How America Lost the War on Drugs

[Zeno Swijtink]

https://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs/

How America Lost the War on Drugs
After Thirty-Five Years and $500 Billion, Drugs Are as Cheap and Plentiful as Ever: An Anatomy of a Failure.
BEN WALLACE-WELLS
Posted Nov 27, 2007 12:56 PM

1. AFTER PABLO

On the day of his death, December 2nd, 1993, the Colombian billionaire drug kingpin Pablo Escobar was on the run and living in a small, tiled-roof house in a middle-class neighborhood of Medellín, close to the soccer stadium. He died, theatrically, ridiculously, gunned down by a Colombian police manhunt squad while he tried to flee across the barrio's rooftops, a fat, bearded man who had kicked off his flip-flops to try to outrun the bullets. The first thing the American drug agents who arrived on the scene wanted to do was to make sure that the corpse was actually Escobar's. The second thing was to check his house.

{snip}

(See the rest of this article here: https://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto..._war_on_drugs/ (https://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs/))

[thewholetruth]

$500 BILLION spent on the 'drug war', and America is sicker than ever with more marijuana addicts, meth addicts and cocaine addicts - not to mention alcoholics - than ever before, per capita.

What an amazing waste of time. At what point do we say "We can't win this this way". Do we let drug addicts go ahead and have all the drugs they want by legalizing them, letting the sickest kill themselves off in the mass nationwide drug overdose that surely would take place immediately following legalization?

There is no doubt that all of us who work with drug addicts and alcoholics have job security right now. It's not getting better. It just keeps getting worse.

Don


https://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs/

How America Lost the War on Drugs
After Thirty-Five Years and $500 Billion, Drugs Are as Cheap and Plentiful as Ever: An Anatomy of a Failure.
BEN WALLACE-WELLS
Posted Nov 27, 2007 12:56 PM

1. AFTER PABLO

On the day of his death, December 2nd, 1993, the Colombian billionaire drug kingpin Pablo Escobar was on the run and living in a small, tiled-roof house in a middle-class neighborhood of Medellín, close to the soccer stadium. He died, theatrically, ridiculously, gunned down by a Colombian police manhunt squad while he tried to flee across the barrio's rooftops, a fat, bearded man who had kicked off his flip-flops to try to outrun the bullets. The first thing the American drug agents who arrived on the scene wanted to do was to make sure that the corpse was actually Escobar's. The second thing was to check his house.

{snip}

(See the rest of this article here: https://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto..._war_on_drugs/ (https://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs/))

[Dynamique]

A big clue to the failure is right in the title: the WAR on drugs. The "war" mentality is doomed to failure. It's not a military endeavor, it's a social and human problem.

Legalization or decriminalization would certainly be a major step in the right direction. With respect to cannabis in particular, ending these goofball anti-pot laws from the 1930s would mean that Americans could return to growing hemp (not marijuana) as a crop. It's a crop that we could use in many ways, including as a source of biofuel that does not compete with food production.

Another step that makes much more sense than a "war" is making low-cost drug detox and rehab available as part of a comprehensive public health service. This would significantly reduce the demand for "recreational" drugs. My guess is that 30-50% of this non-prescription drug use is self-medication for depression and other mental illness. If we had effective public health services, including mental health services, much of the customer base would be removed.

As the Columbians are fond of saying, if nobody in the US was buying cocaine, they would not be producing it and selling it.


$500 BILLION spent on the 'drug war', and America is sicker than ever with more marijuana addicts, meth addicts and cocaine addicts - not to mention alcoholics - than ever before, per capita.

What an amazing waste of time. At what point do we say "We can't win this this way". Do we let drug addicts go ahead and have all the drugs they want by legalizing them, letting the sickest kill themselves off in the mass nationwide drug overdose that surely would take place immediately following legalization?

There is no doubt that all of us who work with drug addicts and alcoholics have job security right now. It's not getting better. It just keeps getting worse.

Don

[Tars]

$500 BILLION spent on the 'drug war', and America is sicker than ever with more marijuana addicts, meth addicts and cocaine addicts - not to mention alcoholics - than ever before, per capita.

When I've posted about this subject here before, I was accused of being stupid or naive. Whatever. But I couldn't let the "marijuana addicts" thing go unopposed this time. While I agree heartily with the sentiment that the drug war has wasted far too much of our resources...."marijuana addicts"? Please. Sounds like a timewarp to the '40's.


Do we let drug addicts go ahead and have all the drugs they want by legalizing them, letting the sickest kill themselves off in the mass nationwide drug overdose that surely would take place immediately following legalization?Suggest you watch the excellent documentary currently showing on "IFC" (I think most of it's on YouTube as well) entitled (I think), "The Drug Years".
In it is a considerable portion examining the results of Holland's results from de-criminalization, not legalization. Many Dutch people only know about the meth epidemic in the U.S. from U.S. sources; it isn't a significant problem in their country. Both heroin and methadone are available in regulated potency and dosage, in state run clinics. The Dutch have realized that it's much more humane and cost-effective to have clinics, instead of prisons.

In the longterm I believe that most currently illegal drugs, if not all, will be de-criminalized. It won't happen immediately, as you alude. If marijuana is any indication, the de-criminalization process will happen in bits & pieces, drug-by-drug. A good place to start would be for individuals in the U.S. to educate themselves more about the specifics of various drugs & policies. We need a much higher (no pun) percentage of our population who know, for instance, that


marijuana is not addictive.


"Addiction: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful." - Merriam Webster dictionary

[thewholetruth]

As a licensed recovery addiction specialist, I cannot let people like you post such dangerous misinformation. Addiction isn't about the substance. It's about the individual. People who aren't addictive by nature typically don't get addicted to anything. People who are addictive by nature can get addicted to many things, including marijuana, gambling, food, sex, video games - the list is fairly endless. Those who pretend marijuana isn't addictive are typically those who are addicted, with very few exceptions. They like to feel like there is nothing wrong with their pot smoking, and so they encourage others to smoke pot too, touting the fact that it's not an addictive substance like opiates are. The biggest problem with pot smokers is the same problem every other addict has: Denial. Denial keeps addicts convinced that they don't have a problem. It literally blinds people to the truth about their addictions.

Your holding Holland up as some kind of example is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Give everyone pot and they'll stay away from other drugs? Perhaps because pot makes everyone apathetic and lethargic, and gives people the false sense that "Everything's okay" even when it's not, perhaps that is why people fall into the trap of staying stoned rather than getting wired. Who knows, really?

Not you. And not me. And I don't really care what how loaded they get legally in Holland. I do know that staying straight, keeping all of your faculties and intuition is far healthier than being stoned.

But thanks for sharing, dood.

Don

[thewholetruth]

BTW, I love your little icon. Totally insane, dood.

Don

[Zeno Swijtink]

Don, this seems rather simplistic. Is this a theory, hypothesis, or fact? And if fact, what's your proof? Many researchers do not agree with this. See attachment.


As a licensed recovery addiction specialist, I cannot let people like you post such dangerous misinformation. Addiction isn't about the substance. It's about the individual. People who aren't addictive by nature typically don't get addicted to anything. People who are addictive by nature can get addicted to many things, including marijuana, gambling, food, sex, video games - the list is fairly endless.
Don

[thewholetruth]

I agree, it sounds rather simplistic. However, experience has shown that it is true, Zeno. 17 years of experience as a recovery addiction specialist, helping tens of thousands of drug/gambling/pornography/sex/relationship addicts and alcoholics get free from their addictions has confirmed what I said.

People who actually work in the field have observed what your "researcher" has missed. Some Psychologists and Pschiatrists might disagree, as well, but Psychologists and Psychiatrists have no successful track record for helping people overcome addictions.

You can always find people to disagree with a given POV, Zeno.

Don


Don, this seems rather simplistic. Is this a theory, hypothesis, or fact? And if fact, what's your proof? Many researchers do not agree with this. See attachment.

[shellebelle]

I also agree its not a war. Its poor personal choices.

Every day we make choices!

We make choices to minimize the negative impact to the earth and I want to point out we should invest equally in our family, friends and community by responsible "use".

No child should feel the impact of "use" on their lives.

Whether it be over consumption of product, drug use (legal or illegal), alcohol, etc the list is long.



As the child of a recovering addict we as kids with our friends who were also children of addicts (mostly alcohol, lots of abuse; mental, physical and in some cases sexual) we defined addict from a similar perspective.

The "use" is not the key the lack of correction when one is showed that the "use" is impacting another is.

Mind you we created this definition at about 10 years old and many of us have kept it.

Addiction is when your "use" affects another person in a negative way and you "can't" change your actions despite being shown the negative impact to and despite "wishing" to change for those you love and care for.

This is true of shoppers who run their credit cards and finances to the point they can't care for their family to those like my father who drank to not hear/deal with my mother who was excessively abusive to us kids.


When a child says "For my birthday the only present I want is for you to stop . . ." please listen. Find out the whys.







As a licensed recovery addiction specialist, I cannot let people like you post such dangerous misinformation. Addiction isn't about the substance. It's about the individual. People who aren't addictive by nature typically don't get addicted to anything. People who are addictive by nature can get addicted to many things, including marijuana, gambling, food, sex, video games - the list is fairly endless.
Don

[Tars]

Addiction isn't about the substance. It's about the individual. People who aren't addictive by nature typically don't get addicted to anything. People who are addictive by nature can get addicted to many things, including marijuana, gambling, food, sex, video games - the list is fairly endless.

Total agreement! An addictive personality can become addicted to anything, not just substances. If they don't have access to one 'factor", such as marijuana, they may well get addicted to something else...coffee, long-distance running, porn, whatever.


Those who pretend marijuana isn't addictive are typically those who are addicted, with very few exceptions.A rash generalization, which seems to refute your prior statement above. I use marijuana; I'm not addicted. Sometimes I smoke a little every day, several days in a row other times I go several weeks, months, or even years without imbibing. I know a few people immediate to my life who do the same. Not a large population sampling for sure. But significant enough to illustrate the point.

Now, I am addicted to sugar. If I go without for more than a couple of days, I get some real cravings. My wife struggles with tobacco. Both sugar and tobacco kill millions of people every year. I wouldn't advocate criminalizing either one of them - it's been demonstrated ad nauseum that prohibition just adds to the problem. As society de-criminalizes marijuana, we are not seeing a huge growth in usage, in fact it's more the opposite. Much more effective approaches involve behavior modification, education, and counseling of the addict.

Compared to actually addictive substances, marijuana is virtually benign. It's about as "addictive" as an addiction to soap operas or bingo; less addictive than say Diet Coke or nasal inhalers. An addictive personality can become fixated on any of them to the detriment of their individual life.

Marijuana is not addictive - some people are addictive. Deal with it by counseling, 12-steps, behavior mod, or whatever process(es) works for the individual addictive personality; not by mis-characterizing the drug as being "addictive".

