The Unity Forum
Jeanette
They dislike the Course immensely, and are disgruntled as to some who have
brought such into their church.
It's rather good to read an opposing viewpoint, such as theirs, because it
speaks somewhat of an arrogancy which they note in ACIM proponents.
And other interesting comments as well:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unity_in_Crisis/
Read the response to Gene's question. I found that enlightening.
Jeanette
John Lopez
Jeanette <jeane...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3qgW9.775$KG5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
There's no use in trying to discuss the
book with ACIM adherents as
I've found; they talk in circles and
are unable to reason. If my
replies to you seem a bit reactionary,
it is only because I am used
to having these people attacking us and
then saying that we are
attacking them. After awhile it becomes
simply annoying. They are
also known to try to "bait" people like Boz and myself (both
of us
clearly anti-ACIM) into debates so that they can twist words
around
and try to make us look like intolerant spiritual bigots. So
if I
replied in haste initially, please understand our history
with ACIM
readers, or "Course Trekkies" as Brad Jensen calls them. ;)
Sounds like there is more than one "Ellen," is the Course Community.
The simplest way to put it is this:
Unity teachings rely upon
spiritual interpretation of the
teachings of the Jesus of the ancient
Biblical Gospels. ACIM on the other
hand relies upon a wholly
divergent source, a Jesus as revealed
in a text scribed by a woman
with a heavy background in Christian
Science and psychology.
Therefore, the bottom line is that ACIM
is a spiritual text which
poses as the teachings of Jesus, when
it isn't at all. It's the
teachings of Helen Schucman. Which is
okay, but she shouldn't have
based her book upon a bald-faced lie,
namely that Jesus wrote it. :)
I could spell out the theological details for you, but
frankly don't
have the time. Here's a quick one: ACIM says that physical
reality or
form is not real; an illusion. Unity says that physical
reality is
God in expression; the invisible Spirit made visible. If
that's not a
big enough difference to help you realize that ACIM and
Unity are not
interchangeable, then there's not much more to add. Perhaps
when Boz
(this group's founder) returns, he will have some
commentsay.
Cheers,
Kevin
Sounds like Helen as author is not only a divisive idea in the Course
Community, but also idea which divides and separates very similar thought
systems like Unity and The Course.
>
>
>
>
>
Jeanette
"John Lopez" <jslo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:b0c655$nqlag$1...@ID-166031.news.dfncis.de...
"Sounds like Helen as author is not only a divisive idea in the Course
Community, but also idea which divides and separates very similar thought
systems like Unity and The Course."
Yep.
Didn't take you long.
:-)
I'm gonna hang around there, and also look at some of the materials,
particularly the books online as to the founders of Unity, and such. I
started reading one today. I'd like to know what it's all about.
Jeanette
John Lopez
book The Guru Papers: Masks of
Authoritarian Power (Kramer & Alstad)
outlining some of the
psychological dangers of A Course in
Miracles, and how it works as a
brainwashing tool.
"What is not noteworthy about the
Course is its worldview, which is
not essentially new, but a mixture of
Eastern mysticism with
Christian love and forgiveness. Of more
interest to us is its claim
of not being authoritarian."
"Daily repetition of the lessons is
said to eventually bring forth
one's own 'Internal Teacher' which in turn, without any
external
authorities, will lead one to truth. It is assumed that
everyone's
Inner Teacher will say pretty much the same thing as the
channeled
voice of the Course. This claim is worth examining because
under the
guise of presenting objective truth that any seeker can
find, what is
actually going on is the age-old ploy of authoritarian
indoctrination: A worldview is presented by an
unchallengeable
authority as the truth to be found. Then practices are given
that
reprogram and condition the mind to that viewpoint."
"The Course is but another revealed (by an unchallengeable
authority)
renunciate ideology that separates the spiritual from the
mundane,
the pure from the impure, the selfless from the
self-centered. It
says listen to your own voice, but programs what your voice
will say
by taking away the validity of experience, reason, thoughts,
and
disapproved of emotions. Like gurus, it then fills the
vacuum it
creates with its own renunciate worldview offering the same
coin of
eternal bliss. Nothing could be more authoritarian, for who
could
argue against a disembodied spirit with the credentials of a
traditional God?"
"When challenged, adherents often cavalierly reply, 'Do the
lessons
and you'll see for yourself. Besides, you can't know the
Course or
criticize it until you try it.' From our perspective, this
confidence
merely shows that those willing to be programmed get
programmed."
"What all renunciate worldviews such as A Course in Miracles
really
create are internally divided people who need an external
authority
to help keep control of their unwanted parts."
"Truth or falsity aside, what's wrong with (ACIM)? Why
shouldn't
people do whatever they need to do to feel as good as they
can, in a
world that doesn't make it easy? It is not a question of
whether
people should or shouldn't adopt a worldview that fits their
ideals
in order to feel better--people do what they do. Adopting
authoritarian renunciate worldviews in order to feel better
has been
going on for thousands of years. This is not new. The Course
is a
typical programming system that conditions mistrust for all
one's
accesses to this world--mind, emotions, senses, and overall
experience. Having been programmed to dis-identify with them
and
negate them, what is left to trust? All that remains are the
"truths"
of the Course in Miracles."
--from THE GURU PAPERS: MASKS OF AUTHORITARIAN POWER by Joel
Kramer
and Diana Alstad, 1993 ($16.95 trade paperback, in
Jeanette <jeane...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3qgW9.775$KG5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
John Lopez
Let's face facts: Jesus didn't write
ACIM. He didn't come back almost
2000 years later and say, "Hey,
remember everything I told you
before? The Lord's Prayer? The
Beatitudes? The Parables? Uhm,
sorry...I was just
kidding...nevermind!"
The Fillmores knew better than to
believe in spiritualism; call it
what you will, automatic writing,
channeling, whatever. They
dismissed it out of hand, early on in
their studies.
So who "wrote" ACIM? Helen Schucman did. She wrote down
*her* idea of
what *she* thought Jesus might say. Repeat, *her* idea. This
is not
Jesus speaking, it's Helen writing "as" Jesus, more
precisely, her
idea of Jesus. Not to be confused with the historical Jesus.
The historical Jesus, the one man who embodied the Christ in
perfection, can only be found in the ancient gospels...not
in ACIM.
While there are a few "diamonds in the dunghill" (apologies
to Thomas
Jefferson) which is ACIM, I can say the same for the Urantia
Book,
which has a few diamonds, as do some other channeled or
"revealed"
texts. But the great thing about seeking and finding God
through the
Indwelling Christ is that you don't have to dig and scratch
and
scrape in the outer realm for it. The Christ is not in a
book, it's
in YOU!
As for channeling, it is primarily make-believe and/or
self-delusion.
And I say this as someone who hung around several
internationally
prominent channels back in the '80s. (I live in Arizona, and
the new
age capital of Sedona used to be my stomping grounds!) ;-)
When a Unity minister quotes Jesus in a sermon or class,
shouldn't it
always be from the ancient gospels? I've heard Unity
ministers in
talks say, "Jesus said...(thus and so)" and what they were
quoting
from was ACIM. I have had to restrain myself on a few
occasions from
loudly interrupting sermons when this has occurred. ;-)
So perhaps portions of ACIM can be attributed to a sort-of
"Christ
Consciousness", but when we use the name "Jesus" or "Jesus
Christ" we
can only be talking about one person and one source: the
gospels.
ACIM is spiritualism. The Fillmores dismissed spiritualism.
But we
have ancient texts which present the teachings of Jesus, and
to my
mind, they are quite adequate to knowing His message, thank
you.
Unity was based on inspiration from those ancient texts and
gospels.
They have served our movement well, and continue to do so
when
churches and ministers allow them to. The Truth Principles
work, if
we are willing to "work" them.
Isn't the inclusion of ACIM, CWG, and all those other things
a way of
saying, "the Truth doesn't work so we have to bring in
additional
teachings..."? To me, it just says that a lot of Unity
students are
spiritually lazy and don't want to study the Truth
Principles, so
they reach for a book that lays everything out for them. :-)
In short, they don't want to have to think for themselves.
They let
the book think for them. They surrender their power to the
external
authority of ACIM (and their ACIM facilitator/teacher/group
leader).
Unity expert Brad Jensen said something once to the effect
that ACIM
students would rather reach for the "pretty bauble of a
book" than
take the narrow way of seeking God through their own
Indwelling
Christ.
One of the quirks about channeled texts or automatic writing
is that
what's really going on is that we are getting the author's
ideas with
the name of some great figure attached to it. Case in point,
ACIM.
Helen Schucman wrote ACIM (perhaps with the help of a
colleague) ...
so the book is really Helen's theology. All she did was
attach the
name of "Jesus" to her writings to give weight to her own
thoughts
and ideas. Perhaps unconsciously, she believed that people
would pay
more attention to what she wrote if she said that it came
from Jesus.
And some people are gullible enough to believe this could be
so...
Channeling and channels are so seldom questioned or doubted
by their
followers because they completely buy into the idea that the
source
of the words or teachings is not the channel, but the great
being,
entity or master they claim to channel. It creates an
atmosphere of
unquestioned authority, which protects the channel or
teacher from
criticism.
I believe the author of ACIM was going through a great
internal
struggle, perhaps a severe breakdown or personality split,
and wrote
the book as a way of trying to restore her self-control in
the face
of mental collapse, through the creation of an "authority"
which
claimed to be external and alaimed to be Jesus, but which
was in
reality an internal aspect of her already fragmented
personality.
This self-created inner authority "told" the author exactly
what she
needed to hear to get herself back under control; among
other things,
that reality isn't real, that life is a dream, and death is
the
waking from that dream.
The voice of ACIM was not Jesus, but Helen's own divided
psyche. I
have seen this kind of thing happen with people I know
personally,
such as channelers. And so the people who follow ACIM
unwittingly buy
into the validity of the psychologically unsound work,
unfortunately,
of a mentally unstable individual. Is this the kind of
material you
want presented as "the gospel" in your Unity church
Jeanette <jeane...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3qgW9.775$KG5....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
John Lopez
I'm pretty much in agreement with what
you say here. Especially
the "divided consciousness" part. I
believe that true revelation can
come through some version of what we
know as chanelling. But some of
what comes through can be total
nonsense as well.
If it is true that Schucman had a deep
backgroud in the technology
of mind control, it's very likely that
this is a major part of what
came through in the dissociated
"chanelling" state. Her background
in Christian Science could have been a
major factor as well -- as is
the fact that Thetford was a lifelong member of CS. Then
there's the
influence from the Theosophical meetings she attended with
her
mother as a child, and the fact that her stepfather's
metaphysical
book store contained any number of variations on the themes
that are
in ACIM.
Some people make a big deal out of the fact that she was
Jewish, and
an athiest, yet she supposedly channeled Jesus Christ. That,
some
people contend, is a miracle in itself. I don't see it that
way. To
me, it fits in with everything I know about dissociative
states. She
was seeking a messiah figure to solve her problems with her
collegue. Her CS background provided one in the form of
Jesus.
