---
Anarchy, n. (Webster)
Want of government; a state of society, when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity; political confusion.
---

If that is what we have here, someone will have to explain it to me!

I guess what I'm talking about Lee is how despite the fact that we have no "law" people DON'T just do what they want. They pretty much follow the suggestions.
It may not be a text book definition of anarcy. Yet we function without leaders, with only one membership criteria , etc.
It's amazing! No other non-organization does this successfully!

It is alcoholism that keeps me in line. No one has to impose any rules or laws on me. I do the things that I do because I want to and because I am aware of what the consequences will be if I don't. No punishment that any person could impose on me would be equivalent to a return to drinking.

We are disciplined by HP and alcoholism. We do what we need to do because our lives depend on it. That I believe is why no laws are needed.

"I guess what I'm talking about Lee is how despite the fact that we have no "law" people DON'T just do what they want."

Depends on the meeting. At some meetings the class-clowns do in fact, "what they want" (some even sneak booze into the meeting). If confronted they hide behind Tradition 3 which in effect says "If you know tradition 3, then there are no Laws".

Fortunately not all meetings are like that. Some meetings go to the other extreme and lock the doors during the meeting, tell everyone to take off their hats and only let members of their home group speak.

I think most meetings fall somewhere in between these two extremes and the strength in the fellowship lies in the freedom we have to start new meetings with more or less "Laws" than extreme meetings.

Diversity counter-balances anarchy.

I guess you urban AA's have some different stuff to deal with with court ordered and "claa clowns" I mean we get that too but not often.

Tradition 9 sums it up pretty well:

"His drunkeness adn dissolution are not penalties inflicted by people in authority; they result from his personal disobedience to spiritual principles....."

"So we of AA do obey spiritual principles, first because we must, and ultimately because we love the kind of life such obedience brings. Great suffering and great love are AA's disciplinarians; we need no other."

Basically, if you don't learn to follow the rules, the outlook isn't so bright.

In a away basdist I like that quote. But at had a strong negative reaction to it at the same time related to the punishing God of my youth.

I know, I know,I need to man up and get over it! LOL

"His drunkeness and dissolution are not penalties inflicted by people in authority; they result from his personal disobedience to spiritual principles....."

>> In a away basdist I like that quote. But at had a strong negative reaction to it at the same time related to the punishing God of my youth.

Personally, I find "they result from his personal disobedience to spiritual principles" to only be just that -- a result -- and not my next dose of here-comes-the-strap "punishment" at all. In my own experience, the idea of a "punishing God" comes from Santa-Claus theology: I thought I had to prove myself in order to get things, and that anything else was some kind of behaviour-modification tool or motivator.

The blessings we human beings ever receive actually come in a much dofferent way: unmerited favor, or "grace".

"The blessings we human beings ever receive actually come in a much dofferent way: unmerited favor, or "grace".

I suspect God created the 1st Beatitude just for alcoholics:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the (shortest path to) kingdom of heaven".

1n20

"Blessed are the poor in spirit..."

Can you explain what you mean about this being just for alcoholics?

Emmet Foxx interprets the 1st Beatitude as being for those who have a spiritual disorder.

We alcholics have a "Spiritual Malady":

Malady: [1913 Webster]
A moral or mental defect or disorder.

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the (shortest path to) kingdom of heaven"

If you take this passage to mean that it is referring to people who have a spiritual malady, how would it make sense that those with a spiritual disorder or malady could somehow have the shortest path to the KOH

My understanding of this passage is that it refers to those people who have little to no emotional or psychological baggage. Poor in spirit refers to people who have no "inner attachments" and thus very little ego (are not attached to their thoughts, emotions, beliefs or ideas, etc). It seems more likely that a person with little no attachments or no baggage would be closer to God.

JMHO

Basdist:

"Poor in spirit refers to people who have no "inner attachments" and thus very little ego"

This sounds like perfect detachment. Meister Eckhart said detachment is the most noble of all virtues.
IMO steps 10 & 11 lead us to perfect detachment (eventually).

If you have a source that says the 1st Beatitude is about detachment, I would like to know about it?

1n20

Go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAtojHuKDbg