An Open Letter of Conscience and Choice
Fearless Books
To All Spiritual, Metaphysical, Yoga, and Meditation Communities
by Robert Rabbin, Stephen Mitchell, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Dan
Millman, Riane Eisler, Tom Hayden, et al.
There are times in life when we must act. And when those moments
come, we must act with our truest heart, our clearest mind, and our
noblest intentions.
November 2 is such a time. On that day, we will take in hand one of
the tools for social transformation. We will exercise our right to
vote, and our responsibility to voice our values and conscience. We
will choose a new president and vice president. We, the signers of
this letter, after full consideration, careful study, and deep
reflection, endorse and recommend John Kerry and John Edwards for
these offices. We urge all of you to vote for them. This is a matter
of great importance and urgency.
The Kerry/Edwards ticket is not perfect, and we have many serious
disagreements with them, especially in the area of militarism and
defense spending. But Howard Dean rightfully cautions us to not let
perfection become the enemy of the good. In this election, we have
two clear choices. By any standard or measure-policy, ideology,
humanity, truthfulness-Kerry is better by far than George W. Bush,
and Edwards is better by far than Dick Cheney. We believe their
cabinet selections and their many other appointments, including to
the Supreme Court, will be better by far than those of George W.
Bush. We urge you to register and vote for John Kerry and John
Edwards.
There are many reasons to not vote: cynicism, apathy, distrust of
candidates, or the conviction that spirit transcends politics and we
dare not risk our spiritual brightness by descending into the murky
depths of political darkness and intrigue. But these are not
legitimate reasons. It is an inappropriate spiritual response to our
times to be socially aloof and politically uninvolved. The Dalai Lama
encourages us, "Sometimes we look down on politics, criticizing it as
dirty. However, if you look at it properly, politics in itself is not
wrong. With good motivation-sincerity and honesty-politics becomes an
instrument in the service of society."
The self-evident fact of inter-dependence will not allow us to stand
on the sidelines of life, to ignore what is happening in our own
backyards. We live in society, and society lives in us. This
awareness requires responsibility. This awareness requires
participation. This awareness requires expression.
We all know from our studies, practice, and experience that the inner
and the outer are more than mirror images of each other: they are
each other. There is no separation, no difference, no distance
between them. This is why the philosopher J. Krishnamurti said, "The
crisis is not out there in the world; it is in our own
consciousness." A flower is not separate from its fragrance.
We have been refining our inner consciousness. We have been purifying
our inner consciousness. We have been liberating our inner
consciousness from the stranglehold of limiting and hurtful beliefs
and images and concepts. For years, we have taken this "hero's
journey" to inner truth, freedom, and wisdom in order to become whole
and free. But we have not taken this journey for ourselves alone; we
have also taken this journey for others and for our world.
It is not just for ourselves that we love wisdom and practice
compassion, not just for ourselves that we pursue truth instead of
falsehood, not just for ourselves that we ask those fearsome
questions that lead to knowledge of the soul. No, it is not just for
ourselves that we do this. We do it equally for others. Our very
quest for wholeness of being is at its core a service to others. The
Kabbalah reminds us, "First we receive the light, then we impart the
light. Thus we repair the world." And now it is time to begin healing
this world, our world, in the same way we have sought to heal
ourselves from the diseases of hatred, violence, and greed; in the
same way we have sought to heal our own hearts of anger born of fear,
and fear born of separation.
Voting for John Kerry and John Edwards is a positive step towards
this social healing. To be sure, it is just one step in a long
journey, but one we should all take on November 2.
Signed (as private citizens, not as representatives of any
organization):
Robert Rabbin, writer, speaker, creator of TruthForPresident.org
Stephen Mitchell, writer
Rabbi Michael Lerner, author, editor of Tikkun Magazine
Dan Millman, author, teacher
Riane Eisler, author of The Chalice & The Blade and The Power of
Partnership
Tom Hayden, author, activist, former California legislator
Sharon Steffensen, yoga teacher, editor of YOGAChicago
Judith Whitson, publisher, writer, lecturer, teacher
William W. Whitson, writer, speaker, retired Army officer
Jonathan Granoff, Esq. (Ahamed Muhaiyaddeen), author, screenwriter,
speaker, activist
Larry Robinson, Vice-mayor, Sebastopol, CA
Tami Coyne, author, spiritual teacher
Pamela Miles, founder of Institute for the Advancement of
Complementary Therapies
Gilles Marin, author, founder of Chi Nei Tsang Institute
Raphael Cushnir, author, spiritual teacher
Stephen Dinan, author of Radical Spirit, progressive activist
Sandra Sedgbeer, publisher of PlanetLightworker & Children of the New
Earth
Connie Shaw, publisher of Sentient Publications
Laurie Schryver, psychic, teacher, progressive activist
Robert Skutch, author
Lee Skutch, psychologist
Kanu Kogod, Ph.D, anthropologist, author, founder of Bridges in
Organizations
David Lurey, yoga teacher
Debbie Milam, author, Reiki master, president of Unlimited Inspiration
Rev. Laura R. Davis, co-founder of Wisdom & Wellness Expo, Reiki
master
Rev. C.J. Davis, spiritual teacher, Reiki master,
Elizabeth Ann Bloom, president of Here There & Beyond, Inc.
