Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 Hi Sambee, I have seen one film about a compulsive gambler who attended GA. Rather than signing up, he goes off and gambles till he wins enough money to guarantee his daughter's future! In this instance, the American Myth of the Hero prevailed over the Myth of the Sinner Saved. P. > Does anyone know of an instance in pop culture (film, T.V., or > even a book) where an " alcoholic " hasn't found " Sobriety " through > the 12steps? I've always noticed characters that are stereotypical > " drunks " or " junkies " ...always seem to go to that meeting, and the > situation magically disappears. It has always bothered me...just > once I'd like to see " The Fellowship " portrayed realistically. A > goverment-sponsored religious cult, people put in jail for refusing > to submit...fascinating. If I wrote it, would it be considered fiction? > Curious..... Sambee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 Hi , I havent seen the film, but I have read a previous accont on this list that says that it is intended to be a wholehearted endorsement of steppism. ly, I cant imagine it being any other way. However, the film is based on a Brit TV series of the same name, where apparently this line is not taken. I have only seen the final episode, which featured merely a discussion between the drug czar and the rehab's director, which iirc did seem to include some steppist- sounding statements by the latter. When he finds his runaway daughter he says: " I love you unconditionally. I love you even if you continue to use heroin. " The message is that it is unconditional love that helps a person heal, without even the string attached of demanding abstinence. The series closes with him making a speech to an international assembly where he waives an exampel of a new designer drug so potent ective asmounts are tiny,and being continuously redesigned, remained legal, and hence prohibition was fruitless. (The series was made before laws were changed to allow more sweeping prohibition laws not defeated by this tactic). He said that the only way to stop drug abuse was to create a world where ppl would not feel desperate to escape it. This anti-WoD, politically liberal message I am sure will never have made it into the American film. P. > > Does anyone know of an instance in pop culture (film, T.V., or > > even a book) where an " alcoholic " hasn't found " Sobriety " through > > the 12steps? I've always noticed characters that are stereotypical > > " drunks " or " junkies " ...always seem to go to that meeting, and the > > situation magically disappears. It has always bothered me...just > > once I'd like to see " The Fellowship " portrayed realistically. A > > goverment-sponsored religious cult, people put in jail for refusing > > to submit...fascinating. If I wrote it, would it be considered > fiction? > > Curious..... Sambee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2001 Report Share Posted October 16, 2001 Clean and Sober comes close, but in the end of course, steppers are given their " spotlight " . At the evry end of the movie, the relapsed drunk, close to a " jail, institution or death " ofcourse, goes back to the old timer sponsor who gives him an I told you so, and he goes back to the cult. >From: SamBeeJ@... >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: I'm Curious >Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:32:36 EDT > >Does anyone know of an instance in pop culture (film, T.V., or >even a book) where an " alcoholic " hasn't found " Sobriety " through >the 12steps? I've always noticed characters that are stereotypical > " drunks " or " junkies " ...always seem to go to that meeting, and the >situation magically disappears. It has always bothered me...just >once I'd like to see " The Fellowship " portrayed realistically. A >goverment-sponsored religious cult, people put in jail for refusing >to submit...fascinating. If I wrote it, would it be considered fiction? >Curious..... Sambee _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Share Posted October 17, 2001 , I read somewhere that the director of that movie ( Soderburgh) has had many run ins with treatment and that his theory now is(don't know if he is a stpper, and I don't want to call someone one who is not one) that the war can not be one, so we have to focus our attention on getting people into treatment. Whats so crazy about that, is that all we do is get people into treatment. Those that are in jail, are forced intot stepperism. Those who drive drunk, are forced into stepperism. Those who might (and I stress might, because I believe that a lot of people think they have to quit, even if they don't, yet they are eventually told they have to or they will die.) want to quit, or cut back, are forced into stepperism. All we do anymore is send people to XA and the like. >From: no_never_met_him@... >Reply-To: 12-step-free >To: 12-step-free >Subject: Re: I'm Curious >Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:03:49 -0000 > >Sambee, > >In the movie " Traffic " there are some scenes where a young girl with >a cocaine and I think heroin addiction goes to treatment and attends >some AA meetings. The way I took those scenes is that they seemed to >be showing how inadequate drug treatment is. It didn't come right out >and say so, but the tone of those scenes seemed to suggest something >sadly missing. In one of the AA meetings there is a guy going on and >on about his alcoholism using all the stereotypical drunkalog >crapola. It seemed as if the girl could not in anyway relate to this >guy's happy horseshit. > >Later in the movie the girl is sitting in an open AA meeting with her >father ( ) who is the national drug czar in America's >war on drugs. He says that he is there to " listen " . This is his >attitude after he learns that the war on drugs is futile. He resorts >to learning about the problem from AA people. I was not sure how to >take this scene. Was it the movie's last effort to show how >inadequate and ill equipped we are as a culture to prevent and treat >drug abuse even with the 12 steps? Or was it suggesting that the >people who have found successful treatment in a 12 step program are >the ones with the real knowledge? I think probably the former. I >would be interested to know what others on the list think about those >scenes. > >- > > > > > Does anyone know of an instance in pop culture (film, T.V., or > > even a book) where an " alcoholic " hasn't found " Sobriety " through > > the 12steps? I've always noticed characters that are stereotypical > > " drunks " or " junkies " ...always seem to go to that meeting, and the > > situation magically disappears. It has always bothered me...just > > once I'd like to see " The Fellowship " portrayed realistically. A > > goverment-sponsored religious cult, people put in jail for refusing > > to submit...fascinating. If I wrote it, would it be considered >fiction? > > Curious..... Sambee > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Share Posted October 17, 2001 the longest weekend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Share Posted October 17, 2001 At 07:32 PM 10/16/01 -0400, you wrote: >Does anyone know of an instance in pop culture (film, T.V., or >even a book) where an " alcoholic " hasn't found " Sobriety " through >the 12steps? I know some examples in older literature. I suppose that's no good, though, since steppers would just assert that people didn't know The Truth back then. H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Share Posted October 17, 2001 > Does anyone know of an instance in pop culture (film, T.V., or > even a book) where an " alcoholic " hasn't found " Sobriety " through > the 12steps? I've always noticed characters that are stereotypical > " drunks " or " junkies " ...always seem to go to that meeting, and the > situation magically disappears. It has always bothered me...just > once I'd like to see " The Fellowship " portrayed realistically. A > goverment-sponsored religious cult, people put in jail for refusing > to submit...fascinating. If I wrote it, would it be considered fiction? > Curious..... Sambee NYPD Blue had an unusual portrayal of Sipowitz (Sipowicz?) who went to AA but had an obviously slightly mad sponsor who kept trying to control him and kept saying " You're not giving credit to my 30 years of sobriety " . The sponsor got killed but S. seemed to get on just fine without him. I thought it portrayed some of the AA downside rather well, and certainly more accurately than the serene captain Furillo of Hill St Blues a decade or so earlier. It was never made clear after that what S. was actually doing rearding any " recovery program " - I think he had a couple of relapses but otherwise was sober without any visible AA participation. Joe B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2001 Report Share Posted October 17, 2001 Do you mean " The Lost Weekend " ? There is an irony with that film - the writer wanted the story to be about a man strugggling to come to terms with homosexuality, but it got bowdlerized to a man with Writers' Block! P. > the longest weekend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 Yes, P, that's what I meant. The Longest Weekend. I believe Ray Miland is in it. I thought it was about a husband and wife and the man had alcoholism. L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 The demand for more treatment is not a solution of those factors producing 'problem drinkers' or 'addicts', no matter which treatment we are talking of, rather a part of it. In our societies 'treatment' is business and will as such be subsumed to capitalistic logic, which means they'll have to eat or be beaten. This they can only do by 'creating' more 'alcoholics'. Therefore 'treatment', whatever color it might have, will create more control, expulsion and humiliation. Bjørn Re: I'm Curious>Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 00:03:49 -0000>>Sambee,>>In the movie "Traffic" there are some scenes where a young girl with>a cocaine and I think heroin addiction goes to treatment and attends>some AA meetings. The way I took those scenes is that they seemed to>be showing how inadequate drug treatment is. It didn't come right out>and say so, but the tone of those scenes seemed to suggest something>sadly missing. In one of the AA meetings there is a guy going on and>on about his alcoholism using all the stereotypical drunkalog>crapola. It seemed as if the girl could not in anyway relate to this>guy's happy horseshit.>>Later in the movie the girl is sitting in an open AA meeting with her>father ( ) who is the national drug czar in America's>war on drugs. He says that he is there to "listen". This is his>attitude after he learns that the war on drugs is futile. He resorts>to learning about the problem from AA people. I was not sure how to>take this scene. Was it the movie's last effort to show how>inadequate and ill equipped we are as a culture to prevent and treat>drug abuse even with the 12 steps? Or was it suggesting that the>people who have found successful treatment in a 12 step program are>the ones with the real knowledge? I think probably the former. I>would be interested to know what others on the list think about those>scenes.>>->>>> > Does anyone know of an instance in pop culture (film, T.V., or> > even a book) where an "alcoholic" hasn't found "Sobriety" through> > the 12steps? I've always noticed characters that are stereotypical> > "drunks" or "junkies"...always seem to go to that meeting, and the> > situation magically disappears. It has always bothered me...just> > once I'd like to see "The Fellowship" portrayed realistically. A> > goverment-sponsored religious cult, people put in jail for refusing> > to submit...fascinating. If I wrote it, would it be considered>fiction?> > Curious..... Sambee>_________________________________________________________________Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 At 04:13 PM 10/18/01 -0400, you wrote: >Yes, P, that's what I meant. The Longest Weekend. >I believe Ray Miland is in it. I thought it was about >a husband and wife and the man had alcoholism. There's a movie called The Lost Weekend along those lines. I had to watch it during the indoctrination after my first DWI. Hey, it was more entertaining than the stepper lectures. H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 > >Yes, P, that's what I meant. The Longest Weekend. > >I believe Ray Miland is in it. I thought it was about > >a husband and wife and the man had alcoholism. > > There's a movie called The Lost Weekend along those lines. > I had to watch it during the indoctrination after my first > DWI. Hey, it was more entertaining than the stepper > lectures. Yep, but iirc the guy has writer's block. The original author was gay and wanted it to be about a man struglling with being gay but the studio vetoed it. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2001 Report Share Posted October 18, 2001 Yeah, I had to watch it also, way back in 1975 in a treatment centre! kisses Tom Boy At 04:59 PM 18/10/01 -0400, wrote: There's a movie called The Lost Weekend along those lines. I had to watch it during the indoctrination after my first DWI. Hey, it was more entertaining than the stepper lectures. H. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 > >Does anyone know of an instance in pop culture (film, T.V., or > >even a book) where an " alcoholic " hasn't found " Sobriety " through > >the 12steps? > > I know some examples in older literature. I suppose that's no > good, though, since steppers would just assert that people > didn't know The Truth back then. > > H. 28 days was about rehab, but I don't think it had the steps (but a lot of nice reminders of why I don't wnat to go back to rehab, nonetheless! http://www.ew.com/ew/review/movie/0%2C1683%2C1239%2C28days.