Whatever else Jesus may be, he certainly constitutes a
powerful
achetype. Being Jewish, athiest and a
rationalist-materialist
psychologist tended to militate against open acknowledgement
of such
a figure, however. Hence the dissociation. On a certain
level, she
was fooling herself. A "divided consciousness" indeed -- and
it
apparenly remained divided for her whole life, since she
never
embraced ACIM herself. That fact alone should tell us
something
about it, don't you think?
Different parts of this scenario, by the way, have been put
forth by
others. I've merely put them all together. What emerges from
that
synthesis, I think, is a model of how ACIM may have come
about that
is rather compelling. Yet I've never found a single ACIM
devotee
who is willing to discuss any aspect of it. It seems that
they must
reflexively reject such ideas -- and it's like they've been
programmed to do so.
This is very weird to me -- especially when I'm dealing with
otherwise intelligent and rational individuals. It has the
stench of
mind control about it, and it reminds me of the Pentecostal
and
fundamentalist fanatics I encountered in my childhood. It
gives me
the creeps to see the steady increase of such non-thinking
in Unity.
- Boz
Jeanette
"Who Wrote ACIM?"
I'm hoping you will be inspired to respond to some of the Unity message
concerning the Course. A selfish wish on my part; however, that way your
intelligence would be of good service to me. :-) I'm not being sarcastic,
BTW.
This may have been brought up here before, but, well, then I wasn't
interested. And someone, Alan, I think said, that Unitarian is not Unity?
And wasn't it you, or am I mistaken, who was trying to put me up against the
wall, for whatever dumb argument we were having, about how I was ignoring
the ancient texts or something? And isn't this to what the members of the
forum are referencing?
Anyway, I find it of interest to see the response of the members of the
Unity forum to the Course, and how they define Jesus.
Jeanette
Alan S.
Having been involved with Unity Church for
many years now, it's been _my_ experience
that there are three groups who are mainly
for A Course In Miracles being taught, and
three groups against it. As you know, this
issue with members of Unity Church and the
teaching of A Course In Miracles via study
groups within it, has become controversial
in recent years. Here's what I have found:
Of the groups who support it being taught,
there are 1) those who actively practice &
find the teachings compatible 2) those who
are familiar with it, & while not students
necessarily, think it's in line with their
faith 3) those who, while not as familiar,
believe that other viewpoints are welcome.
Of the groups who do not support it there,
there are 1) those who don't want anything
other than the traditional teaching taught
there 2) those who object to anything that
challenges their worldviews, or challenges
them to confront their ego's 3) those who,
for their own reasons, think the teachings
are diametrically opposed to their belief.
It's been _my_ experience that most do not
know what it actually teaches, and most do
not care if it's taught there, or if study
groups are allowed. There is I've found, a
vocal minority who find it threatening. We
witness it within this NG, so it shouldn't
be as much of a surprise to find it there.
Jeanette
news:3E29A237...@yomama.com...
"It's been _my_ experience that most do not know what it actually teaches"
I scanned your message, as I have to leave for the hospital.
I will pay closer attention later.
This is the kind of information I was looking for.
This just might be intriguing.
Jeanette
Alan S.
>
> "John Lopez" <jslo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:b0c702$no6vq$2...@ID-166031.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Who Wrote ACIM?"
>
> I'm hoping you will be inspired to respond to some of the Unity message
> concerning the Course. A selfish wish on my part; however, that way your
> intelligence would be of good service to me. :-) I'm not being sarcastic,
> BTW.
>
> This may have been brought up here before, but, well, then I wasn't
> interested. And someone, Alan, I think said, that Unitarian is not Unity?
That would be me. :-)
> And wasn't it you, or am I mistaken, who was trying to put me up against the
> wall, for whatever dumb argument we were having, about how I was ignoring
> the ancient texts or something? And isn't this to what the members of the
> forum are referencing?
>
> Anyway, I find it of interest to see the response of the members of the
> Unity forum to the Course, and how they define Jesus.
Keep in mind, these people don't represent the
majority. Common sense would dictate that _if_
the majority felt as that poster did, it would
no longer be allowed there. That said, there's
certainly a group there who don't like it, but
as I said, they're a recently vocal, minority.
Alan S.
Certainly you don't believe those views came
to them from Ken Wapnick, do you? It's clear
that many people don't believe Jesus scribed
a "newer testament" to a psychologist, which
supersedes everything that came before it. I
don't think many people, other than students
of the Course, believe the Course from Jesus
or God. This is radical for almost everyone.
Alan S.
Jeanette,
Here's some websites you might check out:
Association of Unity Churches:
http://www.unity.org
(This is the overseeing body)
Unity School of Christianity:
http://www.unityworldhq.org
(This is the school for ministers and teachers)
Unity Church in the Rockies
http://www.unitychurchintherockies.org
(This is the Church where I served on the board)
If you do a search, you'll find that there are
some who identify themselves "Unity-Unitarian"
which is an outgrowth of the "anything goes as
long as it feels right" spiritually we find so
often these days. Unfortunately it's spread to
_some_ Unity Churches, which is why I believe,
there is a backlash against ACIM study groups.
Lee Flynn
The odd column formatting was making me nuts ...
"John Lopez" <jslo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
Kev,
I'm pretty much in agreement with what you say here. Especially
the "divided consciousness" part. I believe that true revelation
can come through some version of what we know as chanelling. But
some of what comes through can be total nonsense as well.
If it is true that Schucman had a deep backgroud in the
technology of mind control, it's very likely that this is a
major part of what came through in the dissociated "chanelling"
state. Her background in Christian Science could have been a
major factor as well -- as is the fact that Thetford was a
lifelong member of CS. Then there's the influence from the
Theosophical meetings she attended with her mother as a child,
and the fact that her stepfather's metaphysical book store
contained any number of variations on the themes that are in
ACIM.
Some people make a big deal out of the fact that she was Jewish,
and an athiest, yet she supposedly channeled Jesus Christ. That,
some people contend, is a miracle in itself. I don't see it that
way. To me, it fits in with everything I know about dissociative
states. She was seeking a messiah figure to solve her problems
with her collegue. Her CS background provided one in the form of
Jesus. Whatever else Jesus may be, he certainly constitutes a
powerful achetype. Being Jewish, athiest and a rationalist-
materialist psychologist tended to militate against open
Lee Flynn
"John Lopez" <jslo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
Who Wrote ACIM?
Let's face facts: Jesus didn't write ACIM. He didn't come back
almost 2000 years later and say, "Hey, remember everything I
told you before? The Lord's Prayer? The Beatitudes? The
Parables? Uhm, sorry...I was just kidding...nevermind!"
The Fillmores knew better than to believe in spiritualism; call
it what you will, automatic writing, channeling, whatever. They
dismissed it out of hand, early on in their studies.
So who "wrote" ACIM? Helen Schucman did. She wrote down *her*
idea of what *she* thought Jesus might say. Repeat, *her* idea.
This is not Jesus speaking, it's Helen writing "as" Jesus, more
precisely, her idea of Jesus. Not to be confused with the
historical Jesus.
The historical Jesus, the one man who embodied the Christ in
perfection, can only be found in the ancient gospels...not in
ACIM.
While there are a few "diamonds in the dunghill" (apologies to
Thomas Jefferson) which is ACIM, I can say the same for the
Urantia Book, which has a few diamonds, as do some other
channeled or "revealed" texts. But the great thing about seeking
and finding God through the Indwelling Christ is that you don't
have to dig and scratch and scrape in the outer realm for it.
The Christ is not in a book, it's in YOU!
As for channeling, it is primarily make-believe and/or self-
delusion. And I say this as someone who hung around several
Jeanette <jeane...@earthlink.net> wrote ...
Lee Flynn
"John Lopez" <jslo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
The following are key quotes from the book The Guru Papers:
Lee Flynn
> > The unity forum is a fairly interesting place.
> >
> > They dislike the Course immensely, and are disgruntled as
> > to some who have brought such into their church.
> >
> > It's rather good to read an opposing viewpoint, such as theirs,
> > because it speaks somewhat of an arrogancy which they note
> > in ACIM proponents.
> > And other interesting comments as well:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unity_in_Crisis/
> >
> > Read the response to Gene's question. I found that enlightening.
> >
> > Jeanette
_________________
There's no use in trying to discuss the book with ACIM adherents
as I've found; they talk in circles and are unable to reason. If
my replies to you seem a bit reactionary, it is only because I
am used to having these people attacking us and then saying that
we are attacking them. After awhile it becomes simply annoying.
They are also known to try to "bait" people like Boz and myself
(both of us clearly anti-ACIM) into debates so that they can
twist words around and try to make us look like intolerant
spiritual bigots. So if I replied in haste initially, please
understand our history with ACIM readers, or "Course Trekkies"
as Brad Jensen calls them. ;)
John: Sounds like there is more than one "Ellen," is the Course
Community.
The simplest way to put it is this: Unity teachings rely upon
spiritual interpretation of the teachings of the Jesus of the
ancient Biblical Gospels. ACIM on the other hand relies upon a
wholly divergent source, a Jesus as revealed in a text scribed
by a woman with a heavy background in Christian Science and
psychology.
Therefore, the bottom line is that ACIM is a spiritual text
which poses as the teachings of Jesus, when it isn't at all.
It's the teachings of Helen Schucman. Which is okay, but she
shouldn't have based her book upon a bald-faced lie, namely that
Jesus wrote it. :)
I could spell out the theological details for you, but frankly
don't have the time. Here's a quick one: ACIM says that physical
reality or form is not real; an illusion. Unity says that
physical reality is God in expression; the invisible Spirit made
visible. If that's not a big enough difference to help you
realize that ACIM and Unity are not interchangeable, then
there's not much more to add. Perhaps when Boz (this group's
founder) returns, he will have some commentsay.
Cheers,
Kevin
-------------------
John: Sounds like Helen as author is not only a divisive idea in the
Alan
Here's a bit of what Myrtle Fillmore said about
spiritual understanding. It certainly was not
limited to the Gospel. From the book, "How to
Let God Help You", by Mrs. Myrtle Fillmore:
"If you would grow in understanding of spiritual
things, become as a little child and let the
universal Spirit of Good teach you. Do no strain
your intellect in trying to understand the mighty
questions of life; wait until you have developed
faculties which can comprehend them....Listen to
the stillness within your own soul-and you will
find it resonant with a new tongue."
"Your own willingness to come into spiritual
consciousness and to develop and use the Christ
power will determine your growth. But you are to
keep the Holy Spirit as your light and let the
study of the writings of others, or their lives,
be but witnesses to you of what God ideas can
do. Others may be instrumental in calling forth
into activity the power within you. The Holy
Spirit is the activity of God-Mind in the
consciousness of man."