Mary Alice O'Connor, interfaith minister
Amy Kahn, yoga teacher
Gina Rabbin, psychic, life and business coach
Chetan Parkyn, author, spiritual teacher
Carolina Eastwood, author, spiritual counselor
Sister Mary Jude Jun, OSU is an Ursuline Sister
Stephen Calder
>
>
> Voting for John Kerry and John Edwards is a positive step towards
> this social healing. To be sure, it is just one step in a long
> journey, but one we should all take on November 2.
>
>
> Signed (as private citizens, not as representatives of any
> organization):
>
>
No matter who you vote for, you'll get a bunch of liars. It was ever thus.
--
Stephen
Byron Bay, Australia
R1200C
Marcel
"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> schreef in bericht
news:%t_Sc.316$aA.1...@news.optus.net.au...
Well Stephen, this doesn't demonstrate trust does it :-)
Because it was ever thus, it shouldn't have to be now or then does it?
Almost anyone will be a better choice than mister Bush in my opinion, but
you never know...
Greetz Marcel
Stephen Calder
I have complete trust that everything is working perfectly, despite
appearances.
Because the world cannot be changed except by changing the mind, Jesus
has no political agenda.
I don't think politicians are going to become truth tellers any time
soon. It's not their nature. It's not a problem, either. I just don't
think we should depend on either side to support a spiritual awakening,
since that would end the world and where would their power and profits
be then?
Spiritual people who think one party is more spiritual than another are
bound to be disappointed, as are all those who depend on any event or
object in the world as a source of happiness.
Yashah
wrote:
yeeps!!! Heaven IS NOT in the future but RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW...!!!
so unnecessary to attain some improved world...!!!!!!!
while Heaven is expected into the future you CANNOT see It so the
future always will FAIL you....!!!!!!!!!!
Ped
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
#######<<<<#########<<<######<<<<<
########<<<#########<<<########<<<
<##<<<<<##<<##<<<<<<##<<<##<<<<<##<<
<##<<<<<##<<#####<<<<<<<<##<<<<<<#<<
<#######<<<#####<<<<<<<<##<<<<<<#<<
<##<<<<<<<<<##<<<<<<##<<<##<<<<<##<<
<##<<<<<<<<<#########<<<##<<<###<<
######<<<<<#########<<#######<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
#######<<<<#########<<######<<<<<
#########<<<########<<########<<<
<##<<<<##<<<##<<<<##<<<##<<<###<<
<##<<<<##<<<#####<<<<<<##<<<<##<<
<#######<<<<#####<<<<<<##<<<<##<<
<##<<<<<<<<<##<<<<##<<<##<<<<##<<
<##<<<<<<<<<########<<<##<<<###<<
######<<<<<#########<<#######<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Stephen Calder
Exactly.
Noggin
"Marcel" <Mars...@home.nl> wrote in message news:cfj860$803$1...@news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
ACIM doesn't apply to politicians, everyone knows they aren't in the cult, so they don't deserve
"love" and "forgiveness". It's speeritchual to hate politicians.
>
>
>
Pieter Douwes
"Noggin" <pir...@aol.com> schreef in bericht
news:xJlTc.170915$wH4.10...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Again prejudices.
Are you ready
to question them?
I guess not yet.
Marcel
I think he has! Politic is also about thoughts. Politicians trie always to
change a society - in a direction they believe in. Doesn't we all? Of course
change beginsin the mind; but imo it also part of the plan to reflect
those - inspired - thoughts into this world. You can recognise a tree by its
fruits; when there comes no fruits from the tree something is 'wrong'. The
course is not only about changing our own minds; its also - and that's an
automic result of inspiration - about inspiring others. And eventually you
can even see that in the world.
> I don't think politicians are going to become truth tellers any time
> soon. It's not their nature. It's not a problem, either. I just don't
> think we should depend on either side to support a spiritual awakening,
> since that would end the world and where would their power and profits
> be then?
>
> Spiritual people who think one party is more spiritual than another are
> bound to be disappointed, as are all those who depend on any event or
> object in the world as a source of happiness.
Well, don't you think that the course - which is a community / party so to
say - is more spiritual than most other spiritual programs? And even if you
don't, you still chose to follow the course's path. So you make also a
difference between different options. And there's nothing wrong with that!
We HAVE to chose; it's the only 'freedom' we have.
Greetz, Marcel
happydreamin
No! No! J Kerry and J Edwards will save us! Hey! They might be able
to even give J and Katie the utopian world in which they pretend to
want.
Katie ~ No more non group cult thinking - only under her control!
J Whirli~ Everbody agreeing with his philopsophies on how to run a
utopian NG.
LOL~ Happydreamin
cf_c...@yahoo.com
> Well, don't you think that the course - which is a community / party so to
> say - is more spiritual than most other spiritual programs?
Cling, cling, cling, clang, clang, clang went the bell.
Is that you Diogenes?
The course seems to state otherwise. But I admire your forthrightness.
Marcel
news:5a8539cf.04081...@posting.google.com...