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 19, 2001 Report Share Posted October 19, 2001 Where you been? What I think that guy means is that we can't win the war on drugs... by putting people in jail, but we can certainly defeat this " scourge of evil " if we arrest even more people and put them in treatment instead. If I am putting the wrong words in his mouth, that's too bad, because there are plenty whose mouths that would come from. They contend that the war on drugs can be won, but it requires different weapons, though the facts clearly show that that war is immoral and unconstitutional. > , > I read somewhere that the director of that movie ( Soderburgh) has had > many run ins with treatment and that his theory now is(don't know if he is a > stpper, and I don't want to call someone one who is not one) that the war > can not be one, so we have to focus our attention on getting people into > treatment. Whats so crazy about that, is that all we do is get people into > treatment. Those that are in jail, are forced intot stepperism. Those who > drive drunk, are forced into stepperism. Those who might (and I stress > might, because I believe that a lot of people think they have to quit, even > if they don't, yet they are eventually told they have to or they will die.) > want to quit, or cut back, are forced into stepperism. All we do anymore is > send people to XA and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 That's what I was trying to say! He was actually quoted as saying those words. We can not win the war on drugs by fighting, but by getting people the "help they need. It was in an interview I erad in the papre out here. This is the view taken by the majority of people who contest that we should stop the war on drugs. But the fact is, AA and the like were the first to idealize the thought of banning drugs. The movement that brought us AA also brought us prohibition. I am speaking of course about the temperance movement. After alcohol was made legal again, they went after other drugs, mainly marijuana. Their propaganda, and the fact they used to go to vote in droves (probably cheating), made many a law-maker agree with them. This of course led us here. Re: I'm Curious Where you been? What I think that guy means is that we can't win the war on drugs... by putting people in jail, but we can certainly defeat this "scourge of evil" if we arrest even more people and put them in treatment instead. If I am putting the wrong words in his mouth, that's too bad, because there are plenty whose mouths that would come from. They contend that the war on drugs can be won, but it requires different weapons, though the facts clearly show that that war is immoral and unconstitutional.> ,> I read somewhere that the director of that movie ( Soderburgh) has had > many run ins with treatment and that his theory now is(don't know if he is a > stpper, and I don't want to call someone one who is not one) that the war > can not be one, so we have to focus our attention on getting people into > treatment. Whats so crazy about that, is that all we do is get people into > treatment. Those that are in jail, are forced intot stepperism. Those who > drive drunk, are forced into stepperism. Those who might (and I stress > might, because I believe that a lot of people think they have to quit, even > if they don't, yet they are eventually told they have to or they will die.) > want to quit, or cut back, are forced into stepperism. All we do anymore is > send people to XA and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 I don't think that is necessarily so, Bjorn. I believe it is possible for a sole therapist with a good understanding of what causes addiction and a few " helpers " to administer treatment in a capitalist society and have enough customers to keep him occupied and earning a good income for several thousand years. Thus, I believe, as with anything, that capitalism can generate a good product, for those willing to pay for it... which is what capitalism is all about, isn't it? If the product descends in quality, then, in time, the patients in waiting will disappear. It is the socialism aspect that doesn't work - when money is awarded automatically for the number treated, and not for the number of satisfied customers. > In our societies 'treatment' is business and will as such be subsumed to capitalistic logic, which means they'll have to eat or be beaten. This they can only do by 'creating' more 'alcoholics'. Therefore 'treatment', whatever color it might have, will create more control, expulsion and humiliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 If you have any reading material on this I would like it. Perhaps the Buchmanites and the Oxford Group were temperent folks (probably - they were a brand of Christians) but I don't think the temperence movement was behind the forming of AA. I think AA was a spin-off of the Oxford Group, which was group that wanted to bring thewhole world under God control. Of course, I am sure the temperence movement may have had a strong influence on the AA founders' beliefs and were probably supportive of AA once it got going. > > , > > I read somewhere that the director of that movie ( > Soderburgh) has had > > many run ins with treatment and that his theory now is(don't know > if he is a > > stpper, and I don't want to call someone one who is not one) that > the war > > can not be one, so we have to focus our attention on getting > people into > > treatment. Whats so crazy about that, is that all we do is get > people into > > treatment. Those that are in jail, are forced intot stepperism. > Those who > > drive drunk, are forced into stepperism. Those who might (and I > stress > > might, because I believe that a lot of people think they have to > quit, even > > if they don't, yet they are eventually told they have to or they > will die.) > > want to quit, or cut back, are forced into stepperism. All we do > anymore is > > send people to XA and the like. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 Could someone look at the site "Christians Anonymous" and tell me what they think. I'm mystified and not sure how to take it. L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 > Could someone look at the site " Christians Anonymous " > and tell me what they think. I'm mystified and not sure > how to take it. > L I like it, but my explanation is somewhat long. Everybody in America understands that young men's erroneous belief that they are invincible, immortal and that no bad can come to them causes lots of problems, accidents and death. Eventually these young men mature and realise how fragile they are and how precious life is, but for those few years where adolescent men believe they are immortal they are very risky to the rest of us... like walking bombs who can explode at any minute... using guns to kill, their fists to batter and cars to cause all kinds of destruction. The sooner these young men are convinced of their mortality and the danger they cause themselves and others, the sooner they begin behaving like more civilized adult human beings, and the sooner we are safe from the danger they present. I am going somewhere with this. This delusion, this (whether intentional or unintentional) ignorance of fact (that we're mortal) causes young men to do a lot of stupid and harmful things. Young men aren't the only ones who do stupid and harmful things because of erroneous or unjustified beliefs. Those with a religion who believe in an afterlife can not be considered rational or able to make rational decisions because they make the assumption that life never ends. There is nothing