Why can't John change Wiki to reflect his triune view?
HappyMike
A Course in Miracles (also referred to as ACIM or the Course) is a
self-study curriculum (spiritual in nature) that sets forth an
absolute non-dualistic metaphysics yet integrates (its definition of
the principle of) forgiveness emphasizing its practical application in
daily living.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism
A Course in Miracles
A Course in Miracles is a an expression of nondualism that is
independent of any religious denomination. For instance in a workshop
entitled 'The Real World' led by two of its more prominent teachers,
Kenneth Wapnick and Gloria Wapnick, Gloria explains how discordant the
course is from the teachings of Christianity:
"The course is very clear in that God did not create the physical
world or universe - or anything physical. It parts ways right at the
beginning. If you start with the theology of the course, there's
nowhere you can reconcile from the beginning, because the first book
of Genesis talks about God creating the world, and then the animals
and humans, etcetera. The course parts company at page one with the
Bible."[4]
A Course in Miracles presents an interpretation of nondualism that
recognises only "God" (i.e. absolute reality) as existing in any way,
and nothing else existing at all. In a book entitled The Disappearance
of the Universe, which explains and elaborates on A Course in
Miracles, it says in its second chapter that we "don't even exist in
an individual way - not on any level. There is no separated or
individual soul. There is no Atman, as the Hindus call it, except as a
mis-thought in the mind. There is only God."[5] A verse from the
course itself that displays its interpretation of nondualism is found
in Chapter 14:
"The first in time means nothing, but the First in eternity is God the
Father, Who is both First and One. Beyond the First there is no other,
for there is no order, no second or third, and nothing but the
First."[6]
[edit]
maz
lol.
"HappyMike" <happyd...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:7981bc03-92cb-4326...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
HappyMike
> Wrong question.
>
> lol.
>
> "HappyMike" <happydrea...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:7981bc03-92cb-4326...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Oh, I assure you, this question is very much the right one.
You just have to think a little harder Mr Maz
One Truth
> Wrong question.
>
> lol.
Well yeah. If someone wishes to push wikipedia as authority then one
should note that wikipedia lists A Course in Miracles and Ken Wapnick
under "Christian Mysticism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_mysticism
As far as the opinions posted as wiki-fact in the ACIM article, one
should also note these are largely interpretations from the
Wapnick/Renard "Crazy God," neo-advaita reading of the Course material.
Interpretation as in there are other interpretations, the Wapnick
interpretation is not doctrine, not locked in stone, there is no
demonstration of any wide spread consensus for the Wapnick/Renard
interpretation, nor is there any indication that Wapnick/Renard could
take any serious criticism of their position without playing on and
appealing to irrational religious passions.
Irrational in the sense of playing to, promoting and justifying an
obvious anti-Christian bias against what a straight, honest reading
reveals is a Christian text authored by the historical Jesus.
Irrational also in the sense that the rush to gut A Course in Miracles
of Jesus and Christianity creates an irrational and essentially
meaningless "course metaphysics," where it can never be explained why
non-existent meat-puppets and dream figures need to forgive, atone, "do
the lessons," or somehow gain "enlightenment, or in fact CAN do anything.
>
>
>
> "HappyMike" <happyd...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:7981bc03-92cb-4326...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Course_in_Miracles
>>
>> A Course in Miracles (also referred to as ACIM or the Course) is a
>> self-study curriculum (spiritual in nature) that sets forth an
>> absolute non-dualistic metaphysics yet integrates (its definition of
>> the principle of) forgiveness emphasizing its practical application in
>> daily living.[1]
Definition of non dualism from Wikipedia:
"Nondualism is the implication that things appear distinct while not
being separate. The word's origin is the Latin duo meaning "two" and is
used as the English translation of the Sanskrit term advaita. The term
can refer to a belief, condition, theory, practice, or quality."
So is A Course in Miracles a metaphysics of non-dualism? Or even better
-- "absolute non dualism"?
Since the Course itself never uses the term "non-dualism," then clearly
to logically make this claim one would have to first define what one
means by "non dualism," then show systemic proof, not just isolated
quotes and wishful thinking that A Course in Miracles specifically
teaches "non-duality."
Systemic proof in philosophy and textual analysis would be the
demonstration that a term/concept would be meaningful in an complete,
internally consistent thought system which could be derived from a
honest, straight reading of the author's words.