Chuck, I don't know what diogenes means. You mean that the course state
otherwise than that the course is more spiritual? I know, and I suppose
Stephen does also. That's why I added something you cutted here. Here it is:
"And even if you don't, you still chose to follow the course's path. So you
make also a
difference between different options. And there's nothing wrong with that!
We HAVE to chose; it's the only 'freedom' we have."
My point was that everyone does what he does because he choses between
alternatives. And - usually - you let go what is of less value to you.
Marcel
Lee
> "Marcel" <Mars...@home.nl> wrote ...
>
>> Well, don't you think that the course - which is a community /
>> party so to say - is more spiritual than most other spiritual
>> programs?
>
> Cling, cling, cling, clang, clang, clang went the bell.
>
> Is that you Diogenes?
>
> The course seems to state otherwise. But I admire your
> forthrightness.
Hi Chuck,
I can only gather that you are undecided as to the
authorship of the Course. (Any guesses, btw ?)
For anyone who has reason to believe that ACIM was
authentically Authored as divinely inspired material,
it would be a curious humility, indeed, that would
deny that it is "more spiritual" than most alternatives. ;)
That is all I hear Marcel suggesting, btw ... "more spiritual
than <most>."
What spiritual program did you have in mind, that
might represent a more pure (or directly authentic)
representation as to the truth of us, and life ?
~ Lee
Stephen Calder
Really? What is it? Jesus for Kerry? or Jesus for Bush?
Politic is also about thoughts.
It's about thoughts of regulation and supply, security and conservation.
"Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat and what ye shall
drink... your heavenly Father knows your need even before you ask."
Politicians trie always to
> change a society - in a direction they believe in.
It's hell to "try always" and never really succeed. They're not even the
ones with the "real" power.
Doesn't we all?
I'm not interested in changing society. I changed my mind to see it
differently and now politics does not matter. When every problem is
already solved, what is left for politics to do?
Of course
> change beginsin the mind; but imo it also part of the plan to reflect
> those - inspired - thoughts into this world. You can recognise a tree by its
> fruits; when there comes no fruits from the tree something is 'wrong'. The
> course is not only about changing our own minds; its also - and that's an
> automic result of inspiration - about inspiring others. And eventually you
> can even see that in the world.
In a forgiven world, everything is working perfectly. It does not matter
to a healed mind who it is that happens to be Caesar.
>
>
>>I don't think politicians are going to become truth tellers any time
>>soon. It's not their nature. It's not a problem, either. I just don't
>>think we should depend on either side to support a spiritual awakening,
>>since that would end the world and where would their power and profits
>>be then?
>>
>>Spiritual people who think one party is more spiritual than another are
>>bound to be disappointed, as are all those who depend on any event or
>>object in the world as a source of happiness.
>
>
> Well, don't you think that the course - which is a community / party so to
> say - is more spiritual than most other spiritual programs?
Spirituality is defined by purpose, so all roads lead to Rome.
And even if you
> don't, you still chose to follow the course's path. So you make also a
> difference between different options.
But not between political options. All political parties are basically
the same, with minor differences.
The Course is not a political option and does not encompass any.
And there's nothing wrong with that!
> We HAVE to chose; it's the only 'freedom' we have.
>
> Greetz, Marcel
>
>
Only two choices, heaven or hell. It's hell trying to save the world
through the political process, as history testifies.
So only two choices, heaven or hell. Choosing hell is insane, so only
one choice really. Fortunately, that choice -- heaven -- is also
freedom. The kingdom of heaven is literally at hand.
Thanks for standing here with me, brother.
Lee
You appear to have a sizeable unhealed grievance against
the world. Do you consider this entire realm of
experience irredeemable -- but for the option of one
day 'exiting' ?
~ Lee
Amminadab
>
>
> I'm not interested in changing society. I changed my mind to see it
> differently and now politics does not matter. When every problem is
> already solved, what is left for politics to do?
>
>
Politics seems to matter to you very much.
Dissociating from politics seems very important to you.
Dissociating is your method for relationship.
Amminadab
--
Amminadab's Lantern of Truth
http://amminadab.com
Amminadab
> Hi Stephen,
>
> You appear to have a sizeable unhealed grievance against
> the world. Do you consider this entire realm of
> experience irredeemable -- but for the option of one
> day 'exiting' ?
>
> ~ Lee
Stephen thinks his mind is healed...... and he will soon be exiting.....
stage left.
Stephen Calder
> Hi Stephen,
>
> You appear to have a sizeable unhealed grievance against
> the world. Do you consider this entire realm of
> experience irredeemable -- but for the option of one
> day 'exiting' ?
>
> ~ Lee
>
>
Of course not.
It won't be redeemed by politics, though.
It is already forgiven so all I need do is see the perfection of it as
it is and there is no problem that is not already solved.
Stephen Calder
> Stephen Calder wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm not interested in changing society. I changed my mind to see it
>>differently and now politics does not matter. When every problem is
>>already solved, what is left for politics to do?
>>
>>
>
>
> Politics seems to matter to you very much.
>
> Dissociating from politics seems very important to you.
>
> Dissociating is your method for relationship.
>
> Amminadab
The true use of dissociation is to dissociate from the ego's thought
system of fear, which made a world. I do dissociate from the world of
suffering (whatever suffers is not part of me) but not from my brothers,
whom I trust as one with me.