that substantiates that belief in the afterlife, just as there is nothing to substantiate the adolescent male's belief that he is immortal and can't be hurt even when he does really stupid things. Because most people believe they will continue to live even after they die, they make decisions that may threaten the life they are currently living or other people's lives (regardless of whether those others are convinced they will live forever or die and cease to exist). Whereas (most) people who believe this is the only life they have, that when it is over it is over, take the fullest caution to preserve their life. Christianity (and many other religions), despite its talk of love and helping fellow men, takes a very shallow view of the sanctity of life, at least concerning this life here on Earth, because all mistakes in this life are forgiven, and all will be perfect in the next life. Because people belief that last sentence, they are very careless about protecting this particular life, living thoughtlessly and without regard to the dangers they put themselves or others in. Because of the lack of evidence that there is any type of life after this one, it makes me want to take advantage of the few short years I have to live here. Using an unsubstantiated premise (that one will continue to live, even after death) as a rationalization for taking deadly risks, such as involving one's self in war, exposes everyone around that person to the deadly risk he is willing to take. Just as a young man who drives his car maniacly puts himself and everyone around him in danger, people who believe they will live on do make decisions and influence the thinking of others in a way that causes danger to everyone around them. So, this guy makes a website that is supposed to help people get away from these erroneous and destructive beliefs. I don't think CA (Christians Anonymous) is a part of XA, in that it does not mention a higher power, or try to convince Christians that they are diseased. Nor does it suggest itself to be the only solution for those wishing to leave the Christian church. It doesn't follow the normal cultishness. I think it might be a good tool for removing the conditioning that many people have been exposed to all their lives. Though I doubt it will be taken too seriously, it helps nurture that seed of doubt that people have about their religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 > > > Could someone look at the site " Christians Anonymous " > > > and tell me what they think. I'm mystified and not sure > > > how to take it. > > > L > > > > > > I like it, but my explanation is somewhat long. Everybody in > > America understands that young men's erroneous belief that they are > > invincible, immortal and that no bad can come to them > > > Is this what they really believe? Maybe they are just angry. Is it > really a matter of belief or is it a matter of a lack of experience > and proportion? The problems that some of this country's young men > face are a lot more complex than a set of beliefs. Religious people > tend to believe in doctrine and guide their lives accordingly in > varying degrees of adherence. But that is not what is going on with > these young men. Furthermore, there are plenty of young women who are > bad drivers. Ever been to traffic court? The demographic is every bit > female as it is male. What sort of beliefs about the afterlife are > causing these girls to drive poorly or agressively? What about other > people of all ages who commit various offenses? Is it really belief > concerning mortality/immortality that motivates them or makes them > more likely to be dangerous? You ask, " Is this what they really believe? " And I say yes it is. Just because they haven't given it full thought and concluded that " I believe I am invincible " doesn't mean they don't base their actions on a set of beliefs that says, " I know that is good advice, but it doesn't apply to me, or I know this is dangerous, but I can defy the odds, I have so far. " Until life experience teaches them, young men (that was the example I was using, not that I disclude young women who, for a small example, believe getting pregnant is a possibility, but it won't happen to them, and then does - that life experience will have an effect on their belief) will continue to live and make decisions based on the previously quoted beliefs, even though they rationally know that what they do is dangerous. Just because I didn't include more examples, or women, or anyone else in my example doesn't mean I was discluding them. And I wasn't speaking specifically of bad driving... I know some people never improve at driving although life experience teaches them that they are mortal. I appreciate your additional points about adolescent male behavior but they don't contradict or nullify my points. Most of the time, until we have a desire for truth over hope we will believe what suits us instead of what is most probably correct. When we are young, we want to feel these wonderful emotions, and it suits us to believe driving 100 miles an hour will not result in our head going through a windshield, but will result in a pleasurable emotion. And then we take that action and feel the pleasure, which convinces us more of that belief that suited us, the belief is reinforced because we believed our head would not go through a window and sure enough it didn't. So the next time, we feel even safer and more convinced in our belief, and our continued driving at a hundred miles an hour continues to reinforce that we are superior, invincible to windshields, and above the law… until something happens which disproves that belief, which even shatters that belief. It is very hard to discard the belief that I will live without my physical body since it has been reassured to us so many times and there is usually nothing, besides scientific evidence to the contrary, which most people ignore, that can shatter that belief. Like it is hard to convince a stepper that the disease theory is a farce… but it can be done, if they are willing to listen to scientific evidence. > > to take. Just as a young man who drives his car maniacly puts > > himself and everyone around him in danger, people who believe they > > will live on do make decisions and influence the thinking of others > > in a way that causes danger to everyone around them. > > > I am left thinking that this analogy does not work. I would like to > see some real life examples of just how people with a belief in a Real life example: people who believe there is an afterlife automatically assume that whatever decisions made here on Earth are not the ultimate decisions that can be made, whereas someone who does not believe in an afterlife will believe that a decision made here can have the ultimate (life-ending) consequence. Therefore, war, when it is decided upon by people who do not fear death, at the expense of others who are not deluded by beliefs of eternal life is a very extreme real life example. A person who sees his living body as the most important possession he owns will take better care of that possession than someone who sees his living body as a trivial possession