[MsTerry]

Addiction, as a word, is a noun which in modern sense was first attested in 1906, in reference to opium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium) (there is an isolated instance from 1779 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1779), with ref. to tobacco). The first use of the adjective addict (with the meaning of "delivered, devoted") was in 1529 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1529) and comes from Latin addictus, pp. of addicere ("deliver, yield, devote," from ad-, "to" + dicere, "say, declare").<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-0)</sup>
Addiction was a term used to describe a devotion, attachment, dedication, inclination, etc. Nowadays, however, the term addiction is used to describe a recurring compulsion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsion) by an individual to engage in some specific activity, despite harmful consequences to the individual's health, mental state or social life. The term is often reserved for drug addictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_addictions) but it is sometimes applied to other compulsions, such as problem gambling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling), and compulsive overeating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsive_overeating). Factors that have been suggested as causes of addiction include genetic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics), biological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology)/pharmacological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacology) and social (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology) factors.
Decades ago addiction was a pharmacological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacological) term that clearly referred to the use of a tolerance-inducing drug in sufficient quantity as to cause tolerance (the requirement that greater dosages of a given drug be used to produce an identical effect as time passes). With that definition, humans (and indeed all mammals) can become addicted to various drugs quickly. Almost at the same time, a lay definition of addiction developed. This definition referred to individuals who continued to use a given drug despite their own best interest. This latter definition is now thought of as a disease state by the medical community.
Physical dependence, abuse of, and withdrawal from drugs and other miscellaneous substances is outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders) (DSM-IV TR). Terminology has become quite complicated in the field. To wit, pharmacologists continue to speak of addiction from a physiologic standpoint (some call this a physical dependence); psychiatrists refer to the disease state as dependence; most other physicians refer to the disease as addiction. The field of psychiatry is now considering, as they move from DSM-IV to DSM-V, transitioning from "dependence" to "addiction" as terminology for the disease state.
The medical community now makes a careful theoretical distinction between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal)) and psychological dependence (or simply addiction). Addiction is now narrowly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive use"; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but to the definition of some it is not categorized as "addiction". In practice, the two kinds of addiction are not always easy to distinguish. Addictions often have both physical and psychological components.
There is also a lesser known situation called pseudo-addiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudo-addiction&action=edit&redlink=1).<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference">[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-1)</sup> (Weissman and Haddox, 1989) A patient will exhibit drug-seeking behavior reminiscent of psychological addiction, but they tend to have genuine pain or other symptoms that have been undertreated. Unlike true psychological addiction, these behaviors tend to stop when the pain is adequately treated.
The obsolete term physical addiction is deprecated, because of its connotations. In modern pain management with opioids physical dependence is nearly universal. While opiates are essential in the treatment of acute pain, the benefit of this class of medication in chronic pain is not well proven. Clearly, there are those who would not function well without opiate treatment; on the other hand, many states are noting significant increases in non-intentional deaths related to opiate use. High-quality, long-term studies are needed to better delineate the risks and benefits of chronic opiate use.
Not all doctors agree on what addiction or dependency is. Traditionally, addiction has been defined as being possible only to a psychoactive substance (for example alcohol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism), tobacco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking) and other drugs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_addiction)) which ingested cross the blood-brain barrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood-brain_barrier), altering the natural chemical behavior of the brain temporarily. However, "Studies on phenomenology, family history, and response to treatment suggest that intermittent explosive disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_explosive_disorder), kleptomania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptomania), pathological gambling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_gambling), pyromania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyromania), and trichotillomania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotillomania) may be related to mood disorders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mood_disorders), alcohol and psychoactive substance abuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse), and anxiety disorders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety_disorders) (especially obsessive-compulsive disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_disorder)).<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference">[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-2)</sup>
It is generally accepted that addiction is a disease, a state of physiological or psychological dependence or devotion to something manifesting as a condition in which medically significant symptoms liable to have a damaging effect are present.<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference">[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-3)</sup>
Many people, both psychology professionals and laypersons, now feel that there should be accommodation made to include psychological dependency on such things as gambling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling), food (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overeating), sex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersexuality), pornography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction), computers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_addiction), work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workaholic), exercise, cutting, shopping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping), and religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference">[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-4)</sup> so these behaviours count as diseases as well and don't cause guilt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt), shame (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame), fear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear), hopelessness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopelessness), failure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure), rejection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection),anxiety (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety), or humiliation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humiliation) symptoms associated with, among other medical conditions, depression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression)<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference">[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-5)</sup>,epilepsy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epilepsy),<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference">[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-6)</sup> and hyperreligiosity (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyperreligiosity&action=edit&redlink=1).<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference">[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-7)</sup> In depression related to religious addiction "The religious addict seeks to avoid pain and overcome shame by becoming involved in a belief system which offers security through its rigidity and its absolute values."<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference">[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-8)</sup> While religion and spirituality may play a key role in psychotherapeutic support and recovery, it can also be a source of pain, guilt and exclusion, and religious themes may also play a negative role in psychopathology.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference">[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-9)</sup> Although, the above mentioned are things or tasks which, when used or performed, do not fit into the traditional view of addiction and may be better defined as an obsessive-compulsive disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_disorder),withdrawal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal) symptoms may occur with abatement of such behaviors. It is said by those who adhere to a traditionalist view that these withdrawal-like symptoms are not strictly reflective of an addiction, but rather of a behavioral disorder. However, understanding of neural science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_science), the brain, the nervous system, human behavior, and affective disorders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_disorders) has revealed "the impact of molecular biology in the mechanisms underlying developmental processes and in the pathogenesis of disease".<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference">[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-10)</sup> The use of thyroid hormones as an effective adjunct treatment for affective disorders has been studied over the past three decades and has been confirmed repeatedly.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference">[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-11)</sup> In spite of traditionalist protests and warnings that overextension of definitions may cause the wrong treatment to be used (thus failing the person with the behavioral problem), popular media, and some members of the field, do represent the aforementioned behavioral examples as addictions.
Recently, some have modeled addiction using the tools of Economics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), for instance, by calculating the elasticity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_%28economics%29) of addictive goods and determining to what extent present income (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income) and consumption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_%28economics%29) has on future consumption

[Lorrie]

(a little off topic)
I have a question...don... how to ask... uh...
...I don't want a several page long drawn out lose attention, big words, answer.


However, considering there is probably little to avoid it.


Can you answer in one sentence ...or two..okay. In the simplest..what should a person do to recover from addiction?


Or is it true you can not answer this because everyone is different and the reasons behind their addictions vary so there is no simple answer?

Or are all people with addictions basically the same?

Okay that is basically three questions:
1. Simplest way to over come addiction, in one or two sentences?
2. All people are different no simple answer?
3. All addictions are the same. i.e. simptoms, stages...etc..hense addictive protocal....

I hope you understand what I am trying to ask...:heart:




As a licensed recovery addiction specialist, I cannot let people like you post such dangerous misinformation. Addiction isn't about the substance. It's about the individual. People who aren't addictive by nature typically don't get addicted to anything. People who are addictive by nature can get addicted to many things, including marijuana, gambling, food, sex, video games - the list is fairly endless. Those who pretend marijuana isn't addictive are typically those who are addicted, with very few exceptions. They like to feel like there is nothing wrong with their pot smoking, and so they encourage others to smoke pot too, touting the fact that it's not an addictive substance like opiates are. The biggest problem with pot smokers is the same problem every other addict has: Denial. Denial keeps addicts convinced that they don't have a problem. It literally blinds people to the truth about their addictions.

Your holding Holland up as some kind of example is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Give everyone pot and they'll stay away from other drugs? Perhaps because pot makes everyone apathetic and lethargic, and gives people the false sense that "Everything's okay" even when it's not, perhaps that is why people fall into the trap of staying stoned rather than getting wired. Who knows, really?

Not you. And not me. And I don't really care what how loaded they get legally in Holland. I do know that staying straight, keeping all of your faculties and intuition is far healthier than being stoned.

But thanks for sharing, dood.

Don

[Zeno Swijtink]

If you help people get free of their addiction, and addiction is a matter of personality then you must help people change their personality. Most personality theories emphasize stability over fluctuation. How do you help people change their personality? Or does one remain an alcoholic, like the dry drunk?

As a practitioner do you have the resources to keep track of your clients over time in any systematic way and gain knowledge of long term effects of your treatment? That is, how do you gain an objective view of your track record?

I asked to relate this to your idea of "proof," "fact," etc. Does 17 year of experience constitute proof in itself? Do you deny that force-feeding an non-addictive personality say benzodiazepines does not lead to addiction?



I agree, it sounds rather simplistic. However, experience has shown that it is true, Zeno. 17 years of experience as a recovery addiction specialist, helping tens of thousands of drug/gambling/pornography/sex/relationship addicts and alcoholics get free from their addictions has confirmed what I said.

People who actually work in the field have observed what your "researcher" has missed. Some Psychologists and Pschiatrists might disagree, as well, but Psychologists and Psychiatrists have no successful track record for helping people overcome addictions.

You can always find people to disagree with a given POV, Zeno.

Don

[thewholetruth]

Marijuana is addictive. It's also one of the two most common gateway drugs. That is, most meth, cocaine and heroin addicts admit that marijuana was first when they started using illegal drugs. Gambling is addictive, video games are addictive, many, many things are addictive, and marijuana is one of them.

The use you describe is the same kind of description pot addicts offer when asked about their use. And I've heard that story so many times, I don't hesitate to admit that I seriously doubt you've ever gone months or years without pot unless you were incarcerated.

Your reply is virtually the same story every addict in Denial tells, and I've heard plenty of them. Virtually every addict in recovery admits telling the same kinds of tall tales about how they only "use" pot, not "abuse" pot, while they were in Denial. Pointing to sugar? That's what addicts do when confronted about their pot/meth/coke addiction: 'Hey, look over there!'

Pretty classic, your post.

Don


Total agreement! An addictive personality can become addicted to anything, not just substances. If they don't have access to one 'factor", such as marijuana, they may well get addicted to something else...coffee, long-distance running, porn, whatever.

A rash generalization, which seems to refute your prior statement above. I use marijuana; I'm not addicted. Sometimes I smoke a little every day, several days in a row other times I go several weeks, months, or even years without imbibing. I know a few people immediate to my life who do the same. Not a large population sampling for sure. But significant enough to illustrate the point.

Now, I am addicted to sugar. If I go without for more than a couple of days, I get some real cravings. My wife struggles with tobacco. Both sugar and tobacco kill millions of people every year. I wouldn't advocate criminalizing either one of them - it's been demonstrated ad nauseum that prohibition just adds to the problem. As society de-criminalizes marijuana, we are not seeing a huge growth in usage, in fact it's more the opposite. Much more effective approaches involve behavior modification, education, and counseling of the addict.

Compared to actually addictive substances, marijuana is virtually benign. It's about as "addictive" as an addiction to soap operas or bingo; less addictive than say Diet Coke or nasal inhalers. An addictive personality can become fixated on any of them to the detriment of their individual life.

Marijuana is not addictive - some people are addictive. Deal with it by counseling, 12-steps, behavior mod, or whatever process(es) works for the individual addictive personality; not by mis-characterizing the drug as being "addictive".

[thewholetruth]

"Okay that is basically three questions:
1. Simplest way to over come addiction, in one or two sentences?"

12 Steps. Simple as that. I've been watching folks for years. Never have I seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed that path. Never.

"2. All people are different no simple answer?"

Simple answer. While the nature of one's brokenness varies from person to person - be it abuse, molestation, neglect, with or without the added bonus of being overly sensitive and/or overly emotional and accounting for the misconceptions/perceptions of a child - the solution is the same for everyone, no matter how sick or broken they might be. Some recover quickly, some slowly, but they all recover if they thoroughly follow that path.

