Split: If you are addicted, is it a sin?

[CopticChristian]

And have failed many as well.

There is a therory that comes from social psychiatry. It claims that alcoholism is ‘a game’ with many players. The addict, the enabler, the resuer.

This model, when looking at AA, explains that what happens to the addict is they switch roles in the ‘game’ from addict (being saved) to resuer (the one in the meetings now 'in recovery). The rub is that they are still addicted to ‘the game’. They must continue to have addicts in their lives they are actively connected to, playing ‘the game’ with, working to ‘save’ them. The compulsion to participate in this game is a lifelong addiction where people in AA need to continue to go and continue to address ‘the newcomer’ the addict, in order to continue to play out their addiction to the game, albeit in the new role as rescuer.

So they don’t get true freedom. They don’t get free from the game. They still have the compulsion to participate in the game, continue to sponsor people, out of compulsion- not free choice without compulsion.

They are still trapped in the cycle of addiction, just addicted to a new role in the game, psychologically trapped, compelled to play out the game. Without new people to rescue they will relapse back into the role of addict.

True freedom from addiction, from excessive use of alcohol, comes from addressing the underlying issues that drove someone to drink to excess in the first place. Address those emotional/psychological issues adequately and one is free from both addiction to alcohol and addiction to the game.

The Book: Games People Play by ? his name escapes me. It’s been a long time since I have read the book

Bill,

This would be Eric Byrne and Transactional Analysis. This is called the Karpman Drama Triangle. I have not heard it applied as you say. It is a form of dysfunction. The only way to exit if you are in it is to be perpetually percieved of as the Perpetrator/Persecutor.

It is the perpetual Victim, Resuer and Perpetrator or Persecutor. The Triangle works like this. The Rescuer dysfunctionally rescues the Victim. The Victim wants to be the victim because they like that role. The dynamics is such that ultimately the rescued turns on the rescuer and persecutes the rescuer so that the rescuer then becomes the victim, the victim having persecuted the rescuer that is now the victim causes the realtionship to become dysfunctional because the victim wants to be the victim…It is a form of dysfunctional relationships…the exist is at the role of perpetrator or persecutor…and not playing anymore, always percieved of as the persecutor/perpetrator…

 

[Bill_7154]

Bill,

This would be Eric Byrne and Transactional Analysis. This is called the Karpman Drama Triangle. I have not heard it applied as you say. It is a form of dysfunction. The only way to exit if you are in it is to be perpetually percieved of as the Perpetrator/Persecutor.

It is the perpetual Victim, Resuer and Perpetrator or Persecutor. The Triangle works like this. The Rescuer dysfunctionally rescues the Victim. The Victim wants to be the victim because they like that role. The dynamics is such that ultimately the rescued turns on the rescuer and persecutes the rescuer so that the rescuer then becomes the victim, the victim having persecuted the rescuer that is now the victim causes the realtionship to become dysfunctional because the victim wants to be the victim…It is a form of dysfunctional relationships…the exist is at the role of perpetrator or persecutor…and not playing anymore, always percieved of as the persecutor/perpetrator…

Eric Byrne, yes. And he described this as you say with respect to Alcoholism/Alcoholics. I do not believe this is a ‘disease model’ but I have seen it played out in AA countless times as I attended AA regularly for a period of at least a few years.

It is one thing to think of addiction as a disease as one way addiction can be perceived, with the ultimate goal of assisting people. It is altogether a different thing to perceive it as the ONLY way to understand addiction. I think (actually am fairly certain) that people are being done a disservice to have the disease model presented as the only way to view addiction.

Initially it can be helpful as it can take the patients mind and heart and soul from focusing on them being a bad person, potentially opening up the opportunity to get them to start to change their behavior. But to advocate this is THE way alcoholism/any substance abuse/addiction works is solely based on the disease model serves those who treat diseases as a profession as one of its primary functions. I think it is best to have a variety of different ways to understand and address addiction, the more comprehensive the understanding, the greater chance more people can be helped IMO.