that can be disposed of without losing his most important possession, his soul. I believe the body and soul are one; they require each other to remain alive, without the body, there is no soul. For those of us who believe the body and soul are one, the person who sees the body as unessential is an enemy - an enemy who is willing to risk life (his own and mine) because of his faith in an unproven fact that the soul can exist without the physical body. So, his belief that something is worth the " supreme sacrifice " (losing the vessel of life, but not the actual life) is very different from my believing it is worth the supreme sacrifice (losing the vessel of life and life itself). Very different – my version is a much more ultimate " supreme sacrifice " than his version. For God and country. To me, the United States is a great country, but not worth dying for… I'd rather move (myself and loved ones) somewhere else than give up the most important thing I've got, the one thing that everything else I've got is dependent on – I'd prefer moving than fighting against insane people who are willing to lose the most important possession. For others who live here, who think even after death there is life, the US is worth dying for, since they really aren't losing that much (much less everything). If you knew that you would die in war and cease to exist would you be willing to fight in war? If you knew that you would die in war and would continue to exist, would you fight in war? People are much more likely to fight in war if they " know " they will continue to exist. Religion lets you " know " you will continue to exist even if you die. Religion is a tool of the powerful to make less powerful willing to die (or work or destroy) for the causes of the more powerful person… which is just asinine on the part of the less powerful people. Most people want to believe that life is not finite, so the beliefs that religions espouse suit them. Just as " alcoholics " don't want to believe that they are at fault, so the disease theory suits them. Just as a kid who doesn't want his head to smash through a windshield, so believing, " It won't happen to me " suits him. Most religions do teach of an afterlife, because it is something that appeals to people and will draw them into the religion. Say what people want to hear, and they will listen. That is what religions do, mixed with what they know will get people to donate money and do what the leaders want them to do. Christianity isn't the only one, and I almost included in my last post that maybe it would be a good idea to make a 12step program like Christians Anonymous for Islamic Fundamentalists, too… or a group for every religion that is addictive, demanding and self-defeating. The disease theory and the after-life theory as well as the God theory itself are in the same boat - there is no evidence that supports any of these theories. And there is no logical reason to make decisions using an illogical belief system that guides the decision-making. There is no logic in working the 12 step program of Alcoholics because of a theory that is unproven. There is no logic in following the teachings and rules of a religion because of a theory that is unproven. There is no reason to believe life continues after death and no logic in sacrificing life on the assumption that there is life after death. > continuing life after death endanger others with their decisions and > influence. And not just a few extreme examples, but just how is the > average believer in a life beyond this one a menace at the level of > the wreckless driver analogy you have made? Your point is after all > about the danger of a certain Christian belief, not young men with > chips on their shoulders. My point wasn't about the danger of a certain Christian belief... it was about the danger of making decisions based on beliefs that have no facts to back them up. And all religions are guilty... that is called fatih. I think a group that helps people abandon that faith without indoctrinating them into a new faith is a damn good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 > > > Could someone look at the site " Christians Anonymous " > > > and tell me what they think. I'm mystified and not sure > > > how to take it. > > > L > > > > > > I like it, but my explanation is somewhat long. Everybody in > > America understands that young men's erroneous belief that they are > > invincible, immortal and that no bad can come to them > > > Is this what they really believe? Maybe they are just angry. Is it > really a matter of belief or is it a matter of a lack of experience > and proportion? The problems that some of this country's young men > face are a lot more complex than a set of beliefs. Religious people > tend to believe in doctrine and guide their lives accordingly in > varying degrees of adherence. But that is not what is going on with > these young men. Furthermore, there are plenty of young women who are > bad drivers. Ever been to traffic court? The demographic is every bit > female as it is male. What sort of beliefs about the afterlife are > causing these girls to drive poorly or agressively? What about other > people of all ages who commit various offenses? Is it really belief > concerning mortality/immortality that motivates them or makes them > more likely to be dangerous? You ask, " Is this what they really believe? " And I say yes it is. Just because they haven't given it full thought and concluded that " I believe I am invincible " doesn't mean they don't base their actions on a set of beliefs that says, " I know that is good advice, but it doesn't apply to me, or I know this is dangerous, but I can defy the odds, I have so far. " Until life experience teaches them, young men (that was the example I was using, not that I disclude young women who, for a small example, believe getting pregnant is a possibility, but it won't happen to them, and then does - that life experience will have an effect on their belief) will continue to live and make decisions based on the previously quoted beliefs, even though they rationally know that what they do is dangerous. Just because I didn't include more examples, or women, or anyone else in my example doesn't mean I was discluding them. And I wasn't speaking specifically of bad driving... I know some people never improve at driving although life experience teaches them that they are mortal. I appreciate your additional points about adolescent male behavior but they don't contradict or nullify my points. Most of the time, until we have a desire for truth over hope we will believe what suits us instead of what is most probably correct. When we are young, we want to feel these wonderful emotions, and it suits us to believe driving 100 miles an hour will not result in our head going through a windshield, but will result in a pleasurable emotion. And then we take that action and feel the pleasure, which convinces us more of that belief that suited us, the belief is reinforced because we believed our head would not go through a window and sure enough it didn't. So the next time, we feel even safer and more convinced in our belief, and our