"3. All addictions are the same. i.e. simptoms, stages...etc..hense addictive protocal...."

Addiction is addiction. People are people. Brokenness is brokenness. How addicted we become varies from person to person. But many things are common to those who wish to overcome addiction. Complete abstinance is required, as it rigorous honesty. Anything less always - yes, always - results in relapse. There are other aspects which are required of all addicts if their chances of recovering are going to be good, but too many to list in this brief synopsis you asked for.

Bill and Bob, the 2 Christian men who founded AA, didn't have 12 Steps. They had 6 steps gleaned from the Oxford Group, a Christian organization that had some success, but not nearly the success AA has had with overcoming alcoholism and addiction. 6.5 billion people on the planet, and just 12 steps. That's how simple it is. Half-measures, we've seen, avail folks nothing. Thoroughly following this path is required for success, and the only reasons people fail is (a) because they aren't willing to thoroughly follow this path, or (b) mental illness is so great they aren't capable of following this path.

"I hope you understand what I am trying to ask...:heart:"

I do. I know that there are people on this board who will try to pick my comments apart and try to tell me I'm wrong, or that it's not that simple, and I've already heard it all. It's exactly as I've said. It's that simple. It's not easy, but it's simple. Practicing principles is simply required. That seems to be what people balk at most. Many folks have a hard time with rigorous honesty. Forgiveness comes hard for some, as well, until they learn that forgiveness isn't for the person who has dissed you. Forgiveness is for you. No peace inside us when we're harboring resentment. Humility is another principle that people have trouble practicing, and real faith is another. With the right teachers, we can learn how to do this. Left to our own devices, we'll keep on stumbling through our lives like we always have. Surrender = victory is not something our intellect grasps. Spiritual laws aren't something our intellect grasps, either. Needless to say, intellect doesn't play a big role in facilitating recovery despite the fact that the vast majority of recovering addicts are above average intelligence. I'm probably getting in too deep now.

I hope this helps, Lorrie. It's one man's opinion, based on years of experience, but I work with the sickest of the sick, and thoroughly following the path leads to freedom from addiction for every person who does it. I don't care what the addiction is. Addiction is addiction, and we know how to overcome it now. It's not rocket science. And there are millions of addicts and counselors on the planet who have witnessed and/or experienced the same thing I have.

Okay, Waccos. I think this is where you commonly start throwing rocks and trying to poke holes in my comments. :wink:

Don


(a little off topic)
I have a question...don... how to ask... uh...
...I don't want a several page long drawn out lose attention, big words, answer.


However, considering there is probably little to avoid it.


Can you answer in one sentence ...or two..okay. In the simplest..what should a person do to recover from addiction?


Or is it true you can not answer this because everyone is different and the reasons behind their addictions vary so there is no simple answer?

Or are all people with addictions basically the same?

Okay that is basically three questions:
1. Simplest way to over come addiction, in one or two sentences?
2. All people are different no simple answer?
3. All addictions are the same. i.e. simptoms, stages...etc..hense addictive protocal....

I hope you understand what I am trying to ask...:heart:

[Lorrie]

You passed! You're right! I have had same experience and info I have gleaned with those with addiction/addictives.

Very good!
And thank you.
Mind you, I do not have an addictive personality.



"Okay that is basically three questions:
1. Simplest way to over come addiction, in one or two sentences?"

12 Steps. Simple as that. I've been watching folks for years. Never have I seen a person fail who has thoroughly followed that path. Never.

"2. All people are different no simple answer?"

Simple answer. While the nature of one's brokenness varies from person to person - be it abuse, molestation, neglect, with or without the added bonus of being overly sensitive and/or overly emotional and accounting for the misconceptions/perceptions of a child - the solution is the same for everyone, no matter how sick or broken they might be. Some recover quickly, some slowly, but they all recover if they thoroughly follow that path.

"3. All addictions are the same. i.e. simptoms, stages...etc..hense addictive protocal...."

Addiction is addiction. People are people. Brokenness is brokenness. How addicted we become varies from person to person. But many things are common to those who wish to overcome addiction. Complete abstinance is required, as it rigorous honesty. Anything less always - yes, always - results in relapse. There are other aspects which are required of all addicts if their chances of recovering are going to be good, but too many to list in this brief synopsis you asked for.

Bill and Bob, the 2 Christian men who founded AA, didn't have 12 Steps. They had 6 steps gleaned from the Oxford Group, a Christian organization that had some success, but not nearly the success AA has had with overcoming alcoholism and addiction. 6.5 billion people on the planet, and just 12 steps. That's how simple it is. Half-measures, we've seen, avail folks nothing. Thoroughly following this path is required for success, and the only reasons people fail is (a) because they aren't willing to thoroughly follow this path, or (b) mental illness is so great they aren't capable of following this path.

"I hope you understand what I am trying to ask...:heart:"

I do. I know that there are people on this board who will try to pick my comments apart and try to tell me I'm wrong, or that it's not that simple, and I've already heard it all. It's exactly as I've said. It's that simple. It's not easy, but it's simple. Practicing principles is simply required. That seems to be what people balk at most. Many folks have a hard time with rigorous honesty. Forgiveness comes hard for some, as well, until they learn that forgiveness isn't for the person who has dissed you. Forgiveness is for you. No peace inside us when we're harboring resentment. Humility is another principle that people have trouble practicing, and real faith is another. With the right teachers, we can learn how to do this. Left to our own devices, we'll keep on stumbling through our lives like we always have. Surrender = victory is not something our intellect grasps. Spiritual laws aren't something our intellect grasps, either. Needless to say, intellect doesn't play a big role in facilitating recovery despite the fact that the vast majority of recovering addicts are above average intelligence. I'm probably getting in too deep now.

I hope this helps, Lorrie. It's one man's opinion, based on years of experience, but I work with the sickest of the sick, and thoroughly following the path leads to freedom from addiction for every person who does it. I don't care what the addiction is. Addiction is addiction, and we know how to overcome it now. It's not rocket science. And there are millions of addicts and counselors on the planet who have witnessed and/or experienced the same thing I have.

Okay, Waccos. I think this is where you commonly start throwing rocks and trying to poke holes in my comments. :wink:

Don

[thewholetruth]

I'm incapable of changing anyone's personality, Zeno, but you are correct that a profound change in personality is required in order for real recovery to take place. I'm not sure that any explanation that I give here is going to be considered sufficient by you, sir. Let it just be said that if there is no profound change in a person's personality, they will not likely do things any differently than they already do. Fortunately, the 12 Steps facilitate that necessary change in anyone who thoroughly follows them.

"As a practitioner do you have the resources to keep track of your clients over time in any systematic way and gain knowledge of long term effects of your treatment?"

I do.

"That is, how do you gain an objective view of your track record?"

The proof is the lives changed, Zeno. There is no way to fudge numbers when it's a matter of successful recovery vs. relapse. The reasons for relapse are always the same: not thoroughly following what one learns regarding the 12 Steps and active involvement in the recovering community.

"I asked to relate this to your idea of "proof," "fact," etc. Does 17 year of experience constitute proof in itself?"

No sir. My confidence is not just in my own 17 years of experience and observation. I've got 17 years of confirming that recovery happens and that the 12 Steps work every single time a person thoroughly practices them. Also, I'm a member of the world's largest secret organization, whose members stay plugged in to one another and report on the successes and failures, and the causes for each. This research has been going on for more than 75 years. Addiction is no longer a mystery to the recovering community, sir. It's only a mystery to many psychologists and psychiatrists, but then, they aren't collectively really motivated to help someone overcome addiction, now are they? One less customer to analyze when recovery actually happens.

"Do you deny that force-feeding an non-addictive personality say benzodiazepines does not lead to addiction?"

I've never personally observed such hehavior, Zeno. If your question is whether or not a nonaddictive personality can become addicted to things, the answer is yes. They sure can.

[thewholetruth]

I passed? YAYYYY! :wink:

Thanks, Lorrie!

Don


You passed! You're right! I have had same experience and info I have gleaned with those with addiction/addictives.

Very good!
And thank you.
Mind you, I do not have an addictive personality.

[thewholetruth]

Some of what you posted is inaccurate psychobabble, having little or no relevance to actually treating active addiction. Psychologists and psychiatrists are full of crap, much of the time, and they resent the spiritual solution that the 12 Steps are, as their client base has been greatly diminished since their introduction and widespread, worldwide success.

I've read it all before, MsTerry, and some of what you've posted is standard crap from the psychologist/psychiatrist vines that we call "sour grapes".

The truth is that psychiatrists and psychologists never figured out how to overcome addiction, and they resent those who have.

