way by which faith can be acquired.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> So much for not being a religious program
> >>>
> >>
> >> So "faith" equates to "religion"?
> >
> >Bill W is talking about faith in god. He goes on to say we "are the children
> >of a living Creator, with whom we may form a relationship". Sounds religious
> >to me
>
> I found that discarding much of the nonsense Bill wrote about
> "creator" and such-like were immensely freeing in the ability to find
> recovery as a result of the Actions prescribed within the AA program.
>
> After all, I do not have a Higher Power of Bill W's understanding.
>
> Consequently, I recovered from the insidious insanity of alcohol
> temptation whereas many religious types think that a belief in God
> somehow absolves them from the necessity of taking any such Actions.
>
> I stayed agnostically sober whilst they stayed religiously drunk.

Maybe you oughta' compile your testifying posts into a book.

[Craig S.]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:095c6b982ee94c69fae40b3200060b0c@news.teranew s.com...

> It does annoy me when fools bring their religion into AA.

I wonder why this would bother you so. Many people have very strong
religious beliefs - they practice those principles in all their affairs so
to speak. Would you ask people to pretend to be something that they are
not? People with strong religious beliefs are as entitled to their
religious recognition as you are to your religious intolerance.

[Craig S.]

"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:pfEVkYFaIKc$EwAG@aol.com...

> I have never understood why merely
> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity -

Quote a "deity?" Now that would be a good trick.

[Craig S.]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:230920031707267872%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <0bcc2f622c6293369e3c26417b7bed42@news.teranews.com >, Blue
> Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> > I stayed agnostically sober whilst they stayed religiously drunk.
>
> Maybe you oughta' compile your testifying posts into a book.

I'll save you the effort of looking for a publisher:

http://www.seesharppress.com/

[Kev]

Virtualoso wrote:
> In article <bkqbve$4tjpu$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
> <none@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>>> In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
>>> <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of
>>>> getting stuck with everything Bill W. wrote.
>>>
>>> What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why
>>> merely
>>> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues
>>> it with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain'
>>> than just spout quotes.
>>
>> Does'nt AA say "your best thinking got you here"
>
> Only if it did. Does your best thinking have just anything said/heard
> automatically becoming instructions you figure apply to you, all else
> aside?

AAs say it all the time
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <bkqbve$4tjpu$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
<none@hotmail.com> writes
>Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>> In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
>> <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of
>>> getting stuck with everything Bill W. wrote.
>>
>> What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why
>> merely
>> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues it
>> with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain' than
>> just spout quotes.
>
>Does'nt AA say "your best thinking got you here"

So what? So AA says it? So it must be true? You are doing exactly what I
am referring to: X says it so it must be true....

Why not quite Tolkien? Or the Koran?

--
Jonathan Bratt

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <bkquu0$4n7fq$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
<none@hotmail.com> writes
>Virtualoso wrote:
>> In article <bkqbve$4tjpu$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
>> <none@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>>>> In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
>>>> <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of
>>>>> getting stuck with everything Bill W. wrote.
>>>>
>>>> What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why
>>>> merely
>>>> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues
>>>> it with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain'
>>>> than just spout quotes.
>>>
>>> Does'nt AA say "your best thinking got you here"
>>
>> Only if it did. Does your best thinking have just anything said/heard
>> automatically becoming instructions you figure apply to you, all else
>> aside?
>
>AAs say it all the time

We are not automata, we are people.

--
Jonathan Bratt

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <5u3cb.21133$pU4.10719@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>, rosie
readandpost <readandpostREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> writes
>
>> I have never understood why merely
>> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues it
>> with some sense of authority.
>
>
>i think those of us with alcoholism, somehow look for ANY excuse, NOT
>to get started on the road to recovery.
>i know that i did.
>
>ie: the BIG BOOK verbiage is sexist, bill w. is an egomaniac, AA is
>religious.................and on and on.
>i know that i was looking for LITERAL interpretation of EVERYTHING, and
>i know now, that it was one of my final
>"rebellion phases" (an attempt "to protect my drug")......................
>
>(picking apart a solution, and then i don't have to do anything!)
>
>the meditations/reflections that i post daily are merely "tools" used
>by thousands as a daily source of renewal.
>
>they are NOT WRITTEN IN STONE,
>they are NOT "GOSPELS" ACCORDING TO GOD,
> they are NOT INFALLIBLE.
>of course, all this is just my opinion, and YMMV.

Rosie I quite understand that, and have found some of your posts provide
food for thought.

I am referring to some of the more esoteric exchanges as to what Bill
_might_ have meant and when he _might_ have said something. It's
treating the man as some kind of god, and the correspondents as
competing religious factions.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <230920031705190287%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
<virtualoso@dot.com> writes
>In article <pfEVkYFaIKc$EwAG@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
><jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
>> <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of getting stuck
>> >with everything Bill W. wrote.
>>
>> What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why merely
>> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues it
>> with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain' than just
>> spout quotes.
>
>Isn't that pretty much what Kai just said?

I was expanding on a theme.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <vn1ql277j7t07a@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
<cspurlock@charter.net> writes
>"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:pfEVkYFaIKc$EwAG@aol.com...
>
>> I have never understood why merely
>> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity -
>
>Quote a "deity?" Now that would be a good trick.
>
>
The christian bible claims to all the time - that is the allusion I was
making.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Kai]

Jonathan Bratt wrote:
> In message <bkquu0$4n7fq$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
> <none@hotmail.com> writes
>> AAs say it all the time
>
> We are not automata, we are people.

Where does it say that in AA literature?

;-)

Kai

[Kai]

Jonathan Bratt wrote:
> In message <bkqbve$4tjpu$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
> <none@hotmail.com> writes
>> Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>>> In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
>>> <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of
>>>> getting stuck with everything Bill W. wrote.
>>>
>>> What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why
>>> merely
>>> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues
>>> it with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain'
>>> than just spout quotes.
>>
>> Does'nt AA say "your best thinking got you here"
>
> So what? So AA says it? So it must be true? You are doing exactly
> what I am referring to: X says it so it must be true....
>
> Why not quite Tolkien? Or the Koran?

He prolly doesn't dislike Tolkien or Koran enough to consider everything
said in the Lord of the Rings or Koran as a word of god. Unlike anything by
Bill W.

Kai

[Kev]

Jonathan Bratt wrote:
> In message <bkquu0$4n7fq$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
> <none@hotmail.com> writes
>> Virtualoso wrote:
>>> In article <bkqbve$4tjpu$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
>>> <none@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>>>>> In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
>>>>> <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of
>>>>>> getting stuck with everything Bill W. wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>> What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why
>>>>> merely
>>>>> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues
>>>>> it with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain'
>>>>> than just spout quotes.
>>>>
>>>> Does'nt AA say "your best thinking got you here"
>>>
>>> Only if it did. Does your best thinking have just anything
>>> said/heard automatically becoming instructions you figure apply to
>>> you, all else aside?
>>
>> AAs say it all the time
>
> We are not automata, we are people.

True but totally irrelevant to whether people in AA often say "your best
thinking got you here" or not
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <bkrn4n$6nv$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
<soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> writes
>Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>> In message <bkquu0$4n7fq$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
>> <none@hotmail.com> writes
>>> AAs say it all the time
>>
>> We are not automata, we are people.
>
>Where does it say that in AA literature?
>
>;-)

I would not know - I have only skimmed it.

For UKers it was an allusion to the sixties TV series, The Prisoner.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Virtualoso]

In article <FhH+b0BUvVc$EwWM@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
<jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:

> In message <230920031705190287%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
> <virtualoso@dot.com> writes
> >In article <pfEVkYFaIKc$EwAG@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
> ><jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
> >> <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of getting
> >> >stuck
> >> >with everything Bill W. wrote.
> >>
> >> What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why merely
> >> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues it
> >> with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain' than just
> >> spout quotes.
> >
> >Isn't that pretty much what Kai just said?
>
> I was expanding on a theme.

Quoting is often condensing a theme.

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <240920030632346374%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
<virtualoso@dot.com> writes
>In article <FhH+b0BUvVc$EwWM@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
><jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> In message <230920031705190287%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
>> <virtualoso@dot.com> writes
>> >In article <pfEVkYFaIKc$EwAG@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
>> ><jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
>> >> <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of getting
>> >> >stuck
>> >> >with everything Bill W. wrote.
>> >>
>> >> What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why merely
>> >> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues it
>> >> with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain' than just
>> >> spout quotes.
>> >
>> >Isn't that pretty much what Kai just said?
>>
>> I was expanding on a theme.
>
>Quoting is often condensing a theme.

A quote has no intrinsic value.

--
Jonathan Bratt

[Virtualoso]

In article <Ovxc41FMkac$EwGm@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
<jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:

> In message <240920030632346374%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
> <virtualoso@dot.com> writes
> >In article <FhH+b0BUvVc$EwWM@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
> ><jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In message <230920031705190287%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
> >> <virtualoso@dot.com> writes
> >> >In article <pfEVkYFaIKc$EwAG@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
> >> ><jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In message <bkq1bs$sfj$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
> >> >> <soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Maybe you should start thinking with your own brain instead of getting
> >> >> >stuck
> >> >> >with everything Bill W. wrote.
> >> >>
> >> >> What excellent advice for everybody. I have never understood why merely
> >> >> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity - says imbues it
> >> >> with some sense of authority. Surely better to 'use the brain' than just
> >> >> spout quotes.
> >> >
> >> >Isn't that pretty much what Kai just said?
> >>
> >> I was expanding on a theme.
> >
> >Quoting is often condensing a theme.
>
> A quote has no intrinsic value.

What has intrinsic value?

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <240920030748128636%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
<virtualoso@dot.com> writes
>What has intrinsic value?

Many things. A quote does not.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Blue Moon]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:40:23 +0100, "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> Does'nt AA say "your best thinking got you here"

No.

>>>> Only if it did. Does your best thinking have just anything
>>>> said/heard automatically becoming instructions you figure apply to
>>>> you, all else aside?
>>>
>>> AAs say it all the time
>>
>> We are not automata, we are people.
>
>True but totally irrelevant to whether people in AA often say "your best
>thinking got you here" or not

It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says with
what AA members say :)

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 17:03:13 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com>
wrote:


>Of course, "false perception" is a whole different thing than "fals
>gods."

Not entirely convinced there ARE any false gods. Depends on your
definition of "god" I suppose. Alcohol was definitely a very real god
- it sent me to hell for deciding to not believe in it any more.

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:55:04 -0400, "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net>
wrote:

>"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:095c6b982ee94c69fae40b3200060b0c@news.teranew s.com...
>
>> It does annoy me when fools bring their religion into AA.
>
>I wonder why this would bother you so. Many people have very strong
>religious beliefs - they practice those principles in all their affairs so
>to speak.

Who ever said that they were practicing any such principles?

> Would you ask people to pretend to be something that they are
>not? People with strong religious beliefs are as entitled to their
>religious recognition as you are to your religious intolerance.

Nobody is entitled to push their religious notions onto others.
That's the point.

--
Blue Moon

[Kev]

Blue Moon wrote:

>
> It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says with
> what AA members say :)

No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature I was
told not to focus on what was written. Now, you say dont confuse what
members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant to take any
responsibility for its own doctrines?
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Kai]

Kev wrote:
> Blue Moon wrote:
>
>>
>> It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says with
>> what AA members say :)
>
> No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature I was
> told not to focus on what was written. Now, you say dont confuse what
> members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant to take any
> responsibility for its own doctrines?

Umm, have you asked AA and did you get a response from AA?

In the meanwhile one might suggest not to think of it as a doctrine. Do you
consider things people say in the TV a doctrine? A talking head says "jump" and
up you go? Or at least you believe everyone else watching the same channel
jumps?

Kai

[Kev]

Kai wrote:
> Kev wrote:
>> Blue Moon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says with
>>> what AA members say :)
>>
>> No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature I
>> was told not to focus on what was written. Now, you say dont confuse
>> what members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant to take
>> any responsibility for its own doctrines?
>
> Umm, have you asked AA and did you get a response from AA?
>
> In the meanwhile one might suggest not to think of it as a doctrine.
> Do you consider things people say in the TV a doctrine? A talking
> head says "jump" and up you go? Or at least you believe everyone else
> watching the same channel jumps?
>
> Kai

Why is it so difficult for people on this NG to accept that people who go to
AA are often told that "your best thinking got you here"? I must have heard
this hundreds of times at meetings. Why so defensive?

--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Craig S.]

"Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bkspk8$5kfr1$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Blue Moon wrote:
>
> >
> > It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says with
> > what AA members say :)
>
> No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature I was
> told not to focus on what was written. Now, you say dont confuse what
> members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant to take any
> responsibility for its own doctrines?

AA doesn't need to, Kev - it has you to keep things in check.

[Craig S.]

"Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bksqs9$5ntu8$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Kai wrote:
> > Kev wrote:
> >> Blue Moon wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says with
> >>> what AA members say :)
> >>
> >> No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature I
> >> was told not to focus on what was written. Now, you say dont confuse
> >> what members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant to take
> >> any responsibility for its own doctrines?
> >
> > Umm, have you asked AA and did you get a response from AA?
> >
> > In the meanwhile one might suggest not to think of it as a doctrine.
> > Do you consider things people say in the TV a doctrine? A talking
> > head says "jump" and up you go? Or at least you believe everyone else
> > watching the same channel jumps?
> >
> > Kai
>
> Why is it so difficult for people on this NG to accept that people who go
to
> AA are often told that "your best thinking got you here"? I must have
heard
> this hundreds of times at meetings. Why so defensive?

What's wrong with somebody's best thinking getting them to an AA meeting if
that's where they find help?

[Kev]

Craig S. wrote:
> "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bksqs9$5ntu8$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Kai wrote:
>>> Kev wrote:
>>>> Blue Moon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says
>>>>> with what AA members say :)
>>>>
>>>> No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature
>>>> I was told not to focus on what was written. Now, you say dont
>>>> confuse what members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant
>>>> to take any responsibility for its own doctrines?
>>>
>>> Umm, have you asked AA and did you get a response from AA?
>>>
>>> In the meanwhile one might suggest not to think of it as a doctrine.
>>> Do you consider things people say in the TV a doctrine? A talking
>>> head says "jump" and up you go? Or at least you believe everyone
>>> else watching the same channel jumps?
>>>
>>> Kai
>>
>> Why is it so difficult for people on this NG to accept that people
>> who go to AA are often told that "your best thinking got you here"?
>> I must have heard this hundreds of times at meetings. Why so
>> defensive?
>
> What's wrong with somebody's best thinking getting them to an AA
> meeting if that's where they find help?

I did'nt even say it was wrong. There just seems to be a lot of denial in
this NG about it being said at all
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Moonraker]

"Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bkst5d$5o652$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Craig S. wrote:
> > "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bksqs9$5ntu8$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> Kai wrote:
> >>> Kev wrote:
> >>>> Blue Moon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says
> >>>>> with what AA members say :)
> >>>>
> >>>> No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature
> >>>> I was told not to focus on what was written. Now, you say dont
> >>>> confuse what members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant
> >>>> to take any responsibility for its own doctrines?
> >>>
> >>> Umm, have you asked AA and did you get a response from AA?
> >>>
> >>> In the meanwhile one might suggest not to think of it as a doctrine.
> >>> Do you consider things people say in the TV a doctrine? A talking
> >>> head says "jump" and up you go? Or at least you believe everyone
> >>> else watching the same channel jumps?
> >>>
> >>> Kai
> >>
> >> Why is it so difficult for people on this NG to accept that people
> >> who go to AA are often told that "your best thinking got you here"?
> >> I must have heard this hundreds of times at meetings. Why so
> >> defensive?
> >
> > What's wrong with somebody's best thinking getting them to an AA
> > meeting if that's where they find help?
>
> I did'nt even say it was wrong. There just seems to be a lot of denial in
> this NG about it being said at all

By whom? I don't think it's written in any of the AA literature, anywhere.
Lots of things are said in meetings that aren't in any of the literature.
I heard " God damn" and "mother fucker" several times at a meeting last
night. Don't think either of those terms are in the BB anywhere, are they?


> --
> Kev
> Brighton UK
>
>

[Craig S.]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:27663d41be9b1886a6a6bf7fd0d2e586@news.teranew s.com...
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:55:04 -0400, "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:095c6b982ee94c69fae40b3200060b0c@news.teranew s.com...
> >
> >> It does annoy me when fools bring their religion into AA.
> >
> >I wonder why this would bother you so. Many people have very strong
> >religious beliefs - they practice those principles in all their affairs
so
> >to speak.
>
> Who ever said that they were practicing any such principles?
>
> > Would you ask people to pretend to be something that they are
> >not? People with strong religious beliefs are as entitled to their
> >religious recognition as you are to your religious intolerance.
>
> Nobody is entitled to push their religious notions onto others.
> That's the point.

I'm able to tune out all kinds of things that people say in which I have no
interest or accordance. The beautiful flip-side of free speech is free
listening; I decide whether or not to give the words of others power,
importance and credence. Equating someone stating their beliefs with
"pushing" their beliefs on others is a bit dramatic, no? Unless I'm
actually chained down or behind bars, in this free society I'm always able
to walk out, change the channel, work a crossword puzzle - or just keep
myself occupied with my own thoughts while someone else drones on about
Jesus and such.

[`F.H.]

"Craig S." wrote:

> Equating someone stating their beliefs with "pushing" their beliefs on
> others is a bit dramatic, no? Unless I'm actually chained down or behind
> bars, in this free society I'm always able to walk out, change the channel,
> work a crossword puzzle - or just keep myself occupied with my own thoughts
> while someone else drones on about Jesus and such.

Careful Craig, Rush's really weird looking little brother has a book out
about prejudice against Christians and you know where Ashcroft stands on
this important issue. Well meaning Patriots may be monitoring this n/g
for precisely this kind of borderline blasphemy.

Mr. X
God as my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

Carlson (WKRP in Cincinnati)

[Craig S.]

"`F.H." <disconnectu@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F71FBED.3D5AC43C@earthlink.net...
> "Craig S." wrote:
>
> > Equating someone stating their beliefs with "pushing" their beliefs on
> > others is a bit dramatic, no? Unless I'm actually chained down or
behind
> > bars, in this free society I'm always able to walk out, change the
channel,
> > work a crossword puzzle - or just keep myself occupied with my own
thoughts
> > while someone else drones on about Jesus and such.
>
> Careful Craig, Rush's really weird looking little brother has a book out
> about prejudice against Christians and you know where Ashcroft stands on
> this important issue. Well meaning Patriots may be monitoring this n/g
> for precisely this kind of borderline blasphemy.

I have no desire to be labeled as "borderline." I'll try to be much more
specifically denigrating next time. 8~)

[Blue Moon]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:01:42 +0100, "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Blue Moon wrote:
>
>>
>> It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says with
>> what AA members say :)
>
>No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature I was
>told not to focus on what was written.

That suggest still applies, hence your problem with the notion of
"your best thinking got you here" is just that - your problem.

>Now, you say dont confuse what
>members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant to take any
>responsibility for its own doctrines?

Where does AA say "your best thinking got you here"? That's what you
claimed AA says.

--
Blue Moon

[Blue Moon]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:23:19 +0100, "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Why is it so difficult for people on this NG to accept that people who go to
>AA are often told that "your best thinking got you here"? I must have heard
>this hundreds of times at meetings. Why so defensive?

Not defensive. It's actually true in most cases - very few people
WANTED to become alcoholic and join AA. What's being questioned is
the assertion that AA says it which, to my knowledge, it doesn't.

--
Blue Moon

[Kev]

Moonraker wrote:
>>
>> I did'nt even say it was wrong. There just seems to be a lot of
>> denial in this NG about it being said at all
>
> By whom? I don't think it's written in any of the AA literature,
> anywhere. Lots of things are said in meetings that aren't in any of
> the literature.
> I heard " God damn" and "mother fucker" several times at a meeting
> last night. Don't think either of those terms are in the BB
> anywhere, are they?
>

More Denial
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Kev]

Blue Moon wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:01:42 +0100, "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Blue Moon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says with
>>> what AA members say :)
>>
>> No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature I
>> was told not to focus on what was written.
>
> That suggest still applies, hence your problem with the notion of
> "your best thinking got you here" is just that - your problem.
>
>> Now, you say dont confuse what
>> members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant to take any
>> responsibility for its own doctrines?
>
> Where does AA say "your best thinking got you here"? That's what you
> claimed AA says.

Why can you not be honest about something that AA people say all the time?
--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Blue Moon]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:10:43 GMT, "Craig S." <cspurlock@mtneer.net>
wrote:

>I'm able to tune out all kinds of things that people say in which I have no
>interest or accordance. The beautiful flip-side of free speech is free
>listening; I decide whether or not to give the words of others power,
>importance and credence.