I was an alcoholic. I could not drink in safety. Once I started I could not stop. But as I continued to address the underlying factors, the psychological and soul sickness I suffered from, the less important alcohol became. And many years later I am now a person who not only can drink in safety, I prefer not to drink except on rare occasions. And on those occasions I drink 1/2-2 drinks maximum. With NO cravings to consume more, no compulsion at all to consume to excess.

So I am a living example of someone diagnosed with the disease of alcoholism who now occasionally has a drink (maybe 5 times a year, as I said 1/2-2 drinks max). My existance proves that the assumptions of what is preached as definitive factors about the disease of adiction with respect to alcoholism is in fact not true.

If you are familiar with AA, since you are familiar with Byrne and Transactional Analysis, reflect upon what you know about those in recovery in AA and the notion that they may have changed roles to rescuer. And the importance of this role, the significant ‘addictive’ type behavior they have to AA meetings and to rescuing newcomers. The NEED to sponsor people, rather than choosing to do so as one option out of a variety that they may adopt or not adopt and decide if you think there is merit there. To me it was, and is, obvious. In all fairness I think their lives are better off than they were when consuming alcohol, and I think they are doing good deeds in helping newcomers. This is a good thing. But there are other ways to understand alcoholics and other ways to help them. The 12 steps are optional according to many in AA. However, the 12 steps IS actually the AA program. And this fact is overlooked/missed by many in AA, even for years. People talk about how they work ‘their program’. There are not ‘different programs’ or ‘different ways to work one’s program’ in AA. The 12 steps is the program. And while it may not fully cure the person, at least it is getting at the soul sickness of the person.

Peace

 

[johnnyjones]

Johnny,

Funny…“My uncle drank regularly” and you conclude “throws of his alcoholism”…fascinating…have you ever met my uncle, seen my uncle drink, know anything about my uncle…the paradigm causes you to shade everyone that drinks as “alcoholic”…a bump in your liver function tests is not the last leg of lung cancer. The liver, you may not know is remarkable for its regenerative powers, you need only have about 25% of your liver to have it function normally.

Wow…the paradigm has done wonders for your outlook on life…

No, not funny at all. Do you think we are conversing back and forth on this thread about people who are non alcoholic or non drug dependent? “Alcoholic” is a real word. Why use the example of your uncle who “drank regularly” and just stopped if he had no dependency.?

What were you trying to show? A person that has a few drinks regularly can just stop? Not exactly amazing. Of course everyone who drinks is not alcoholic but you used your uncle “as if” he had some great challenge to show that people can just stop.

You seem to have switched to a strong condescending tone. I’ve worked for years with alcoholics and drug addicts in hospitals, some on their death beds, I’ve suffered with alcoholism and liver problems as well. Yes, my “outlook on life” is different than yours, and quite reasonably so.

 

[johnnyjones]

Eric Byrne, yes. And he described this as you say with respect to Alcoholism/Alcoholics. I do not believe this is a ‘disease model’ but I have seen it played out in AA countless times as I attended AA regularly for a period of at least a few years.

It is one thing to think of addiction as a disease as one way addiction can be perceived, with the ultimate goal of assisting people. It is altogether a different thing to perceive it as the ONLY way to understand addiction. I think (actually am fairly certain) that people are being done a disservice to have the disease model presented as the only way to view addiction.

Initially it can be helpful as it can take the patients mind and heart and soul from focusing on them being a bad person, potentially opening up the opportunity to get them to start to change their behavior. But to advocate this is THE way alcoholism/any substance abuse/addiction works is solely based on the disease model serves those who treat diseases as a profession as one of its primary functions. I think it is best to have a variety of different ways to understand and address addiction, the more comprehensive the understanding, the greater chance more people can be helped IMO.

I was an alcoholic. I could not drink in safety. Once I started I could not stop. But as I continued to address the underlying factors, the psychological and soul sickness I suffered from, the less important alcohol became. And many years later I am now a person who not only can drink in safety, I prefer not to drink except on rare occasions. And on those occasions I drink 1/2-2 drinks maximum. With NO cravings to consume more, no compulsion at all to consume to excess.