Don


Addiction, as a word, is a noun which in modern sense was first attested in 1906, in reference to opium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium) (there is an isolated instance from 1779 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1779), with ref. to tobacco). The first use of the adjective addict (with the meaning of "delivered, devoted") was in 1529 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1529) and comes from Latin addictus, pp. of addicere ("deliver, yield, devote," from ad-, "to" + dicere, "say, declare").<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0>[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-0)</SUP>
Addiction was a term used to describe a devotion, attachment, dedication, inclination, etc. Nowadays, however, the term addiction is used to describe a recurring compulsion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsion) by an individual to engage in some specific activity, despite harmful consequences to the individual's health, mental state or social life. The term is often reserved for drug addictions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_addictions) but it is sometimes applied to other compulsions, such as problem gambling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_gambling), and compulsive overeating (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsive_overeating). Factors that have been suggested as causes of addiction include genetic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics), biological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology)/pharmacological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacology) and social (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology) factors.
Decades ago addiction was a pharmacological (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacological) term that clearly referred to the use of a tolerance-inducing drug in sufficient quantity as to cause tolerance (the requirement that greater dosages of a given drug be used to produce an identical effect as time passes). With that definition, humans (and indeed all mammals) can become addicted to various drugs quickly. Almost at the same time, a lay definition of addiction developed. This definition referred to individuals who continued to use a given drug despite their own best interest. This latter definition is now thought of as a disease state by the medical community.
Physical dependence, abuse of, and withdrawal from drugs and other miscellaneous substances is outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders) (DSM-IV TR). Terminology has become quite complicated in the field. To wit, pharmacologists continue to speak of addiction from a physiologic standpoint (some call this a physical dependence); psychiatrists refer to the disease state as dependence; most other physicians refer to the disease as addiction. The field of psychiatry is now considering, as they move from DSM-IV to DSM-V, transitioning from "dependence" to "addiction" as terminology for the disease state.
The medical community now makes a careful theoretical distinction between physical dependence (characterized by symptoms of withdrawal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal)) and psychological dependence (or simply addiction). Addiction is now narrowly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive use"; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but to the definition of some it is not categorized as "addiction". In practice, the two kinds of addiction are not always easy to distinguish. Addictions often have both physical and psychological components.
There is also a lesser known situation called pseudo-addiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudo-addiction&action=edit&redlink=1).<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-1>[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-1)</SUP> (Weissman and Haddox, 1989) A patient will exhibit drug-seeking behavior reminiscent of psychological addiction, but they tend to have genuine pain or other symptoms that have been undertreated. Unlike true psychological addiction, these behaviors tend to stop when the pain is adequately treated.
The obsolete term physical addiction is deprecated, because of its connotations. In modern pain management with opioids physical dependence is nearly universal. While opiates are essential in the treatment of acute pain, the benefit of this class of medication in chronic pain is not well proven. Clearly, there are those who would not function well without opiate treatment; on the other hand, many states are noting significant increases in non-intentional deaths related to opiate use. High-quality, long-term studies are needed to better delineate the risks and benefits of chronic opiate use.
Not all doctors agree on what addiction or dependency is. Traditionally, addiction has been defined as being possible only to a psychoactive substance (for example alcohol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism), tobacco (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking) and other drugs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_addiction)) which ingested cross the blood-brain barrier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood-brain_barrier), altering the natural chemical behavior of the brain temporarily. However, "Studies on phenomenology, family history, and response to treatment suggest that intermittent explosive disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_explosive_disorder), kleptomania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleptomania), pathological gambling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_gambling), pyromania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyromania), and trichotillomania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotillomania) may be related to mood disorders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mood_disorders), alcohol and psychoactive substance abuse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse), and anxiety disorders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety_disorders) (especially obsessive-compulsive disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_disorder)).<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-2>[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-2)</SUP>
It is generally accepted that addiction is a disease, a state of physiological or psychological dependence or devotion to something manifesting as a condition in which medically significant symptoms liable to have a damaging effect are present.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-3>[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-3)</SUP>
Many people, both psychology professionals and laypersons, now feel that there should be accommodation made to include psychological dependency on such things as gambling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling), food (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overeating), sex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersexuality), pornography (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction), computers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_addiction), work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workaholic), exercise, cutting, shopping (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping), and religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion)<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-4>[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-4)</SUP> so these behaviours count as diseases as well and don't cause guilt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt), shame (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame), fear (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear), hopelessness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopelessness), failure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failure), rejection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rejection),anxiety (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety), or humiliation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humiliation) symptoms associated with, among other medical conditions, depression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_depression)<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-5>[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-5)</SUP>,epilepsy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epilepsy),<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-6>[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-6)</SUP> and hyperreligiosity (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyperreligiosity&action=edit&redlink=1).<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-7>[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-7)</SUP> In depression related to religious addiction "The religious addict seeks to avoid pain and overcome shame by becoming involved in a belief system which offers security through its rigidity and its absolute values."<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-8>[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-8)</SUP> While religion and spirituality may play a key role in psychotherapeutic support and recovery, it can also be a source of pain, guilt and exclusion, and religious themes may also play a negative role in psychopathology.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-9>[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-9)</SUP> Although, the above mentioned are things or tasks which, when used or performed, do not fit into the traditional view of addiction and may be better defined as an obsessive-compulsive disorder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_disorder),withdrawal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal) symptoms may occur with abatement of such behaviors. It is said by those who adhere to a traditionalist view that these withdrawal-like symptoms are not strictly reflective of an addiction, but rather of a behavioral disorder. However, understanding of neural science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_science), the brain, the nervous system, human behavior, and affective disorders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affective_disorders) has revealed "the impact of molecular biology in the mechanisms underlying developmental processes and in the pathogenesis of disease".<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-10>[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-10)</SUP> The use of thyroid hormones as an effective adjunct treatment for affective disorders has been studied over the past three decades and has been confirmed repeatedly.<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-11>[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction#cite_note-11)</SUP> In spite of traditionalist protests and warnings that overextension of definitions may cause the wrong treatment to be used (thus failing the person with the behavioral problem), popular media, and some members of the field, do represent the aforementioned behavioral examples as addictions.
Recently, some have modeled addiction using the tools of Economics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics), for instance, by calculating the elasticity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elasticity_%28economics%29) of addictive goods and determining to what extent present income (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income) and consumption (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumption_%28economics%29) has on future consumption

[Lenny]

(a little off topic)
I have a question...don... how to ask... uh...
...I don't want a several page long drawn out lose attention, big words, answer.
However, considering there is probably little to avoid it.
Can you answer in one sentence ...or two..okay. In the simplest..what should a person do to recover from addiction?
Or is it true you can not answer this because everyone is different and the reasons behind their addictions vary so there is no simple answer? Or are all people with addictions basically the same?
Okay that is basically three questions:
1. Simplest way to over come addiction, in one or two sentences?
2. All people are different no simple answer?
3. All addictions are the same. i.e. simptoms, stages...etc..hense addictive protocal....
I hope you understand what I am trying to ask...:heart:

Every one has "their story" in answering the above. For me, and I find it common, a root source & problem is PRIDE. Found self with a gun in my mouth, and/or at the bottom of the bottle, on the floor, soaked in own fluids, and finally realized, "I am NOT God", and stuff like that. There IS something OUTSIDE and it is GREATER and it is not in me or your friend, so you can NOT "lick it, beat it, get better" and all the other crap I told myself. Some folks have to hit that bottom point. Just buried a beautiful boy about 3 weeks ago. Everyone thought he was a Jesus-freak....he wasn't, but during that ceremony a number of young kids got up and actually confessed to thinking about taking themselves out. I wanted to stand and scream, "Come to me, and I will MAKE you glad about life". We are a pride filled race, and some think they can beat it. They can't, but they don't know.
OK, shut my trap and keep it short. But thanks for the rant. :2cents:

[MsTerry]

.

Okay, Waccos. I think this is where you commonly start throwing rocks and trying to poke holes in my comments. :wink:

Don

No Don, you are doing it for us
You are not curing addiction, you are replacing addiction with a program and then call it a cure when they become addicted to the program.

[Zeno Swijtink]

addictive. (...) addict (...) addiction

Don

Wonder how you, or the 12 Step movement, defines these terms.

[Tars]

12 Steps. Simple as that.

OK, that explains a lot about your perspective on things. You & I see the universe quite differently. If 12 steps is your answer to problems, more power to you.

[thewholetruth]

I personally define addiction very differently than I did when I was a daily pot smoker 26 years ago. My definition didn't include someone like me, who owned my own home and was a Superintendent for a construction company. I couldn't see my own addiction. Most addicts can't, because of Denial.

If your drug use is causing problems in your life, if you're spending more than you want to spend, doing more than you intend to do, if your wife/friends/family/employer thinks your drug/alcohol use is a problem and you don't, if you want to quit but you're failing to quit - those are all signs of addiction. The interesting thing about addicts in Denial is that they might be spending hundreds of dollars a week/month on their pot/drugs/alcohol but still tell themselves "it's not a problem unless almighty *I* think it's a problem" and then they actually buy their own b.s. Denial is both amazing and scary, because you don't know it when you're in it.

I'd have to look up what the Big Book says about it. It does include a definition for alcoholism, which IS addiction, btw.

Don


Wonder how you, or the 12 Step movement, defines these terms.

[thewholetruth]

The question wasn't "What is the answer to problems?". The question was what is the solution to addiction. 12 Steps works for everyone willing and capable of working them.

Interesting how you twisted that around to be about "problems", when the question was about addiction, not problems.

Don


OK, that explains a lot about your perspective on things. You & I see the universe quite differently. If 12 steps is your answer to problems, more power to you.

[thewholetruth]

SURPRISE! MsTerry throws ROCK #1. There is no known cure for addiction, Ma'am, and I've never claimed to be able to cure addiction. Your comment reveals you have no idea what the 12 Step recovery program is even about, MsTerry.

SURPRISE #2! MsTerry doesn't know what she's talking about...again.

Don


No Don, you are doing it for us
You are not curing addiction, you are replacing addiction with a program and then call it a cure when they become addicted to the program.

[thewholetruth]

Choosing to practice humility displaces pride. One can't be humble and prideful at the same time, in the same way that we can't be in fear and in faith at the same time. Humility, faith, perseverence, self-discipline, compassion, patience, love, honesty, willingness - all are principles that we can either choose to practice or refuse to practice. Practicing them gives us peace and draws us closer to God. Not practicing them makes us miserable and draws us closer to the enemy. One cannot be in self-will and God's will at the same time, either. There is spiritual warfare going on out there, although the spiritually asleep always deny that.

Thanks for sharing, Lenny. My prayers go out to that boy's family, and to those other kids contemplating suicide.

Don


Every one has "their story" in answering the above. For me, and I find it common, a root source & problem is PRIDE. Found self with a gun in my mouth, and/or at the bottom of the bottle, on the floor, soaked in own fluids, and finally realized, "I am NOT God", and stuff like that. There IS something OUTSIDE and it is GREATER and it is not in me or your friend, so you can NOT "lick it, beat it, get better" and all the other crap I told myself. Some folks have to hit that bottom point. Just buried a beautiful boy about 3 weeks ago. Everyone thought he was a Jesus-freak....he wasn't, but during that ceremony a number of young kids got up and actually confessed to thinking about taking themselves out. I wanted to stand and scream, "Come to me, and I will MAKE you glad about life". We are a pride filled race, and some think they can beat it. They can't, but they don't know.
OK, shut my trap and keep it short. But thanks for the rant. :2cents:

[MsTerry]

. There is no known cure for addiction, Ma'am, and I've never claimed to be able to cure addiction.
Don
Don, you are repeating my words.LOL
You're right you are not curing addiction, you are replacing an addiction with another addiction!


SURPRISE #2! MsTerry doesn't know what she's talking about...again.
This is the kind of intelligent conversation you want?
You use the word "again". Can you back up your claim?

[MsTerry]

Thanks for debunking that "fear of God" myth


we can't be in fear and in faith at the same time.
Don

[thewholetruth]

Thank you for modeling the folly which occurs in a spiritually undeveloped person's mind. I take it you're being sarcastic, MsTerry? Isn't it fascinating how many people don't get what the "fear of God" even means? I mean, really. Growing up in America and not understanding what that's about? That takes some real effort, doesn't it! :wink:

Don


Thanks for debunking that "fear of God" myth

[MsTerry]

since you have such an aversion to answering direct questions, why don't you educate us all,


Thank you for modeling the folly which occurs in a spiritually undeveloped person's mind. I take it you're being sarcastic, MsTerry? Isn't it fascinating how many people don't get what the "fear of God" even means? I mean, really. Growing up in America and not understanding what that's about? That takes some real effort, doesn't it! :wink:

Don

[thewholetruth]

I can't teach people who have all the answers, like you, MsTerry. People who have all the answers simply aren't teachable. It requires a little humility to become teachable, and frankly, well, your posts speak for themselves in that regard.

Don


since you have such an aversion to answering direct questions, why don't you educate us all,

[MsTerry]

Since we both agree that I have all the answers, how come you ain't listening? it is time that you start paying attention!
I agree, my posts speak for themselves. Are you able to speak for your self?


I can't teach people who have all the answers, like you, MsTerry. People who have all the answers simply aren't teachable. It requires a little humility to become teachable, and frankly, well, your posts speak for themselves in that regard.

Don

[santarosie]

People who are addictive by nature can get addicted to many things, including marijuana, gambling, food, sex, video games - the list is fairly endless.


I thought of a few other addictions that were missing from this list:

The need to be right all the time.

The need to get the last word in about being right all the time.

Religious salvation :Yinyangv:



Denial keeps addicts convinced that they don't have a problem. It literally blinds people to the truth about their addictions.


So true.

[thewholetruth]

I thought of a few other addictions that were missing from this list:

Religious salvation :Yinyangv:

What is an addiction to "Religious salvation"? How does one become addicted to a gift?

