4 ms·

The 12 step program is rooted in Christian theology and treats alcoholism more like a sin rather than a health problem so I can understand why some don't want

The 12 step program is rooted in Christian theology and treats alcoholism more like a sin rather than a health problem so I can understand why some don't want to fully follow it.

stuffn 10mo ago
Many of the bodily sins in the Bible are really just common sense health advice. Some are period oriented, such as eating pork, which was notoriously hard to make sanitary. Others are to insure a society functions well, like for example not banging your neighbors wife or not causing harm to people. So, in this light it makes sense to treat it like a sin. And to be fair, it is a sin in modern society as well. We even have “sin taxes” for such vices we determine can be used for tax gain. I see no real problem with this. I am unaware of any large program that forces you to give yourself up to the Christian God, but most require you to give yourself up to a higher power. This is obviously designed to give you a release from things you can’t control so you can use that mental power to help yourself get better.
- satvikpendem 10mo ago
  But the point is it shouldn't be considered a sin, as in a moral failing, when it's a biochemical change in the body causing a disorder, and the solution is abstention and medicine (for example, GLP-1 agonists have been shown to significantly cut down on cravings [0]). It's like saying getting sick is a sin, when there preventative and curative solutions unrelated to believing in a deity or higher power. [0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2829811 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...
  - criddell 10mo ago
    It’s foolish to ignore the social component of addiction. Some of the medicines and treatments showing the most promise are still too expensive for many. AA programs are accessible and can be helpful. You think they treat alcoholism (or alcohol abuse disorder) as a sin? In the meetings there isn’t a whole lot of judging going on. It’s mostly mutual support and compassion.
- cess11 10mo ago
  "which was notoriously hard to make sanitary" Why were the jews unable to handle pork? Didn't their neighbours manage it?
  - satvikpendem 10mo ago
    Some historians speculate that it is a shibboleth to distinguish them from the pork eating gentiles.
  - em-bee 10mo ago
    honest question, as i simply have no clue about this, is there evidence that they did? given that the koran also forbids pork i doubt that a way to make pork sanitary has been found before then.
    - int_19h 10mo ago
      Pigs were domesticated (specifically for their meat) for several thousand years already by the time the earliest Jewish dietary restrictions took shape. There are many theories that try to tie it specifically to the conditions in the Middle East, but none that I'm aware of are particularly convincing.
    - avadodin 10mo ago
      Pigs –being omnivorous– can acquire parasites that are harmful to humans at a higher rate than herbivorous ungulates. That was as true 1000 years ago as it is today. Cooking and salting the meat both greatly reduce incidence. It is possible that cultures which avoided pork altogether lacked adaptations against the parasites at the genetic level or simply that somebody among them noticed the relationship with illness whilst missing the link with undercooked meat.
      - cess11 10mo ago
        Let's say that was possible, why would it be likely, or even the most likely explanation? How do you square this against, say, the possibility that the early jews wanted to differentiate themselves from the egyptians? I'm not sure about the specifics of the archaeological record but perhaps it was the case that pork was an upper class thing in Egypt due to it being fat and tasty, and slaves and workers were instead fed beef. Then the rule in Leviticus might reflect this and conserve a part of an older identity. In early judaism at least some of the fat from mutton and so on was burnt as a cultic sacrifice, so maybe the idea was to keep tradition from before the exile to the Sinai.