As for their condemnation of "channeling", it
must be looked at within the context of their
times. During their lifetimes (the mid 1800's
through the early 1900's), "spiritualism" was
deeply "in vogue". There were more than a few
charlatans, with few if any demonstrating the
ability to actually channel God or Christ, so
they were understandably skeptical in viewing
those who made such claims. Charles Fillmore,
as far as I can tell, didn't dismiss the view
that God speaks to us through other channels,
either, but he was skeptical of those people.
Alan
>
> "John Lopez" <jslo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
>
> The following are key quotes from the book The Guru Papers:
> Masks of Authoritarian Power (Kramer & Alstad) outlining some of
> the psychological dangers of A Course in Miracles, and how it
> works as a brainwashing tool.
[snip]
> "The Course is but another revealed (by an unchallengeable
> authority) renunciate ideology that separates the spiritual from
> the mundane, the pure from the impure, the selfless from the
> self-centered. It says listen to your own voice, but programs
> what your voice will say by taking away the validity of
> experience, reason, thoughts, and disapproved of emotions. Like
> gurus, it then fills the vacuum it creates with its own
> renunciate worldview offering the same coin of eternal bliss.
> Nothing could be more authoritarian, for who could argue against
> a disembodied spirit with the credentials of a traditional God?"
>
> "When challenged, adherents often cavalierly reply, 'Do the
> lessons and you'll see for yourself. Besides, you can't know the
> Course or criticize it until you try it.' From our perspective,
> this confidence merely shows that those willing to be programmed
> get programmed."
I'm reminded of a quote by the Buddha:
“Do not put faith in traditions,
even though they have been accepted
for long generations and in many countries.
Do not believe a thing on the authority
of one or another of the sages of old,
nor on the grounds
that a statement is found in books.
Never believe a thing because probability
is in it’s favor.
Do not believe in that
which you yourself imagined,
thinking that a god has inspired it.
Believe nothing merely on the authority
of your teachers or of the priests.
After examination, believe
that which you have tested for yourselves
and found reasonable,
and which is in conformity
with your well-being and that of others.”
-Gautama Siddhartha (Buddha)
[snip]
Alan
Gene Ward Smith
> "Daily repetition of the lessons is
> said to eventually bring forth
> one's own 'Internal Teacher' which in turn, without any
>external
> authorities, will lead one to truth. It is assumed that
>everyone's
> Inner Teacher will say pretty much the same thing as the
>channeled
> voice of the Course.
This is a rejection of mind training in any form; it applies to Buddhism as
much as to the Course.
Gene Ward Smith
>There is I've found, a
>vocal minority who find it threatening. We
>witness it within this NG, so it shouldn't
>be as much of a surprise to find it there.
If by this you mean that they find the idiotic misinterpretations and
perversions of what ACIM teaches which are all too common here distasteful,
then good for them.
John Lopez
which is an outgrowth of the "anything goes as
long as it feels right" spiritually we find so
often these days. Unfortunately it's spread to
there is a backlash against Unitarian ACIM study groups.
Alan S. <nos...@yomama.com> wrote in message
news:3E29A957...@yomama.com...
John Lopez
Gene Ward Smith <genewa...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:b0cs6j$nnn1g$1...@ID-59533.news.dfncis.de...
Exactly. Why should a Course study group be a problem at all for Unity,
unless you have students playing "I'm more enlightened than you," with their
hosts.
Mike Down Under
"John Lopez" <jslo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> unless you have students playing "I'm more enlightened than you," with
their
> hosts.
Just after he wrote:
> Lee, I'm past the point of debating with careless, irresponsible, and
> obviously untrained people who believe metaphysics is a parlor game.
And lets not forget his:
> Competing in tournament chess, with a time clock and accepted rules will
> soon humble the most arrogant of intellectuals. I've competed in such
> tournaments and know how smart I am --smarter than some and much dumber
than
> others. When you are dumb in chess, you lose. When someone is dumb on a
> newsgroup, they can always rally their friends for support and win by
> consensus. This demonstrates popularity but hardly advances knowledge.
> But I imagine the advancement of knowledge is not the priority
ROTFLMAO
Mike Down Under
Trish
How can anyone adjudicate what is in the mind and heart and intent of
another. It's rather foolish to speculate to say the least.
Helen Shucman was a brilliant, caring and extrememly sensitive woman
who knew that somewhere in the "halls of eternity" she had agreed to
take down Jesus' Book even though she wasn't at all happy about the
fact. But she definately knew. And trying to analyze her background
as being some sort of dysfunctional catalyst is just plain stupid on
the part of those attempting to figure it all out.
In a way, her background in this incarnation certainly turned out to
be an asset in her being the "perfect channel" since she had no
agendas about Jesus in the sense she felt in any way special with
regards to him. So she was objective and not biased in her "hearing"
. .and told him in no uncertain terms, that the work must be
"gramatically correct" or she wouldn't have anything more to do with
it. The content was "Bill's job".
This worked to hers and everyone else' benefit
In fact do you know that she told Bill that she thought only about 8
people would truly "get the significant meaning of the Course"
I personally found that statement quite interesting and no, I don't
believe it's a published fact. . Bill told me this.
Trish
John Lopez
Mike Down Under <mbysout...@7425bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:V%mW9.2882$m47....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
For someone who's outstanding intellectual talent is making up names, I
doubt you even know chess. Unless you think it is played with well-endowed
young women who have had a little too much to drink.
>
>
>
Mike Down Under
"John Lopez" <jslo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> For someone who's outstanding intellectual talent is making up names, I
> doubt you even know chess. Unless you think it is played with well-endowed
> young women who have had a little too much to drink.
Did you learn this nice little bit from Philosophy for Dummies or just pick
it up from the Urtext Pissemoff Group?
So what are your philosophical qualifications? Cat got your tongue on this
subject or when you claim to be the 2nd best philosopher in the world are
you just doing the same thing as Master Thoug when he claimed to have fancy
qualifications in religious studies? Put up or shut up Whirligig.
Mike Down Under
John Lopez
I don't give out personal information to idiots on the internet. If you
really want to know its public record.
>
>
>
Mike Down Under
"John Lopez" <jslo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> Mike Down Under <mbysout...@7425bigpond.net.au> wrote
> > So what are your philosophical qualifications? Cat got your tongue on
> this
> > subject or when you claim to be the 2nd best philosopher in the world
are
> > you just doing the same thing as Master Thoug when he claimed to have
> fancy
> > qualifications in religious studies? Put up or shut up Whirligig.
> I don't give out personal information to idiots on the internet. If you
> really want to know its public record.
WHERE?
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
"Mike Down Under" <mbysout...@7425bigpond.net.au> wrote
> "John Lopez" <jslo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote
> > Mike Down Under <mbysout...@7425bigpond.net.au> wrote
>
> > > So what are your philosophical qualifications? Cat got your tongue on
> > this
> > > subject or when you claim to be the 2nd best philosopher in the world
> are
> > > you just doing the same thing as Master Thoug when he claimed to have
> > fancy
> > > qualifications in religious studies? Put up or shut up Whirligig.
>
> > I don't give out personal information to idiots on the internet. If you
> > really want to know its public record.
>
> WHERE?
Oh so it is!
http://www.salon.com/people/story/1999/08/02/piercer/
Mike Down Under
Sky-Hi
<mbysout...@7425bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> I don't give out personal information to idiots on the internet. If you
>> really want to know its public record.
>
>WHERE?
He didn't say it's on the internet. He just said it's public record.
Deborah
You've GOT to be kidding!!!
Deborah
Alan
Naw. My guess is they find the arrogant,
unforgiving attitudes of some folks here
to be distasteful.
Alan
[snip]
> > Competing in tournament chess, with a time clock and accepted
> > rules will soon humble the most arrogant of intellectuals. I've
> > competed in such tournaments and know how smart I am --smarter
> > than some and much dumber than others. When you are dumb in chess,
> > you lose. When someone is dumb on a newsgroup, they can always
> > rally their friends for support and win by consensus. This
> > demonstrates popularity but hardly advances knowledge. But I
> > imagine the advancement of knowledge is not the priority.
>
> ROTFLMAO
I guess this was an attempt to "rally his friends".
Alan
[snip]
> For someone who's outstanding intellectual talent is
> making up names, I doubt you even know chess. Unless
> you think it is played with well-endowed young women
> who have had a little too much to drink.
You make it sound as though it's a bad thing. :-)
Gary
>> > [Alan:]
>> > There is I've found, a
>> > vocal [Unity] minority who find [ACIM] threatening. ...
>> [Gene:]
>> If by this you mean that they find the idiotic
>> misinterpretations and perversions of what ACIM
>> teaches which are all too common here distasteful,
>> then good for them.
> Naw. My guess is they find the arrogant,
> unforgiving attitudes of some folks here
> to be distasteful.
Gentlemen, gentlemen, come now. Even as I proposed the John & Ellen
experiment, didn't we all know the time was coming when we would have to
understand and acknowledge that the "Unity in Crisis" folks evenhandedly
hate every one of us here, all factions? That the same is true of Katie and
her "once-burned followers" group, fundamentalist Christian anti-cultists,
Muslim extremists, Atheist skeptics, and a hundred other groups and
positions? There's nothing particularly interesting or novel about any of
that.
The potentially novel and interesting thing is what we do with it.
Here's a hint: the answer of banding together to fight our common
enemy(ies) gets at most, half-credit.
One more thing: Don't give me static over my use of the word, "hate,"
unless you're willing to do battle with Matthew 5:44, which by miraculous
coincidence also just happens to contain the full-credit answer.
Alan
Yeah, well, if you're going to rub our noses
in the Beatitudes...:-)
Guess Who
> Alan <nos...@yomama.com> wrote in news:3E2A593A...@yomama.com:
>
> >> > [Alan:]
> >> > There is I've found, a
> >> > vocal [Unity] minority who find [ACIM] threatening. ...
Yeah, you're a scary bunch. If any of you ever figure out how to tie
your own shoelaces without an ACIM buddy or two or three to help you
out, the world will be shaking.
But, seriously, what exactly do you think anyone feels threatened
about?
>
> >> [Gene:]
> >> If by this you mean that they find the idiotic
> >> misinterpretations and perversions of what ACIM
> >> teaches which are all too common here distasteful,
> >> then good for them.
>
> > Naw. My guess is they find the arrogant,
> > unforgiving attitudes of some folks here
> > to be distasteful.
Yeah, I'll go with you on the attitude, but where does
misinterpretation come into play? IS there an official
interpretation of ACIM? Doesn't it all boil down to meaning whatever
anyone wants it to mean? Or should I say "chooses to perceive" it
means?