Don

[Zeno Swijtink]

I personally define addiction very differently than I did when I was a daily pot smoker 26 years ago. My definition didn't include someone like me, who owned my own home and was a Superintendent for a construction company. I couldn't see my own addiction. Most addicts can't, because of Denial.

(...)

I'd have to look up what the Big Book says about it. It does include a definition for alcoholism, which IS addiction, btw.

Don

Did you find out how the Big Book defines addiction?

[etree]

What is an addiction to "Religious salvation"? How does one become addicted to a gift?

Don

I think many of us have met recovering addicts whose obsessive behavior has been redirected to fundamentalist religious pursuits. One of my friends so eloquently demonstrates this phenomena by walking one direction with his arms up as if embracing shouting "Meth! Meth! Meth!" then abruptly turns the opposite way reaching up shouting "Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!".

BTW I quit drinking and hard drugs years ago. I still smoke medical herb. It is not causing me to relapse. I am now addicted to surfing. It is a healthy addiction and I will use every day for the rest of my life if I can.

As far as legalization, I believe if alcohol is legal all other drugs ought to be too. In my experience most recovering addicts consider alcohol to be one of the hardest drugs out there, if not the hardest. :2cents:

[thewholetruth]

I think many of us have met recovering addicts whose obsessive behavior has been redirected to fundamentalist religious pursuits. One of my friends so eloquently demonstrates this phenomena by walking one direction with his arms up as if embracing shouting "Meth! Meth! Meth!" then abruptly turns the opposite way reaching up shouting "Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!".

That's because it is Jesus who relieves us of the obsession/compulsion to use drugs and alcohol. We give credit where credit is due. Jesus is worth getting excited about. His awesome power to create this Universe and everything He does today is worthy of His praise. Meth? Not so much.


BTW I quit drinking and hard drugs years ago. I still smoke medical herb. It is not causing me to relapse.

It IS your relapse. You simply switched one drug for another.


I am now addicted to surfing. It is a healthy addiction and I will use every day for the rest of my life if I can.

Addiction is commonly described as that which, despite causing damage to one's life and relationships and despite the desire to stop, being incapable of stopping. I'm pretty sure surfing probably doesn't qualify. From what you've said, you're still addicted to drugs (pot) and have become a surfing enthusiast.


As far as legalization, I believe if alcohol is legal all other drugs ought to be too. In my experience most recovering addicts consider alcohol to be one of the hardest drugs out there, if not the hardest. :2cents:

I've been involved with recovering addicts for 17 years and I've never heard a single one make that statement. I've heard alcoholics say that, but not drug addicts. Perhaps you're thinking of cigarettes. I've heard thousands of addicts make that statement regarding cigarettes. It's so easy to forget and become confused when one smokes pot regularly, isn't it? :wink:

Don

[thewholetruth]

Did you find out how the Big Book defines addiction?

It doesn't appear to offer a definition. It describes alcoholism as an obsession of the mind coupled with a craving of the body. That certainly applies to every other addiction I can think of, as well, including gambling, sex, food, cutting, relationships, etc.

Don

[thewholetruth]

I thought of a few other addictions that were missing from this list:

The need to be right all the time.

The need to get the last word in about being right all the time.


Then there are those people who are too lazy to actually research anything whose heads are filled with unfounded opinions who think the rest of us should value those absurd notions and ideas as if they were facts. Those are the people who don't do well in arguments, who end up throwing rocks because they can't make their case. Most aren't intelligent enough to recognize the flaw in their own thinking in order to make the adjustments necessary which might enable them to make their cases in future arguments, and so they just throw rocks and bail.

Those who make statements like you just did tend to be people who are rarely right about anything, not, IMO, because they're not capable of being right, but because they haven't taken the time to find out the truth about that which they are discussing, and think their opinions should be valued anyway. The same way someone who never paid attention in school and can't read or write well thinks they should be paid the same as someone who did.

Sometimes people get the last word because someone has made their case and their oponent recognizes that (a) they have no facts to offer to defend their position and (b) arguing without facts to back them up is useless...and foolish.

Don

[etree]

Don[/QUOTE]It IS your relapse. You simply switched one drug for another.Don[/QUOTE]

I have nerve damage which causes tremendous pain from time to time. Marijuana is one of the many ways I deal with my condition. I also use yoga, acupuncture and other alternative healing methods. I do not use marijuana daily and have never experienced withdrawal symptoms when I don't use it for a few days, weeks, months....:hmmm:

Don[/QUOTE]
Addiction is commonly described as that which, despite causing damage to one's life and relationships and despite the desire to stop, being incapable of stopping. I'm pretty sure surfing probably doesn't qualify. From what you've said, you're still addicted to drugs (pot) and have become a surfing
enthusiast. Don[/QUOTE]

I don't desire to stop using marijuana and my life is going just fine, thank you very much. Based on your definition I am not addicted to surfing or pot. Thanks for the correction! :thumbsup:


Don[/QUOTE]I've been involved with recovering addicts for 17 years and I've never heard a single one make that statement. I've heard alcoholics say that, but not drug addicts. Perhaps you're thinking of cigarettes. I've heard thousands of addicts make that statement regarding cigarettes. It's so easy to forget and become confused when one smokes pot regularly, isn't it? :wink:

Don[/QUOTE]

I have heard that from quite a few addicts. Perhaps I just happened to strike up conversation in the rooms with addicts whose primary addiction was alcohol. True enough for tobacco too though.
Sorry though buddy, I meant alcohol. Maybe you would be better off just sticking with what you have to say and not speaking for anyone else. Thank you.
Nevertheless, I want you to know I do appreciate the work you do.:wavatcha:

[thewholetruth]

I have nerve damage which causes tremendous pain from time to time. Marijuana is one of the many ways I deal with my condition. I also use yoga, acupuncture and other alternative healing methods. I do not use marijuana daily and have never experienced withdrawal symptoms when I don't use it for a few days, weeks, months....:hmmm:

Addiction manifests itself in several ways. Pot isn't physically addicting like heroin or Vicodin. No withdrawal for pot, other than missing the high.



I don't desire to stop using marijuana

Addicts commonly don't have a desire to stop using their drug of choice. I'm not saying you're an addict, but your disqualification falls under the category of "Symptoms of Denial" when it comes to addiction.


and my life is going just fine, thank you very much. Based on your definition I am not addicted to surfing or pot. Thanks for the correction! :thumbsup:

Self-diagnosis is required in order for addiction to be overcome. Until someone recognizes their own addiction, no one's definition will ever fit. I was addicted to pot for 12 years, a daily user, and my life was going just fine, in my opinion. I had no desire to quit, didn't mind paying the money for it, and it didn't cause my life any great grief. In fact, in my mind, everything was okay, even though it really wasn't. Pot gives us that feeling that everything is okay, even when it's not. For me, I was with a woman I had nothing in common with, in a career I didn't love. Only after getting clean and sober and growing and developing spiritually did those aspects of my life change.



Nevertheless, I want you to know I do appreciate the work you do.:wavatcha:

Thanks, Evan. I'm totally blessed with the opportunity to do what I do. It's a calling, really. :wink:

Don

[Lenny]

I think many of us have met recovering addicts whose obsessive behavior has been redirected to fundamentalist religious pursuits. One of my friends so eloquently demonstrates this phenomena by walking one direction with his arms up as if embracing shouting "Meth! Meth! Meth!" then abruptly turns the opposite way reaching up shouting "Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!". BTW I quit drinking and hard drugs years ago. I still smoke medical herb. It is not causing me to relapse. I am now addicted to surfing. It is a healthy addiction and I will use every day for the rest of my life if I can.
As far as legalization, I believe if alcohol is legal all other drugs ought to be too. In my experience most recovering addicts consider alcohol to be one of the hardest drugs out there, if not the hardest. :2cents:

The logic of the last two sentences escapes me. Also the truth content. Cigarettes are the hardest, at least in my world and all the other fiends I've talked with (thousands, some days!)
If I understand you correctly, and I concur with my own understanding: Alcohol should be illegal. It does more evil, on more people.
Which means legalizing the other stuff would simply be more evil, no? Just my logic, from what I read. No biggie; I'm just another idiot trying to think. :2cents:

[Braggi]

... No biggie; I'm just another idiot trying to think. :2cents:

A wise man (Curly Joe) once said: "I'm trying to think but nothing happens."


:wink:


Sorry, Lenny. I couldn't resist.

-Jeff

[etree]

The logic of the last two sentences escapes me. Also the truth content. Cigarettes are the hardest, at least in my world and all the other fiends I've talked with (thousands, some days!)
If I understand you correctly, and I concur with my own understanding: Alcohol should be illegal. It does more evil, on more people.
Which means legalizing the other stuff would simply be more evil, no? Just my logic, from what I read. No biggie; I'm just another idiot trying to think. :2cents:

To clarify: I wholeheartedly believe all drugs should be legalized and any monies allocated for the War on Drugs should be used to fund rehabilitation and treatment centers. I am no fan of laws which are designed to protect me from myself.

I don't believe drugs are evil in and of themselves; if you are looking for the "evil" my guess is it resides in the fear and anger which drives people to abuse them. Remember, you need two things for drug abuse: a drug and an addict to abuse it.

[MsTerry]

That's because it is Jesus who relieves us of the obsession/compulsion to use drugs and alcohol. We give credit where credit is due. Jesus is worth getting excited about. His awesome power to create this Universe and everything He does today is worthy of His praise. Meth? Not so much.

Don
Now I am going to assume that you know that Jesus died more than 2000 years ago. I am going to assume that you know the bible is based on hearsay.
But what I don't get is why you are peddling christianity, a religion founded by foreign ews and imported into this country by Europeans.
Why would you want anyone to follow something that has nothing to do with this country, didn't come from this country and is un-American? Sir.

[thewholetruth]

Now I am going to assume that you know that Jesus died more than 2000 years ago.

And rose from the dead three days later. Yes, I know. And His Spirit is alive and lives in the hearts of men and women all over this planet now.


I am going to assume that you know the bible is based on hearsay.

I take it you know what happens when we assume? (You've done it twice now, btw.) And trying to start an argument with me about what took place more than 2000 years ago regarding the most important Man who ever walked the face of the Earth says an awful lot about you, Ma'am. (May I suggest a hobby, or perhaps volunteer work?)


But what I don't get is why you are peddling christianity, a religion founded by foreign ews and imported into this country by Europeans.

One cannot "peddle" a life in Christ to someone else. Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ, a Jew, who gathered other Jews alongside Him and testified to the truth, and then proceeded to fulfill Scripture which had been written thousands of years before His coming. Christianity made it's way here with European settlers, who then proceeded to found and build this nation, the greatest and most powerful nation in the history of Mankind, upon Christianity, Christian priniciples and the hedge of protection which comes from knowing, honoring, worshiping and giving reverence to Almighty God.

When witnessing to your friends and neighbors about the wonderful or amazing things your children and/or husband/life partner have done (provided they've done some wonderful and/or amazing things at one time or another - most of us have), is that "peddling" your children, husband and/or your life partner, MsTerry?


Why would you want anyone to follow something that has nothing to do with this country, didn't come from this country and is un-American? Sir.

To answer your bizarre question in a word, MsTerry: freedom. That's why. The United States of America was built on Christian principles by Christian men. Calling the Lord "unAmerican" says more about you than you're trying to say about Jesus...and because of the incredible freedom to believe whatever we want here in America, you're entitled to your opinion.