- miki123211 10mo ago
  > Many of the bodily sins in the Bible are really just common sense health advice. And yet others were designed to distinguish the ingroup from the outgroup. That distinction is worth keeping in mind.
  - Aeglaecia 10mo ago
    why so ?
mlyle 10mo ago
> treats alcoholism more like a sin rather than a health problem This is contrary to my understanding of 12 step. Silkworth's framing (which heavily influenced AA) was that alcoholism was the result of an individual's physical reaction to alcohol, not a moral failing. > rooted in Christian theology They were absolutely influenced early on by the Oxford Group, too, which did provide some of the context and language.
- cess11 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - dijksterhuis 10mo ago
    > you're the worst sinner if you start engaging in e.g. collective action for social change instead of individual self-centredness. erm... did you mean the e.g. examples to be the other way around?
    - satvikpendem 10mo ago
      They are being sarcastic but their point is taken, it's a punishment based system on the individual for their moral failings rather than a collective solution based system.
    - cess11 10mo ago
      No. 12 steps is very self-centred and while they don't say it's forbidden to join a union or prisoner's association, start a book club, work at a mutual aid centre or whatever and tell everyone 'hey I'm partially here because I need new friends and help to keep sober', it's also not something embedded in these types of programs. Commonly the 'mentoring' in 12 steps is also based on you contacting your mentor, rather than building a network of people that check up on you whether you realise it's a good idea or not. This varies between groups, however, it's not as consistent as some of the other individualist traits they tend to have. Edit: Personally I suspect this partially explains why 12 steps has a pretty bad success rate.
labrador 10mo ago
It's true that the 12 steps emerged from Christian thought. Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob were influenced by the Oxford Group. But similar frameworks exist in other traditions: Buddhism's Eightfold Path, for instance, offers a comparable structure for addressing suffering through right understanding, intention, and action. It's not accurate to say AA treats alcoholism as a sin. The Big Book describes it as "cunning, baffling, and powerful." Something beyond ordinary willpower, which is precisely why Step 1 acknowledges powerlessness. The theological framing isn't about moral failing but about the need for what Carl Jung described a "vital spiritual experience." A psychic reorganization that ordinary self-will couldn't produce. https://aaforagnostics.com/blog/carl-jung-letter-to-bill-wilson/ https://aaforagnostics.com/blog/carl-jung-letter-to-bill-wil...
robocat 10mo ago
> rather than a health problem What makes you define it is a health problem? Does that help? Maybe calling booze a sin helps people. Most importantly, you are answering someone who defined the steps without reference to sin or Christianity.
xyzzy123 10mo ago
I think because in the west, Christianity provides a common language and framework for expressing very strong feelings of guilt and redemption. Also what it means to have a spiritual crisis and have to reorganise your life and personality. These kinds of thoughts and feelings can be quite difficult to share with people or explain otherwise. There are fundamental physiological and psychological reasons also that alcholics in particular feel in the ways they do; this is (IMHO) quite distinct from the religious experience, but "the tools are right there". It's a common language that insiders can quickly pick up and there's a loose mapping to things that outsiders would understand.