Systemic proof, however, is unlikely or impossible for the notion of
"non duality," per ACIM, because radical or absolute reduction of
everything to "God," or God sans creation, produces a meaningless,
irrational, internally inconsistent faux thought system which clearly
and very irrationally misappropriates the course imperative to be
"atoned" or saved, and confuses this with an equally suspect imperative
to be "enlightened."
In other words --in absolute non dualism, there is NOTHING to be saved
or atoned but "God." Nor is there "anything," to be enlightened but
"God," and more --there is no demonstration or reason, or explanation
given why God would choose to, in effect, play hide and seek with Itself
or reasons given how dream figures can do anything which could possibly
effect "God."
In contrast one can argue and show a straight, honest reading of the
author does in fact reveal a meaningful, internally consistent thought
system, which makes the imperative to atone, or "do the lessons," or
forgive, or even become enlightened meaningful.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism
>>
>> A Course in Miracles
>> A Course in Miracles is a an expression of nondualism that is
>> independent of any religious denomination. For instance in a workshop
>> entitled 'The Real World' led by two of its more prominent teachers,
>> Kenneth Wapnick and Gloria Wapnick, Gloria explains how discordant the
>> course is from the teachings of Christianity:
>> "The course is very clear in that God did not create the physical
>> world or universe - or anything physical. It parts ways right at the
>> beginning. If you start with the theology of the course, there's
>> nowhere you can reconcile from the beginning, because the first book
>> of Genesis talks about God creating the world, and then the animals
>> and humans, etcetera. The course parts company at page one with the
>> Bible."[4]
>> A Course in Miracles presents an interpretation of nondualism that
>> recognises only "God" (i.e. absolute reality) as existing in any way,
>> and nothing else existing at all. In a book entitled The Disappearance
>> of the Universe, which explains and elaborates on A Course in
>> Miracles, it says in its second chapter that we "don't even exist in
>> an individual way - not on any level. There is no separated or
>> individual soul. There is no Atman, as the Hindus call it, except as a
>> mis-thought in the mind. There is only God."[5] A verse from the
>> course itself that displays its interpretation of nondualism is found
>> in Chapter 14:
Lol! The "problem" with such an extreme reductionist take on
metaphysics is its very difficult to define an existential problem which
can somehow be solved by metaphysics or spiritual/religious practices
and teachings which are not in fact, "God's problems."
Its popular in metaphysical circles to use the notion of "story," or
narrative. As a narrative, A crazy God hiding from Itself in an
illusionary universe, pretty much sucks if you have expectations a
metaphysical narrative should impart meaning to resolve a defined problem.
To be sure most metaphysical narratives both East and West have a notion
of soul or Atman which needs to be saved, redeemed or returned to God.
Apart from the question whether there is in fact souls, or individuality
or whether God can create, the notion of something like a soul or
authentic individuality identified with us which can be saved, redeemed
or returned to God obviously gives meaning and imperative to
metaphysical narratives and religious/spiritual practices.
If one denies the soul, one pretty much denies any reason for
metaphysics other than to win friends and influence people. And sell books.
Which is why the absolute reductionism of Renard is both a squirrelly
reading of the Course material and a squirrelly application of Eastern
metaphysical notions applied to The Course.
As far as I can see a radical, absolute, non-dual reductionism can only
produce an meaningless, irrelevant metaphysics where either God is the
problem and the source of all problems, or alternatively, there is no
problem, and can be no problem.
In other words no imperative to be enlightened, and whether a
non-existent, non-individual is enlightened matters not and has
absolutely no effect on God. Alternatively, if apparent self is "only
God" attempting to realize Itself through veils of self-made illusionary
selves and illusionary existence, what can this be but a self-made and
willed problem of God?
So its pretty hard to understand Gary Renard teaching "forgiveness"
which implies a soul and individuality to be meaningful, when he just
categorically denied souls and individuality.
What can be more obvious than Renard like Wapnick irrationally and
dishonestly appropriates the imperative to Atone inherent in a straight
reading of the Course, when their own metaphysics asserts there is only
God and God could hardly need to Atone unless such a God was not One and
not Holy.
Carrie
Why does John, or anyone have to change?
HappyMike
Because change is Inevitable.
Carrie
>> Why does John, or anyone have to change?
>
> Because change is Inevitable.