May I suggest tennis, or perhaps embroidery? Actually, I find golf to be an incredibly spiritual time, literally a break from everything else in life for a few hours, and good for the soul. Getting an education can be helpful, as well, in order to more fully enjoy one's life by spending more time helping others.

Don

[MsTerry]

And rose from the dead three days later. Yes, I know.

Don

Is that your POV or do you happen to have any proof of that?

[MsTerry]

.
I take it you know what happens when we assume? (You've done it twice now, btw.)
Don
Please tell me what happens when we assume, Sir!
Since you have such an aversion to answering straight questions, I have to assume things, is that offensive to you Sir?

[MsTerry]

And before I forget, you finally took my advice and learned how to quote and post! bravo!

[MsTerry]

Christianity made it's way here with European settlers, who then proceeded to found and build this nation, the greatest and most powerful nation in the history of Mankind, upon Christianity, Christian priniciples and the hedge of protection which comes from knowing, honoring, worshiping and giving reverence to Almighty God.


Don

Pride comes before the fall?

[MsTerry]

[quote=donc1955;57129]
To answer your bizarre question in a word, MsTerry: freedom. That's why. The United States of America was built on Christian principles by Christian men. Calling the Lord "unAmerican" says more about you than you're trying to say about Jesus...and because of the incredible freedom to believe whatever we want here in America, you're entitled to your opinion.


Don[/quote
Now first of, you are not answering my question, as usual
Freedom huh?
America was build on slavery, rascism, genocide and sexism.
Are those the fine christian principles you are referring to that created the word freedom?

[thewholetruth]

Is that your POV or do you happen to have any proof of that?

Historical records show that more than 500 people were witnesses to His resurrected life. I'm surprised you haven't heard. Perhaps we could do coffee one day and I could tell you all about it. :wink:

Don

[thewholetruth]

And before I forget, you finally took my advice and learned how to quote and post! bravo!

Why, thank you! See? An old dog CAN learn new tricks. :wink:

Don

[thewholetruth]

[quote]
Now first of, you are not answering my question, as usual
Freedom huh?
America was build on slavery, rascism, genocide and sexism.
Are those the fine christian principles you are referring to that created the word freedom?

Gosh, MsTerry, I don't think I've ever seen grapes more sour than yours!

While those things were occuring here in America, it's because those practices were brought here from where they were being practiced all over the world at the time. You see, MsTerry, it was a very different world back then. Being the melting pot of the world, people brought their practices and traditions with them, good and bad, while the greatest, most free country in the world was being built.

But no, those aren't Christian principles, Ma'am. I could suggest a Good Book if you'd like to learn what Christian principles are, however. It's called "The Bible". Some folks refer to it as "God's word". (But you're more likely to find it if you ask them at the bookstore for "The Bible".)

I'm still a little surprised by this statement you made, MsTerry, where you called Jesus "un-American":



<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">MsTerry wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57125#post57125)
Why would you want anyone to follow something that has nothing to do with this country, didn't come from this country and is un-American? Sir.?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Perhaps you're from one of those neighborhoods who has yet to hear the Good News. Again, that book I just recommended addresses your question at length.

Don

[thewholetruth]

Pride comes before the fall?

There was nothing prideful in my post, Ma'am. Reverence, yes. There's a difference. Spending a little time with that book I referred you to will clarify that for you, I'm sure. :wink:

Don

[MsTerry]

500 people???
What are their names?


Historical records show that more than 500 people were witnesses to His resurrected life. I'm surprised you haven't heard. Perhaps we could do coffee one day and I could tell you all about it. :wink:

Don

[MsTerry]

[quote=MsTerry;57145]

Gosh, MsTerry, I don't think I've ever seen grapes more sour than yours!

While those things were occuring here in America, it's because those practices were brought here from where they were being practiced all over the world at the time. You see, MsTerry, it was a very different world back then. Being the melting pot of the world, people brought their practices and traditions with them, good and bad, while the greatest, most free country in the world was being built.

But no, those aren't Christian principles, Ma'am. I could suggest a Good Book if you'd like to learn what Christian principles are, however. It's called "The Bible". Some folks refer to it as "God's word". (But you're more likely to find it if you ask them at the bookstore for "The Bible".)


Don
Genocide and slavery were just part of the time, huh?
Maybe the bible wasn't available for christians in those days either?
Maybe they didn't read the 10 commandments in those days?
This is the most asinine whitewashing of atrocities committed by christians. I guess it was just part of a crusade.
Maybe you should put a y behind your Donc, just to warn people.

[MsTerry]

I'm still a little surprised by this statement you made, MsTerry, where you called Jesus "un-American":
Don

I am surprised too!
When did I call Jesus"un-American"

[MsTerry]

There was no humility in your post.
It is the kind of rhetoric that starts religious wars.
Pride comes before the fall.

There was nothing prideful in my post, Ma'am. Reverence, yes. There's a difference. Spending a little time with that book I referred you to will clarify that for you, I'm sure. :wink:

Don

[alanora]

I adored my experience working with addicts doing recovery in the inpatient disease model style of the 80's. The enthusiasm of some newly recovered and newly in touch with their source is contagious and enjoyable. The behaviors defined as addictive were obvious, relapse is considered a symptom of the disease. Not all replace with fundamentalism their drug of choice. A twenty-eight day treatment program ought be a requirement for entrance into adulthood...what a blessing to be able to take some time out, rearrange your thinking, make amends and remove guilt for past mistakes, and recognize self as part of something greater, while building a foundation for future continued spiritual growth. mindy


I think many of us have met recovering addicts whose obsessive behavior has been redirected to fundamentalist religious pursuits. One of my friends so eloquently demonstrates this phenomena by walking one direction with his arms up as if embracing shouting "Meth! Meth! Meth!" then abruptly turns the opposite way reaching up shouting "Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!".

BTW I quit drinking and hard drugs years ago. I still smoke medical herb. It is not causing me to relapse. I am now addicted to surfing. It is a healthy addiction and I will use every day for the rest of my life if I can.

As far as legalization, I believe if alcohol is legal all other drugs ought to be too. In my experience most recovering addicts consider alcohol to be one of the hardest drugs out there, if not the hardest. :2cents:

[Dynamique]

All of you should rent and view "The God Who Wasn't There" which is available from Netflix and possibly the county library.

This was a good movie. I particularly enjoyed the interview with the principal of the Christian school, which ended early when the principal realized that the guy interviewing him had wised up and was not going along with the program any more.

The extended interviews in the extra features section are outstanding. The interview with the cosmologist and the UC Berkeley anthropologist are really good.


Please tell me what happens when we assume, Sir!
Since you have such an aversion to answering straight questions, I have to assume things, is that offensive to you Sir?

[thewholetruth]

500 people???
What are their names?

You'll have to read The Book, Ma'am. :thumbsup:

Don

[thewholetruth]

I am surprised too!
When did I call Jesus"un-American"

I believe it was post #46, Ma'am.

Don :thumbsup:

[thewholetruth]

All of you should rent and view "The God Who Wasn't There" which is available from Netflix and possibly the county library.

This was a good movie.

Trying to prove that the most influential Man in the history of Mankind didn't exist? LOL I see.

We set our calendars in reference to His life, Dynamique. Everyone's entitled to their opinion here in America, and I praise God for that. The truth is that if not for Jesus Christ, America probably wouldn't be the land of the free.

Don

[MsTerry]

You'll have to read The Book, Ma'am. :thumbsup:

Don
I HAVE READ THE BIBLE.
It is all hearsay, no proof, no evidence, no 500 people.
That is why it is called "Faith"

[MsTerry]

I believe it was post #46, Ma'am.

Don :thumbsup:

Wrong again!:thumbsup:
your interpretation is not the same as a fact.

[thewholetruth]

I HAVE READ THE BIBLE.
It is all hearsay, no proof, no evidence, no 500 people.
That is why it is called "Faith"

You are incorrect, Ma'am, on all counts (..."all hearsay, no proof, no evidence, no 500 people...").

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried...but then, perhaps that's it. Perhaps you're trying to be wrong in your effort to bash Christianity.

Don

[thewholetruth]

Wrong again!:thumbsup:
your interpretation is not the same as a fact.

I SAID:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57052#post57052)
That's because it is Jesus who relieves us of the obsession/compulsion to use drugs and alcohol. We give credit where credit is due. Jesus is worth getting excited about. His awesome power to create this Universe and everything He does today is worthy of His praise. Meth? Not so much.

Don
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
YOU SAID:
Now I am going to assume that you know that Jesus died more than 2000 years ago. I am going to assume that you know the bible is based on hearsay.
But what I don't get is why you are peddling christianity, a religion founded by foreign ews and imported into this country by Europeans.
Why would you want anyone to follow something that has nothing to do with this country, didn't come from this country and is un-American? Sir..

You stand corrected, Ma'am.

Don

[MsTerry]

Don
You better check your facts.
Telling the truth about the bible is not an "effort to bash Christianity".



You are incorrect, Ma'am, on all counts (..."all hearsay, no proof, no evidence, no 500 people...").

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried...but then, perhaps that's it. Perhaps you're trying to be wrong in your
Don

[Braggi]

I am surprised too!
When did I call Jesus"un-American"

I agree, Don. MsTerry called Christianity un-American, which it certainly is. It's more properly Greek, or Roman (Italian).

Jesus, of course, is just as un-American as all those illegal aliens you complain about. He never had a Green Card, as far as I know, or even a visa (or a Mastercard, for that matter). And that assumes that the Jesus of the Bible ever existed, for which there is some doubt and absolutely no proof.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

I agree, Don. MsTerry called Christianity un-American, which it certainly is.

That's absurd, Jeff, calling Christianity "un-American". Perhaps you could tell me what is "un-American" about it? America was built on Christianity, and our Founders were overwhelmingly Christian. Only a few signers of the Declaration and/or the Constitution weren't Christians, Jeff. In fact, you can't call Christianity "un-American" because America didn't even exist when Jesus laid it down for us. We can call America a Christian nation, however, as 88% of the population indentify themselves as Christian.


It's more properly Greek, or Roman (Italian).

Your lack of research is showing now, Jeff, if you're looking for a national origin of Christianity.


Jesus, of course, is just as un-American as all those illegal aliens you complain about. He never had a Green Card, as far as I know, or even a visa (or a Mastercard, for that matter).

Jesus never came here illegally, Jeff, and never utilized our schools and hospitals without paying one thin dime...oh, and He never sent money home to Israel, either. Your comparison just doesn't hold Holy Water, Jeff.


And that assumes that the Jesus of the Bible ever existed, for which there is some doubt and absolutely no proof.

You are incorrect, sir. There is as much proof that Jesus existed as there is that Ghengis Khan existed, or Napoleon, or George Washington, and we didn't base our calendar on any of those men's lives, did we? Why do we base our calendar - you and I - on Jesus' life if He never existed, Jeff?

Don

[thewholetruth]

Don
You better check your facts.
Telling the truth about the bible is not an "effort to bash Christianity".

You better check your facts, Ms. Terry. The Bible is not "all" hearsay, and to say there is "no" proof and "no" evidence and "no 500 people" is just your opinion. Most historians consider the Bible to be accurate records of the life and times and experiences of those referred to in Scripture.

To say it "all" hearsay is a lie.

To say there is "no" proof is a lie.

To say there is "no" evidence is a lie.

To say there is "no 500 people" is your opinion, nothing more. Historical records show that more than 500 people saw Jesus walking and talking after His crucifixion.

So, realistically, Ms. Terry, since you've already revealed how Anti-Christian you are, should I believe your opinion, or the opinion of those whom most historians believe are factual accountings?

I've done the math. Christian haters are blind to the truth, Ms. Terry. I know. I was one, for 42 years. Your anti-Christian rhetoric is no different than mine was, or than any other Christian hater's blahblah. It all sounds the same because it all comes from the same place.

As an aside, would you like to try guessing where that "same place" is, Ms. Terry? Just for fun, I mean? :wink:

Don

[Valley Oak]

I truly admire your efforts, Ms Terry. The way you keep meeting ‘the Don' nose-to-nose and toe-to-toe. I was thoroughly disgusted by the Don shortly after he started regurgitating his pig vomit all over this list. The Don is the epitome of the ignorant, bigoted, American, religious fanatic and fascist filth that is overwhelming this country and the rest of the world with their genocidal hypocrisy, intolerance, and imperialism. I’m keeping it on my ignore list, nonetheless.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p>
Edward


Don
You better check your facts.
Telling the truth about the bible is not an "effort to bash Christianity".

[santarosie]

Sometimes people get the last word because BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Don

Don,

It didn't take long for you to prove out my assertions:


santarosie wrote:

I thought of a few other addictions that were missing from this list:

The need to be right all the time.

The need to get the last word in about being right all the time.

Religious salvation :Yinyangv:



donc1955 wrote:
Denial keeps addicts convinced that they don't have a problem. It literally blinds people to the truth about their addictions.



Your addiction is offensive to me, and a detriment to you socially. I won't waste time indulging you. I have encountered this before and it is not easily curbed, primarily because it is vehemently denied. I can only hope you will look at your problems with fresh eyes and find peace.

I have finally decided to utilize the ignore button, because between you and Mr. Wilson (repeatanddeny), I'm just plain disgusted. I'd ask you not to bother to reply because I won't be paying attention, but I'm guessing you won't be able to help yourself.

[thewholetruth]

Don,

It didn't take long for you to prove out my assertions....

Don't misquote me. Your post says I said:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">donc1955 wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=57063#post57063)

Sometimes people get the last word because BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAHBLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Don
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

I didn't say that. If you're going to quote me at least have the integrity to quote me. Don't make crap up and say I said it. It's unethical and it's dishonest.


Your addiction is offensive to me....

Your attitude is offensive to me.


...and a detriment to you socially..

Not at all. Just your ignorant, unfounded opinion, since you don't even know me.


I won't waste time indulging you. I have encountered this before and it is not easily curbed, primarily because it is vehemently denied. I can only hope you will look at your problems with fresh eyes and find peace.

Of course you've encountered this before. It's called "Bumping into someone who speaks with the courage of their convictions". People like you hate that. Deal.


I have finally decided to utilize the ignore button, because between you and Mr. Wilson (repeatanddeny), I'm just plain disgusted. I'd ask you not to bother to reply because I won't be paying attention, but I'm guessing you won't be able to help yourself.

There's a good solution. Stick your head in the sand and pretend we're not here. Oh, wait. That's a child's solution.

Whattya know, the only thing you were right about is that I won't let you bully me into not responding. At least you were right about that.

Don

[MsTerry]

Why do we base our calendar - you and I - on Jesus' life if He never existed, Jeff?

Don

Was Jesus born 2008 years ago?

[thewholetruth]

Was Jesus born 2008 years ago?

You know what I just figured out, MsTerry? The "Ignore" button is for use on Ignorant people.

Consider yourself ignored by one more person now.

Don

[MsTerry]

:Yinyangv:



You better check your facts, Ms. Terry. The Bible is not "all" hearsay, and to say there is "no" proof and "no" evidence and "no 500 people" is just your opinion. Most historians consider the Bible to be accurate records of the life and times and experiences of those referred to in Scripture.The New Testament was written by people who did not live at the time of Jesus of Nazareth. They wrote down stories that were handed down to them. That is called HEAR-SAY. End of story.
What is your proof and what is your evidence?


To say it "all" hearsay is a lie.

To say there is "no" proof is a lie.

To say there is "no" evidence is a lie.Your life is divided into "Lies" and "Truth".
Usually people who had something traumatic happen to them as a child live like that. It is not very healthy or realistic


To say there is "no 500 people" is your opinion, nothing more. Historical records show that more than 500 people saw Jesus walking and talking after His crucifixion.
I heard he went straight to heaven after he rolled away that rock.
500 people? Which historical records are you referring to?

So, realistically, Ms. Terry, since you've already revealed how Anti-Christian you are, should I believe your opinion, or the opinion of those whom most historians believe are factual accountings?
You divide the world into for us or against us people.
Muslim radicals do the same thing.



I've done the math. Christian haters are blind to the truth, Ms. Terry. I know. I was one, for 42 years. Your anti-Christian rhetoric is no different than mine was, or than any other Christian hater's blahblah. It all sounds the same because it all comes from the same place.
Did I ever say that I hated Christianity?
You must be making it up then, since I still go to church.

[dominick j]

When I've posted about this subject here before, I was accused of being stupid or naive. Whatever. But I couldn't let the "marijuana addicts" thing go unopposed this time. While I agree heartily with the sentiment that the drug war has wasted far too much of our resources...."marijuana addicts"? Please. Sounds like a timewarp to the '40's.

Suggest you watch the excellent documentary currently showing on "IFC" (I think most of it's on YouTube as well) entitled (I think), "The Drug Years".
In it is a considerable portion examining the results of Holland's results from de-criminalization, not legalization. Many Dutch people only know about the meth epidemic in the U.S. from U.S. sources; it isn't a significant problem in their country. Both heroin and methadone are available in regulated potency and dosage, in state run clinics. The Dutch have realized that it's much more humane and cost-effective to have clinics, instead of prisons.

In the longterm I believe that most currently illegal drugs, if not all, will be de-criminalized. It won't happen immediately, as you alude. If marijuana is any indication, the de-criminalization process will happen in bits & pieces, drug-by-drug. A good place to start would be for individuals in the U.S. to educate themselves more about the specifics of various drugs & policies. We need a much higher (no pun) percentage of our population who know, for instance, that


marijuana is not addictive.



"Addiction: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful." - Merriam Webster dictionary




I agree with you TARS 100%. We need Federal Laws to protect those who are using Marijuana especially for medicinal purposes, states sanctioning it just doens't protect them. It needs to be legalized federally and the only way we can do it is to keep writing our elected officials. Those getting caught having it on them and end up getting 3 strikes against them for ANYthing else, go to prison and our prisons are full of these small time fellons. But that's another story.

[thewholetruth]

I agree with you TARS 100%. We need Federal Laws to protect those who are using Marijuana especially for medicinal purposes, states sanctioning it just doens't protect them..

And NAMBLA would like Federal Laws to protect those who are molesting children. Criminals always want the laws changed to accomodate their crimes. Murderers would love it if murder were no longer a crime. It's called having a criminal personality, unwilling to comply with the laws under which we are governed. It's a choice. You choose to break the law, you do time. Perhaps another choice might be the way to go, rather than trying to change Federal law to accomodate your inability to cope with life drug free?


It needs to be legalized federally and the only way we can do it is to keep writing our elected officials.

It's not gonna happen. The problems caused by alcohol and tobacco have already sealed it for any other toxic substances. We'll never legalize marijuana in this country for anything other than medicinal purposes, and you pot heads are abusing THAT state law so badly that medical marijuana is going to go away, too.


Those getting caught having it on them and end up getting 3 strikes against them for ANYthing else, go to prison and our prisons are full of these small time fellons.

But felons, nonetheless. It's about choices. If you can't cope with life on life's terms, then you take the risk. The alternative is learning how to grow up emotionally so you CAN cope with life on life's terms and if you're willing to learn how, you are no longer at risk of being arrested.

Don

[Braggi]

... And NAMBLA would like Federal Laws to protect those who are molesting children. Criminals always want the laws changed to accomodate their crimes. ...

Sorry Don, that's a pretty stupid analogy. There really is no comparison and you know it. Try again.


... It's not gonna happen. ...

I do think you're wrong. I certainly hope so. Reasonable minds will prevail although many vested interests will fight their cash cow's demise. That's real evil: hurting people so you can make some money.


... The problems caused by alcohol and tobacco have already sealed it for any other toxic substances.

Marijuana isn't toxic by any of the standard definitions just as it isn't addictive by any standard definitions of addiction. It can be habit forming but so can pizza. That's no reason to break up families and imprison grandmothers and steal their property. That's some of the real crime of the pot laws and there is so much more.

If every alcoholic was a pot head (and let's say a serious pothead) the harm to society would be orders of magnitudes lessened. If every tobacco user was a pot smoker the harm to themselves and our medical system would be orders of magnitude lessened.

Don, you need to think about this outside your narrow world view that all pot smokers are addicts. They aren't. All tobacco users, with very few exceptions, ARE addicts, with devastating results (not to mention they stink).

The harm to society will be lessened when pot is legalized. It will happen and largely due to what you're reading right now: reasonable people who support legalization writing about it on the Web. The corporate media certainly won't support it until their financial interests support it, and for now, the Military Industrial Prison Complex has more clout than the potheads. (Duh.) The medical marijuana wedge is a good one, but it doesn't go far enough. It is the key to opening millions of minds so legalizing pot for medical use is a reasonable first step.

I wonder if your child or your wife was on chemotherapy and wasting away because every bite of food she ate made her vomit if you would be willing to score some pot for her?

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... There is as much proof that Jesus existed as there is that Ghengis Khan existed, or Napoleon, or George Washington, and we didn't base our calendar on any of those men's lives, did we? Why do we base our calendar - you and I - on Jesus' life if He never existed, Jeff?


Really? Can you give the ex-Biblical support for these statements? Can you show the coins minted featuring Jesus? Are there Roman history books of the day that describe a man rising from the dead? Those other folks you mention fill history books OF THEIR TIME. Jesus wasn't written about until after his death. Those writings were in Greek and were created within the Roman Empire so my previous comments stand.

Don, you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. Proofs don't work that way.

The Roman army adopted Christianity as their official religion (during the period between 380 and 394 CE) because it served their purposes better than Mithraism. Paul, who you remember was an agent of Rome, recreated Christianity into a tool for occupation and supplantation of native religions. He was quite successful.

You'll like this: " What is the Julian calendar?

The Julian calendar was introduced by Julius Caesar (bust at right) in 45 B.C.E. Author David Duncan says the Julian calendar was born of Caesar's tryst with Cleopatra."

https://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-christian.html

See? It's not about Christ at all. That "BC" and "AD" stuff was added later. The "CE" (Common Era) term makes a lot more sense since the calendar was never about Jesus anyway. The calendar was created before the birth of Jesus.

It's good to do some research outside the Church. The Church's positions are always biased. It's also good to read outside The Bible since that book was assembled (especially the "New Testament") as a tool of conquest by the Roman Church. It helps to learn a bit about history with your biases put aside, although that's hard to do, I agree.