Activities in the world do not change the world as long as the thoughts
system is still in place. Politics can distract you from the unreality
of the world for a long time.
Stephen Calder
> Lee wrote:
>
>>Hi Stephen,
>>
>>You appear to have a sizeable unhealed grievance against
>>the world. Do you consider this entire realm of
>>experience irredeemable -- but for the option of one
>>day 'exiting' ?
>>
>>~ Lee
>
>
> Stephen thinks his mind is healed...... and he will soon be exiting.....
> stage left.
>
> Amminadab
My mind is healed (a few symtpoms remaining, nothing to worry about).
It's not that I'll be leaving so much as time itself will soon be over.
Amminadab
>
>
> My mind is healed (a few symtpoms remaining, nothing to worry about).
Funny...... can't you see the conflict here?
Healed is healed.
You are claiming that less-than-healed is also healed.
First you must find consistency.
Lee Flynn
Amminadab wrote:
> Lee wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> You appear to have a sizeable unhealed grievance against
>> the world. Do you consider this entire realm of
>> experience irredeemable -- but for the option of one
>> day 'exiting' ?
>>
>> ~ Lee
>
> Stephen thinks his mind is healed...... and he will soon be
> exiting..... stage left.
Hi Ammi,
I credit Stephen with an exceptional grasp of the Course,
and capacity to articulate the gifts it has shown him.
I'm also aware that many advanced students do in fact
feel that the entirety of experience between apparent
arrival and departure from the earthly realm is something
of a purgatorial miscreation of the split mind.
When Endeavor students speak of exiting this world, they
are after all echoing the Author's words, if not his sentiments
("...I can depart this world entirely" W-pII.226.2.).
I'm just uncertain whether Stephen is familiar with the line
which follows: "It is not death which makes this possible,
but it is change of mind about the purpose of the world."
It's the glass ceiling that many students impose on just how
radically the purpose of the world can be redeemed, that
often reflects a deep rejection of this entire realm as
fundamentally an abomination of the Son's split mind.
To do so misses the point of the sentences which follow,
in that lesson, which state that it is the mistaken version
of the world, as I beheld it, that departs <from me> once
I know its redeemed purpose.
" ... if I see no value in the world as I behold it, nothing that I
want to keep as mine or search for as a goal, it will depart
from me. 5 For I have not sought for illusions to replace the
truth. "
I appreciate you both, very much
~ Lee
Annie Liley
Time is actually already over (that is - the correction has already been
made) - time is the little interval between my decision to forget who I
am and the decision I make to remember. In that sense - when I forget
I suffer and I make up time - As soon as I remember to choose peace
again - time disappears - I'm Home in Heaven (in the world but not of
it) so our practice is moment to moment awareness of our decision for
heaven or hell and the quicker we become recognizing when we have
'forgotten' and choose peace again - the quicker we end time in our
mind. Time doesn't end in time - it ends in my mind the instant I
choose peace. That'd be NOW - thankyou God.
Noggin
<cf_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5a8539cf.04081...@posting.google.com...
LOL Chuck!!
I don't know about you, but I would like to have a definition of the word "spirituality" before
I get busy trying to measure it.
Marcel is making a big mistake. I found out the Truth on South Park that the only ones who got
it right are the Mormons. Everyone else is in hell with that neurotic Satan. Boy were those dead
Methodists shocked when they got the news!! Imagine how Marcel will feel!! I think the
Methodists are content to just go to church on Sunday, I never heard of them needing to believe
they are the most speeeeeritchual of the speeeeeeritchual!! What a come down Marcel is in for!
They did seem to be having some nice parties in hell though, but some people were hanging upside
down over the flames. I'll bet those are the speeeeeeritchual people being punished for spending
their lives bothering everyone including God. Only Satan knows what's in store for those who
POSED as God, like Queen Lee Flynn, Holey Nancy Lorieau, the Ugly Clown, and both Debs, (still
can't tell them apart to save my own soul, but then again, I'm not a Mormon and don't plan to
become one, so all I can hope for is to get invited to one of those fun sing along parties I saw
going on in hell while watching South Park. There were a lot of famous dead people there looking
like the were having a pretty good time. I'm not real big on hanging upside down over flames, I'm
quite spoiled by air conditioning, and can't take much heat.
How does Mormonism sound to you? I hear they're cracking down on the polygamy, so that's not on
the table any more. Will I be seeing you in hell, or in a white shirt and black tie knocking on
doors with yet another new and improved version of the Holey Word of God tucked under your
arm???? Those are your choices. No need to thank me for filling you in, it's the least a pal
can do!!
Noggin
"Lee" <4gi...@innocent.com> wrote in message news:U8CdnR5pvoP...@giganews.com...
> cf_c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> What spiritual program did you have in mind, that
> might represent a more pure (or directly authentic)
> representation as to the truth of us, and life ?
Slitting your throat.
Noggin
"Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> wrote in message
news:2ZeUc.216354$OB3....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> ("...I can depart this world entirely" W-pII.226.2.).
How soon can we count on it?