continued driving at a hundred miles an hour continues to reinforce that we are superior, invincible to windshields, and above the law… until something happens which disproves that belief, which even shatters that belief. It is very hard to discard the belief that I will live without my physical body since it has been reassured to us so many times and there is usually nothing, besides scientific evidence to the contrary, which most people ignore, that can shatter that belief. Like it is hard to convince a stepper that the disease theory is a farce… but it can be done, if they are willing to listen to scientific evidence. > > to take. Just as a young man who drives his car maniacly puts > > himself and everyone around him in danger, people who believe they > > will live on do make decisions and influence the thinking of others > > in a way that causes danger to everyone around them. > > > I am left thinking that this analogy does not work. I would like to > see some real life examples of just how people with a belief in a Real life example: people who believe there is an afterlife automatically assume that whatever decisions made here on Earth are not the ultimate decisions that can be made, whereas someone who does not believe in an afterlife will believe that a decision made here can have the ultimate (life-ending) consequence. Therefore, war, when it is decided upon by people who do not fear death, at the expense of others who are not deluded by beliefs of eternal life is a very extreme real life example. A person who sees his living body as the most important possession he owns will take better care of that possession than someone who sees his living body as a trivial possession that can be disposed of without losing his most important possession, his soul. I believe the body and soul are one; they require each other to remain alive, without the body, there is no soul. For those of us who believe the body and soul are one, the person who sees the body as unessential is an enemy - an enemy who is willing to risk life (his own and mine) because of his faith in an unproven fact that the soul can exist without the physical body. So, his belief that something is worth the " supreme sacrifice " (losing the vessel of life, but not the actual life) is very different from my believing it is worth the supreme sacrifice (losing the vessel of life and life itself). Very different – my version is a much more ultimate " supreme sacrifice " than his version. For God and country. To me, the United States is a great country, but not worth dying for… I'd rather move (myself and loved ones) somewhere else than give up the most important thing I've got, the one thing that everything else I've got is dependent on – I'd prefer moving than fighting against insane people who are willing to lose the most important possession. For others who live here, who think even after death there is life, the US is worth dying for, since they really aren't losing that much (much less everything). If you knew that you would die in war and cease to exist would you be willing to fight in war? If you knew that you would die in war and would continue to exist, would you fight in war? People are much more likely to fight in war if they " know " they will continue to exist. Religion lets you " know " you will continue to exist even if you die. Religion is a tool of the powerful to make less powerful willing to die (or work or destroy) for the causes of the more powerful person… which is just asinine on the part of the less powerful people. Most people want to believe that life is not finite, so the beliefs that religions espouse suit them. Just as " alcoholics " don't want to believe that they are at fault, so the disease theory suits them. Just as a kid who doesn't want his head to smash through a windshield, so believing, " It won't happen to me " suits him. Most religions do teach of an afterlife, because it is something that appeals to people and will draw them into the religion. Say what people want to hear, and they will listen. That is what religions do, mixed with what they know will get people to donate money and do what the leaders want them to do. Christianity isn't the only one, and I almost included in my last post that maybe it would be a good idea to make a 12step program like Christians Anonymous for Islamic Fundamentalists, too… or a group for every religion that is addictive, demanding and self-defeating. The disease theory and the after-life theory as well as the God theory itself are in the same boat - there is no evidence that supports any of these theories. And there is no logical reason to make decisions using an illogical belief system that guides the decision-making. There is no logic in working the 12 step program of Alcoholics because of a theory that is unproven. There is no logic in following the teachings and rules of a religion because of a theory that is unproven. There is no reason to believe life continues after death and no logic in sacrificing life on the assumption that there is life after death. > continuing life after death endanger others with their decisions and > influence. And not just a few extreme examples, but just how is the > average believer in a life beyond this one a menace at the level of > the wreckless driver analogy you have made? Your point is after all > about the danger of a certain Christian belief, not young men with > chips on their shoulders. My point wasn't about the danger of a certain Christian belief... it was about the danger of making decisions based on beliefs that have no facts to back them up. And all religions are guilty... that is called fatih. I think a group that helps people abandon that faith without indoctrinating them into a new faith is a damn good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2001 Report Share Posted October 20, 2001 amen cool_guy@... wrote: > > > Could someone look at the site "Christians Anonymous"> > > and tell me what they think. I'm mystified and not sure> > > how to take it.> > > L> > > > > > I like it, but my explanation is somewhat long. Everybody in > > America understands that young men's erroneous belief that they are > > invincible, immortal and that no bad can come to them <snip>> > > Is this what they really believe? Maybe they are just angry. Is it > really a matter of belief or is it a matter of a lack of experience > and proportion? The problems that some of this country's young men > face are a lot more complex than a set of beliefs. Religious people > tend to believe in doctrine and guide their lives accordingly in > varying degrees of adherence. But that is not what is going on with > these young men. Furthermore, there are plenty of young women who are > bad drivers. Ever been to traffic court? The demographic is every bit > female as it is male. What sort of beliefs about the afterlife are > causing these girls to drive poorly or agressively? What about other > people of all ages who commit various offenses? Is it really belief > concerning mortality/immortality that motivates them or makes them > more likely to be dangerous? You ask, "Is this what they really believe?" And I say yes it