>
> Gentlemen, gentlemen, come now. Even as I proposed the John & Ellen
> experiment, didn't we all know the time was coming when we would have to
> understand and acknowledge that the "Unity in Crisis" folks evenhandedly
> hate every one of us here, all factions? That the same is true of Katie and
> her "once-burned followers" group, fundamentalist Christian anti-cultists,
> Muslim extremists, Atheist skeptics, and a hundred other groups and
> positions? There's nothing particularly interesting or novel about any of
> that.
Katie and her "once-burned followers group" HATE you? Where do you
get that information?
Is that something you've chosen to perceive, because there isn't a
shred of evidence to support a statement like that.
Are you saying that anyone who questions you or notices
inconsistancies or flat out dishonesties in the claims you make for
yourselves and ACIM is being hateful? At what point does someone get
to think around an ACIMite without being accused of being hateful or
frightened?
>
> The potentially novel and interesting thing is what we do with it.
>
> Here's a hint: the answer of banding together to fight our common
> enemy(ies) gets at most, half-credit.
NOPE, I give you FULL credit for behaving exactly as all cults do.
That would be making enemies out of everyone else in the world and
then banding together to fight them. Naturally though, by taking note
of this, I am being most hateful.
>
> One more thing: Don't give me static over my use of the word, "hate,"
> unless you're willing to do battle with Matthew 5:44, which by miraculous
> coincidence also just happens to contain the full-credit answer.
I'll just add it to my list of bullshit that comes out of the mouth of
the smug and self-righteous of the world.
Alan
Gary's post was tongue and cheek, a fact that
obviously escaped your notice. Just like your
comment about "bullshit that comes out of the
out of the mouth of the smug & self-righteous
of the world", your comment does just that. I
have to congratulate you for the illustration
you gave us. I understand just what you mean.
John Lopez
Guess Who <cos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b15c68c0.03011...@posting.google.com...
A breath of fresh air. Legitimate criticisms which only reflect the
fragmentation of The Course Community.
If the Course is not truthfully presented to the world, it is unlikely that
much of the world will see it as truth. If some Course students smugly
insist on their interpretation of truth, its only natural that their own
inconsistencies and tolerance for corruption will be thrown back at them.
Our house is not in order--because we have failed to use Course solutions to
solve Course problems. Little wonder that others see this as proof that the
Course is a failed thought system. And as a failed thought system, can only
survive as a self-centered and self-preoccupied cult.
Jeanette wonders what harm Ken Wapnick has done? His restrictive "fair
use," policies has forced the Course Community into an artificial isolation,
which can only be described as self-centered and self-preoccupied, where
indeed the Course boils down to meaning whatever anyone wants it to mean?
Wapnick's ideal of isolated student/readers self-studying The Course only
enhances separation and fragmentation, because at its heart is a denial of
community. If there is a denial of community and some core and common
beliefs -- The Course Community cannot help but become a cult of "whatever
anyone wants it to mean."
In addition, Wapnick has engaged the Course Community in his many intrigues
and corruptions and lack of honesty. It is tolerated and dismissed
internally but shames us to those brother outside the Course. Only to a
Course student, in deepest hoo-doo trance, does it make sense that Ken
Wapnick lies for the sake of God and the Holy Spirit and the Holy Truth of A
Course in Miracles.
John Lopez
> yourselves and ACIM is being hateful? At what point does someone get
> to think around an ACIMite without being accused of being hateful or
> frightened?
Alan <nos...@yomama.com> wrote in message
news:3E2AE4A4...@yomama.com...
Tomaso
~~ Hi Katie. Busted any cults recently?
;o)
Tomaso
John: "A breath of fresh air. Legitimate criticisms which only
~~ Good point.
;o)
Gary
news:b15c68c0.03011...@posting.google.com:
>> >> > [Alan:]
>> >> > There is I've found, a
>> >> > vocal [Unity] minority who find [ACIM] threatening. ...
> Yeah, you're a scary bunch. If any of you ever figure out how to tie
> your own shoelaces without an ACIM buddy or two or three to help you
> out, the world will be shaking.
> But, seriously, what exactly do you think anyone feels threatened
> about?
>> >> [Gene:]
>> >> If by this you mean that they find the idiotic
>> >> misinterpretations and perversions of what ACIM
>> >> teaches which are all too common here distasteful,
>> >> then good for them.
>> > [Alan:]
>> > Naw. My guess is they find the arrogant,
>> > unforgiving attitudes of some folks here
>> > to be distasteful.
> Yeah, I'll go with you on the attitude, but where does
> misinterpretation come into play? IS there an official
> interpretation of ACIM? Doesn't it all boil down to meaning whatever
> anyone wants it to mean? Or should I say "chooses to perceive" it
> means?
>> [Gary:]
Hi, Katie. I figured you might be "Googling" for your name. I actually did
think seriously about it before I included you and your group in the
message; after all, you're not central to my point, but only part of a
comma list. I also thought seriously before I used the word, "hate." (Hey,
I had to do something, though, because I get so few replies to my posts. It
worked! I opened up my browser this morning to all these replies! LOL!)
I realize it's rude and vexatious to be told you hate someone, so I
apologize both for being rude and for vexing you. You have come in to say
you don't hate us, and that's an undeniably good thing! If you say you and
your group don't hate us, I would rather that be true than my opinion!
Alan suggested that my post was tongue in cheek, and thanks for that, Alan,
but then, my tongue was barely grazing my cheek, so I will have to stand
behind the basic thrust of my message.
I also know that you "hate" it (sorry ;-) ) when someone psychoanalyzes you
or attempts to diagnose your synapse firings. I propose looking at my use
of the word, "hate," instead in more of an objective sociological context:
boy A throws a rock at boy B, and then runs over and starts kicking him. We
can say in a sociological sense that boy A "hates" boy B, even though we
don't really know what is going through boy A's mind. Perhaps boy A thinks
he is helping boy B, for example. It is in that "objective occurrences"
sense that I used this admittedly inflammatory and vague word. It may have
a different meaning for you than it does for me. All I know at this point
is that whatever your meaning is, it brought you in here.
I know you have your own relationship with God, Katie. Where I go, with my
"hate" word and all, on the bullshit list is unimportant. I would urge you,
however, not to put Matthew 5:44 on the bullshit list, but to read it
instead. It is no contest that its words are wiser than mine.
Alan
Alan
>
> > Are you saying that anyone who questions you or notices
> > inconsistencies or flat out dishonesties in the claims you make for
> > yourselves and ACIM is being hateful? At what point does someone get
> > to think around an ACIMite without being accused of being hateful or
> > frightened?
I didn't accuse _her_ of being hateful or frightened.
She said:
::I'll just add it to my list of bullshit that comes out of
::the mouth of the smug and self-righteous of the world.
To which I replied:
:Gary's post was tongue and cheek, a fact that
Alan
who's an attorney for Endeavor Academy. Nuf said.
Tomaso
who's an attorney for Endeavor Academy. Nuf said.
Alan wrote:
>
> Who's Katie?
~~ Different Katie.
;o)
Alan
[snip]
> In addition, Wapnick has engaged the Course Community in his
> many intriguesand corruptions and lack of honesty. It is
> tolerated and dismissed internally but shames us to those
> brother outside the Course. Only to a Course student, in
> deepest hoo-doo trance, does it make sense that Ken Wapnick
> lies for the sake of God and the Holy Spirit and the Holy
> Truth of A Course in Miracles.
What a hoot. Do you really believe that those
_outside_ of the ACIM community who criticize
ACIM, do so because of Wapnick? Next he'll be
responsible for world hunger, the aids virus,
& every other assorted problem in your world.
Gary
> Who's Katie?
Check out Carrie's recent post here (to Ellen, I think) about closing her
board. Then check out www.cosmicfool.com .
John Lopez
Its part of the package. You read the "Guru Papers." Some critics will use
anything to discredit, even D Patrick's unfootnoted essay.
What's clear is you have no sense of history. Libraries are filled with
exposes of religious groups and cults. Scientology, Mormons, Jehovah
Witnesses, etc. Usually it involves the shenanigans and indiscretions of
the groups leadership rather than a critique of what is believed.
More to the point, the denial of Jesus as author --opens the Course to
powerful criticisms on number of different levels. If you don't see it, then
your vision of the Course is most probably isolated students doing
self-study, where such criticisms hardly matter. The only problem is the
more isolated and more self-taught students are, the more likely the Course
will digress into a cult of "whatever anyone wants it to mean."
Some people think this is an ideal situation --but over time it is a recipe
for disaster. It serves the self-centered needs of some, while ignoring the
greater responsibility of awakening are brother. I believe the Course has a
major role in awakening the world. This short-sighted and temporary detour
into isolation and self-absorption will not last.
John
miraclelurker
"John Lopez" <jslo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:b0eq3p$ojrii$1...@ID-166031.news.dfncis.de...
I wonder what ever happened to one problem/one solution? :)
ellen
miraclelurker
Really ... I'm serious ... oneproblem/onesolution ... anyone?
ellen
miraclelurker
"Tomaso" <n...@toask.why> wrote in message
news:1dsl2v8i95t1e2ie5...@4ax.com...
>
> ~~ Hi Katie. Busted any cults recently?
>
> ;o)
My thoughts exactly.
What's the matter Katie? No one to play with now that Carrie picked up her
board and went home? :))))
btw how are you?
ellen
Lee Flynn
> > intrigues and corruptions and lack of honesty. It is tolerated and dismissed
> > internally but shames us to those brother outside the Course. Only to a
> > Course student, in deepest hoo-doo trance, does it make sense that Ken
> > Wapnick lies for the sake of God and the Holy Spirit and the Holy Truth of A
> > Course in Miracles.
>
>
> I wonder what ever happened to one problem/one solution? :)
>
> ellen
hi ellen,
So what would be your take on one problem/one solution ?
~ Lee
"miraclelurker" <miracl...@msn.com> wrote ...
>
> "John Lopez" <jslo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
> >
> > ....
Tomaso
Ellen: "Really ... I'm serious ... oneproblem/onesolution ... anyone?"
~~ I'm confused. What *is* the One Solution . . . Trademarks?
Registered Copyrights? Federal Litigation? Temporary Restraining
Orders?
~~ Give me a hint, please.
;o)
miraclelurker
> Who's Katie?
She is someone who would like to save the world from the ACIM cult and from
any cult for that matter. She was in a cult for years and her way of
working through it is fighting cults. There are a number of us who have had
a relationship of sorts with Katie. Carrie, Jeanette, Tom, Mike, Gary,
Nancy and I come to mind.
ellen
Tomaso
Ellen: "She is someone who would like to save the world from the ACIM
cult and from any cult for that matter. She was in a cult for years
and her way of working through it is fighting cults. There are a
number of us who have had a relationship of sorts with Katie. Carrie,
Jeanette, Tom, Mike, Gary, Nancy and I come to mind."
~~ Sure, but everyone knows that Carrie is this leader of the
talk.religion.course-miracles ACIM cult. Carrie pulls the strings and
everyone else jumps. TRC-M is the perfect example of mindless
groupthink.