Maybe so, but it's not up to one person to try and change another.
ellie
Still projecting all over the place, hey John?
One Truth
>> What can be more obvious than Renard like Wapnick irrationally and
>> dishonestly appropriates the imperative to Atone inherent in a straight
>> reading of the Course, when their own metaphysics asserts there is only
>> God and God could hardly need to Atone unless such a God was not One and
>> not Holy.
>
> Still projecting all over the place, hey John?
Who is the "I" projecting this question?
Anyone you acknowledge as real?
maz
"One Truth" <one_...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:hgqba7$tm2$1...@aioe.org...
Ellen-God reigns surpreme. Probably she, as surpeme and singular forgot that
a non-existing Holy Spirit speaks through Jesus that Projecting all over the
place is a good thing.
1318. "Projection, to the Holy Spirit, is the law of extension. [...] Every
mind MUST project, because that is how it lives, and every mind IS life."
(ur-typescript)
HappyMike
I just posed a question, you inserted the meaning.
Why do you think I want to change John?
expires
maz wrote:
Maz + quote to me sounds like
"projecting Jesus all over the place":
Is that what ACIM is about?
Is that how "Jesus lives"?
Well, then, so according to ACIM
we are basically nothing but
little compulsive minds within a
greater, no, not just greater,
but the greatest compulsive mind.
Being ((hopelessly)) compulsive
doesn't really sound great to me.
--expires
HappyMike
Who is the ((I)) who can't change Wiki?
LOL
deb
"expires" <expires.20...@maxi-bayern.de> wrote in message
news:hgqr2l$5nv$1...@svr7.m-online.net...
LOL, nor do I.
Tom
you're screwed.
On Dec 22, 11:11 am, expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de>
wrote:
expires
LOLly question(s) indeed!
"Who/((I))" are mere ideas
that can't have arisen without
a "what" that had/has them.
*What* then had the idea of
"Who/((I))" first? "God"?
Hardly IMO, because "God" is
a "Who/((I))" idea, right?
--expires
expires
Tom <tom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you can't see the Christ in Jesus, there is some possibility that
> you're screwed.
So your birth and screwed/human form
of existence wasn't a result of screwing?
IOW, more likely than not you're here for
the very same (miserable) reasons anyone
else came to life as a human being for.
As long as you're still in human form,
you're still in miserable form. Perhaps
in slightly less miserable form than
other miserable forms. However, less
miserable is still miserable, isn't it?
--expires
Tom
In some only the spark remains. Bless that spark and trust it.
On Dec 22, 1:58 pm, expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de>
wrote:
> On Tue Dec 22 2009 19:31:36 GMT+0100
>
Tom
Tom
I said:
Anti-idolatry is no cure for idolatry. They are two sides of the same
coin, and the reverse side affirms the belief in specialness just as
much as does the obverse. When the Course says to reverse thinking
180 degrees, this isn't what it means.
This is the hidden unity in duality: You can't have anything without
also having its opposite. As G. I. Gurdjieff said it, every stick has
two ends. In the seeming opposites of apparent duality, opposites
are in a mutually dependent relationship.
http://miraclescourse.blogspot.com/2009/12/unity-of-opposites.html
On Dec 22, 1:48 pm, Deborah <debo...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:31:36 -0800 (PST), Tom <tomw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If you can't see the Christ in Jesus, there is some possibility that
> >you're screwed.
>
> True. But somehow being able to see Christ in Jesus doesn't make it
> any easier to see Christ in anybody else. Which is why there has been
> a 2000 year long period of idolization.
>
> Deborah (BC)
HappyMike
> In some only the spark remains. Bless that spark and trust it.
>
Tom
know.
expires
> expires wrote:
>> Tom wrote:
>>> If you can't see the Christ in Jesus, there
>>> is some possibility that you're screwed.
>>
>> So your birth and screwed/human form
>> of existence wasn't a result of screwing?
>> IOW, more likely than not you're here for
>> the very same (miserable) reasons anyone
>> else came to life as a human being for.
>> As long as you're still in human form,
>> you're still in miserable form. Perhaps
>> in slightly less miserable form than
>> other miserable forms. However, less
>> miserable is still miserable, isn't it?
>> --expires
>
> Bless that spark and trust it.
Thanks, but being "spark" does not
require what it always was and is.