So I am a living example of someone diagnosed with the disease of alcoholism who now occasionally has a drink (maybe 5 times a year, as I said 1/2-2 drinks max). My existance proves that the assumptions of what is preached as definitive factors about the disease of adiction with respect to alcoholism is in fact not true.

If you are familiar with AA, since you are familiar with Byrne and Transactional Analysis, reflect upon what you know about those in recovery in AA and the notion that they may have changed roles to rescuer. And the importance of this role, the significant ‘addictive’ type behavior they have to AA meetings and to rescuing newcomers. The NEED to sponsor people, rather than choosing to do so as one option out of a variety that they may adopt or not adopt and decide if you think there is merit there. To me it was, and is, obvious. In all fairness I think their lives are better off than they were when consuming alcohol, and I think they are doing good deeds in helping newcomers. This is a good thing. But there are other ways to understand alcoholics and other ways to help them. The 12 steps are optional according to many in AA. However, the 12 steps IS actually the AA program. And this fact is overlooked/missed by many in AA, even for years. People talk about how they work ‘their program’. There are not ‘different programs’ or ‘different ways to work one’s program’ in AA. The 12 steps is the program. And while it may not fully cure the person, at least it is getting at the soul sickness of the person.

Peace

Do you recommend others return to an occasional drink? Have you seen others do so and repeat the alcoholic pattern? You make good points about the disease model and I don’t like the word. I think it decreases accountability for a good number.

AA has tools that can help, but I can not swallow all that it dictates. Often they say “these are suggestions” but they are more mandates as some use the platform to scold others because they did not “follow the program”. This was alarming to me and after 8 years and numerous rehabs, I left, applied the tools my own way, reflected on my wickedness and became a sober person. Yes I’m recovered, not recover-ing.

 

[CopticChristian]

Eric Byrne, yes. And he described this as you say with respect to Alcoholism/Alcoholics. I do not believe this is a ‘disease model’ but I have seen it played out in AA countless times as I attended AA regularly for a period of at least a few years.

It is one thing to think of addiction as a disease as one way addiction can be perceived, with the ultimate goal of assisting people. It is altogether a different thing to perceive it as the ONLY way to understand addiction. I think (actually am fairly certain) that people are being done a disservice to have the disease model presented as the only way to view addiction.

Initially it can be helpful as it can take the patients mind and heart and soul from focusing on them being a bad person, potentially opening up the opportunity to get them to start to change their behavior. But to advocate this is THE way alcoholism/any substance abuse/addiction works is solely based on the disease model serves those who treat diseases as a profession as one of its primary functions. I think it is best to have a variety of different ways to understand and address addiction, the more comprehensive the understanding, the greater chance more people can be helped IMO.

I was an alcoholic. I could not drink in safety. Once I started I could not stop. But as I continued to address the underlying factors, the psychological and soul sickness I suffered from, the less important alcohol became. And many years later I am now a person who not only can drink in safety, I prefer not to drink except on rare occasions. And on those occasions I drink 1/2-2 drinks maximum. With NO cravings to consume more, no compulsion at all to consume to excess.

So I am a living example of someone diagnosed with the disease of alcoholism who now occasionally has a drink (maybe 5 times a year, as I said 1/2-2 drinks max). My existance proves that the assumptions of what is preached as definitive factors about the disease of adiction with respect to alcoholism is in fact not true.

If you are familiar with AA, since you are familiar with Byrne and Transactional Analysis, reflect upon what you know about those in recovery in AA and the notion that they may have changed roles to rescuer. And the importance of this role, the significant ‘addictive’ type behavior they have to AA meetings and to rescuing newcomers. The NEED to sponsor people, rather than choosing to do so as one option out of a variety that they may adopt or not adopt and decide if you think there is merit there. To me it was, and is, obvious. In all fairness I think their lives are better off than they were when consuming alcohol, and I think they are doing good deeds in helping newcomers. This is a good thing. But there are other ways to understand alcoholics and other ways to help them. The 12 steps are optional according to many in AA. However, the 12 steps IS actually the AA program. And this fact is overlooked/missed by many in AA, even for years. People talk about how they work ‘their program’. There are not ‘different programs’ or ‘different ways to work one’s program’ in AA. The 12 steps is the program. And while it may not fully cure the person, at least it is getting at the soul sickness of the person.