;o)
Gene Ward Smith
>Yeah, I'll go with you on the attitude, but where does
>misinterpretation come into play? IS there an official
>interpretation of ACIM? Doesn't it all boil down to meaning whatever
>anyone wants it to mean? Or should I say "chooses to perceive" it
>means?
As with any other book, understanding it depends on the ability to read and
think.
miraclelurker
"Tomaso" <n...@toask.why> wrote in message
Yes, never a descenting voice here. Groupthink ... very accurate
description :))
ellen
Alan
>
> Alan <nos...@yomama.com> wrote in message
> news:3E2B1740...@yomama.com...
> > John Lopez wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > In addition, Wapnick has engaged the Course Community in his
> > > many intriguesand corruptions and lack of honesty. It is
> > > tolerated and dismissed internally but shames us to those
> > > brother outside the Course. Only to a Course student, in
> > > deepest hoo-doo trance, does it make sense that Ken Wapnick
> > > lies for the sake of God and the Holy Spirit and the Holy
> > > Truth of A Course in Miracles.
> >
> > What a hoot. Do you really believe that those
> > _outside_ of the ACIM community who criticize
> > ACIM, do so because of Wapnick? Next he'll be
> > responsible for world hunger, the aids virus,
> > & every other assorted problem in your world.
>
> Its part of the package. You read the "Guru Papers." Some critics
> will use anything to discredit, even D Patrick's unfootnoted essay.
They could even use your writings, for instance.
> What's clear is you have no sense of history. Libraries are filled with
> exposes of religious groups and cults. Scientology, Mormons, Jehovah
> Witnesses, etc. Usually it involves the shenanigans and indiscretions of
> the groups leadership rather than a critique of what is believed.
These people aren't looking up ACIM in the local
library, or scanning the internet for rumors. As
you know, they resent ACIM being taught in their
church. IOW, their understanding of ACIM is from
what's taught in their church, not from all this
other stuff. The majority of Course students are
basically unfamiliar with Wapnick's writings, so
it's highly unlikely that non-Course student are
familiar with them. You see Ken as more powerful
than he is. He influences you much more than me.
> More to the point, the denial of Jesus as author --opens the Course to
> powerful criticisms on number of different levels. If you don't see it, then
> your vision of the Course is most probably isolated students doing
> self-study, where such criticisms hardly matter. The only problem is the
> more isolated and more self-taught students are, the more likely the Course
> will digress into a cult of "whatever anyone wants it to mean."
First, Ken denies that the Jesus of the bible is
the author, not that the historical Jesus is. As
far as what others think, do you really believe,
if you think about this more carefully, that Ken
proclaiming Jesus Christ as author of the Course
would convince non-Course people to somehow feel
more favorably toward ACIM, or would it have the
opposite effect? It's been my experience that if
you tell them to believe in something because of
some divine revelation you're privy to, it won't
go long way towards them wanting to embrace you.
> Some people think this is an ideal situation --but over time it is a recipe
> for disaster. It serves the self-centered needs of some, while ignoring the
> greater responsibility of awakening are brother. I believe the Course has a
> major role in awakening the world. This short-sighted and temporary detour
> into isolation and self-absorption will not last.
Then, once again, Jesus must have really screwed
up pretty badly by failing to see this coming. I
hope he's learned his lessons after all of this.
Alan
As long as you're not looking for the
final solution.
MaeDell
Dood!!
I'm glad you wrote this and I am glad you are my brother. . .
> I know you have your own relationship with God, Katie. Where I go, with my
> "hate" word and all, on the bullshit list is unimportant. I would urge you,
> however, not to put Matthew 5:44 on the bullshit list, but to read it
> instead. It is no contest that its words are wiser than mine.
Thank you,
MaeDell
miraclelurker
"Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> wrote in message
news:AeHW9.119846$hK4.9...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > I wonder what ever happened to one problem/one solution? :)
> >
> > ellen
>
> hi ellen,
>
> So what would be your take on one problem/one solution ?
>
> ~ Lee
I believe it is the one, original, separation belief that is being played
out over and over again. That I have separated from God. I write a million
scripts and the form changes but it is not about the form at all. This is
why the Course says that we are never upset for the reason we think. So,
for me, I can remember any time my peace is disturbed, any time I see any
form of problem *out there* .... that I simply have chosen separation once
again .... and that separation is indeed impossible. The solution is to
remember that I am one Self, united with my Creator and that separation is
impossible. With practice I need not even have to think it out any further
than a seconds recognition that I have chosen wrong and the Holy Spirit's
correction is instantaneous. No need to plod through the *script* I have
written because the script or story isn't the real problem ... just a flash
of recognition that I have chosen wrong ... to bring it back to right. One
problem/one solution.
I had a very busy day today with housework ... then a blues festival ...
then onto the drum circle at the beach ... I'm not as focused as I could be.
Perhaps I should let Jesus
From Many Forms; One Correction
"The Holy Spirit offers you release from every problem that you think you
have. They are the same to Him, because each one, regardless of the form it
seems to take, is a demand that someone suffer loss, and make a sacrifice
that you might gain. And, when the situation is worked out so no one loses,
is the problem gone, because it was an error in perception, which now has
been corrected. One mistake is not more difficult for Him to bring to truth
than is another. For there is but one mistake; the whole idea that loss is
possible, and could result in gain for anyone. If this were true, then God
would be unfair; sin would be possible, attack be justified, and vengeance
fair.
"This one mistake, in any form, has one correction. There is no loss; to
think there is, is a mistake. You have no problems, though you think you
have. And yet you could not think so, if you saw them vanish one by one,
without regard to size, complexity, or place and time, or any attribute
which you perceive that makes each one seem different from the rest. Think
not the limits you impose on what you see can limit God in any way. The
miracle of justice can correct all errors. Every problem is an error. It
does injustice to the Son of God, and therefore is not true. The Holy Spirit
does not evaluate injustices as great or small, or more or less. They have
no properties to Him. They are mistakes from which the Son of God is
suffering, but needlessly. And so He takes the thorns and nails away. He
does not pause to judge whether the hurt be large or little. He makes but
one judgment; that to hurt God’s Son must be unfair, and therefore is not
so."
ellen
John Lopez
miraclelurker <miracl...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:b0fdt3$ojgjh$1...@ID-126618.news.dfncis.de...
That's an interesting idea Ellen, why not call Ken remind him he is not
separated from God and see if that leads him to stop his lawsuits.-- oh, I'm
sorry, you meant everyone but Ken.
>
>
Gene Ward Smith
>First, Ken denies that the Jesus of the bible is
>the author, not that the historical Jesus is. As
>far as what others think, do you really believe,
>if you think about this more carefully, that Ken
>proclaiming Jesus Christ as author of the Course
>would convince non-Course people to somehow feel
>more favorably toward ACIM, or would it have the
>opposite effect? It's been my experience that if
>you tell them to believe in something because of
>some divine revelation you're privy to, it won't
>go long way towards them wanting to embrace you.
Are you saying that Ken speaks in a deliberately obfuscated way, and that this
is a good idea?
Gene Ward Smith
>I believe it is the one, original, separation belief that is being played
>out over and over again. That I have separated from God.
(1) You are God
(2) You believe you have separated from God
(3) God is not insane
Something has to give in there.
Sky-Hi
Tomaso
>First, Ken denies that the Jesus of the bible is
>the author, not that the historical Jesus is. As
>far as what others think, do you really believe,
>if you think about this more carefully, that Ken
>proclaiming Jesus Christ as author of the Course
>would convince non-Course people to somehow feel
>more favorably toward ACIM, or would it have the
>opposite effect? It's been my experience that if
>you tell them to believe in something because of
>some divine revelation you're privy to, it won't
>go long way towards them wanting to embrace you.
Gene: "Are you saying that Ken speaks in a deliberately obfuscated
way, and that this is a good idea?
~~ Well . . . .I don't think that drawing a distinction between "Jesus
of the Bible" and "the historical Jesus" could ever be undertaken by
accident, and I don't see how making that disctinction is anything
other than a move in the direction of negative clarity when applied to
the authorship of ACIM. . . . sooooooo . . . . . . "deliberately
obfuscated" seems apt.
;o)
miraclelurker
"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:b0fsos$p0aub$2...@ID-59533.news.dfncis.de...
You really seem to have a hard time distinguishing between eternal reality
and the reflection of reality in time/space. I have said the there is
Father and Son ... but that there is no distinction in eternity. I'm not
interested in going around and around with you on this Gene.
Just let me go on record one more time THERE IS GOD THE FATHER AND GOD THE
SON.
ellen
John Lopez
>
> First, Ken denies that the Jesus of the bible is
> the author, not that the historical Jesus is. As
> far as what others think, do you really believe,
> if you think about this more carefully, that Ken
> proclaiming Jesus Christ as author of the Course
> would convince non-Course people to somehow feel
> more favorably toward ACIM, or would it have the
> opposite effect? It's been my experience that if
> you tell them to believe in something because of
> some divine revelation you're privy to, it won't
> go long way towards them wanting to embrace you.
Alan, if you read the fine print, Ken is not claiming any Jesus is author of
the Course. Helen Schucman wrote the Course and Jesus is the form of
"Divine Love," her first person narrative took. At any rate, it is certainly
not FACIM's legal position where Jesus' authorship is consistently denied.
Do I think authorship is a point of contention? I think a book which claims
to be written by Jesus -- yet its editor, foremost teacher and copyright
holder denies that it was written by Jesus, raises red flags for many
people.
For example, there are many cases where churches give a home to Course
groups. In my area, this has happened often. In fact, in few instances, it
was the Catholic church. Now giving a Course group a place to meet is
rather controversial for most churches under the best of circumstances. It
is that much harder to defend such an action, if the book seems to be a
rip-off of Jesus by Helen Schucman. Let's face it, A Course in Miracles is
pretty damn bizarre, once authorship is brought into question.
The point is after 25 years, Course groups are still looking for places to
meet. If Course groups make themselves unwelcomed by becoming obnoxious
guests and doctrinal cultist, I guess who ever is left will have retreat to
solitary self-study and log on to the internet. Instead of a study group, I
guess they'll find the newsgroup from hell arguing whether God is a blob or
God has a Son. Students will be assured they too, can reach this crescendo
of spiritual perfection, if they just buy the book and do the lessons. Don't
be surprised if many prospective students just chuck the book and become a
Methodist.
John
Alan
No, Mr. Lackofcontext, I was saying that it was
unlikely that many non-Course students would be
reading Wapnick's writings in the first place &
if they did, it's unlikely proclaiming Jesus as
the _author_ of the Course would endear Wapnick
or the Course to them. That's what I am saying.
Alan
It turns out that the General Custer of our
turn of the century history books _differs_
from the historical General Custer. Is this
deliberately obfuscating the matter, or, is
it an observation made upon the information
at hand? That aside, I wasn't attempting to
make a judgment one way or the other in the
reply above, I was pointing out that it was
doubtful that proclaiming Jesus as _author_
of the Course would positively sway critics
of it. It probably has the opposite effect.