Noggin
crafts and singing hymns. God is some kind of a lizardy creature who eats a lot of flies.
Thought you should know, just in case you chose Mormonism.
It's amazing what you can find out on Comedy Central!
Stephen Calder
> Stephen Calder wrote:
>
>>
>>My mind is healed (a few symtpoms remaining, nothing to worry about).
>
>
> Funny...... can't you see the conflict here?
>
> Healed is healed.
>
> You are claiming that less-than-healed is also healed.
>
> First you must find consistency.
>
> Amminadab
Yep, healed is healed. It's fun for me.
Continuing symptoms don't count when the outcome is certain and peace is
now.
Amminadab
>
>
> Continuing symptoms don't count when the outcome is certain and peace
> is now.
>
Boink!
You're a pretender....... basking in the glory of other pretenders.
Stephen Calder
> Amminadab wrote:
>
>>Lee wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>>You appear to have a sizeable unhealed grievance against
>>>the world. Do you consider this entire realm of
>>>experience irredeemable -- but for the option of one
>>>day 'exiting' ?
>>>
>>>~ Lee
>>
>>Stephen thinks his mind is healed...... and he will soon be
>>exiting..... stage left.
>
>
> Hi Ammi,
>
> I credit Stephen with an exceptional grasp of the Course,
> and capacity to articulate the gifts it has shown him.
Thank you for your kind words.
>
> I'm also aware that many advanced students do in fact
> feel that the entirety of experience between apparent
> arrival and departure from the earthly realm is something
> of a purgatorial miscreation of the split mind.
Thanks for the opportunity to clear this up from my point of view. For
my response I would quote the entirety of the section in the teacher's
manual (p.30 in my edition) How Is Peace Possible In This World?
Let me just state its conclusion: Now is the question different. It is
no longer, "Can peace be possible in this world?" But instead, "Is it
not impossible that peace be absent here?"
>
> When Endeavor students speak of exiting this world, they
> are after all echoing the Author's words, if not his sentiments
> ("...I can depart this world entirely" W-pII.226.2.).
Right. For you personally, Lee, I would like to ask of you this. If
something I say sounds to you like Endeavour teaching, rather than the
teaching of the Course, please make the Course your benchmark in
everything, for I would not want anything I said to be a stumbling block
for you (or anyone else) because it was associated with Endeavour. If
you think what I say is not in line with the Course, please let me know
and take the Course as the authority. This is our elder brother Jesus
speaking to us directly and I honour his message above any opinion I
might have.
I don't know what preconceptions you may have about Endeavour Academy. I
am not here to promote, defend or attack it though I have gratitude for
the experience the Holy Spirit had in store for me under its auspices.
Others have had different experiences, which is not really surprising.
I think institutions as such can be a denial that message of the Course
is personal, but this is in no way intended as a criticism of any
institution or person.
I am here only to represent the Christ mind, which sent me.
>
> I'm just uncertain whether Stephen is familiar with the line
> which follows: "It is not death which makes this possible,
> but it is change of mind about the purpose of the world."
Yes! And there is a whole lesson that says "I can be still an instant
and go home."
Giving up the world I thought I hated, knowing it has nothing to offer,
removes the fear from the physical human experience and allows a natural
beingness in which everything runs smoothly because nothing is under my
control; everything is handed over. In that sense I have already escaped
from the world, since I am no longer a prisoner in it or a victim of it,
but recognise it as having been transformed to a place where I found my
freedom and happiness. My true freedom; not the license to pursue
pleasure (or for some, power or posessions) that I thought was my key to
happiness.
>
> It's the glass ceiling that many students impose on just how
> radically the purpose of the world can be redeemed, that
> often reflects a deep rejection of this entire realm as
> fundamentally an abomination of the Son's split mind.
It's fear that is the abomination, if there is such a thing as
abomination. The happy dream, in which fear is a stranger, does not
involve rejection of anything, but a total acceptance of the love which
created me as I am.
>
> To do so misses the point of the sentences which follow,
> in that lesson, which state that it is the mistaken version
> of the world, as I beheld it, that departs <from me> once
> I know its redeemed purpose.
>
> " ... if I see no value in the world as I behold it, nothing that I
> want to keep as mine or search for as a goal, it will depart
> from me. 5 For I have not sought for illusions to replace the
> truth. "
>
I depart this world, or it departs from me. It amounts to the same
thing. Timespace is dissolved. But in the meantime, no problem.
> I appreciate you both, very much
>
> ~ Lee
>
Thanks, Lee.
Stephen Calder
> Stephen Calder wrote:
>
>>
>>Continuing symptoms don't count when the outcome is certain and peace
>>is now.
>>
>
>
> Boink!
>
> You're a pretender....... basking in the glory of other pretenders.
>
> Amminadab
Yes, I'm a complete fraud. Now what?
Marcel
I think you know I don't mean 'this'.
> Politic is also about thoughts.
>
> It's about thoughts of regulation and supply, security and conservation.
> "Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat and what ye shall
> drink... your heavenly Father knows your need even before you ask."
>
>
>
> Politicians trie always to
> > change a society - in a direction they believe in.
>
> It's hell to "try always" and never really succeed. They're not even the
> ones with the "real" power.
>
>
>
> Doesn't we all?
>
> I'm not interested in changing society. I changed my mind to see it
> differently and now politics does not matter. When every problem is
> already solved, what is left for politics to do?
This is where I believe a different thing. When every perceived problem is
seen in a different light BY YOU its solved? That seems to me a quite
egoistic view, a delusion of grandeur. So its all about YOU? I'm afraid we
have more to do than just that. Changing your OWN mind is the first step for
which everyone is responsible himself. The result of ALL these minds
differently centered is imo a world that ACTUALLY changes. Or do you believe
you're the only ONE that exists, and if you atoned we are free too?
> Of course
> > change beginsin the mind; but imo it also part of the plan to reflect
> > those - inspired - thoughts into this world. You can recognise a tree by
its
> > fruits; when there comes no fruits from the tree something is 'wrong'.
The
> > course is not only about changing our own minds; its also - and that's
an
> > automic result of inspiration - about inspiring others. And eventually
you
> > can even see that in the world.
>
> In a forgiven world, everything is working perfectly. It does not matter
> to a healed mind who it is that happens to be Caesar.
In a forgiven world, everything is working perfectly for you. There are
other minds still confused and believing in hell on their own. We all have
the freedom of choice remember?
> >>I don't think politicians are going to become truth tellers any time
> >>soon. It's not their nature. It's not a problem, either. I just don't
> >>think we should depend on either side to support a spiritual awakening,
> >>since that would end the world and where would their power and profits
> >>be then?
> >>
> >>Spiritual people who think one party is more spiritual than another are
> >>bound to be disappointed, as are all those who depend on any event or
> >>object in the world as a source of happiness.
> >
> >
> > Well, don't you think that the course - which is a community / party so
to
> > say - is more spiritual than most other spiritual programs?
>
>
> Spirituality is defined by purpose, so all roads lead to Rome.
Agree
> And even if you
> > don't, you still chose to follow the course's path. So you make also a
> > difference between different options.
>
> But not between political options. All political parties are basically
> the same, with minor differences.
>
> The Course is not a political option and does not encompass any.
Why are you polarizing politic / politicians and spiritualism? Aren't
politicians also minds that have - in essence - the same goal as all of us?
Also among politicians are all kind of people, from purely egoistic oriented
to spiritually engaged. Just as in the rest of the world :-)
> And there's nothing wrong with that!
> > We HAVE to chose; it's the only 'freedom' we have.
> >
> > Greetz, Marcel
> >
> >
>
> Only two choices, heaven or hell. It's hell trying to save the world
> through the political process, as history testifies.
>
> So only two choices, heaven or hell. Choosing hell is insane, so only
> one choice really. Fortunately, that choice -- heaven -- is also
> freedom. The kingdom of heaven is literally at hand.
>
> Thanks for standing here with me, brother.
>
> --
> Stephen
> Byron Bay, Australia
> R1200C
You're welcome. Alas our thought / ideas differ a bit; it ruins my -
superficial - feeling of being one.
Greetz, Marcel
cf_c...@yahoo.com
> <cf_c...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
> news:5a8539cf.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > "Marcel" <Mars...@home.nl> wrote in message
> news:<cfqpol$a35$1...@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl>...
> >
> > > Well, don't you think that the course - which is a community / party so
> to
> > > say - is more spiritual than most other spiritual programs?
> >
> > Cling, cling, cling, clang, clang, clang went the bell.
> >
> > Is that you Diogenes?
> >
> > The course seems to state otherwise. But I admire your forthrightness.
>
> Chuck, I don't know what diogenes means.
Diogenes was a "seeker of truth" in Greek Mythology.
> You mean that the course state
> otherwise than that the course is more spiritual?
The Course does not define itself as being "more spiritual", at least
that I am aware of. The Course does not define the meaning of
"spiritual" that I am aware of. The Course does acknowledge the
existence of multiple paths, and is specific in its claims with
respect to the utility of the form in which it is presented, as I
recall. Extending it to claim it is somehow "more spiritual" is a
conclusion of a believer, not something that the Course itself claims.
Whether or not the Course admonishes against concluding that it is
"more spiritual" is subject to debate. I wrote what I did based on the
Course admonishment against "specialness", applying that admonishment
to the Course itself for consistency (which is something that the
Course encourages).
> I know, and I suppose
> Stephen does also. That's why I added something you cutted here. Here it is:
> "And even if you don't, you still chose to follow the course's path. So you
> make also a
> difference between different options. And there's nothing wrong with that!
> We HAVE to chose; it's the only 'freedom' we have."
I see personal freedoms things much less constrained than being
limited to choice, although I agree that choice is fundamental to
personal freedoms.
Stephen Calder
>>
>>
>>
>> Politicians trie always to
>>
>>>change a society - in a direction they believe in.
>>
>><Stephen>It's hell to "try always" and never really succeed. They're not even the
>>ones with the "real" power.
>>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't we all?
>>
>><Stephen>I'm not interested in changing society. I changed my mind to see it
>>differently and now politics does not matter. When every problem is
>>already solved, what is left for politics to do?
>
>
> This is where I believe a different thing. When every perceived problem is
> seen in a different light BY YOU its solved?
Yes.
That seems to me a quite
> egoistic view, a delusion of grandeur. So its all about YOU?
Yes, it's all about you. "Heaven is the decision I must make." Having
chosen heaven, you see that a brother suffering must be a mispercpetion.
I'm afraid we
> have more to do than just that. Changing your OWN mind is the first step for
> which everyone is responsible himself. The result of ALL these minds
> differently centered is imo a world that ACTUALLY changes.
Yes, my world changed for me.
Or do you believe
> you're the only ONE that exists, and if you atoned we are free too?
There is in truth only one of us, but we seem to have split into many.
You are still just me in another form and my change of mind changes
every mind along with mine.
>
>
>>Of course
>>
>>>change beginsin the mind; but imo it also part of the plan to reflect
>>>those - inspired - thoughts into this world. You can recognise a tree by
>
> its
>
>>>fruits; when there comes no fruits from the tree something is 'wrong'.
>
> The
>
>>>course is not only about changing our own minds; its also - and that's
>
> an
>
>>>automic result of inspiration - about inspiring others. And eventually
>
> you
>
>>>can even see that in the world.
Yes, I have no problem with this. But it's time to stop judging others
by their fruits and time to pluck the fruit of peace (ie choose heaven
if you haven't already, but I think you have).
>>
>>In a forgiven world, everything is working perfectly. It does not matter
>>to a healed mind who it is that happens to be Caesar.
>
>
> In a forgiven world, everything is working perfectly for you. There are
> other minds still confused and believing in hell on their own. We all have
> the freedom of choice remember?
Right, so this "problem" can safely be handed over to the Holy Spirit to
deal with.
The only thing I need do is make sure I am vigilant for the Spirit's
guidance.
>
>
>>>>I don't think politicians are going to become truth tellers any time
>>>>soon. It's not their nature. It's not a problem, either. I just don't
>>>>think we should depend on either side to support a spiritual awakening,
>>>>since that would end the world and where would their power and profits
>>>>be then?
>>>>
>>>>Spiritual people who think one party is more spiritual than another are
>>>>bound to be disappointed, as are all those who depend on any event or
>>>>object in the world as a source of happiness.
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, don't you think that the course - which is a community / party so
>
> to
>
>>>say - is more spiritual than most other spiritual programs?
>>
>>
>>Spirituality is defined by purpose, so all roads lead to Rome.
>
>
> Agree
>
>
>> And even if you
>>
>>>don't, you still chose to follow the course's path. So you make also a
>>>difference between different options.
>>
>>But not between political options. All political parties are basically
>>the same, with minor differences.
>>
>>The Course is not a political option and does not encompass any.
>
>
> Why are you polarizing politic / politicians and spiritualism? Aren't
> politicians also minds that have - in essence - the same goal as all of us?
> Also among politicians are all kind of people, from purely egoistic oriented
> to spiritually engaged. Just as in the rest of the world :-)
No enlightened beings as politicians.
It's just not on their agenda. Politics by its nature is of the world.
This is not to make it wrong or tell you not to engage in it. There's no
reason why you could not do so and be at peace (knowing it is all a
silly game with only marginal effects in the world).
It's just that as a path to peace, politics is likely to be a very long,
difficult, circular and frustrating one.
>><Stephen>Thanks for standing here with me, brother.
>>
>
> You're welcome. Alas our thought / ideas differ a bit; it ruins my -
> superficial - feeling of being one.
>
> Greetz, Marcel
>
>
Don't worry about it. We are still one.
Marcel
news:412193C...@in.com.au...
Hi Annie,
I believe your picturing the concept of time a bit too easy. You say that
chosing peace ends time. It's ok with me if you want to see it like that,
but that's not how the course sees / explains it imo. Time is already over,
yes. But as long as we're still believing in separation - and we all do to
some extent or else we wouldn't be / post here - time still' exists (in our
beliefsystem). As the course explains it, when everything is forgiven, and
the real world is seen, God will lift you - out of time - to Heaven,
Knowledge, Love (where in Reality we never left). But imo its not so that
this happens sometimes when you're thought are peaceful. When time is over,
its over. You won't be here tomorrow to post another message.
Isn't it unbelievable how many different interpretations there can be made
out of the same book?
Gretz, Marcel
Noggin
"Annie Liley" <annie...@in.com.au> wrote in message news:412193C...@in.com.au...
> I'm Home in Heaven (in the world but not of
> it)
What do you do to support yourself Annie?
Noggin
<cf_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5a8539cf.04081...@posting.google.com...
>And - usually - you let go what is of less value to you.
Yes, destructive cults are big on convincing people that everything but the cult is of less value
to them.
Let's see now, according to the Curse thinking, feeling, responding, and breathing are all of
less value.
You're doing pretty well so far, but you have to keep working on letting go of the oxygen.
Noggin
"Marcel" <Mars...@home.nl> wrote in message news:cft155$t97$1...@news3.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...
>
> Isn't it unbelievable how many different interpretations there can be made
> out of the same book?
What's unbelievable is that you don't get why that is. Like all good scams, it tells as many
people as possible what they want to hear. Everyone gets to be the most speeeeeritchual student
with the only correct interpretation. Just what you came already believing about yourself
anyway. You were just looking for validation for some AUTHORITY.