You however are seriously suggesting
that "spark" needs blessing and trust
from (miserable) form/illusion. LOL!
--expires
Tom
Said as if you know of an alternative that works better.
On Dec 22, 4:56 pm, expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de>
wrote:
maz
we are basically nothing but
Read ACIM to know what ACIM says, or better its Author.
Don't believe what I say, and never trust my ego.
I'll return the favor. Its a saving grace.
zam ;)
expires
maz <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
> Read ACIM to know what ACIM says, or better its Author.
> Don't believe what I say, and never trust my ego.
> I'll return the favor. Its a saving grace.
>
> zam ;)
You know very well, maz, that years ago I've
already read ACIM several times in more than
one language, which alone is more than a life-
time justification to post on this newsgroup,
if one needed any justification, which I don't.
Anyway, I doubt that the historical Jesus is
ACIM's author, and am certain *not* its *only*
author, if author at all. OTOH it seems very
reasonable to assume that ACIM's authorship
was inspired by the idea/story of/about Jesus.
Trouble is, IMO, ACIM is far too imperfect to
plausibly be exactly and *only* what it claims
to be. Last not least, I don't give a flying
sh*t about you trusting/distrusting "me" or my
ego. I don't trust people (or whatever) that
prefer to be concerned about the ego of others,
instead of being more concerned about their
own little idiot they think of as "I".
--expires
maz
"expires" <expires.20...@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
news:hgt1ng$un9$1...@svr7.m-online.net...
> On Tue Dec 22 2009 23:08:56 GMT+0100
> maz <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
>>Well, then, so according to ACIM
we are basically nothing but
little compulsive minds << snip<<
>> Read ACIM to know what ACIM says, or better its Author.
>>ACIM is far too imperfect << LOL.
Hum, tell me about the weather down there, or something interesting for a
change. When it comes to understanding or applying the Course, there is
little but a load of distortion, ignorance and misrepresentation to be
expected from you "idiot you think of as "I"", so much is clear. Still
obnoxiously snipping posts, too. Happy solstice. When were you going to
leave for better pursuits than discussing a flawed and imperfect work which
you read several times?
expires
Well, maz, why don't you ask Jesus?
--expires
maz
> --expires
1970. He is the strong protector of your innocence, which sets you free. And
it is HIS decision to undo everything that would obscure your innocence from
your unclouded mind. Let Him, therefore, be the only guide that you would
follow to Salvation. He knows the way, and leads you gladly on it. WITH Him,
you will not fail to learn what God wills for you is your will. WITHOUT His
guidance, you will think you know alone, and will decide AGAINST your peace,
as surely as you made the wrong decision in ever thinking that Salvation lay
in you alone. Salvation is of Him to Whom God gave it for you. He has not
forgotten it. Forget Him not, and He will make every decision for you, for
your Salvation and the peace of God in you.
1971. Seek not to appraise the worth of God's Son whom He created holy, for
to do so is to evaluate his Father, and judge AGAINST Him. And you WILL feel
guilty for this imagined "crime," which noone in this world, or Heaven, CAN
possibly commit. God's Spirit teaches only that the "sin" of self
replacement on the throne of God is NOT a source of guilt. What cannot
happen, can have no effects to fear. Be quiet in your faith in Him, Who
loves you, and would lead you out of insanity. Madness may be your choice,
but NOT your reality. Never forget the Love of God, Who HAS remembered you.
For it is quite impossible that He could ever let His Son drop from His
loving Mind, wherein he was created, and where his abode was fixed in
perfect peace forever.
1972. Say to the Holy Spirit only, "Decide for me," and it is done. For His
decisions are reflections of what God KNOWS about you, and in this light
error of ANY kind becomes impossible. Why would you struggle so frantically
to anticipate all that you CANNOT know, when all knowledge lies behind every
decision which the Holy Spirit makes FOR you? Learn of His wisdom and His
love, and teach His answer to everyone who struggles in the dark. For you
decide for them AND for yourself. How gracious is it to decide all things
through Him, Whose equal love is given equally to all alike. He leaves no
one OUTSIDE yourself, alone WITHOUT you. And so He gives you what is yours,
because your Father would have you share it with him.
1973. In everything be led by Him, and do not reconsider. Trust Him to
answer quickly, surely, and with love for everyone who will be touched, in
any way by the decision. And everyone will be. Would you take unto yourself
the sole responsibility for deciding what can bring ONLY good to everyone?