Peace

Bill,

The entire notion is to shame, then change shame into guilt, and guilt can be forgiven.

 

[CopticChristian]

No, not funny at all. Do you think we are conversing back and forth on this thread about people who are non alcoholic or non drug dependent? “Alcoholic” is a real word. Why use the example of your uncle who “drank regularly” and just stopped if he had no dependency.?

What were you trying to show? A person that has a few drinks regularly can just stop? Not exactly amazing. Of course everyone who drinks is not alcoholic but you used your uncle “as if” he had some great challenge to show that people can just stop.

You seem to have switched to a strong condescending tone. I’ve worked for years with alcoholics and drug addicts in hospitals, some on their death beds, I’ve suffered with alcoholism and liver problems as well. Yes, my “outlook on life” is different than yours, and quite reasonably so.

Johnny,

You missed the point. Drinking causes damage to your body. The point of what works, ie Brief Intervention, which is just what happened to my uncle. My uncle drank regularly. He worked, had a family, never had any issues related to drinking, but the drinking was damaging his body. The BRIEF INTERVENTION caused him to self reflect and without the aid of anything other than his own WILL POWER decided it was not good for him. Those in the paradigm see people that drink regularly as alcoholics and that is just not true.

 

[CopticChristian]

Eric Byrne, yes. And he described this as you say with respect to Alcoholism/Alcoholics. I do not believe this is a ‘disease model’ but I have seen it played out in AA countless times as I attended AA regularly for a period of at least a few years.

It is one thing to think of addiction as a disease as one way addiction can be perceived, with the ultimate goal of assisting people. It is altogether a different thing to perceive it as the ONLY way to understand addiction. I think (actually am fairly certain) that people are being done a disservice to have the disease model presented as the only way to view addiction.

Initially it can be helpful as it can take the patients mind and heart and soul from focusing on them being a bad person, potentially opening up the opportunity to get them to start to change their behavior. But to advocate this is THE way alcoholism/any substance abuse/addiction works is solely based on the disease model serves those who treat diseases as a profession as one of its primary functions. I think it is best to have a variety of different ways to understand and address addiction, the more comprehensive the understanding, the greater chance more people can be helped IMO.

I was an alcoholic. I could not drink in safety. Once I started I could not stop. But as I continued to address the underlying factors, the psychological and soul sickness I suffered from, the less important alcohol became. And many years later I am now a person who not only can drink in safety, I prefer not to drink except on rare occasions. And on those occasions I drink 1/2-2 drinks maximum. With NO cravings to consume more, no compulsion at all to consume to excess.

So I am a living example of someone diagnosed with the disease of alcoholism who now occasionally has a drink (maybe 5 times a year, as I said 1/2-2 drinks max). My existance proves that the assumptions of what is preached as definitive factors about the disease of adiction with respect to alcoholism is in fact not true.

If you are familiar with AA, since you are familiar with Byrne and Transactional Analysis, reflect upon what you know about those in recovery in AA and the notion that they may have changed roles to rescuer. And the importance of this role, the significant ‘addictive’ type behavior they have to AA meetings and to rescuing newcomers. The NEED to sponsor people, rather than choosing to do so as one option out of a variety that they may adopt or not adopt and decide if you think there is merit there. To me it was, and is, obvious. In all fairness I think their lives are better off than they were when consuming alcohol, and I think they are doing good deeds in helping newcomers. This is a good thing. But there are other ways to understand alcoholics and other ways to help them. The 12 steps are optional according to many in AA. However, the 12 steps IS actually the AA program. And this fact is overlooked/missed by many in AA, even for years. People talk about how they work ‘their program’.** There are not ‘different programs’ or ‘different ways to work one’s program’ in AA. The 12 steps is the program. And while it may not fully cure the person, at least it is getting at the soul sickness of the person.**
Peace

