aa Spoken Here Community Group
Fellowship Where you can share your thoughts, feelings, stories and get support to gain and continue sobriety.
I was just reading an article about interpreting the bible and how important it is to consider the time and place the writing was done in order to put it into context.
I believe the same is true when reading the big book. We pretty quickly get used to the fact that the people who wrote the book were men and most alcoholics they were associated with were men and therefore the use of "he" is pretty universal. We dont assume now that the book doesnt have equal relevance for women. We understand the context of the writing and can easily widen the concepts to include"she" .
What about the fact that the book was written in the 1930's in White, Christian America. The men who wrote it were generally exposed to the cultural Christianity and specifically exposed to Christianity again when they sought out spiritual programs. Not suprising then that in writing about spirituality they wrote about the only thing they knew - a broadly christion concept including a deity called god. They couldnt write about anything else as they didnt know about anything else.
What if the synchronicity of events that lead to the writing of the big book and the establishment of the AA fellowship had occured somewhere else. Say Thailand - would it have been written from a buddhsit point of view? Say Pakistan - would it have used Allah instead of god to denote the deity?
The good news is that spiritual principles are pretty universal so the same message about a spiritual way of life would have been included wherever the book was written. But if we find ourselves being closed minded about concepts of higher power and belief in god maybe it is woth remembering the time, place and prevailing religion when the book was written.
I am an athiest and thus dont believe in god. I have frequently been told that whatever small loopholes the writers put in they meant GOD and nothing else as a higher power. So how come the steps have worked so far for me. I think it is because I can look at the book in context and then widen it out to cover many other forms of spirituality and belief.
Anyone agree or do you think that god means god and anything else is not true to the spirituality of the programme?
I believe the same is true when reading the big book. We pretty quickly get used to the fact that the people who wrote the book were men and most alcoholics they were associated with were men and therefore the use of "he" is pretty universal. We dont assume now that the book doesnt have equal relevance for women. We understand the context of the writing and can easily widen the concepts to include"she" .
What about the fact that the book was written in the 1930's in White, Christian America. The men who wrote it were generally exposed to the cultural Christianity and specifically exposed to Christianity again when they sought out spiritual programs. Not suprising then that in writing about spirituality they wrote about the only thing they knew - a broadly christion concept including a deity called god. They couldnt write about anything else as they didnt know about anything else.
What if the synchronicity of events that lead to the writing of the big book and the establishment of the AA fellowship had occured somewhere else. Say Thailand - would it have been written from a buddhsit point of view? Say Pakistan - would it have used Allah instead of god to denote the deity?
The good news is that spiritual principles are pretty universal so the same message about a spiritual way of life would have been included wherever the book was written. But if we find ourselves being closed minded about concepts of higher power and belief in god maybe it is woth remembering the time, place and prevailing religion when the book was written.
I am an athiest and thus dont believe in god. I have frequently been told that whatever small loopholes the writers put in they meant GOD and nothing else as a higher power. So how come the steps have worked so far for me. I think it is because I can look at the book in context and then widen it out to cover many other forms of spirituality and belief.
Anyone agree or do you think that god means god and anything else is not true to the spirituality of the programme?
God of nature kind of thing. But by the 30's they were pretty much gone.
The amazing thing is how this program can work for people with so many different views.
That way I find new meaning even after years of analysis. Some say I over-analyze it. However, I have found it is impossible to over-analyze the truth. Truth can stand an infinite amount of analyzing.
I think that it doesn't matter if one believes or not. It's more about willingness.
Personally, I've had some profound experiences with what I guess one would call "God." But at this point in my sobriety, I'm not sure I believe in God or not. It doesn't matter, because it has transcended belief. It's more about the experience because I'm more interested in consciousness than conception.
I agree. Belief in God is not as important as belief in the program (God Orderly Direction if you choose to call it that).
I know a guy who was an atheist but did everything his sponsor told him to do, and got the promises. When it came time to say a prayer, he started off with "Whatever runs the universe".
I know another guy who hated God but prayed anyway, because that is what the directions in the Big Book suggested. He started off every prayer with "Dear Rotten Rat Bastard". He got the promises anyway.
I have come to believe that God is not influenced by our opinion of him one way or the other. The power that helps us stay sober is "built in to the fabric of the universe" and available to anyone, anytime, anywhere.
If this sounds far-fetched? Listen to (or read) Chuck Chamberlain's "New Pair of Glasses".