I don't give a rat's ass for myself, I already know it has nothing
whatsoever to do with alcoholic recovery. My gripe is that it's
really questionable under AA's own Traditions (Traditions 5, 6 and 12,
at least) to be announcing a church service that has nothing to do
with AA, or prescribing adherence to the 10 commandments. Pity the
poor newcomer who must be really wondering what the hell he's getting
into.

> Equating someone stating their beliefs with
>"pushing" their beliefs on others is a bit dramatic, no?

I made no such equation, your interpretation did that all by itself.
When people "bring their religion" into AA that's an implcation of
rather more than simply stating belief.

--
Blue Moon

[Moonraker]

"Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bkt0n1$5qdvc$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Moonraker wrote:
> >>
> >> I did'nt even say it was wrong. There just seems to be a lot of
> >> denial in this NG about it being said at all
> >
> > By whom? I don't think it's written in any of the AA literature,
> > anywhere. Lots of things are said in meetings that aren't in any of
> > the literature.
> > I heard " God damn" and "mother fucker" several times at a meeting
> > last night. Don't think either of those terms are in the BB
> > anywhere, are they?
> >
>
> More Denial

You really ARE dense, aint'cha?


--
> Kev
> Not -so -Bright, UK
>
>

[Blue Moon]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:04:57 +0100, "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Blue Moon wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:01:42 +0100, "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Blue Moon wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says with
>>>> what AA members say :)
>>>
>>> No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature I
>>> was told not to focus on what was written.
>>
>> That suggest still applies, hence your problem with the notion of
>> "your best thinking got you here" is just that - your problem.
>>
>>> Now, you say dont confuse what
>>> members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant to take any
>>> responsibility for its own doctrines?
>>
>> Where does AA say "your best thinking got you here"? That's what you
>> claimed AA says.
>
>Why can you not be honest about something that AA people say all the time?

When have I ever said that AA people don't say it? What AA members
say and what the official AA line is are entirely different. I fully
accept that many AA members make such statements all the time.

If I listened to, and acted upon, everything every AA member had said,
I'd be drunkenly sober, would never have worked the program whilst
working it, would never have had a relationship whilst having one,
would have a completely different notion of what the literature says
to what it actually says, would have used or not used the 12x12
and/or/not the Big Book to recover, would be codependently relying on
sponsees to keep me sober whilst relying on my own consciousness to
keep me sober, and would be earnestly praying to some nefarious God
trying to gain an understanding (and kneeling whilst sitting on the
toilet seat to do it) whilst doing what I needed to do without resort
to prayers.

Now if I could do all that and stay out of the loony bin at the same
time, that really would be a miracle. Hence the notions "take what
you want/need and leave the rest" and "stick with the winners".

--
Blue Moon

[Kev]

Moonraker wrote:
> "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bkt0n1$5qdvc$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Moonraker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I did'nt even say it was wrong. There just seems to be a lot of
>>>> denial in this NG about it being said at all
>>>
>>> By whom? I don't think it's written in any of the AA literature,
>>> anywhere. Lots of things are said in meetings that aren't in any of
>>> the literature.
>>> I heard " God damn" and "mother fucker" several times at a meeting
>>> last night. Don't think either of those terms are in the BB
>>> anywhere, are they?
>>>
>>
>> More Denial
>
> You really ARE dense, aint'cha?
>
Bring out the personal insults, eh?

--
Kev
Brighton UK

[Robert McGregor]

"Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bkt0r4$5g7kh$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Blue Moon wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:01:42 +0100, "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Blue Moon wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says with
> >>> what AA members say :)
> >>
> >> No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature I
> >> was told not to focus on what was written.
> >
> > That suggest still applies, hence your problem with the notion of
> > "your best thinking got you here" is just that - your problem.
> >
> >> Now, you say dont confuse what
> >> members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant to take any
> >> responsibility for its own doctrines?
> >
> > Where does AA say "your best thinking got you here"? That's what you
> > claimed AA says.
>
> Why can you not be honest about something that AA people say all the time?
> --
> Kev
> Brighton UK
>
>

Guess expecting Kev to lead by example, by referring to what some AA people
say a lot of the time, would be far too much to ask. What could be more
amusing is discovering what, if anything, has *not* been said or slurred by
AA members, in the 60+ years they've been flapping their tongues.

Bob

[Moonraker]

"Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bkt2o8$5hnjn$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Moonraker wrote:
> > "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bkt0n1$5qdvc$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> Moonraker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I did'nt even say it was wrong. There just seems to be a lot of
> >>>> denial in this NG about it being said at all
> >>>
> >>> By whom? I don't think it's written in any of the AA literature,
> >>> anywhere. Lots of things are said in meetings that aren't in any of
> >>> the literature.
> >>> I heard " God damn" and "mother fucker" several times at a meeting
> >>> last night. Don't think either of those terms are in the BB
> >>> anywhere, are they?
> >>>
> >>
> >> More Denial
> >
> > You really ARE dense, aint'cha?
> >
> Bring out the personal insults, eh?

Yeah....why not? You only pop in whenever you feel like taking a shot at
AA, arguing some idiotic point which goes nowhere.

If you've got a point in there somewhere, try to spit it out.

First, you claim AA says "your best thinking.....", then when it is pointed
out (correctly) that what various AA members say, or don't say, has nothing
to do with AA literature, somehow that's a denial? Everyone posting to
this topic, that I've seen, has correctly said that they have heard that
phrase in a meeting. Big Fucking Deal. Where is the denial? Do you
have a point?

>
> --
> Kev
> Brighton UK
>
>

[Craig S.]

"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7RsxnOC7vVc$EwT9@aol.com...
> In message <vn1ql277j7t07a@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
> <cspurlock@charter.net> writes
> >"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:pfEVkYFaIKc$EwAG@aol.com...
> >
> >> I have never understood why merely
> >> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity -
> >
> >Quote a "deity?" Now that would be a good trick.
> >
> >
> The christian bible claims to all the time - that is the allusion I was
> making.

Oh, I thought maybe you meant a real deity.

[Craig S.]

"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ad182393df9b46bd6fe1478ebf5fecd4@news.teranew s.com...

> When people "bring their religion" into AA that's an implication of
> rather more than simply stating belief.

Is it? I've listened to scads of people proclaim "my higher power whom I
choose to call Jesus Christ." Would you suggest that such a statement might
sway the uninitiated toward thinking that belief in Jesus Christ is
necessary for recovery from alcoholism?

I guess I just tend to give people more credit for making up their own minds
than that.

[Virtualoso]

In article <bkspk8$5kfr1$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
<none@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Why is AA so reluctant to take any
> responsibility for its own doctrines?

Which specific doctrine are you having a problem with?

[Virtualoso]

In article <bksqs9$5ntu8$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
<none@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Kai wrote:
> > Kev wrote:
> >> Blue Moon wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says with
> >>> what AA members say :)
> >>
> >> No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature I
> >> was told not to focus on what was written. Now, you say dont confuse
> >> what members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant to take
> >> any responsibility for its own doctrines?
> >
> > Umm, have you asked AA and did you get a response from AA?
> >
> > In the meanwhile one might suggest not to think of it as a doctrine.
> > Do you consider things people say in the TV a doctrine? A talking
> > head says "jump" and up you go? Or at least you believe everyone else
> > watching the same channel jumps?
> >
> > Kai
>
> Why is it so difficult for people on this NG to accept that people who go to
> AA are often told that "your best thinking got you here"? I must have heard
> this hundreds of times at meetings. Why so defensive?