Bill,

This is part and parcel of the paradigm built on the Oxford Groupers, does it surprise you that a book called “Soul Surgery” is one of the classics. Yes I have a library filled with this stuff that I studied and read. Think about this “cure”…is it a disease? Well not then you say “soul sickness”…what is soul sickness…well sin…Ok…then

AA is a religion, Supreme Court says so, it has religous roots, and I wish that I could say that I found something new…there are AA disciples that freely admit and tell the Protestant AA story…you have heard of Bill W, well here is Dick B.

dickb.com/

You are correct that it is a way, not the only way, however if you start at the beginning of this thread and read those that oppose that notion, the disciples of the religion of AA attack and have a lingo and point of view that is not as accepting as yours…to be in denial is the catch 22, you have a problem, you can’t see it, you need us, it worked for us, everything else is pooh pooh and the only reason you don’t think you need us is because you haven’t faced the reality of what you need…The halls of AA teach this notion of this is the only way just like in the Halls of Protestant thought it is taught that the Catholic Church is a cult and whore of Babylon…

Have you not heard or seen this with Protestants that come on the CAF needing to “save” us Catholics…AA is a religion with disciples that have difficulty seeing reality.

 

[Christmastwin]

Johnny,

You missed the point. Drinking causes damage to your body. The point of what works, ie Brief Intervention, which is just what happened to my uncle. My uncle drank regularly. He worked, had a family, never had any issues related to drinking, but the drinking was damaging his body. The BRIEF INTERVENTION caused him to self reflect and without the aid of anything other than his own WILL POWER decided it was not good for him. Those in the paradigm see people that drink regularly as alcoholics and that is just not true.

That is just not true. Drinking regularly does not constitute alcoholism in the least. And AA does not subscribe to that. If you know the literature so well, as you say you do, then you should know that.

 

[CopticChristian]

That is just not true. Drinking regularly does not constitute alcoholism in the least. And AA does not subscribe to that. If you know the literature so well, as you say you do, then you should know that.

Christ,

I did not refer to my uncle as a raging alcoholic. I said he drank regularly and that was interpreted as “throws of alcoholism”…

Post 66 says it all

Not meaning to point fingers but there seems to be an **incredible lack of knowledge **about addiction here. Has anyone here actually been addicted please raise your hand - mine is allready up (recovering alcoholic, 8 years sober on Oct 15).

Knowledge is=being an addict/alcoholic and knowing the paradigm. One of the fallacies of the paradigm of the religion of AA is that only an alcoholic can help an alcoholic…and then that gets translated to…since I am an addict/alcoholic…I know everything there is to know…experience=knowledge=Big Book information=AA meeting information that becomes what is true about alcoholism and everything else is pooh pooh…

The reality is that the religion of AA teaches the religion of AA and all that is put forth about the experience is relative to the paradigm of the religion of AA and not fact.

I have asked many times for one study that proves that the religion of AA has better than a 10% success rate and all I get is attacks, you know nothing, 12 step jargon, you don’t know what you are talking about, my exeprience, what I saw, who I know…not one ioda of fact.

I am addicted to facts and the truth…not the religion of AA.

 

[johnnyjones]

Johnny,

You missed the point. Drinking causes damage to your body. The point of what works, ie Brief Intervention, which is just what happened to my uncle. My uncle drank regularly. He worked, had a family, never had any issues related to drinking, but the drinking was damaging his body. The BRIEF INTERVENTION caused him to self reflect and without the aid of anything other than his own WILL POWER decided it was not good for him. Those in the paradigm see people that drink regularly as alcoholics and that is just not true.

If your uncle wasn’t a raging alcoholic (as if there is a difference between a “raging” one and a “regular” one) what was his challenge? We are talking about alcoholics and drug addicts stopping. Since your uncle was neither, you should not have brought him up. It has no relevance.

