Is this a blank check to any concept?
Page: 50
Step we are on: Step Two
Chapter: "We Agnostics"
Subject: Belief, Willingness, Personal Stories, Faith
Good morning. Once again the co-authors address their "personal stories.”
On page twenty-eight it was the stories in the back of the book — now they speak of their personal stories in general. (There were nearly a hundred co-authors but only forty-three of their experiences were attached to the "Back Matter" section of the book)
On page 50 they present an idea that the God-conception, as open as it is, may not be quite the free for all so many of us have supposed.
Yes, our own conception is accepted, but is it a "concept" totally without limits? Can God be a light-bulb? Can He be a floor tile? Can He be a bit of ourselves? Can He be the wind, the trees, and the birds? We hear all kinds of speculation and philosophies. We may not have to get it right. We probably cannot, but let's see how the co-authors help reign in some of the wildest God fantasies, many of which can be detrimental to being able to follow the "these" principles in the Big Book.
On page twenty-eight it was the stories in the back of the book — now they speak of their personal stories in general. (There were nearly a hundred co-authors but only forty-three of their experiences were attached to the "Back Matter" section of the book)
On page 50 they present an idea that the God-conception, as open as it is, may not be quite the free for all so many of us have supposed.
Yes, our own conception is accepted, but is it a "concept" totally without limits? Can God be a light-bulb? Can He be a floor tile? Can He be a bit of ourselves? Can He be the wind, the trees, and the birds? We hear all kinds of speculation and philosophies. We may not have to get it right. We probably cannot, but let's see how the co-authors help reign in some of the wildest God fantasies, many of which can be detrimental to being able to follow the "these" principles in the Big Book.
- What will the reader find in our stories?
In our personal stories you will find a wide variation in the way each teller approaches and conceives of the Power which is greater than himself.
Greater than himself. Not equal to himself. Not ‘at one’ with himself. Not ‘a part of’ himself -- but GREATER than himself. The co-authors approached God as a superior entity; a power that is not us.
- Do we have to agree with all approaches to this singular idea of Higher Power?
Whether we agree with a particular approach or conception seems to make little difference.- What has experience taught us?
Experience has taught us that these are matters about which, for our purpose, we need not be worried
- Who must answer these questions?
They are questions for each individual to settle for himself.
- Is there anything upon which we all DO agree?
On one proposition, however, these men and women are strikingly agreed.
Striking - very noticeable
The Winston Simplified Dictionary – 1938
See if you disagree or agree with these men and women's striking agreement.
- What is the one thing all the recovered alcoholic co-authors agree on?
Every one of them has gained access to, and believes in, a Power greater than himself.
THIS is the very noticeable conclusion that ALL the co-authors agreed with.
How you arrive at that belief is irrelevant — as long as you do.
The AA freedom of God-conception does have limitations after all. He still has to be a power GREATER or HIGHER than any of us!
If it were a full carte blanche liberty to visualize ANYTHING and call it "God," then HE could also be recreated in the min to serve us .… Right?
I mean, what if I decided that God was a 3-inch green creature that brought me food, shined my shoes and whispered career, relationship, and financial advice into my ear just for praying to him? Ridiculous of course.
So the idea that we invent our own God is not really it then, is it?
That is the one element of all varying concepts in which we must actually agree upon -- all of us together.
There are many spiritual philosophies that must fall by the wayside in order to adopt an idea such as this, and so open-mindedness is required. But it is worth it.
How you arrive at that belief is irrelevant — as long as you do.
The AA freedom of God-conception does have limitations after all. He still has to be a power GREATER or HIGHER than any of us!
If it were a full carte blanche liberty to visualize ANYTHING and call it "God," then HE could also be recreated in the min to serve us .… Right?
I mean, what if I decided that God was a 3-inch green creature that brought me food, shined my shoes and whispered career, relationship, and financial advice into my ear just for praying to him? Ridiculous of course.
So the idea that we invent our own God is not really it then, is it?
That is the one element of all varying concepts in which we must actually agree upon -- all of us together.
There are many spiritual philosophies that must fall by the wayside in order to adopt an idea such as this, and so open-mindedness is required. But it is worth it.
While approaches to God vary — our conception of God will always be concurrent with the principles in this book if this one conclusion is the same:
That God is GREATER THAN we are.
TOMORROW:
- What produced this phenomenal agreement?
- What are we going to do now?
- Whose record are we going to look at?
- What do they declare?
- What besides “believing in” and having a “certain attitude” is necessary?
Danny S – RLRA
No comments:
Post a Comment