Alan
>
> > First, Ken denies that the Jesus of the bible is
> > the author, not that the historical Jesus is. As
> > far as what others think, do you really believe,
> > if you think about this more carefully, that Ken
> > proclaiming Jesus Christ as author of the Course
> > would convince non-Course people to somehow feel
> > more favorably toward ACIM, or would it have the
> > opposite effect? It's been my experience that if
> > you tell them to believe in something because of
> > some divine revelation you're privy to, it won't
> > go long way towards them wanting to embrace you.
>
> Alan, if you read the fine print, Ken is not claiming any Jesus is author of
> the Course. Helen Schucman wrote the Course and Jesus is the form of
> "Divine Love," her first person narrative took. At any rate, it is certainly
> not FACIM's legal position where Jesus' authorship is consistently denied.
"Yes, it is definitely the same Jesus who appeared
in the world two thousand years ago, with the same
*message* of truth -- in *content* obviously, not
form. However, it is extremely hard to believe that
the Jesus of A Course in Miracles is the same figure
written about in the Bible, just as it would be
difficult to accept that the biblical Jesus resembles
the truly historical one." - Ken Wapnick
John Lopez
> >
> > Alan, if you read the fine print, Ken is not claiming any Jesus is
author of
> > the Course. Helen Schucman wrote the Course and Jesus is the form of
> > "Divine Love," her first person narrative took. At any rate, it is
certainly
> > not FACIM's legal position where Jesus' authorship is consistently
denied.
>
> "Yes, it is definitely the same Jesus who appeared
> in the world two thousand years ago, with the same
> *message* of truth -- in *content* obviously, not
> form. However, it is extremely hard to believe that
> the Jesus of A Course in Miracles is the same figure
> written about in the Bible, just as it would be
> difficult to accept that the biblical Jesus resembles
> the truly historical one." - Ken Wapnick
Alan, I've read and discussed this passage. Like I said you have to read
the fine print. These types of quotes are for public consumption. What you
and most people think Wapnick means by Jesus is not what Wapnick means by
Jesus. Its called deliberate obfuscation. Clearly his position on
spiritual authorship had to track with his position on legal authorship or
Wapnick would be open to criticism of hypocricy or worse. The "form of
divine love," explanation allowed Helen authorship and "saved," Jesus -- or
at least something Wapnick called Jesus.
Alan
>
> > >
> > > Alan, if you read the fine print, Ken is not claiming any Jesus
> > > is author of the Course. Helen Schucman wrote the Course and Jesus
> > > is the form of "Divine Love," her first person narrative took. At
> > > any rate, it is certainly not FACIM's legal position where Jesus'
> > > authorship is consistently denied.
> >
> > "Yes, it is definitely the same Jesus who appeared
> > in the world two thousand years ago, with the same
> > *message* of truth -- in *content* obviously, not
> > form. However, it is extremely hard to believe that
> > the Jesus of A Course in Miracles is the same figure
> > written about in the Bible, just as it would be
> > difficult to accept that the biblical Jesus resembles
> > the truly historical one." - Ken Wapnick
>
> Alan, I've read and discussed this passage. Like I said
> you have to read the fine print. These types of quotes are
> for public consumption.
What a minute. In this very thread, you claimed
that the reason some non-Course people might be
against ACIM, is that Ken denied the authorship
of Jesus. You referred to what folks might read
from him in a library, for instance. Now you're
admitting that his public position is Jesus did
author the Course? Talk about some obfuscation:
> What you
> and most people think Wapnick means by Jesus is not what
> Wapnick means by Jesus. Its called deliberate obfuscation.
Hmmm. Non-Course people are against the Course,
(supposedly) at least partly because Ken denies
the authorship of Jesus, & when people read his
works in a library, that's what they'll read, &
yet his works for public consumption contradict
what can be found in the library from this man?
> Clearly his position on
> spiritual authorship had to track with his position on legal authorship or
> Wapnick would be open to criticism of hypocricy or worse. The "form of
> divine love," explanation allowed Helen authorship and "saved," Jesus -- or
> at least something Wapnick called Jesus.
Do you mean to say that Ken is _not_ open to a
boatload of criticism for these very things? I
must have been mistaken when I was reading all
the posts, which I could have sworn called him
a liar, hypocrite, or worse. Sorry my mistake.
[snip]
Gene Ward Smith
>You really seem to have a hard time distinguishing between eternal reality
>and the reflection of reality in time/space. I have said the there is
>Father and Son ... but that there is no distinction in eternity.
You seem to have a really hard time saying something. Are you saying the
Father does or does not exist in reality. It's a simple question, why not just
answer it?
>Just let me go on record one more time THERE IS GOD THE FATHER AND GOD THE
>SON.
In reality? Or just from a space-time point of view? It doesn't matter how
often you go on the record if the record fails to make sense.
miraclelurker
The Father does exist in reality but the experience in reality is that of
Oneness.
ellen
Tomaso
>
> In article <3E2B4FB2...@yomama.com>, Alan <nos...@yomama.com>
> wrote:
>
> >First, Ken denies that the Jesus of the bible is
> >the author, not that the historical Jesus is. As
> >far as what others think, do you really believe,
> >if you think about this more carefully, that Ken
> >proclaiming Jesus Christ as author of the Course
> >would convince non-Course people to somehow feel
> >more favorably toward ACIM, or would it have the
> >opposite effect? It's been my experience that if
> >you tell them to believe in something because of
> >some divine revelation you're privy to, it won't
> >go long way towards them wanting to embrace you.
>
> Gene: "Are you saying that Ken speaks in a deliberately obfuscated
> way, and that this is a good idea?
>
> ~~ Well . . . .I don't think that drawing a distinction between
"Jesus
> of the Bible" and "the historical Jesus" could ever be undertaken by
> accident, and I don't see how making that disctinction is anything
> other than a move in the direction of negative clarity when applied
to
> the authorship of ACIM. . . . sooooooo . . . . . . "deliberately
> obfuscated" seems apt.
Alan: "It turns out that the General Custer of our
turn of the century history books _differs_
from the historical General Custer. Is this
deliberately obfuscating the matter, or, is
it an observation made upon the information
at hand? That aside, I wasn't attempting to
make a judgment one way or the other in the
reply above, I was pointing out that it was
doubtful that proclaiming Jesus as _author_
of the Course would positively sway critics
of it. It probably has the opposite effect."
~~ Cut the crap, Alan. It's about the nature of miracles. The
"historical Jesus" is Ken's code word for a Jesus who did NOT heal the
sick, make the lame walk, make the blind see, turn water into wine,
feed the hungry, walk on water or arise from the dead in any way other
than the imagination of the disciples.
~~ Based upon his writings, the reason for this is that Ken has no
personal experience with miracles himself and he has no faith. The
Jesus portrayed in ACIM is totally consistent with with the Biblical
picture of Jesus, even if some of the meaning is different.
~~ Thus, by denying the "Biblical Jesus" Ken also denies the selfsame
Jesus who authored ACIM and who said, among other things, "Miracles
enable you to heal the sick and raise the dead because you made
sickness and death yourself, and can therefore abolish both."
~~ The totally radical theology presented in ACIM scares the shit out
most people, including Ken.
;o)
miraclelurker
"Tomaso" <n...@toask.why> wrote in message
> Tomaso wrote:
> ~~ Cut the crap, Alan. It's about the nature of miracles. The
> "historical Jesus" is Ken's code word for a Jesus who did NOT heal the
> sick, make the lame walk, make the blind see, turn water into wine,
> feed the hungry, walk on water or arise from the dead in any way other
> than the imagination of the disciples.
How could you possibily know that this is what Ken means?
> ~~ Based upon his writings, the reason for this is that Ken has no
> personal experience with miracles himself and he has no faith. The
> Jesus portrayed in ACIM is totally consistent with with the Biblical
> picture of Jesus, even if some of the meaning is different.
I find it amazing that Course students .... after everything the Course says
.... seem to have no problem stating things like a brother has no personal
experience with miracles and has no faith. Bewildering ... really????
ellen
Tomaso
> personal experience with miracles himself and he has no faith. The
> Jesus portrayed in ACIM is totally consistent with with the Biblical
> picture of Jesus, even if some of the meaning is different.
Ellen: "I find it amazing that Course students .... after everything
the Course says .... seem to have no problem stating things like a
brother has no personal experience with miracles and has no faith.
Bewildering ... really????"
~~ You haven't read Ken's books, so please don't pretend to know what
he wrote, or assume that I don't.
;o)
miraclelurker
"Tomaso" <n...@toask.why> wrote in message
I am speaking of the absurdity of the statement that any human being has not
experienced miracles in their life. That certainly makes the miracle which
is natural pretty impotent. There is not a human being that has not
experienced miracles in there life even if they may not recognize them as
such. Everyone no matter how lost they may seem has received and given
unconditional love in their lives. No one lives without the experience of
miracles. And knowing that there are no idol thoughts every thought we have
is an affirmation and a prayer of sorts. Why affirm the lack of miracles in
anyone's life? ... when we are all one ... it only affirms the lack of
miracles for all ... and you cannot separate yourself from that all or from
Ken in what you affirm. The same can be said for faith. Where is the faith
of the one who declares no faith in a brother?
If I am honest this must be an attack ... but geez I don't get this kind of
practice of the Course from those who will tell the rest of us that we
misinterpret and don't understand the Course.
ellen
Tomaso
"Tomaso" <n...@toask.why> wrote in message
news:jhqn2vo8ppmtil70n...@4ax.com...
> > ~~ Based upon his writings, the reason for this is that Ken has no
> > personal experience with miracles himself and he has no faith.
The
> > Jesus portrayed in ACIM is totally consistent with with the
Biblical
> > picture of Jesus, even if some of the meaning is different.
>
> Ellen: "I find it amazing that Course students .... after everything
> the Course says .... seem to have no problem stating things like a
> brother has no personal experience with miracles and has no faith.
> Bewildering ... really????"
>
>
> ~~ You haven't read Ken's books, so please don't pretend to know
what
> he wrote, or assume that I don't.
>
>
> ;o)
Ellen: "I am speaking of the absurdity of the statement that any human
being has not experienced miracles in their life. That certainly
makes the miracle which is natural pretty impotent. There is not a
human being that has not experienced miracles in there life even if
they may not recognize them as such. Everyone no matter how lost they
may seem has received and given unconditional love in their lives. No
one lives without the experience of miracles. And knowing that there
are no idol thoughts every thought we have is an affirmation and a
prayer of sorts. Why affirm the lack of miracles in anyone's life?
... when we are all one ... it only affirms the lack of miracles for
all ... and you cannot separate yourself from that all or from Ken in
what you affirm. The same can be said for faith. Where is the faith
of the one who declares no faith in a brother?"