 

[CopticChristian]

If your uncle wasn’t a raging alcoholic (as if there is a difference between a “raging” one and a “regular” one) what was his challenge? We are talking about alcoholics and drug addicts stopping. Since your uncle was neither, you should not have brought him up. It has no relevance.

Johhnny,

This is part of the “think speak”…there are us and them…“normies”…people that can drink and then there is us…this is all part of the “alcoholics” are special, designated to be so…can never ever drink…and then there is everyone else.

People drink, people drink to excess, people drink and get drunk…what’s the difference…when the habit causes you to lose your job, your family, your dignity…well then the habit has gotten out of control and you need to do something. Can you drink regularly, habitually and not be an alcoholic? Yes. Are there populations that drink regularly and the number of alcoholics is minimal to absent? Yes, the Chinese and the Jewish population as well as others. It is not fact that regular, habitual drinking equates to alcoholism.

Can you drink again…some can and some can’t and only you know if you will choose to…will you drink again…only you know…

Just so you know the definition of an alcoholic is not exactly scientific…the physician guide to who is an alcoholic…“someone that drinks more than you do”…pretty good rule, huh?

 

[CopticChristian]

Do you recommend others return to an occasional drink? Have you seen others do so and repeat the alcoholic pattern? You make good points about the disease model and I don’t like the word. I think it decreases accountability for a good number.

AA has tools that can help, but I can not swallow all that it dictates. Often they say “these are suggestions” but they are more mandates as some use the platform to scold others because they did not “follow the program”. This was alarming to me and after 8 years and numerous rehabs, I left, applied the tools my own way, reflected on my wickedness and became a sober person. Yes I’m recovered, not recover-ing.

Johhny,

Lets get back to reality, belief and what it true

Stanton Peele, PhD…The Truth about addiction…so you espouse what you have been taught and what you believe. What studies show is what you say…

Self-Efficacy As a Value
Powerlessness may thus be a more controversial aspect of the AA philosophy than its roots in Christianity. Many addicted people already believe they are powerless before ever encountering the twelve steps. In many ways, this is part and parcel of the addiction. For example, believing that alcoholism is a disease, that no one escapes the grip of heroin or cigarettes, that withdrawal from either is too horrible to resist, or that you are born to be addicted plays into the power and irresistibility of the way you experience the substance (or activity) to which you become addicted.

Psychologist William Miller and his colleagues at the University of New Mexico conducted an important study in which they tracked subjects who reported for outpatient treatment for an alcohol problem.14 The investigators’ purpose was to forecast which subjects were more likely to relapse following treatment. They found two primary factors predicted relapse—“lack of coping skills and **belief in the disease model of alcoholism.”**15

Think of it—treatment in the United States is geared primarily toward teaching people to believe something that makes it more likely that they will relapse! Instead, psychological theory and research indicate that it is more empowering and successful for you to believe in—and to value—your own strength. In this view, the critical element in cure is to develop your sense of self-efficacy. Yet if you express this view, or that you are uncomfortable with the value of powerlessness taught in the twelve-step approach, you will be told that you are in denial and that you cannot succeed at quitting addiction.

1. W.R. Miller, V.S. Westerberg, R.J. Harris et al., “What Predicts Relapse? Prospective Testing of Antecedent Models,” Addiction 91 (Supplement 1996): S155–71.
2. Ibid., S155.

So the truth is the way to avoid relapse is to get some coping skills and not to believe in the disease model. Fact not belief.

Addiction in my opinion is habit and for Catholics sin

 

[Bill_7154]

Do you recommend others return to an occasional drink? Have you seen others do so and repeat the alcoholic pattern? You make good points about the disease model and I don’t like the word. I think it decreases accountability for a good number.

AA has tools that can help, but I can not swallow all that it dictates. Often they say “these are suggestions” but they are more mandates as some use the platform to scold others because they did not “follow the program”. This was alarming to me and after 8 years and numerous rehabs, I left, applied the tools my own way, reflected on my wickedness and became a sober person. Yes I’m recovered, not recover-ing.