is. Just because they haven't given it full thought and concluded that "I believe I am invincible" doesn't mean they don't base their actions on a set of beliefs that says, "I know that is good advice, but it doesn't apply to me, or I know this is dangerous, but I can defy the odds, I have so far." Until life experience teaches them, young men (that was the example I was using, not that I disclude young women who, for a small example, believe getting pregnant is a possibility, but it won't happen to them, and then does - that life experience will have an effect on their belief) will continue to live and make decisions based on the previously quoted beliefs, even though they rationally know that what they do is dangerous. Just because I didn't include more examples, or women, or anyone else in my example doesn't mean I was discluding them. And I wasn't speaking specifically of bad driving... I know some people never improve at driving although life experience teaches them that they are mortal. I appreciate your additional points about adolescent male behavior but they don't contradict or nullify my points. Most of the time, until we have a desire for truth over hope we will believe what suits us instead of what is most probably correct. When we are young, we want to feel these wonderful emotions, and it suits us to believe driving 100 miles an hour will not result in our head going through a windshield, but will result in a pleasurable emotion. And then we take that action and feel the pleasure, which convinces us more of that belief that suited us, the belief is reinforced because we believed our head would not go through a window and sure enough it didn't. So the next time, we feel even safer and more convinced in our belief, and our continued driving at a hundred miles an hour continues to reinforce that we are superior, invincible to windshields, and above the law… until something happens which disproves that belief, which even shatters that belief. It is very hard to discard the belief that I will live without my physical body since it has been reassured to us so many times and there is usually nothing, besides scientific evidence to the contrary, which most people ignore, that can shatter that belief. Like it is hard to convince a stepper that the disease theory is a farce… but it can be done, if they are willing to listen to scientific evidence. > > to take. Just as a young man who drives his car maniacly puts > > himself and everyone around him in danger, people who believe they > > will live on do make decisions and influence the thinking of others > > in a way that causes danger to everyone around them. > > > I am left thinking that this analogy does not work. I would like to > see some real life examples of just how people with a belief in a Real life example: people who believe there is an afterlife automatically assume that whatever decisions made here on Earth are not the ultimate decisions that can be made, whereas someone who does not believe in an afterlife will believe that a decision made here can have the ultimate (life-ending) consequence. Therefore, war, when it is decided upon by people who do not fear death, at the expense of others who are not deluded by beliefs of eternal life is a very extreme real life example. A person who sees his living body as the most important possession he owns will take better care of that possession than someone who sees his living body as a trivial possession that can be disposed of without losing his most important possession, his soul. I believe the body and soul are one; they require each other to remain alive, without the body, there is no soul. For those of us who believe the body and soul are one, the person who sees the body as unessential is an enemy - an enemy who is willing to risk life (his own and mine) because of his faith in an unproven fact that the soul can exist without the physical body. So, his belief that something is worth the "supreme sacrifice" (losing the vessel of life, but not the actual life) is very different from my believing it is worth the supreme sacrifice (losing the vessel of life and life itself). Very different – my version is a much more ultimate "supreme sacrifice" than his version. For God and country. To me, the United States is a great country, but not worth dying for… I'd rather move (myself and loved ones) somewhere else than give up the most important thing I've got, the one thing that everything else I've got is dependent on – I'd prefer moving than fighting against insane people who are willing to lose the most important possession. For others who live here, who think even after death there is life, the US is worth dying for, since they really aren't losing that much (much less everything). If you knew that you would die in war and cease to exist would you be willing to fight in war? If you knew that you would die in war and would continue to exist, would you fight in war? People are much more likely to fight in war if they "know" they will continue to exist. Religion lets you "know" you will continue to exist even if you die. Religion is a tool of the powerful to make less powerful willing to die (or work or destroy) for the causes of the more powerful person… which is just asinine on the part of the less powerful people. Most people want to believe that life is not finite, so the beliefs that religions espouse suit them. Just as "alcoholics" don't want to believe that they are at fault, so the disease theory suits them. Just as a kid who doesn't want his head to smash through a windshield, so believing, "It won't happen to me" suits him. Most religions do teach of an afterlife, because it is something that appeals to people and will draw them into the religion. Say what people want to hear, and they will listen. That is what religions do, mixed with what they know will get people to donate money and do what the leaders want them to do. Christianity isn't the only one, and I almost included in my last post that maybe it would be a good idea to make a 12step program like Christians Anonymous for Islamic Fundamentalists, too… or a group for every religion that is addictive, demanding and self-defeating. The disease theory and the after-life theory as well as the God theory itself are in the same boat - there is no evidence that supports any of these theories. And there is no logical reason to make decisions using an illogical belief system that guides the decision-making. There is no logic in working the 12 step program of Alcoholics because of a theory that is unproven. There is no logic in following the teachings and rules of a religion because of a theory that is unproven. There is no reason to believe life continues after death and no logic in sacrificing life on the assumption that there is life after death.