~~ Bah.
~~ Where is the faith of the one (you) who is unable to perceive the
faith of the one who declares no faith in a brother?
Ellen: "If I am honest this must be an attack ... but geez I don't get
this kind of practice of the Course from those who will tell the rest
of us that we misinterpret and don't understand the Course."
~~ If you want to talk about the meaning of what Ken writes, fine . .
. go read a few of his books and get back to me with your informed
opinions.
~~ If you *don't* want to discuss the meaning of what Ken writes, then
DON'T.
~~ Ken has written at least a dozen books. Personally, I think you
are showing him great disrespect by not reading them.
;o)
Gene Ward Smith
>The Father does exist in reality but the experience in reality is that of
>Oneness.
Now we are getting somewhere. Are you saying the Father does exist, but
doesn't know He is the Father?
John Lopez
> John Lopez wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Alan, if you read the fine print, Ken is not claiming any Jesus
> > > > is author of the Course. Helen Schucman wrote the Course and Jesus
> > > > is the form of "Divine Love," her first person narrative took. At
> > > > any rate, it is certainly not FACIM's legal position where Jesus'
> > > > authorship is consistently denied.
> > >
> > > "Yes, it is definitely the same Jesus who appeared
> > > in the world two thousand years ago, with the same
> > > *message* of truth -- in *content* obviously, not
> > > form. However, it is extremely hard to believe that
> > > the Jesus of A Course in Miracles is the same figure
> > > written about in the Bible, just as it would be
> > > difficult to accept that the biblical Jesus resembles
> > > the truly historical one." - Ken Wapnick
> >
> > Alan, I've read and discussed this passage. Like I said
> > you have to read the fine print. These types of quotes are
> > for public consumption.
>
> What a minute. In this very thread, you claimed
> that the reason some non-Course people might be
> against ACIM, is that Ken denied the authorship
> of Jesus. You referred to what folks might read
> from him in a library, for instance. Now you're
> admitting that his public position is Jesus did
> author the Course? Talk about some obfuscation:
What I'm saying is you might get your facts straight. To begin with Ken
doesn't believe Jesus authored the Course, he believes Helen Schucman did.
Despite his obuscation of this fact, there is plenty of information readily
available on the internet, which explains his position, though I imagine
public trial documents leave little doubt. Ken public position on authorship
is not consistent. It changes with time and place and audience. That's what
is meant by obfuscation.
>
> > What you
> > and most people think Wapnick means by Jesus is not what
> > Wapnick means by Jesus. Its called deliberate obfuscation.
>
> Hmmm. Non-Course people are against the Course,
> (supposedly) at least partly because Ken denies
> the authorship of Jesus, & when people read his
> works in a library, that's what they'll read, &
> yet his works for public consumption contradict
> what can be found in the library from this man?
What I'm saying denial of authorship to the biblical Jesus causes many
problems, not the least of which is it contradicts the author's own words
and impeaches the author's intergrity. Without a doubt, this has created a
bitter controversy within The Course Community and contributes to a
perception by Course critics and some prospective students that ACIM is a
failed thought system. No one has to read Wapnick's books to find this out.
For someone interested, this information is readily available on the
internet.
>
> > Clearly his position on
> > spiritual authorship had to track with his position on legal authorship
or
> > Wapnick would be open to criticism of hypocricy or worse. The "form of
> > divine love," explanation allowed Helen authorship and "saved," Jesus --
or
> > at least something Wapnick called Jesus.
>
> Do you mean to say that Ken is _not_ open to a
> boatload of criticism for these very things? I
> must have been mistaken when I was reading all
> the posts, which I could have sworn called him
> a liar, hypocrite, or worse. Sorry my mistake.
Anyone is open to criticism for any reason. That should be a given.
In this case, the criticism was valid and this was Ken's defense, as opposed
to criticism and offering no defense, or criticism and an admission the
critic was right. Instead of arguing with me about minuta, you might spend
sometime getting your facts straight. If you think Ken believes anyone but
Helen Schucman wrote A Course in Miracles, you are misinformed.
>
> [snip]
Guess Who
> Hi, Katie. I figured you might be "Googling" for your name. I actually did
> think seriously about it before I included you and your group in the
> message; after all, you're not central to my point, but only part of a
> comma list. I also thought seriously before I used the word, "hate." (Hey,
> I had to do something, though, because I get so few replies to my posts. It
> worked! I opened up my browser this morning to all these replies! LOL!)
Hi Gary,
Sorry to bust the bubble but I didn't arrive here because of this
post, but it is interesting to note that you're still talking about me
and "my group". I'll give them all some special brownie points for
remaining in your mind. :-)
>
>>I realize it's rude and vexatious to be told you hate someone, so I
> apologize both for being rude and for vexing you. You have come in to say
> you don't hate us, and that's an undeniably good thing! If you say you and
> your group don't hate us, I would rather that be true than my opinion!
I don't have a group so I can't speak for anyone else, but what I hate
is the fact that philosophies like ACIM exist. I also find it
particularly loathsome that groups rise up around destructive beliefs
which then become destructive in themselves.
>
> Alan suggested that my post was tongue in cheek, and thanks for that, Alan,
> but then, my tongue was barely grazing my cheek, so I will have to stand
> behind the basic thrust of my message.
I thought I was mostly responding to Alan's post anyway, but maybe I'm
not too good at figuring out the format of these messages yet.
>
> I also know that you "hate" it (sorry ;-) ) when someone psychoanalyzes you
> or attempts to diagnose your synapse firings. I propose looking at my use
> of the word, "hate," instead in more of an objective sociological context:
> boy A throws a rock at boy B, and then runs over and starts kicking him. We
> can say in a sociological sense that boy A "hates" boy B, even though we
> don't really know what is going through boy A's mind. Perhaps boy A thinks
> he is helping boy B, for example. It is in that "objective occurrences"
> sense that I used this admittedly inflammatory and vague word. It may have
> a different meaning for you than it does for me. All I know at this point
> is that whatever your meaning is, it brought you in here.
I can't find agreement with your interpretation of the word hate, it
is defined in the dictionary, but I've come to realize that ACIM seems
to inspire people to define words in whatever way works in the moment.
It's a shame about all that wasted work that went into the
dictionary. To think that all the time we spend learning our language
has also been a complete waste of time, that's pretty loathsome too.
And again, your comments are not what brought me here. I came to see
if I could get Carrie to try to delete the entire internet rather than
have the facts come out. :-) Though it's nice to know she has
somewhere to go where she can be sheltered from all the enemies "out
there" and where facts don't matter. It's one thing to in-fight, a
completely different battle with an "outsider" though. Interesting
also to note how quickly and unquestionably the line is drawn in the
sand. Carrie will no doubt benefit greatly from all the support. A
little enablement goes a long way in this group.
>
> I know you have your own relationship with God, Katie. Where I go, with my
> "hate" word and all, on the bullshit list is unimportant. I would urge you,
> however, not to put Matthew 5:44 on the bullshit list, but to read it
> instead. It is no contest that its words are wiser than mine.
I'm not a bible believer but thanks anyway. Of course, if one is to
invest in these unprovable, unsubstantiated, and demonstrably
destructive beliefs they might as well refer to one of the most
successful and damaging of all the scams I suppose. Most people are
intimidated to take that one on, no question about that.
Anyway, just setting the record straight, but on the other hand why
bother when without question you guys all know what I REALLY think?
:)
Trish
Hallelujah Brother!!
Actually I find it truly sad that the Real Vision has somehow
obscurred itself to Ken. I can only surmise it might be his Jewish
roots that can't reconcile the resurrection [of the body] which of
course would mean we still have one that eternally identifies our
individuality (God forbid) which would mean we aren't heading for
eternal blobdom afterall. .whew!
just amazing. .
Thanks Tom
I always enjoy reading your pristene clarity on this important issue.
Trish
Guess Who
> > Ellen: "She is someone who would like to save the world from the ACIM
> > cult and from any cult for that matter. She was in a cult for years
> > and her way of working through it is fighting cults. There are a
> > number of us who have had a relationship of sorts with Katie. Carrie,
> > Jeanette, Tom, Mike, Gary, Nancy and I come to mind."
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> Yes, never a descenting voice here. Groupthink ... very accurate
> description :))
>
> ellen
Yes, let's see who dissents on the mind read of Katie the "outsider". LOL
Alan
>
> In article <b0fta3$oifn0$1...@ID-126618.news.dfncis.de>,
"miraclelurker" <miracl...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >You really seem to have a hard time distinguishing between eternal reality
> >and the reflection of reality in time/space. I have said the there is
> >Father and Son ... but that there is no distinction in eternity.
>
> You seem to have a really hard time saying something. Are you saying the
> Father does or does not exist in reality. It's a simple question, why not just
> answer it?
You seem to have a really hard time getting her
to say what _you_ want her to say. She's saying
that the Father & Son both exist in time/space,
but in reality God is One. So to her God exists
as One, not as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We
can disagree, but don't pretend she's not being
forthright. You just don't like her answer, no?
> >Just let me go on record one more time THERE IS GOD THE FATHER AND GOD THE
> >SON.
>
> In reality? Or just from a space-time point of view? It doesn't matter how
> often you go on the record if the record fails to make sense.
It doesn't matter how many times you try to get
her to say it, she's not saying that she thinks
God does not exist, she doesn't think He exists
distinctly as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. She
is saying that as a reflection of reality, they
exist distinctly, but in eternity they are One.
Alan
>
> Tomaso wrote:
> >
> > In article <3E2B4FB2...@yomama.com>, Alan <nos...@yomama.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >First, Ken denies that the Jesus of the bible is
> > >the author, not that the historical Jesus is. As
> > >far as what others think, do you really believe,
> > >if you think about this more carefully, that Ken
> > >proclaiming Jesus Christ as author of the Course
> > >would convince non-Course people to somehow feel
> > >more favorably toward ACIM, or would it have the
> > >opposite effect? It's been my experience that if
> > >you tell them to believe in something because of
> > >some divine revelation you're privy to, it won't
> > >go long way towards them wanting to embrace you.
> >
> > Gene: "Are you saying that Ken speaks in a deliberately obfuscated
> > way, and that this is a good idea?
> >
> > ~~ Well . . . .I don't think that drawing a distinction between
> > undertaken by accident, and I don't see how making that disctinction
> > is anything other than a move in the direction of negative clarity
> > when applied to the authorship of ACIM. . . . sooooooo . . . . . .
> > "deliberately obfuscated" seems apt.
>
> Alan: "It turns out that the General Custer of our
> turn of the century history books _differs_
> from the historical General Custer. Is this
> deliberately obfuscating the matter, or, is
> it an observation made upon the information
> at hand? That aside, I wasn't attempting to
> make a judgment one way or the other in the
> reply above, I was pointing out that it was
> doubtful that proclaiming Jesus as _author_
> of the Course would positively sway critics
> of it. It probably has the opposite effect."