No, I do not recommend others return to an occasional drink. There is significant risk and since I don’t know the internal workings of the other person it would be irresponsible for me to advocate that. I’m mearly saying it is possible to go from alcoholic who can’t stop drinking once they stop to at some point in the future (with a whole ton of work on oneself) for some people. I can not be the only one.

As far as the recommendations vs. mandates, that’s complicated. Because everything is supposed to be a suggestion so people don’t run out the door from feeling pressured. On the other hand, ‘the AA program’ IS the 12 steps. It isn’t going to x meeting every Tues, and y meeting every Fri, and having coffee with one’s sponsor every other Sat. The program is the 12 steps. One does not get recovery in AA without application of the 12 steps.

 

[Bill_7154]

Bill,

The entire notion is to shame, then change shame into guilt, and guilt can be forgiven.

And the risk, confronting someone with shame on day one… is that they run out the door overwhelmed, get drunk, get behind the wheel, and kill some innocent family.

There is a time and a place for everything. Exercizing good judgement and knowing one’s patient before treating them is the responsible approach for a doctor. I think similar lines are a better approach in AA with lay people, maybe even moreso, since they are lay people.

 

[Bill_7154]

Bill,

This is part and parcel of the paradigm built on the Oxford Groupers, does it surprise you that a book called “Soul Surgery” is one of the classics. Yes I have a library filled with this stuff that I studied and read. Think about this “cure”…is it a disease? Well not then you say “soul sickness”…what is soul sickness…well sin…Ok…then

AA is a religion, Supreme Court says so, it has religous roots, and I wish that I could say that I found something new…there are AA disciples that freely admit and tell the Protestant AA story…you have heard of Bill W, well here is Dick B.

dickb.com/

You are correct that it is a way, not the only way, however if you start at the beginning of this thread and read those that oppose that notion, the disciples of the religion of AA attack and have a lingo and point of view that is not as accepting as yours…to be in denial is the catch 22, you have a problem, you can’t see it, you need us, it worked for us, everything else is pooh pooh and the only reason you don’t think you need us is because you haven’t faced the reality of what you need…The halls of AA teach this notion of this is the only way just like in the Halls of Protestant thought it is taught that the Catholic Church is a cult and whore of Babylon…

Have you not heard or seen this with Protestants that come on the CAF needing to “save” us Catholics…AA is a religion with disciples that have difficulty seeing reality.

I agree with what you say about AA and was independent minded enough to participate in AA without buying into the AA disciples with control issues. I was able to sit in meetings, socialize with people from AA, work the 12 steps, while also recognizing that there were plenty of people addicted to it which is explained nicely by Eric Berne in Games People Play… the participants change their role from being addicted to being an alcoholic to being addicted to being a rescuer of alcoholics. And they don’t recognize they are addicted to AA or the role of rescuer, they are in denial of that. They don’t have free will in the way they participate in AA, they must fufill the requirements of their role based on their psychological addiction to ‘the game’ but don’t see that for what it is.

On the upside, their lives are better off than when they were drinking. And their families lives are probably better off as well. And they do help some people. But they hurt people too…as I explained where people preach that anyone on any medication is not clean and then you have a schizophrenic who is also an alcoholic flush his meds and becomes and imminent threat to themselves or others…because the person in AA is on a power trip, full of themself…essentially dispensing medical advice which is dangerous and can cost people their lives.

I work with a dual diagnosis population (in part) and it has taken me months and months to help a person learn to ignore those who preach in AA/NA meetings about medications and how your not clean and sober if your on them. Usually they follow the advice of the AA/NA person initially rather than bringing the issue to their doctor or counselor, so they relapse into mental illness, or ‘decompensate’ as is the term. And when someone goes off their meds and has a major mental illness it can take up to TWO YEARS before they completely restabilize.

 

[Bill_7154]

Bill,

The entire notion is to shame, then change shame into guilt, and guilt can be forgiven.

Also, I’ve been doing this for 20 years as part of my profession, so I have a fair bit of practical experience I think should be taken into account.

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice they are different. It’s best to tread lightly with an alcoholic in the earliest stages of recovery (as well as at other times).