> continuing life after death endanger others with their decisions and > influence. And not just a few extreme examples, but just how is the > average believer in a life beyond this one a menace at the level of > the wreckless driver analogy you have made? Your point is after all > about the danger of a certain Christian belief, not young men with > chips on their shoulders. My point wasn't about the danger of a certain Christian belief... it was about the danger of making decisions based on beliefs that have no facts to back them up. And all religions are guilty... that is called fatih. I think a group that helps people abandon that faith without indoctrinating them into a new faith is a damn good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2001 Report Share Posted October 21, 2001 Hi Coolguy. In relation to Prohibition I would suggest Jack S. Blocker. Here is a link to his book: "Retreat from Reform" with the subtitle "The Prohibition Movement in the United States, 1890 - 1913." http://info.greenwood.com/books/0837188/0837188997.html I've returned the book to the library, but it really helped me with some basic understanding of the processes leading to Prohibition. It seems that a lot of parties and organizations tried to abolish alcohol, but with quite different motives. IIRC it was Prohibition Party, National Party and Progressive Party. WCTU ( Women's Christian Temperance Union) was a strong non-partisan movement. In 1904 (I think) the Prohibition Party got about 272.000 votes nationwide, and this became their best result ever, from a total of about 12 millions votes. Wayne Wheeler, the architect behind the Prohibition (he's actually considered as the person who wrote the Volstead act leading to the 18th Amendment and Prohibition) recognized that with two major parties in US, and an electoral system that gave the winner everything, the tactics had to be changed. http://www.wpl.lib.oh.us/AntiSaloon/leaders/Wheel.html He managed to gather all resistance against alcohol under the leadership of the "Anti-Saloon League", and from this position he was able to promise votes for the democratic or republican politician which held the strongest views on alcohol. As we all learned during the last presidential election in US, marginal votes can be decisive. BTW, "Anti-Saloon League" introduced the concept of "Moral Majority" to justify that a small number of people could get a much bigger influence on the democratic system than the number of their votes could justify. Reagan, I remember, used the same rhetoric. AA, of course, fits very good with the general temperance attitude within the US and other western countries, but AA is only possible because of the repeal of the 18th Amendment. With about the half the country against alcohol, and the rest for it, what should the official attitude be? AA just was on the right place in the right time, and it's ideology was supported both by the liqueur industry, Rockefeller and the scientific society. "Alcohol is harmless to most people, but for some it's dangerous and results in the disease of alcoholism." The Berkeley sociologist Ron Roizens dissertation:"The American Discovery of Alcoholism, 1933 - 1939." , gives IMO a very good description of the motives behind supporting this otherwise obscure group. http://www.roizen.com/ron/disshome.htm (Available in full text on the net) Best Bjørn Re: I'm Curious If you have any reading material on this I would like it. Perhaps the Buchmanites and the Oxford Group were temperent folks (probably - they were a brand of Christians) but I don't think the temperence movement was behind the forming of AA. I think AA was a spin-off of the Oxford Group, which was group that wanted to bring thewhole world under God control. Of course, I am sure the temperence movement may have had a strong influence on the AA founders' beliefs and were probably supportive of AA once it got going.> > ,> > I read somewhere that the director of that movie ( > Soderburgh) has had > > many run ins with treatment and that his theory now is(don't know > if he is a > > stpper, and I don't want to call someone one who is not one) that > the war > > can not be one, so we have to focus our attention on getting > people into > > treatment. Whats so crazy about that, is that all we do is get > people into > > treatment. Those that are in jail, are forced intot stepperism. > Those who > > drive drunk, are forced into stepperism. Those who might (and I > stress > > might, because I believe that a lot of people think they have to > quit, even > > if they don't, yet they are eventually told they have to or they > will die.) > > want to quit, or cut back, are forced into stepperism. All we do > anymore is > > send people to XA and the like.> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2001 Report Share Posted October 21, 2001 Coolguy. I don't disagree with your assumption that individuals could help a lot of people if they were decent and had an understanding of the causes of 'addiction'. But when 'diseases' becomes widespread phenomena, the treatment becomes more stereotyped, no matter which society you are living in. For example, in Denmark the greatest bank ("Danske Bank") has through it's insurance company "Danisco" offered insurance for employees against the 'disease' of alcoholism. This insurance company even owes a treatment facility named "Majorgården", and have agreements with other Minnesota facilities. First: They couldn't sell this insurance unless alcoholism was considered a disease. Secondly: They make money on it even though the treatment is useless, because no one will ever discover it. The treatment facility get paid for the numbers treated, and the insurance company get paid for the numbers insured. This is a very good example of how the atrocities of socialism can thrive within a developed capitalistic system. Bjørn P.S. I'm neither a socialist nor a supporter of capitalism. I believe in the system that grants me the greatest individual freedom, and I think freedom is more important than peace. During my lifetime I've 'believed' in different general solutions. I don't anymore. You could say I'm disillusioned. What I see, not matter the system, is a tendency towards 'fascism' (which means that the individual is nothing, and the group is all) opposed by a tendency to 'anarchism' where the opposite principle is in charge. Maybe we can do nothing more than to try to balance these two tendencies/forces. Re: I'm Curious I don't think that is necessarily so, Bjorn. I believe it is possible for a sole therapist with a good understanding of what causes addiction and a few "helpers" to administer treatment in a capitalist society and have enough customers to keep him occupied and earning a good income for several thousand years. Thus, I believe, as with anything, that capitalism can generate a good product, for those willing to pay for it... which is what capitalism is all about, isn't it? If the product descends in quality, then, in time, the patients in waiting will disappear. It is the socialism aspect that doesn't work - when money is awarded automatically for the number treated, and not for the number of satisfied customers.> In our societies 'treatment' is business and will as such be subsumed to capitalistic logic, which means they'll have to eat or be beaten. This they can only do by 'creating' more 'alcoholics'. Therefore 'treatment', whatever color it might have, will create more control, expulsion and humiliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.