The 12 step program is rooted in Christian theology and treats alcoholism more like a sin rather than a health problem so I can understand why some don't want to fully follow it.

stuffn 10mo ago

Many of the bodily sins in the Bible are really just common sense health advice. Some are period oriented, such as eating pork, which was notoriously hard to make sanitary. Others are to insure a society functions well, like for example not banging your neighbors wife or not causing harm to people. So, in this light it makes sense to treat it like a sin. And to be fair, it is a sin in modern society as well. We even have “sin taxes” for such vices we determine can be used for tax gain. I see no real problem with this. I am unaware of any large program that forces you to give yourself up to the Christian God, but most require you to give yourself up to a higher power. This is obviously designed to give you a release from things you can’t control so you can use that mental power to help yourself get better.

satvikpendem 10mo ago
But the point is it shouldn't be considered a sin, as in a moral failing, when it's a biochemical change in the body causing a disorder, and the solution is abstention and medicine (for example, GLP-1 agonists have been shown to significantly cut down on cravings [0]). It's like saying getting sick is a sin, when there preventative and curative solutions unrelated to believing in a deity or higher power. [0] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2829811 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...
- criddell 10mo ago
  It’s foolish to ignore the social component of addiction. Some of the medicines and treatments showing the most promise are still too expensive for many. AA programs are accessible and can be helpful. You think they treat alcoholism (or alcohol abuse disorder) as a sin? In the meetings there isn’t a whole lot of judging going on. It’s mostly mutual support and compassion.
cess11 10mo ago
"which was notoriously hard to make sanitary" Why were the jews unable to handle pork? Didn't their neighbours manage it?
- satvikpendem 10mo ago
  Some historians speculate that it is a shibboleth to distinguish them from the pork eating gentiles.
- em-bee 10mo ago
  honest question, as i simply have no clue about this, is there evidence that they did? given that the koran also forbids pork i doubt that a way to make pork sanitary has been found before then.
  - int_19h 10mo ago
    Pigs were domesticated (specifically for their meat) for several thousand years already by the time the earliest Jewish dietary restrictions took shape. There are many theories that try to tie it specifically to the conditions in the Middle East, but none that I'm aware of are particularly convincing.
  - avadodin 10mo ago
    Pigs –being omnivorous– can acquire parasites that are harmful to humans at a higher rate than herbivorous ungulates. That was as true 1000 years ago as it is today. Cooking and salting the meat both greatly reduce incidence. It is possible that cultures which avoided pork altogether lacked adaptations against the parasites at the genetic level or simply that somebody among them noticed the relationship with illness whilst missing the link with undercooked meat.
    - cess11 10mo ago
      Let's say that was possible, why would it be likely, or even the most likely explanation? How do you square this against, say, the possibility that the early jews wanted to differentiate themselves from the egyptians? I'm not sure about the specifics of the archaeological record but perhaps it was the case that pork was an upper class thing in Egypt due to it being fat and tasty, and slaves and workers were instead fed beef. Then the rule in Leviticus might reflect this and conserve a part of an older identity. In early judaism at least some of the fat from mutton and so on was burnt as a cultic sacrifice, so maybe the idea was to keep tradition from before the exile to the Sinai.
miki123211 10mo ago
> Many of the bodily sins in the Bible are really just common sense health advice. And yet others were designed to distinguish the ingroup from the outgroup. That distinction is worth keeping in mind.
- Aeglaecia 10mo ago
  why so ?

mlyle 10mo ago

> treats alcoholism more like a sin rather than a health problem This is contrary to my understanding of 12 step. Silkworth's framing (which heavily influenced AA) was that alcoholism was the result of an individual's physical reaction to alcohol, not a moral failing. > rooted in Christian theology They were absolutely influenced early on by the Oxford Group, too, which did provide some of the context and language.

cess11 10mo ago
[flagged]
- dijksterhuis 10mo ago
  > you're the worst sinner if you start engaging in e.g. collective action for social change instead of individual self-centredness. erm... did you mean the e.g. examples to be the other way around?
  - satvikpendem 10mo ago
    They are being sarcastic but their point is taken, it's a punishment based system on the individual for their moral failings rather than a collective solution based system.
  - cess11 10mo ago
    No. 12 steps is very self-centred and while they don't say it's forbidden to join a union or prisoner's association, start a book club, work at a mutual aid centre or whatever and tell everyone 'hey I'm partially here because I need new friends and help to keep sober', it's also not something embedded in these types of programs. Commonly the 'mentoring' in 12 steps is also based on you contacting your mentor, rather than building a network of people that check up on you whether you realise it's a good idea or not. This varies between groups, however, it's not as consistent as some of the other individualist traits they tend to have. Edit: Personally I suspect this partially explains why 12 steps has a pretty bad success rate.

labrador 10mo ago

It's true that the 12 steps emerged from Christian thought. Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob were influenced by the Oxford Group. But similar frameworks exist in other traditions: Buddhism's Eightfold Path, for instance, offers a comparable structure for addressing suffering through right understanding, intention, and action. It's not accurate to say AA treats alcoholism as a sin. The Big Book describes it as "cunning, baffling, and powerful." Something beyond ordinary willpower, which is precisely why Step 1 acknowledges powerlessness. The theological framing isn't about moral failing but about the need for what Carl Jung described a "vital spiritual experience." A psychic reorganization that ordinary self-will couldn't produce. https://aaforagnostics.com/blog/carl-jung-letter-to-bill-wilson/ https://aaforagnostics.com/blog/carl-jung-letter-to-bill-wil...

robocat 10mo ago

> rather than a health problem What makes you define it is a health problem? Does that help? Maybe calling booze a sin helps people. Most importantly, you are answering someone who defined the steps without reference to sin or Christianity.

xyzzy123 10mo ago

I think because in the west, Christianity provides a common language and framework for expressing very strong feelings of guilt and redemption. Also what it means to have a spiritual crisis and have to reorganise your life and personality. These kinds of thoughts and feelings can be quite difficult to share with people or explain otherwise. There are fundamental physiological and psychological reasons also that alcholics in particular feel in the ways they do; this is (IMHO) quite distinct from the religious experience, but "the tools are right there". It's a common language that insiders can quickly pick up and there's a loose mapping to things that outsiders would understand.