When I went to confession for the first time in 17 years a few months ago I am sure glad the Priest didn’t unload on me with bucketfulls of shame. Are you following what I’m suggesting?

 

[CopticChristian]

I agree with what you say about AA and was independent minded enough to participate in AA without buying into the AA disciples with control issues. I was able to sit in meetings, socialize with people from AA, work the 12 steps, while also recognizing that there were plenty of people addicted to it which is explained nicely by Eric Berne in Games People Play… the participants change their role from being addicted to being an alcoholic to being addicted to being a rescuer of alcoholics. And they don’t recognize they are addicted to AA or the role of rescuer, they are in denial of that. They don’t have free will in the way they participate in AA, they must fufill the requirements of their role based on their psychological addiction to ‘the game’ but don’t see that for what it is.

On the upside, their lives are better off than when they were drinking. And their families lives are probably better off as well. And they do help some people. But they hurt people too…as I explained where people preach that anyone on any medication is not clean and then you have a schizophrenic who is also an alcoholic flush his meds and becomes and imminent threat to themselves or others…because the person in AA is on a power trip, full of themself…essentially dispensing medical advice which is dangerous and can cost people their lives.

**I work with a dual diagnosis population **(in part) and it has taken me months and months to help a person learn to ignore those who preach in AA/NA meetings about medications and how your not clean and sober if your on them. Usually they follow the advice of the AA/NA person initially rather than bringing the issue to their doctor or counselor, so they relapse into mental illness, or ‘decompensate’ as is the term. And when someone goes off their meds and has a major mental illness it can take up to TWO YEARS before they completely restabilize.

Bill,

Addiction is not a disease and the dual diagnosis is part of the duel…no duel…one diagnosis and a bad habit…

 

[johnnyjones]

Johhnny,

This is part of the “think speak”…there are us and them…“normies”…people that can drink and then there is us…this is all part of the “alcoholics” are special, designated to be so…can never ever drink…and then there is everyone else.

People drink, people drink to excess, people drink and get drunk…what’s the difference…when the habit causes you to lose your job, your family, your dignity…well then the habit has gotten out of control and you need to do something. Can you drink regularly, habitually and not be an alcoholic? Yes. Are there populations that drink regularly and the number of alcoholics is minimal to absent? Yes, the Chinese and the Jewish population as well as others. It is not fact that regular, habitual drinking equates to alcoholism.

Can you drink again…some can and some can’t and only you know if you will choose to…will you drink again…only you know…

Just so you know the definition of an alcoholic is not exactly scientific…the physician guide to who is an alcoholic…“someone that drinks more than you do”…pretty good rule, huh?

Please stop reciting the “think speak” mantra claim. I don’t belong to AA and when I said “normal” I used it in a generic sense, not some “normie” word that I personally have never even heard used.

If “regular habitual drinking equates to alcoholism” than your uncle was an alcoholic because he “drank regularly”, but you say he wasn’t alcoholic. Which one is it? You have been all over the map reconstructing terms and usage. I agree some can drink again, you write as if I have denied that. This is getting circular and I see no headway being gained.

 

[Bill_7154]

Bill,

Addiction is not a disease and the dual diagnosis is part of the duel…no duel…one diagnosis and a bad habit…

Have you read anywhere in this thread where I have said that addiction is a disease? I happened to use that term dual diagnosis for the sake of convenience. If you read my posts in this thread you will see me expressing the opinion that addiction is not a disease. Guess you missed them.

 

[TimothyH]

Johnny,

You missed the point. Drinking causes damage to your body. The point of what works, ie Brief Intervention, which is just what happened to my uncle. My uncle drank regularly. He worked, had a family, never had any issues related to drinking, but the drinking was damaging his body. The BRIEF INTERVENTION caused him to self reflect and without the aid of anything other than his own WILL POWER decided it was not good for him. Those in the paradigm see people that drink regularly as alcoholics and that is just not true.

This is what I thought, that I did it myself, of my own sheer willpower. I didn’t give any credit to God.

-Tim-