>
> ~~ Cut the crap, Alan. It's about the nature of miracles. The
> "historical Jesus" is Ken's code word for a Jesus who did NOT heal the
> sick, make the lame walk, make the blind see, turn water into wine,
> feed the hungry, walk on water or arise from the dead in any way other
> than the imagination of the disciples.
Eh? As far as I can tell, Ken's saying Jesus,
the historical figure, is the same Jesus who,
both existed in history and wrote the Course.
He's also saying that the Jesus of the bible,
as he's portrayed, is fictional to the extent
that much which was written about him was not
accurate. As I've already said, I don't agree
with his claims they were mutually exclusive.
It's rather hard to state that the historical
Jesus has no relation to the one in the bible
if the bible is the only real source of info,
& when Jesus in the Course, refers to himself
in the bible. You're saying he's making these
distinctions for legal reasons, I think he is
making them because he believes they're true.
Alan
[snip]
> Actually I find it truly sad that the Real Vision has somehow
> obscurred itself to Ken. I can only surmise it might be his Jewish
> roots that can't reconcile the resurrection [of the body] which of
> course would mean we still have one that eternally identifies our
> individuality (God forbid) which would mean we aren't heading for
> eternal blobdom afterall. .whew!
Aside from Paul Tuttle, aka Raj, aka Jesus, just
where do you see Jesus in the Course (not in the
workshops Paul/Raj put on), saying that the body
will be resurrected eternally?
> just amazing. .
Yes, it certainly is.
> Thanks Tom
> I always enjoy reading your pristene clarity on this important issue.
Where do you see Tom making any claims that the
body will be eternally resurrected?
Tomaso
I think he is making them because he believes they're true."
~~ I not only didn't say Ken was making these distinctions for legal
reasons, I don't believe that he is making these distinctions for
legal reasons. What Ken believes about the authorship of ACIM has no
legal significance whatsoever, and it never did.
~~ I believe that Ken is making these distinctions because he does not
accept that miracles, in order to fulfill part of their purpose,
frequently produce observable miraculous effects. In large part Ken
does not accept the Biblical Jesus because of the numerous examples of
miraculous healings contained therein.
~~ If you read what I wrote in my previous post, you might notice that
I said there just what I have restated here, but in different words.
~~ I didn't mention, suggest or imply "legal reasons" at all.
~~ The idea of "legal reasons" is your hallucination.
;o)
Alan
Excuse me. I had you confused with every other
foaming at the mouth Ken hater who believes he
says these things to protect the copyright. :)
Alan
What I'm saying is you might want to read what is
directly above this. Here's what he said in part:
:Yes, it is definitely the same Jesus who appeared
:in the world two thousand years ago, with the same
:*message* of truth -- in *content* obviously, not
:form. - Ken Wapnick
> Despite his obuscation of this fact, there is plenty of information readily
> available on the internet, which explains his position, though I imagine
> public trial documents leave little doubt. Ken public position on authorship
> is not consistent. It changes with time and place and audience. That's what
> is meant by obfuscation.
But you were complaining that if non-Course folks
read his stuff in the library, they'd see he said
Jesus wasn't the author. It doesn't look that way
to me. Perhaps, you can point me to his published
writings that say Jesus isn't the author of ACIM?
> > > What you
> > > and most people think Wapnick means by Jesus is not what
> > > Wapnick means by Jesus. Its called deliberate obfuscation.
> >
> > Hmmm. Non-Course people are against the Course,
> > (supposedly) at least partly because Ken denies
> > the authorship of Jesus, & when people read his
> > works in a library, that's what they'll read, &
> > yet his works for public consumption contradict
> > what can be found in the library from this man?
>
> What I'm saying denial of authorship to the biblical Jesus causes many
> problems, not the least of which is it contradicts the author's own words
> and impeaches the author's intergrity. Without a doubt, this has created a
> bitter controversy within The Course Community and contributes to a
> perception by Course critics and some prospective students that ACIM is a
> failed thought system. No one has to read Wapnick's books to find this out.
> For someone interested, this information is readily available on the
> internet.
I see. So this bitter controvery isn't the fault of
those who are bitter, but of Ken Wapnick, & anybody
who happens to be stupid enought to believe him? If
I recall, you still haven't addressed my point. The
claim that Jesus is author would be more, not less,
alienating to non-Course people, so why do you feel
Ken's (so-called) equivication has hurt the Course,
with regards to what _other_ people think about it?
[snip]
Jeanette
"~~ I believe that Ken is making these distinctions because he does not
accept that miracles, in order to fulfill part of their purpose,
frequently produce observable miraculous effects. In large part Ken
does not accept the Biblical Jesus because of the numerous examples of
miraculous healings contained therein."
From listening to his tapes, and reading his materials, I found, Ken does
believe in miracles. He feels a miracle is strictly a change in mind. IOW,
if I see you sick or dead that is only erroneous perception in my mind, and
thus, once the miracle occurs which changes my mind, then I no longer see
you sick or dead. Once I realize Atonement, the world will vanish.
So, he does believe in miracles, yet, does not believe in a physical world,
and the effect of the miracle resides in the mind, alone.
I do not find his line of thought to be equivalent with mine. I find the
whole point of the Course, concerning being a miracle worker, is because the
miraculous affects not just my mind, yet my brother, and the world.
Far as you second statement is concerned, I donno. Overall, I do feel Ken
changed the authorship for copyright purpose. I think it has little to do
with his feelings regarding Jesus, however he deems "Jesus" to be, and his
definition of miracles.
Jeanette
Jeanette
"Jeanette wonders what harm Ken Wapnick has done? His restrictive
"fair use," policies has forced the Course Community into an
artificial isolation, which can only be described as self-centered and
self-preoccupied, where indeed the Course boils down to meaning
whatever anyone wants it to mean? Wapnick's ideal of isolated
student/readers self-studying The Course only enhances separation and
fragmentation, because at its heart is a denial of community. If
there is a denial of community and some core and common
beliefs -- The Course Community cannot help but become a cult of
"whatever anyone wants it to mean."
"In addition, Wapnick has engaged the Course Community in his many
intrigues and corruptions and lack of honesty. It is tolerated and
dismissed internally but shames us to those brother outside the
Course. Only to a Course student, in deepest hoo-doo trance, does it
make sense that Ken Wapnick lies for the sake of God and the Holy
Spirit and the Holy Truth of A Course in Miracles."
Then why don't I feel fragmented, separated? Why do I feel free to speak of
the Course with intimate friends, and my associates at work, my family, and
any others who ask me of such?
There are many Course groups who are studying the Urtext and HLC. Exactly
what is this fragmentation and cult environment all about? Where, and with
Whom?
And Ken Wapnick may lie for whatever reasons he chooses, now, just what am I
supposed to do about that? Feel victimized and respond in vengeance?
Am I now to accept that we are to return to worn out, and tired out,
platforms of "this guy has done wrong," and so, we need to do something
about him?
Huh?
Is the "Course community" so devoid of original thought, inspirational
material for each other, loving commitment to what they have learned, and
genuine honest desire for togetherness that they must deem Ken Wapnick to be
their retort to mindless activity and unwillingness to be apply effort and
demonstration to the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Do you think if we lean on Ken really hard that will change his attitude?
Frankly, I doubt he even cares what is being written here.
Jeanette
kev
news:srbo2v0ttsnojr3ub...@4ax.com:
> ~~ I believe that Ken is making these distinctions because he does not
> accept that miracles, in order to fulfill part of their purpose,
> frequently produce observable miraculous effects. In large part Ken
> does not accept the Biblical Jesus because of the numerous examples of
> miraculous healings contained therein.
>
Hi Tom
I got a copy of a tape set by Ken called 'Rules of Decision' in it Ken sais
that the Love of God in our minds gets reflected in the world as the things
we think we need. This dosn't sound like Ken is denying that miracles can
have an observable effect.
luv kev
John Lopez
The claim that Jesus wrote the Course has been and is a point of contention
for some Course critics. Obviously, Ken's claim that A Course in Miracles is
in fact, not written by Jesus --but "another Jesus," channeled by Helen
Schucman only bolsters their case.
On the other hand, when it is claimed Helen Schucman wrote the Course, these
same critics wonder why Course quotes are not accompied by "Schucman said,"
rather than "Jesus said." Which is a valid criticism if indeed, Helen
Schucman wrote the Course.
Often the internal inconsistencies tolerated and accepted within a group,
are quickly seen by people outside a group. Much like your criticism of
traditional Christians, believing in sin, guilt and punishment and hell
while acknowledging a loving God.
The claim that the biblical Jesus wrote the Course is consistent with the
Course itself and consistent as a point of faith. As a claim the author
makes for himself, a student can evaluate that claim on its own merit.
There is little confusion what the claim is. Nor is there any confusion
about the claim on the part of critics--though as a point of faith, it is
incumbent on critics to somehow prove the Biblical Jesus never wrote the
Course, which is nearly impossible.
When the editor, chief teacher and copyright holder makes a counter-claim of
authorship, he divides the collective faith of a community and "proves," for
Course critics what they could not "prove," on their own. As such, Wapnick
inserts inconsistences in doctrine which must be tolerated or rejected and
opens the door for all types of critcisms predicated on Helen Schucman
writing the Course -- such as rejecting The Course as the work of a
mentally unbalanced woman who thought she was Jesus.
You may argue how much harm this has done -- but I doubt anyone will fully
know for a number years. What I do claim is questioning authorship was a
blunder of the first magnitude, and even more egregious, because it was
totally unnecessary. Its akin to Pope John-Paul II, stating unequivocablly
that Jesus died as man and never resurrected. It might take some time for
the full implications of this statement to filter down to the masses -- but
every churchman would immediately know he just shot down Catholism and most
of Christianity. Little doubt, the Pope would soon be hauled off to a
nursing home with apologies to the faithful.
Unfortunately, the Course Community has no such option with Wapnick.
>
> [snip]
miraclelurker
"Tomaso" <n...@toask.why> wrote in message
>
> ~~ Bah.
>
> ~~ Where is the faith of the one (you) who is unable to perceive the
> faith of the one who declares no faith in a brother?
>
>
> Ellen: "If I am honest this must be an attack ... but geez I don't get
> this kind of practice of the Course from those who will tell the rest
> of us that we misinterpret and don't understand the Course."
>
> ~~ If you want to talk about the meaning of what Ken writes, fine . .
> . go read a few of his books and get back to me with your informed
> opinions.
>
> ~~ If you *don't* want to discuss the meaning of what Ken writes, then
> DON'T.
>
> ~~ Ken has written at least a dozen books. Personally, I think you
> are showing him great disrespect by not reading them.
>
>
> ;o)
This isn't about Ken's books but that's okay. I said what I had to say.
ellen
miraclelurker
He experiences All and Oneness. How do you think He knows Himself as the
Father in eternity?
ellen