Don, you have to remember that The Church is a business and a corporation and corporations lack morals. They are about growth. Although that is not inherently evil, unchecked growth almost always becomes evil. Cancer we call it.

The Failed War on Some Drugs is a symptom of that cancer.

-Jeff

[dominick j]

Right on Jeff. Thanks for weighing in on this conversation with Don.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Most historians consider the Bible to be accurate records of the life and times and experiences of those referred to in Scripture.

The biblical historians I am familiar with do not consider the books of the Bible to be simple and straightforward records of the life and times and experiences of those referred to in it.

Which historians did you have in mind?

[MsTerry]

Ignoring the truth is still your strongest suit.
But I agree with you that people who want to stay ignorant should use the "Ignore" button .



You know what I just figured out, MsTerry? The "Ignore" button is for use on Ignorant people.

Consider yourself ignored by one more person now.

Don

[thewholetruth]

The biblical historians I am familiar with do not consider the books of the Bible to be simple and straightforward records of the life and times and experiences of those referred to in it.

Which historians did you have in mind?

What are we going to do now, Zeno? See who can come up with the most historians who support our view?

Suffice it to say the biblical historians to which you refer are from the other side of the street. I'm sure you're aware that we can both offer up historians who support our respective views. Then you'll call mine biased, I'll call yours biased and then what? :wink:

Don

[Braggi]

What are we going to do now, Zeno? See who can come up with the most historians who support our view? ... you'll call mine biased, I'll call yours biased and then what?

No, Don, it's not about bias. It's about history. It's about reality. You're claiming to have it and saying Zeno does not. The fact is, the Bible is only one source. There are other sources of history from the same time period(s). There are things that are stated (opinions and theories) and there are things that are supported by facts. You're real big on demanding proof from others yet your proof is pretty thin.

TheWholeTruth? I'll use your words: prove it!

And where is that proof that Jesus existed and rose from the dead? Aside from the Bible.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

Right on Jeff. Thanks for weighing in on this conversation with Don.

I appreciate Jeff weighing in, as well, despite the fact that drug users/abusers always support one another when it comes to defending drug use/abuse. It's called "codependency, Dominick. In the Recovery Community, we call it the "Sick Contract" that all addicts and abusers subscribe to. In fact, the entire drug using Liberal Community also subscribes to the "Sick Contract". The contract states that "I won't tell on you if you won't tell on me". Such a contract is necessary among thieves, illegal drug users, protitutes & pimps - any group of individuals who consiper and/or engage in breaking the law.

You didn't ask Jeff why he didn't answer my question, however. He skipped right over it. It's a fact that we DO base our calendar on the Life of Jesus Christ today. 2008 A.D. and 1000 B.C. both reference Jesus' life.

As impressed as you were with Jeff's weigh-in, did you miss the fact that he avoided my question completely? I know when it comes to those engaged in a Sick Contract, the truth isn't all that important. Making one's case is what's important...or at least the APPEARANCE of making one's case, would be more accurate. :wink:

Don

[Braggi]

...

You didn't ask Jeff why he didn't answer my question, however. He skipped right over it. It's a fact that we DO base our calendar on the Life of Jesus Christ today. 2008 A.D. and 1000 B.C. both reference Jesus' life. ...

Don, go back and actually read my post.

AD and BC aren't accurate and aren't used anymore. CE and BCE are now the terms used.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Is this one question or two?




And where is that proof that Jesus existed and rose from the dead? .

-Jeff

[Braggi]

...
You didn't ask Jeff why he didn't answer my question, however. He skipped right over it. It's a fact that we DO base our calendar on the Life of Jesus Christ today. 2008 A.D. and 1000 B.C. both reference Jesus' life. ...

I realize I didn't pay homage to the fact that these notes on the calendar were used for a very long time. The reason is actually pretty simple: military conquest. The conquered peoples were forced or otherwise obliged to take on the legal system of the conquerors including weights and measures, the religion(s) and the calendar.

The Julian and Gregorian calendars are essentially identical except for the way they handle leap years. (We now use the Gregorian.) The fact that the Julian calendar has been in use since before the birth of Christ pretty much puts the lie to the BC AD terms. The fact that the calendar is in use around the world is due to the facts that it is scientifically and practically workable and the majority of the world was conquered by Christian soldiers and missionaries.

It's about militarism and conquest much more than about religion.

At this point in history it's more about trade than religion. China uses our date system in commerce because using theirs on invoices would really mess up the rest of the world.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

More detail and history of the calendar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

No, Don, it's not about bias. It's about history. It's about reality. You're claiming to have it and saying Zeno does not. The fact is, the Bible is only one source. There are other sources of history from the same time period(s). There are things that are stated (opinions and theories) and there are things that are supported by facts. You're real big on demanding proof from others yet your proof is pretty thin.

TheWholeTruth? I'll use your words: prove it!

I just wrote a fairly longwinded reply and hit "Submit Reply", only to find it disappeared into Cyberspace. Let me summarize it for you:

"Prove it" is a fool's demand when talking about Spirituality. It was my demand, Jeff, for the first 43 years of my life. I loved arguing with Christians and always pulled out my ace in the hole, the "Prove it" card. I thought Christianity was a big joke, and was pretty much the same kind of Christian hater you are, Jeff. (Oh, I know you'll deny being a "hater", but I don't see you coming against Buddhists, Wiccans, or any of the more obscure spiritual paths here - just Christians.)

One day as I finished reading a book, as I stood and closed the cover my entire life shifted. I felt it physically, even, as that book closed, a sense as if a camera were panning across the room very quickly like they do in the movies, 180 degrees, Jeff. In that moment I went from being a Christian hater to on fire for Jesus, just like that. In a moment. Suddenly, I just knew it was all true. In a moment, Jeff, I was given eyes to see the truth that I could never see before. One moment I was filled with attacks and "prove it's" for Christians; the next moment I was on fire for Jesus. My first thought after this amazing event was "What did He say while He was here?" followed by "I've got to find a church for my family". What?!? I hated Christians and Christianity, and suddenly I'm washed over with thoughts like this? I wasn't hurting in my life, living in Spring Lake Estates, an exclusive subdivision, working in mortgage business, making 6 figures a year, married to the woman of my dreams with my first daughter on the way. Suddenly, I'm transformed from a Christian hater into a man on fire for Jesus.

My point, Jeff, is that before this miraculous transformation took place for me, no one could "prove" anything to me, just as no one can "prove it" to you. Nothing I say will satisfy you right now. I was blind, but now I see, Jeff. Clearly, by the nature of your attacks on Christianity here on Wacco, you cannot see yet. I will leave you to your beliefs, as the truth needs no defense.


And where is that proof that Jesus existed and rose from the dead? Aside from the Bible.-Jeff

See above. Where is proof anyone lived 2000 years ago, Jeff? In the manuscripts and writings about them. There were others who wrote about Jesus and His miracles and teachings, Jeff, but they weren't all included in the Bible. After careful scrutiny and comparison from writer to writer, the Gospels are considered the accurate account of what took place, written by different writers, gathered up and included in the New Testament. They weren't written FOR the NT, Jeff. They were included because they are accurate.

Don

[thewholetruth]

Thanks, Jeff. You made my point. You won't find anyone basing their calendar on the life of Ghengis Kahn or Adolph Hitler or Confusious. Yet our calendar is based on the year of our Lord. "Anno Domini is sometimes referred to as the Common Era (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era), Christian Era or Current Era (abbreviated as C.E. or CE). CE is often preferred by those who desire a term unrelated to religious conceptions of time."

That you desire a term unrelated to religious conceptions of time, Jeff, such as the Christian Era, you're entitled. The rest of us don't have to pretend that our calendar didn't base year 1 on the life of Jesus Christ.

Don


More detail and history of the calendar:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini

-Jeff

[Braggi]

I ... (Oh, I know you'll deny being a "hater", but I don't see you coming against Buddhists, Wiccans, or any of the more obscure spiritual paths here - just Christians.) ...

You haven't read all my writings, that's for sure. I spare no one! :wink:


I ... I will leave you to your beliefs, as the truth needs no defense. ...

I'm not big on beliefs, Don. I base my spirituality on science and experience. I agree that obvious truths are ... obvious. Other truths develop with the accumulation of evidence.

You should know that I didn't challenge your beliefs or your faith. You made statements that are difficult to support and I used your method to require you to support those statements. You are one of the guys around here that demands people prove themselves. I do that a lot less, but turnabout is fair play I've been told.


...
See above. Where is proof anyone lived 2000 years ago, Jeff? In the manuscripts and writings about them. ...

OK, Don. Never mind. I'll do your work for you. I gave you an opportunity ...

Here's a goofy Christian site that looks like a good place to get started : https://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php

There are a lot of statements that need following up on, and I will, but not now. I have work to do. It's been fun though.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

https://www.answers.com/topic/common-era

Jeff, I learned some years ago not to argue about things which are not provable, like politics and religion. So much is just a matter of opinion. What is a fact, however, is that AD and BC have been used for hundreds of years, for the entire history of our nation, as well. Only in the last few decades have people who have a problem with Jesus opted to use CE, and if you take a peek at that link above, it refers to the Christian Era, or the time coinciding with the Christian Era.

Another fact is that Jesus Christ was the most important man who ever lived, Jeff. That you would question His existence says volumes about you, but takes nothing away from who He was, who He is and what He does.

Don


I realize I didn't pay homage to the fact that these notes on the calendar were used for a very long time. The reason is actually pretty simple: military conquest. The conquered peoples were forced or otherwise obliged to take on the legal system of the conquerors including weights and measures, the religion(s) and the calendar.

The Julian and Gregorian calendars are essentially identical except for the way they handle leap years. (We now use the Gregorian.) The fact that the Julian calendar has been in use since before the birth of Christ pretty much puts the lie to the BC AD terms. The fact that the calendar is in use around the world is due to the facts that it is scientifically and practically workable and the majority of the world was conquered by Christian soldiers and missionaries.

It's about militarism and conquest much more than about religion.

At this point in history it's more about trade than religion. China uses our date system in commerce because using theirs on invoices would really mess up the rest of the world.

-Jeff

[thewholetruth]

Don, go back and actually read my post.

AD and BC aren't accurate and aren't used anymore. CE and BCE are now the terms used.

-Jeff

That isn't true at all, Jeff. It's just people who have a problem with Jesus who use those terms. The rest of us still use BC and AD. Even the Chinese use BC and AD now.

Don

[Zeno Swijtink]

What are we going to do now, Zeno? See who can come up with the most historians who support our view?

Suffice it to say the biblical historians to which you refer are from the other side of the street. I'm sure you're aware that we can both offer up historians who support our respective views. Then you'll call mine biased, I'll call yours biased and then what? :wink:

Don

No, this is not about your (or my) opinion about the historical truth of the Bible, it's about your opinion what Bible historians say about this. You wrote: "Most historians consider the Bible to be accurate records of the life and times and experiences of those referred to in Scripture."

So again: Give me a list of all (Bible) historians and show that most on that list "consider the Bible to be accurate records of the life and times and experiences of those referred to in Scripture."

Or did you just fabricate this reference to "most historians" to make you posting more impressive. Come on, give me just three historians.

[MsTerry]

See above. Where is proof anyone lived 2000 years ago?

Don

Well does this mean you have never been to Europe?
Or Asia? How about the Middle East?