digginfly said:
Don't flatter yourself. I never claimed not to be biased either. Your personal vendetta remains unsatisfied. Bummer.
- Status
Don't flatter yourself. I never claimed not to be biased either. Your personal vendetta remains unsatisfied. Bummer.
Gotta agree. For as much as AA has de-emphisized faith in the program over the years it's a simple matter of fact that faith was a key element in the AA philosophy from the outset. Whether or not it's a front for religion is a matter of opinion, but attempts to disconnect AA from faith altogether are entirely disinginuous. Like you I also noted the rabid response your comment engendered; curious and insecure sounding, if you ask me.
Faith is one thing, religion involves faith in a specific deity.
Speaking for myself, that's a HUGE difference. The "rabid response" is not out of insecurity as it stems from a need to set the record straight for people like me who stayed away because I was of the erroneous opinion that it was a requirement to be/become a Christian.
I'm glad for you guys that you have no need of A.A., becoming a member is not something that any of us aspired to be when we were planning our life's course. The thing is, for whatever reason, if you do wind up in a situation where you are in need, we'll welcome you with open arms opinions and all.
You're applying a modern definition of faith. Back when AA was formed "faith" was essentially universally accepted to mean "religion." As I said, I have close friends in the program and they report that they are in fact presented with notions of religious faith within it and that they "just ignore that stuff."
The questionable tone aside, neither Pav nor I have criticized the effectiveness of the program or challenged the character of anyone in the program.
Nothing in that post suggests otherwise. Keep that powder dry, z. You may actually need it one day.
Again, any program with a complete chapter titled "To the Agnostic" would seem to be trying to remove itself from the religion aspect...
Even early on, while acknowledging the influence, they sought to distance themselves from the Oxford Group which was a Christian based program. They saw how the religious aspect became a point of discrimination.
I'm sorry you found my tone "off," I meant no personal attack. You have mentioned a few times about your friends in program. My point is that even those closest to us do not truly understand this program until they have either become members of this program or Ala-Non.
Stirring the pot? That's what you're doing right now. I was simply flowing with the conversation. Why are you struggling so hard to make this personal? Looks a to me like you're the one derailing at this point.
Personal vendetta? Care to point to that?
Sounds to me like you're deflecting after having your bias revealed.
Blame your opinion of AA on your own personal experience, which seems
way outside the norm if you like. But knowing your history here, it is clear
to me that your bias against religion and "religious types" is the most likely
culprit of your deluded opinion.
Cry foul all you want. It's just my opinion anyway.
Sure, and the answer is right there in your post. Any organization that feels the need to put a chapter in their handbook called "to the atheist" clearly recognizes that there is/was a serious issue with the mixing of the program with religion.
It's cool. Tone is tricky in text and yes, having never been in it myself I'm at a slight disadvantage. That said, direct experience is not necessarily required to have an opinion on a topic.
My bias was never hidden. That's the whole point. You're gunning for me for no reason. Just a ham handed excuse to call me deluded.
Care to point out where anyone attempted to disconnect AA from faith?
Religion, yes. Faith or Spirituality, no.
Giving up and letting go is ENTIRELY a matter of faith.
Data? Well, it's somewhat tricky, but I think you'd agree that the broad shift in religious ideas since the 1930s is manifestly obvious. There was no public, vocal contingent of atheists back then. Things have changed, driving AAs move away from specifically religion based philosophy.
Stop with the desperate grasping. Read the thread instead of skimming it for opportunities. We've addressed every one of the points you just raised. Try and keep up.
Right. That's why you agreed with my assessment so early on.
You're funny!
Your opinion on this matter is (now) admittedly biased. Just another way of saying your opinion is deluded.
Look it up, slugger.
Ummm... you're flat wrong.
I've read the thread. You made the claim. You back it up.
Or not. If not, your point fails.
Dude...seriously...
this has NOTHING to do with the quote that you cannot back up...nor is it half as clever as you think. And there is nothing "tricky" about data. You said when AA was formed that "religion" and "faith" were considered the same thing. Um, no, but ok... PROVE IT. You can either back up your claims with FACTS or else you are just talking out of someplace other than your mouth.
Last edited:
And to think you're claiming you're not making this personal.
The grasping is all coming from you, d. You've tried over and over to accuse me of generalizing. Of bias and so forth. None of it is valid. I never claimed I was unbiased. I never claimed my opinion was fact. When you pointed out a post that looked like an absolute I clarified. Now you won't let it go. Why? Because you're not engaging in an honest debate. You're looking to score personal points against me. Thus your ongoing and failing attempt to make the word "deluded" stick.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