Would you KNOW this? You taught yourselves the most unnatural habit of NOT
communicating with your Creator. Yet you remain in close communication with
Him, and with everything that is within Him, as it is within yourself.
Unlearn isolation through His loving guidance, and learn of all the happy
communication that you have thrown away, but could not lose.
ellie
wrote:
He'll only hear the answers where Jesus tells him he's right. ;)
expires
Good quotes, Maz, but not an answer to my
question about your question: "Maz: When
were you going to leave for better pursuits
than discussing a flawed and imperfect work
which you read several times?". IOW, what
does Jesus tell you about you asking me
when I will leave this newsgroup? Sorry,
but you wishing me to go away from here
doesn't qualify you one iota to tell me
anything about Jesus, God, etc, or if one
prefers, I see no reason to listen/trust
the unliberated to tell me anything about
liberation that could be worth knowing.
--expires
expires
Isn't that the absolute best "spiritualized" egos can do?
--expires
maz
> but you wishing me to go away from here
> doesn't qualify you one iota to tell me
> anything about Jesus, God, etc,
lol. still practicing mind reading and twisting the facts? You are one
piece of work. Lets see, expires how often you yourself have announced to
leave the group and the "imperfect" course in the last year or so; that
should help you understand my curiosity. We've seen Course bashers who
actually understood that their aversion and attack on the Course was a gift.
In your case its not likely to happen soon, though. ;-)
> or if one
> prefers, I see no reason to listen/trust
> the unliberated to tell me anything about
> liberation that could be worth knowing.
> --expires
lol! Try some honesty. Its a start.
>>Good quotes, Maz, but not an answer... <<
Well, as I understood it, you told me "why not ask Jesus", not about a
specific question, nor for answering my own question. And I did that, as I'm
doing that daily. I have no idea what he wants to tell you by the answer he
gave to post in response. I certainly didn't ask him related to your
delusion that I wanted you gone or something, while it is you who wanted you
gone, not me.
Bottom line, Peace out.
namazt�
expires
maz <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
> lol. still practicing mind reading and twisting the facts? You are one
> piece of work. Lets see, expires how often you yourself have announced to
> leave the group and the "imperfect" course in the last year or so; that
> should help you understand my curiosity.
"the last year or so". I came to this newsgroup
9 months ago, never mentioned leaving in the first
three or more, and haven't mentioned leaving for a
few months now. AND I never said anything about me
intending to "leave the [...] course". So who is
"twisting the facts", maz?
--expires
On Thu Dec 24 2009 14:20:43 GMT+0100
maz <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
> Try some honesty. Its a start.
Well, Maz, you yourself are compulsively a very
dishonest and/or faulty thinker, at least whenever
your ego-emotions are in control of your life energy,
which happened often and extremely for a while some-
where between March and summer 2009, and like it's
happening again increasingly when you respond to
my postings. So my not friend, thanks for once
again demonstrating how to be an obnoxious little
ego-idiot. That's something you obviously can't
hide for long behind any amount of ACIM quotes or
rhetoric, and it's very cheap: The "world" is full
of such, for most even in solitary confinement ;-))
--expires
Pieter
- That is a general rule with respect to inner guidance.
Right decisions are encouraged; in case of wrong
decisions inner guidance was silenced, since one
then didn't listen to it. Inner guidance never says
"you are wrong". (There is *no* communication
between spirit and ego.) When one listens to it
one knows the right decisions. Problems arise
when one forgets to listen.
MikeRyder
>
Uh-oh, the troops are going off the deep end again. LOL
maz
> On Thu Dec 24 2009 14:20:43 GMT+0100
> maz <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
>> lol. still practicing mind reading and twisting the facts? You are one
>> piece of work. Lets see, expires how often you yourself have announced to
>> leave the group and the "imperfect" course in the last year or so; that
>> should help you understand my curiosity.
>
> "the last year or so". I came to this newsgroup
> 9 months ago, never mentioned leaving in the first
> three or more, and haven't mentioned leaving for a
> few months now. AND I never said anything about me
> intending to "leave the [...] course". So who is
> "twisting the facts", maz?
> --expires
Aaaah, THANK YOU! "But they had expired!" cried Wentworth. "They expired at
twelve o'clock, noon, of July
S to return to you as representative of the Eureka Paper Company, three
hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which amount was paid over to me by Mr.