However just finished reading"The age of reason Thomas Paine"
I probably should have read this about 40 years ago but better late than never As DT mentioned there certainly was an enlightenment element in your founding fathers Which seemed to dissapear.
Bit unfortunate imo
Like you nicki I have sometimes heard it said " its a christian programme really"
That did sometimes annoy or upset me but now I think these people are being a bit small minded or why would thy want to dictate how it reads for them is the only way
So I find my own understanding of the literature and that works for me
This stuff was a big deal to me when i got to AA as I was a hardcore Atheist and I nearly turned tail when i saw God on the banners. And I'd be dead now. But I had the Gift of Desperation and for me, I was prepared to explore anything that would help save my life, as I was in dire peril, and give me a better life. I was teachable on these matters, for the first time. With my extaordinarily wide ranging spiritual experience during 12 years sober, I am now pretty much where I started, an Atheist/Agnostic, depending on what day it is, but it totally works for me.
God of nature kind of thing. But by the 30's they were pretty much gone.
The amazing thing is how this program can work for people with so many different views.<<
I just finished reading a book called "American Veda." It is about the influence that Eastern philosophy and religion had on the transcendentalists like Emerson, Walt Whitman and Thoreau and in turn how they have influenced our thinking these days.
But being beaten down into submission and teachability by alcoholism 12 years ago when I got to AA, I was able to start a spiritual journey that HAS opened my mind to concepts of a Universal Intelligence, to the love of the Human Race. I am still an Atheist/Agnostic depending on what day it is and what way the wind is blowing, but I certainly live a spiritual, moral life. I largely see my Higher Power as the power of the AA group, not as a deity, but as having more cumulative years of sobriety and wisdom than I do. That is certainly a long way from the pre-AA me, who was depending soley on her own resources, thinking I had all the answers, when In fact, I had none. Being free of the shackles of a certain religious faith (or the cynical state of being Lapsed in that faith) now means that I am free to fully explore any spirituality, faith, philosophy, or combination thereof, I like - for the rest of my life.
As I said in an earlier post, I no longer find it important to define God. And I say God for want of a better term. It is just a word. I find God to more of an experience than an idea, something that is lived. Chuck C. used to say "Lose yourself in life and find yourself in God." Yesterday, I met with a couple of guys. We get together a couple of Sundays a month to read and meditate upon and discuss spiritual literature. We looked at "The Greatest Thing In The World," Henry Drummond's thesis on the 13th Chapter of I Corinthians, the "love chapter." It came that "God is love and love is God." Which probably is true. But I said that with the mind's limited ability to grasp the infinite and if God is love, that sure limits my understanding of love. So it comes down to once again, it isn't a "He" or a "She" or anything that I can define. Love isn't a feeling it is an action. So therefore God is expressed in a living action. I think it needs to be expressed. We express it in our active concern for the well being of one another. A rose expressed it by being a rose. Just my thoughts.
I find it also to be something that is within and not something that is up there and out there and unattainable by a guy like me. Don P. was one of a delegation of A.A.'s who was invited to the Soviet Union in 1988. He got to visit the Moscow Group No. 1, which had been in existence for about a year. It had been started by a "crazy" (Don's words) non-alcoholic priest. Don said that the meeting he attended was a second step meeting. He said that a young man, sober about six months said "Before sobriety I had no history of God in my life. But I have found spiritual power within myself." In order to fully appreciate that comment, you have to understand that the official stance of the Russian government at that was atheism.
A consideration for 'the recovering Catholics. I appreciate how you feel, I really do because I've had my share of religion being shoved down my throat. But think of this: What if a devoted, practicing Catholic comes to A.A. to get sober. They love their church but can't stop drinking. So they come to a meeting and hear people slamming that church and religion in general and saying things like "I'm a recovering Catholic." Put yourself in their shoes. Would you want to be part of something that in their eyes, hates what they love? Tradition Ten says that we have no opinion on outside issues, or rather I shouldn't express those views in a public setting where they might be taken to be the views of Alcoholics Anonymous as a whole. To that one suffering practicing Catholic alcoholic, I might be A.A. How do I present that to them? Do we want to possibly deny anyone a chance to be with us and get sober because of our own resentments and prejudices?
I am not a religious person. At least not in the church going sense. But it bothers me when I hear people slam religion in an A.A. meeting. We would even be having this discussion were it not for people like Dr. Sam Shoemaker and Fr. Ed Dowling. The religion comes from the Latin which means to "bind together" or to "bring back together." Kind of sad that it is what divides us more than anything.