Why are you trying to hard to find some defensiveness?

[Virtualoso]

In article <bkst5d$5o652$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
<none@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Craig S. wrote:
> > "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bksqs9$5ntu8$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> Kai wrote:
> >>> Kev wrote:
> >>>> Blue Moon wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It seems that your own best thinking is confusing what AA says
> >>>>> with what AA members say :)
> >>>>
> >>>> No confusion here. Funny how when I remarked on some AA literature
> >>>> I was told not to focus on what was written. Now, you say dont
> >>>> confuse what members say with what AA says. Why is AA so reluctant
> >>>> to take any responsibility for its own doctrines?
> >>>
> >>> Umm, have you asked AA and did you get a response from AA?
> >>>
> >>> In the meanwhile one might suggest not to think of it as a doctrine.
> >>> Do you consider things people say in the TV a doctrine? A talking
> >>> head says "jump" and up you go? Or at least you believe everyone
> >>> else watching the same channel jumps?
> >>>
> >>> Kai
> >>
> >> Why is it so difficult for people on this NG to accept that people
> >> who go to AA are often told that "your best thinking got you here"?
> >> I must have heard this hundreds of times at meetings. Why so
> >> defensive?
> >
> > What's wrong with somebody's best thinking getting them to an AA
> > meeting if that's where they find help?
>
> I did'nt even say it was wrong. There just seems to be a lot of denial in
> this NG about it being said at all

No one at all has denied it said, other than you keep pretending that's
somehow the case.

[Virtualoso]

In article <bkt2o8$5hnjn$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de>, Kev
<none@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Moonraker wrote:
> > "Kev" <none@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bkt0n1$5qdvc$1@ID-181496.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >> Moonraker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I did'nt even say it was wrong. There just seems to be a lot of
> >>>> denial in this NG about it being said at all
> >>>
> >>> By whom? I don't think it's written in any of the AA literature,
> >>> anywhere. Lots of things are said in meetings that aren't in any of
> >>> the literature.
> >>> I heard " God damn" and "mother fucker" several times at a meeting
> >>> last night. Don't think either of those terms are in the BB
> >>> anywhere, are they?
> >>>
> >>
> >> More Denial
> >
> > You really ARE dense, aint'cha?
> >
> Bring out the personal insults, eh?

Uh oh, now you're in denial.

[Virtualoso]

In article <27663d41be9b1886a6a6bf7fd0d2e586@news.teranews.com >, Blue
Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:55:04 -0400, "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:095c6b982ee94c69fae40b3200060b0c@news.teranew s.com...
> >
> >> It does annoy me when fools bring their religion into AA.
> >
> >I wonder why this would bother you so. Many people have very strong
> >religious beliefs - they practice those principles in all their affairs so
> >to speak.
>
> Who ever said that they were practicing any such principles?
>
> > Would you ask people to pretend to be something that they are
> >not? People with strong religious beliefs are as entitled to their
> >religious recognition as you are to your religious intolerance.
>
> Nobody is entitled to push their religious notions onto others.
> That's the point.

But it's an entirely different matter when it comes to pushing ethical
or moral notions?

[Virtualoso]

In article <vn4evfreog9rc8@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
<cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:

> "Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ad182393df9b46bd6fe1478ebf5fecd4@news.teranew s.com...
>
> > When people "bring their religion" into AA that's an implication of
> > rather more than simply stating belief.
>
> Is it? I've listened to scads of people proclaim "my higher power whom I
> choose to call Jesus Christ." Would you suggest that such a statement might
> sway the uninitiated toward thinking that belief in Jesus Christ is
> necessary for recovery from alcoholism?
>
> I guess I just tend to give people more credit for making up their own minds
> than that.

If you credit them for making up their own minds about that, then how
come you can't quite credit them for making up their own minds about
that?

[Virtualoso]

In article <ad182393df9b46bd6fe1478ebf5fecd4@news.teranews.com >, Blue
Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:10:43 GMT, "Craig S." <cspurlock@mtneer.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm able to tune out all kinds of things that people say in which I have no
> >interest or accordance. The beautiful flip-side of free speech is free
> >listening; I decide whether or not to give the words of others power,
> >importance and credence.
>
> I don't give a rat's ass for myself, I already know it has nothing
> whatsoever to do with alcoholic recovery. My gripe is that it's
> really questionable under AA's own Traditions (Traditions 5, 6 and 12,
> at least) to be announcing a church service that has nothing to do
> with AA, or prescribing adherence to the 10 commandments. Pity the
> poor newcomer who must be really wondering what the hell he's getting
> into.

Unbeknownst to him, he's much better off back in the bars.

> > Equating someone stating their beliefs with
> >"pushing" their beliefs on others is a bit dramatic, no?
>
> I made no such equation, your interpretation did that all by itself.

"Nobody is entitled to push their religious notions onto others."
- Blue Moon

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <vn4evf8u5ivoc5@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
<cspurlock@charter.net> writes
>"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:7RsxnOC7vVc$EwT9@aol.com...
>> In message <vn1ql277j7t07a@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
>> <cspurlock@charter.net> writes
>> >"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:pfEVkYFaIKc$EwAG@aol.com...
>> >
>> >> I have never understood why merely
>> >> to quote what someone - maybe Bill W - maybe a deity -
>> >
>> >Quote a "deity?" Now that would be a good trick.
>> >
>> >
>> The christian bible claims to all the time - that is the allusion I was
>> making.
>
>Oh, I thought maybe you meant a real deity.
>
>
That is an oxymoron!

I think there is a danger of treating individuals - in this case BW - as
the bible treat 'god'. As infallible.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <240920031948209083%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
<virtualoso@dot.com> writes
>In article <27663d41be9b1886a6a6bf7fd0d2e586@news.teranews.com >, Blue
>Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:55:04 -0400, "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Nobody is entitled to push their religious notions onto others.
>> That's the point.
>
>But it's an entirely different matter when it comes to pushing ethical
>or moral notions?

Ethical or moral notions can be backed up by reason - religion cannot.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Kai]

Jonathan Bratt wrote:
> In message <240920031948209083%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
> <virtualoso@dot.com> writes
>> In article <27663d41be9b1886a6a6bf7fd0d2e586@news.teranews.com >, Blue
>> Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:55:04 -0400, "Craig S."
>>> <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Nobody is entitled to push their religious notions onto others.
>>> That's the point.
>>
>> But it's an entirely different matter when it comes to pushing
>> ethical or moral notions?
>
> Ethical or moral notions can be backed up by reason - religion cannot.

That's such a remarkable stretch it demands clarification. Care to
elaborate?

Kai

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <bku5qq$r9q$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
<soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> writes
>Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>> In message <240920031948209083%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
>> <virtualoso@dot.com> writes
>>> In article <27663d41be9b1886a6a6bf7fd0d2e586@news.teranews.com >, Blue
>>> Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:55:04 -0400, "Craig S."
>>>> <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Nobody is entitled to push their religious notions onto others.
>>>> That's the point.
>>>
>>> But it's an entirely different matter when it comes to pushing
>>> ethical or moral notions?
>>
>> Ethical or moral notions can be backed up by reason - religion cannot.
>
>That's such a remarkable stretch it demands clarification. Care to
>elaborate?

Sure - one can reasonably demonstrate that not killing people is of
benefit to society as a whole. A religious tenet is a matter of faith,
that does not allow for rational discussion.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Kai]

Jonathan Bratt wrote:
> In message <bku5qq$r9q$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
> <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> writes
>> Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>>> In message <240920031948209083%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
>>> <virtualoso@dot.com> writes
>>>> In article <27663d41be9b1886a6a6bf7fd0d2e586@news.teranews.com >,
>>>> Blue Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:55:04 -0400, "Craig S."
>>>>> <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody is entitled to push their religious notions onto others.
>>>>> That's the point.
>>>>
>>>> But it's an entirely different matter when it comes to pushing
>>>> ethical or moral notions?
>>>
>>> Ethical or moral notions can be backed up by reason - religion
>>> cannot.
>>
>> That's such a remarkable stretch it demands clarification. Care to
>> elaborate?
>
> Sure - one can reasonably demonstrate that not killing people is of
> benefit to society as a whole.

That's all there is to ethical or moral codes? How does one, BTW, reasonably
demonstrate it is of benefit to the society as a whole to not kill people?
Careful now, because this just sounds like it's somewhat up to the society
itself. The values held high in a particular society may make it of benefit
to a society operating with such values to not kill people, but these values
are naturally based on something. Like maybe things like "You shall not
kill".

> A religious tenet is a matter of faith,
> that does not allow for rational discussion.

You mean like "You shall not kill"?

Kai

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <bkuaep$8gm$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
<soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> writes
>Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>> In message <bku5qq$r9q$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
>> <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> writes
>>
>> Sure - one can reasonably demonstrate that not killing people is of
>> benefit to society as a whole.
>
>That's all there is to ethical or moral codes?

I am not a moral philosopher, but it is a reasonable basis to begin
with. Generally I believe in letting people do as they like unless such
behaviour is demonstrably harmful to others - i.e. society as a whole.

> How does one, BTW, reasonably
>demonstrate it is of benefit to the society as a whole to not kill people?

Because if one were to kill at will society would disintegrate.

>Careful now, because this just sounds like it's somewhat up to the society
>itself. The values held high in a particular society may make it of benefit
>to a society operating with such values to not kill people, but these values
>are naturally based on something. Like maybe things like "You shall not
>kill".
>
>> A religious tenet is a matter of faith,
>> that does not allow for rational discussion.
>
>You mean like "You shall not kill"?

That is not an immutable tenet - even that is dependant on circumstances
- i.e. it is relative.

--
Jonathan Bratt

[Kai]

Jonathan Bratt wrote:
> In message <bkuaep$8gm$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
> <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> writes
>> Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>>> In message <bku5qq$r9q$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
>>> <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> writes
>>>
>>> Sure - one can reasonably demonstrate that not killing people is of
>>> benefit to society as a whole.
>>
>> That's all there is to ethical or moral codes?
>
> I am not a moral philosopher, but it is a reasonable basis to begin
> with. Generally I believe in letting people do as they like unless
> such behaviour is demonstrably harmful to others - i.e. society as a
> whole.

What is the measure of 'demonstrable harm'?

>
>> How does one, BTW, reasonably
>> demonstrate it is of benefit to the society as a whole to not kill
>> people?
>
> Because if one were to kill at will society would disintegrate.

"To kill at will" is of course not the only other option besides "not
killing" now is it. Irregardless of that, there is nothing to stop somebody
from "killing at will" in any society anyways, with the exception of perhaps
prison convicts and mental patients deemed dangerous. In a society where
killing is considered unethical, it may serve the value system to not kill,
but to say it is demonstrably, absolutely, reasonably so, is open game.
First we need to define what is 'good' for the 'society as a whole'. Even
before that we need to make up our minds just how many people constitute
'the society as a whole', and then we need to decide which particular value
system we utilize to define what is 'good' in the context of said value
system. But how do we know if our value system, the basis of the evaluation
of a relative 'goodness', is 'good'?

>
>> Careful now, because this just sounds like it's somewhat up to the
>> society itself. The values held high in a particular society may
>> make it of benefit to a society operating with such values to not
>> kill people, but these values are naturally based on something. Like
>> maybe things like "You shall not kill".
>>
>>> A religious tenet is a matter of faith,
>>> that does not allow for rational discussion.
>>
>> You mean like "You shall not kill"?
>
> That is not an immutable tenet - even that is dependant on
> circumstances - i.e. it is relative.

Really? Which part of "You shall not kill" leaves you uncertain as to
whether it's okay to kill or not?

You didn't address the original point that it, if anything, despite being a
'religious tenet', can also be subject to rational discussion and evaluation
on the beneficial-to-society-as-a-whole-scale.

Kai

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <bkuds0$g5q$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
<soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> writes
>Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>> In message <bkuaep$8gm$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
>> <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> writes
>>> Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>>>> In message <bku5qq$r9q$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
>>>> <soberon@NOSPAM.luukku.com> writes
>>>>
>>>> Sure - one can reasonably demonstrate that not killing people is of
>>>> benefit to society as a whole.
>>>
>>> That's all there is to ethical or moral codes?
>>
>> I am not a moral philosopher, but it is a reasonable basis to begin
>> with. Generally I believe in letting people do as they like unless
>> such behaviour is demonstrably harmful to others - i.e. society as a
>> whole.
>
>What is the measure of 'demonstrable harm'?

I am not a moral philosopher as I have said and feel no need to enter
into a Socratic dialogue. I have no difficulty distinguishing in a view
that someone can argue with reason and rationale, and one that is based
on 'because the bible/koran says so'.
>
>>
>>> How does one, BTW, reasonably
>>> demonstrate it is of benefit to the society as a whole to not kill
>>> people?
>>
>> Because if one were to kill at will society would disintegrate.
>
>"To kill at will" is of course not the only other option besides "not
>killing" now is it. Irregardless of that, there is nothing to stop somebody
>from "killing at will" in any society anyways, with the exception of perhaps
>prison convicts and mental patients deemed dangerous. In a society where
>killing is considered unethical, it may serve the value system to not kill,
>but to say it is demonstrably, absolutely, reasonably so, is open game.
>First we need to define what is 'good' for the 'society as a whole'. Even
>before that we need to make up our minds just how many people constitute
>'the society as a whole', and then we need to decide which particular value
>system we utilize to define what is 'good' in the context of said value
>system. But how do we know if our value system, the basis of the evaluation
>of a relative 'goodness', is 'good'?