Orcutt, and which represents the initial payment of ten percent of the
purchase price of certain pulp-wood lands described in the accompanying
contract of sale." "Return the money!" cried Wentworth. "What do you mean?"
"Simply, that the deal is off. Or, rather, no valid transaction was ever
consummated."
Every particle of color faded from the engineer's face at the words. As he
glanced wildly about him his eye caught a twinkle in the eyes of McNabb. The
color flooded his face in a surge of red, and his eyes seemed to bulge with
rage as he groped for words. "It's a damned lie!" he cried. "A trick of
McNabb's!" He turned upon the older man: "I thought you took your defeat too
easy, but you'll find you can't put anything over on me! The deal
stands--and we'll fight you to the last court! If you've found some petty
technicality in the contract, you better forget it. We've gone ahead in good
faith and spent a million.
We can employ as good lawyers as you can, and the courts won't stand for any
quibbling! It's a case for the equity courts." Cameron smiled grimly. "I am
a lawyer, and as such you will permit the smile at your mention of the
equity court. You would not be allowed to enter its doors. For its first
precept is: He who comes into equity must come with clean hands. Are your
hands clean?
I think not--neither your hands nor Orcutt's. But, the matter will never
reach the courts. There is no question of a technical error in the contract,
because there is no contract. The instrument I drew, and which was signed by
Orcutt and myself, has no legal existence. No valid contract could have been
drawn relative to the disposal of those lands until the options held by Mr.
McNabb had expired----" "But they had expired!" cried Wentworth. "They
expired at twelve o'clock, noon, of July
ellie
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:18:14 -0800 (PST), Pieter <hrdou...@zonnet.nl>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 24 dec, 12:57, ellie <miraclelur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 23, 2:44 pm, expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > On Wed Dec 23 2009 18:57:56 GMT+0100
>
> >> > maz <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
> >> > > Hum, tell me about the weather down there, or something interesting for a
> >> > > change. When it comes to understanding or applying the Course, there is
> >> > > little but a load of distortion, ignorance and misrepresentation to be
> >> > > expected from you "idiot you think of as "I"", so much is clear. Still
> >> > > obnoxiously snipping posts, too. Happy solstice. When were you going to
> >> > > leave for better pursuits than discussing a flawed and imperfect work which
> >> > > you read several times?
>
> >> > Well, maz, why don't you ask Jesus?
> >> > --expires
>
> >> He'll only hear the answers where Jesus tells him he's right. ;)
>
> >- That is a general rule with respect to inner guidance.
> >Right decisions are encouraged; in case of wrong
> >decisions inner guidance was silenced, since one
> >then didn't listen to it. Inner guidance never says
> >"you are wrong".
>
>
> Deborah (BC)
Ellen knows it can. My inner guide isn't simply a yes man.
expires
ellie <miracl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Deborah wrote:
>> Pieter wrote:
>>> ellie wrote:
>>>> expires wrote:
>>>>> maz wrote:
>>>>>> Hum, tell me about the weather down there, or something interesting for a
>>>>>> change. When it comes to understanding or applying the Course, there is
>>>>>> little but a load of distortion, ignorance and misrepresentation to be
>>>>>> obnoxiously snipping posts, too. Happy solstice. When were you going to
>>>>>> leave for better pursuits than discussing a flawed and imperfect work which
>>>>>> you read several times?
>>
>>>>> Well, maz, why don't you ask Jesus?
>>>>> --expires
>>
>>>> He'll only hear the answers where Jesus tells him he's right. ;)
>>
>>> - That is a general rule with respect to inner guidance.
>>> Right decisions are encouraged; in case of wrong
>>> decisions inner guidance was silenced, since one
>>> then didn't listen to it. Inner guidance never says
>>> "you are wrong".
>>
>> Ellen apparently thinks it can.
>>
>> Deborah (BC)
>
> Ellen knows it can. My inner guide isn't simply a yes man.
A common error is the superficial assumption
that to "listen to" or "to understand" (must)
mean "to agree" or "to obey". For example: I
listen-to/read and understand Pieter/ACIM, but
that does not (necessarily) mean I (always)
agree or obey. Without freedom of choice the
"I", whoever's, would IMHO simply vanish :-)
--expires