Ultimately this must be decided via the political system. There is no
timeless objective standard of good. What would u suggest we use?
>
>>
>>> Careful now, because this just sounds like it's somewhat up to the
>>> society itself. The values held high in a particular society may
>>> make it of benefit to a society operating with such values to not
>>> kill people, but these values are naturally based on something. Like
>>> maybe things like "You shall not kill".
>>>
>>>> A religious tenet is a matter of faith,
>>>> that does not allow for rational discussion.
>>>
>>> You mean like "You shall not kill"?
>>
>> That is not an immutable tenet - even that is dependant on
>> circumstances - i.e. it is relative.
>
>Really? Which part of "You shall not kill" leaves you uncertain as to
>whether it's okay to kill or not?

Can one kill in self-defence of one's self? One's family? One's society?
>
>You didn't address the original point that it, if anything, despite being a
>'religious tenet', can also be subject to rational discussion and evaluation
>on the beneficial-to-society-as-a-whole-scale.

Indeed. I have no problem with much of the 10 commandments for example -
but on rational grounds, not merely because some 'deity' handed them
down on a mountain.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Craig S.]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:240920031951290403%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <vn4evfreog9rc8@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
> <cspurlock@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > "Blue Moon" <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:ad182393df9b46bd6fe1478ebf5fecd4@news.teranew s.com...
> >
> > > When people "bring their religion" into AA that's an implication of
> > > rather more than simply stating belief.
> >
> > Is it? I've listened to scads of people proclaim "my higher power whom
I
> > choose to call Jesus Christ." Would you suggest that such a statement
might
> > sway the uninitiated toward thinking that belief in Jesus Christ is
> > necessary for recovery from alcoholism?
> >
> > I guess I just tend to give people more credit for making up their own
minds
> > than that.
>
> If you credit them for making up their own minds about that, then how
> come you can't quite credit them for making up their own minds about
> that?

Free country. I haven't been picketing any churches (or meetings) lately.
People are free to "choose to call" their "higher power" anything that suits
them. No skin off my back.

[Craig S.]

"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:hIHnREYVXqc$Ewgs@aol.com...

> Sure - one can reasonably demonstrate that not killing people is of
> benefit to society as a whole.

What about societies that practiced cannibalism?

What about the Crusades?

They believed they were benefiting society as a whole.

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <vn5hj77krmd0ec@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
<cspurlock@charter.net> writes
>"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:hIHnREYVXqc$Ewgs@aol.com...
>
>> Sure - one can reasonably demonstrate that not killing people is of
>> benefit to society as a whole.
>
>What about societies that practiced cannibalism?
>
>What about the Crusades?
>
>They believed they were benefiting society as a whole.
>
>
What about them? One cannot impose one's value structures on utterly
different conditions.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[rosie readandpost]

> Is it? I've listened to scads of people proclaim "my higher power whom I
> choose to call Jesus Christ."

i have heard that in AA meetings also, and it absolutely makes me CRINGE!
when i came to AA, i was FURIOUS with GOD and ORGANIZED RELIGION, and had there been ANY indication that AA was
religious, i would have walked out.


>
> I guess I just tend to give people more credit for making up their own minds
> than that.
>
>

you would have been wrong about me................i was looking for a good reason to leave, and the "jesus christ"
thing would have done it!
instead the whole concept of HP was explained to me, and took the "wind right out of my argumentative sails!"

i try to do that for the newcomers!

[Craig S.]

"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:UZa6FXTgWpc$Ew3T@aol.com...

> I think there is a danger of treating individuals - in this case BW - as
> the bible treat 'god'. As infallible.

"Danger?" Someone holding a different belief or philosophy than yourself
makes it "dangerous?"

Hmm... I can't recall any people strapping themselves with explosives
because they believed the words of Bill Wilson held a special power to help
them achieve sobriety. I don't really see where the "danger" might be
there, Jonathan.

[Virtualoso]

In article <gIbnRDUlXpc$EwQY@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
<jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:

> In message <240920031948209083%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
> <virtualoso@dot.com> writes
> >In article <27663d41be9b1886a6a6bf7fd0d2e586@news.teranews.com >, Blue
> >Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:55:04 -0400, "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Nobody is entitled to push their religious notions onto others.
> >> That's the point.
> >
> >But it's an entirely different matter when it comes to pushing ethical
> >or moral notions?
>
> Ethical or moral notions can be backed up by reason - religion cannot.

Oops. Now a certain version of "reason" is being pushed?

[Virtualoso]

In article <if7XUDdkFsc$EwAr@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
<jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:

> >You didn't address the original point that it, if anything, despite being a
> >'religious tenet', can also be subject to rational discussion and evaluation
> >on the beneficial-to-society-as-a-whole-scale.
>
> Indeed. I have no problem with much of the 10 commandments for example -
> but on rational grounds, not merely because some 'deity' handed them
> down on a mountain.

And if rational reason discerned that the symbolical expression of that
story was metaphorical?

[Blue Moon]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:48:20 -0700, Virtualoso <virtualoso@dot.com>
wrote:

>In article <27663d41be9b1886a6a6bf7fd0d2e586@news.teranews.com >, Blue
>Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Nobody is entitled to push their religious notions onto others.
>> That's the point.
>
>But it's an entirely different matter when it comes to pushing ethical
>or moral notions?

No.

--
Blue Moon

[Craig S.]

"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9$MQsGe6rsc$EwAg@aol.com...
> In message <vn5hj77krmd0ec@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
> <cspurlock@charter.net> writes
> >"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:hIHnREYVXqc$Ewgs@aol.com...
> >
> >> Sure - one can reasonably demonstrate that not killing people is of
> >> benefit to society as a whole.
> >
> >What about societies that practiced cannibalism?
> >
> >What about the Crusades?
> >
> >They believed they were benefiting society as a whole.
> >
> >
> What about them? One cannot impose one's value structures on utterly
> different conditions.

Then let's move into our own era. How about death row inmates - sentenced
to death for heinous crimes by juries of their peers - sitting on death row
for years on end - sucking up millions of dollars in taxpayer money for
their care and keep? How is maintaining their existence any benefit to
society?

[Moonraker]

"Virtualoso" <virtualoso@dot.com> wrote in message
news:250920030716198879%virtualoso@dot.com...
> In article <if7XUDdkFsc$EwAr@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
> <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >You didn't address the original point that it, if anything, despite
being a
> > >'religious tenet', can also be subject to rational discussion and
evaluation
> > >on the beneficial-to-society-as-a-whole-scale.
> >
> > Indeed. I have no problem with much of the 10 commandments for example -
> > but on rational grounds, not merely because some 'deity' handed them
> > down on a mountain.
>
> And if rational reason discerned that the symbolical expression of that
> story was metaphorical?

Virt, until his psych drugs wear off, .he won't have the foggiest notion of
what all those big words mean,

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <eHCcb.10907$ai7.6116@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
Craig S. <cspurlock@mtneer.net> writes
>"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:UZa6FXTgWpc$Ew3T@aol.com...
>
>> I think there is a danger of treating individuals - in this case BW - as
>> the bible treat 'god'. As infallible.
>
>"Danger?" Someone holding a different belief or philosophy than yourself
>makes it "dangerous?"

Nope. I have no problem with individual belief, I have a problem with
people accepting any tenet merely because X says it is so. Arriving at a
conclusion after due consideration I have no problem with

>
>Hmm... I can't recall any people strapping themselves with explosives
>because they believed the words of Bill Wilson held a special power to help
>them achieve sobriety. I don't really see where the "danger" might be
>there, Jonathan.

If that is the case, then my point is largely irrelevant. That is the
impression I have formed from the contributions of some on here.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <250920030716198879%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
<virtualoso@dot.com> writes
>In article <if7XUDdkFsc$EwAr@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
><jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >You didn't address the original point that it, if anything, despite being a
>> >'religious tenet', can also be subject to rational discussion and evaluation
>> >on the beneficial-to-society-as-a-whole-scale.
>>
>> Indeed. I have no problem with much of the 10 commandments for example -
>> but on rational grounds, not merely because some 'deity' handed them
>> down on a mountain.
>
>And if rational reason discerned that the symbolical expression of that
>story was metaphorical?

Cool - I agree that much is metaphorical - some take it literally
however. You can still ditch the 'no god but me' bit
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <%lDcb.19837$jO.11761@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
<fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> writes
>Virt, until his psych drugs wear off, .he won't have the foggiest
>notion of what all those big words mean,

Can you spell t-o-l-e-r-a-n-c-e-?
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <FRCcb.10919$ai7.2841@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink. net>,
Craig S. <cspurlock@mtneer.net> writes
>"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:9$MQsGe6rsc$EwAg@aol.com...
>> In message <vn5hj77krmd0ec@corp.supernews.com>, Craig S.
>> <cspurlock@charter.net> writes
>> >"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:hIHnREYVXqc$Ewgs@aol.com...
>> >
>> >> Sure - one can reasonably demonstrate that not killing people is of
>> >> benefit to society as a whole.
>> >
>> >What about societies that practiced cannibalism?
>> >
>> >What about the Crusades?
>> >
>> >They believed they were benefiting society as a whole.
>> >
>> >
>> What about them? One cannot impose one's value structures on utterly
>> different conditions.
>
>Then let's move into our own era. How about death row inmates - sentenced
>to death for heinous crimes by juries of their peers - sitting on death row
>for years on end - sucking up millions of dollars in taxpayer money for
>their care and keep? How is maintaining their existence any benefit to
>society?
>
>
Happily in this country (UK) we do not have the death penalty.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <250920030712033505%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
<virtualoso@dot.com> writes
>In article <gIbnRDUlXpc$EwQY@aol.com>, Jonathan Bratt
><jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> In message <240920031948209083%virtualoso@dot.com>, Virtualoso
>> <virtualoso@dot.com> writes
>> >In article <27663d41be9b1886a6a6bf7fd0d2e586@news.teranews.com >, Blue
>> >Moon <mfoco_uk@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 20:55:04 -0400, "Craig S." <cspurlock@charter.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Nobody is entitled to push their religious notions onto others.
>> >> That's the point.
>> >
>> >But it's an entirely different matter when it comes to pushing ethical
>> >or moral notions?
>>
>> Ethical or moral notions can be backed up by reason - religion cannot.
>
>Oops. Now a certain version of "reason" is being pushed?

Is it?
--
Jonathan Bratt

[David M]

Jonathan Bratt wrote:
> Kai wrote:

>> What is the measure of 'demonstrable harm'?

> I am not a moral philosopher as I have said and feel no need
> to enter into a Socratic dialogue. I have no difficulty
> distinguishing in a view that someone can argue with reason
> and rationale, and one that is based on 'because the
> bible/koran says so'.

It sounds like you have faith in your beliefs. ;-)

[Moonraker]

"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
news:hsEnosia9wc$EwCM@aol.com...
> In message <%lDcb.19837$jO.11761@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
> <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> writes
> >Virt, until his psych drugs wear off, .he won't have the foggiest
> >notion of what all those big words mean,
>
> Can you spell t-o-l-e-r-a-n-c-e-?
> --
> Jonathan Bratt


Can you spell s-h-u-t- t-h-e-f-u-c-k-u-p?

Let's see. You think your asshole is a sex organ and more of your critical
thinking led you to declare there is no God. That about sums up your
pitiful existance.

[Kai]

Moonraker wrote:
> "Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:hsEnosia9wc$EwCM@aol.com...
>> In message <%lDcb.19837$jO.11761@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
>> <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> writes
>>> Virt, until his psych drugs wear off, .he won't have the foggiest
>>> notion of what all those big words mean,
>>
>> Can you spell t-o-l-e-r-a-n-c-e-?
>> --
>> Jonathan Bratt
>
>
> Can you spell s-h-u-t- t-h-e-f-u-c-k-u-p?
>
> Let's see. You think your asshole is a sex organ and more of your critical
> thinking led you to declare there is no God. That about sums up your
> pitiful existance.

Cool! How does one get what you've got?

Kai

[`F.H.]

Jonathan Bratt wrote:

> Ethical or moral notions can be backed up by reason - religion cannot.

Is there any "reason" (basis or motive for an action, decision, or
conviction) behind the evolution of mythology?

Gramps
In search of sound reasoning.

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <hTEcb.21579$iO.9467@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
<moonrak9@bellsouth.net> writes
>
>"Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:hsEnosia9wc$EwCM@aol.com...
>> In message <%lDcb.19837$jO.11761@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
>> <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> writes
>> >Virt, until his psych drugs wear off, .he won't have the foggiest
>> >notion of what all those big words mean,
>>
>> Can you spell t-o-l-e-r-a-n-c-e-?
>> --
>> Jonathan Bratt
>
>
>Can you spell s-h-u-t- t-h-e-f-u-c-k-u-p?
>
>Let's see. You think your asshole is a sex organ and more of your critical
>thinking led you to declare there is no God. That about sums up your
>pitiful existance.
>
>
>
Works great for me - my existence is not so pitiful that I need to
attempt to denigrate others to validate it.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <bkv65f$gsr$1@phys-news1.kolumbus.fi>, Kai
<soberon@*NOSPAM*luukku.com> writes
>
>
>Moonraker wrote:
>> "Jonathan Bratt" <jonnybratt@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:hsEnosia9wc$EwCM@aol.com...
>>> In message <%lDcb.19837$jO.11761@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Moonraker
>>> <fuggadaboutit@bellsouth.net> writes
>>>> Virt, until his psych drugs wear off, .he won't have the foggiest
>>>> notion of what all those big words mean,
>>>
>>> Can you spell t-o-l-e-r-a-n-c-e-?
>>> --
>>> Jonathan Bratt
>>
>>
>> Can you spell s-h-u-t- t-h-e-f-u-c-k-u-p?
>>
>> Let's see. You think your asshole is a sex organ and more of your critical
>> thinking led you to declare there is no God. That about sums up your
>> pitiful existance.
>
>Cool! How does one get what you've got?

A very disturbed childhood.
--
Jonathan Bratt

[Jonathan Bratt]

In message <HKEcb.338317$2x.100510@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>, David M
<dhmce@insightbb.com> writes
>Jonathan Bratt wrote:
>> Kai wrote:
>
>>> What is the measure of 'demonstrable harm'?
>
>> I am not a moral philosopher as I have said and feel no need
>> to enter into a Socratic dialogue. I have no difficulty
>> distinguishing in a view that someone can argue with