Marcel
Its the second time you take things out of their relation by reacting on one
sentence. The one below is - inseperately - connected to it. Nevertheless I
agree with your comment completely. The course doesn't use specialness by
claiming its 'more spiritual' than other paths. Only people do that :-)
> > I know, and I suppose
> > Stephen does also. That's why I added something you cutted here. Here it
is:
> > "And even if you don't, you still chose to follow the course's path. So
you
> > make also a
> > difference between different options. And there's nothing wrong with
that!
> > We HAVE to chose; it's the only 'freedom' we have."
>
> I see personal freedoms things much less constrained than being
> limited to choice, although I agree that choice is fundamental to
> personal freedom.
What other freedom than choice - which voice to follow - do we have then?
> > My point was that everyone does what he does because he choses between
> > alternatives. And - usually - you let go what is of less value to you.
> >
> > Marcel
Marcel
cf_c...@yahoo.com
This may be a repeat, I got non-deterministic results previously.
> cf_c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > "Marcel" <Mars...@home.nl> wrote ...
> >
> >> Well, don't you think that the course - which is a community /
> >> party so to say - is more spiritual than most other spiritual
> >> programs?
> >
> > Cling, cling, cling, clang, clang, clang went the bell.
> >
> > Is that you Diogenes?
> >
> > The course seems to state otherwise. But I admire your
> > forthrightness.
>
> Hi Chuck,
>
> I can only gather that you are undecided as to the
> authorship of the Course. (Any guesses, btw ?)
>
> For anyone who has reason to believe that ACIM was
> authentically Authored as divinely inspired material,
> it would be a curious humility, indeed, that would
> deny that it is "more spiritual" than most alternatives. ;)
The Course does not make this claim of itself. Given the absence of an
explicit statement, and assuming it was divinely inspired, there are
two possible explanations that I see:
a. It was not stated because it does not matter.
b. It was not stated because it was overlooked.
In the context of the hypothesis, explanation b doesn't make sense to
me. In the context of the hypothesis, explanation a does make sense to
me based on what I see in the course.
To explicitly respond to your statement, "I can only gather that you
are undecided as to the authorship of the Course", I find it
sufficient to deal with what is written without any special
attribution. I find no utility in speculating beyond what is presented
in the Course itself - it can either stand on its own or not without
piling on baggage. If someone finds it necessary to augment the course
with beliefs which are not rendered explicit in the material itself,
then it does not stand on its own for them. This then gets into the
same puzzlement I wrote about above about the divinely inspired
hypothesis, and also creates a new set of challenges for the student
which I think the course claims as unnecessary (i.e. is it "complete"
or not?).
> That is all I hear Marcel suggesting, btw ... "more spiritual
> than <most>."
>
> What spiritual program did you have in mind, that
> might represent a more pure (or directly authentic)
> representation as to the truth of us, and life ?
I don't have any program in mind which is "more pure (or directly
authentic) representation as to the truth of us, and life" than any
other. I don't think or believe that such an animal exists in truth. I
do think that asserting one path as being "more spiritual" than
another is specious, because it cannot be proven in any meaningful
way. Each "formalized" path offers what it offers, and can be
evaluated on that basis without adding claims that cannot be proven.
I do think each of us can find inspiration anywhere we look, if it is
an objective to be inspired. I do not believe the Divine Creator is
constrained in any manner, so attributing something as being "more
spiritual" than something else is a contradiction.
>
> ~ Lee
cf_c...@yahoo.com
This might be a duplicate, as I got non-deterministic results when I
tried earlier.
Noggin
> authentic) representation as to the truth of us, and life" than any
> other. I don't think or believe that such an animal exists in truth.
Try reading the Constitution. No one's topped it yet.
cf_c...@yahoo.com
The Google god doesn't seem to likeme today - this might be a repeat.
Well, now you've gone and done it, putting the fear of God into me
since I've obviously chosen the wrong path. Oh, woe be me.
As I wrote to Latrinis, my fictitious nephew, Notta Chanse Take, is a
priest. Notta has given his all attempting to be my savior, and I just
don't have the heart to tell him he's got an appointment with the
underworld Daimon Kharon on the boat to Hades, instead of climbing the
stairway to heaven.
Oh, BTW, I just found out that Notta will be moving to the Assam
Valey. He has accepted the missionary position with one of his nun
friends that's already there. I have an eerie feeling that he'll be
tested to live up to his name, so maybe it'll work out after all.
> I hear they're cracking down on the polygamy, so that's not on
> the table any more.
Bummer that. I suppose we'll have to find a different way to cultify
ourselves. So many choices.
> Will I be seeing you in hell, or in a white shirt and black tie knocking on
> doors with yet another new and improved version of the Holey Word of God tucked under your
> arm???? Those are your choices. No need to thank me for filling you in, it's the least a pal
> can do!!
Merci'. You are a pal. I won't be wearing any white shirt and black
tie. The fractured fairy tales are good enough for me.
I checked my ancient coin collection and think I have the obolus
necessary to pay Kharon off. I'm a bit concerned about that, since it
has Severus Alexander (Roman) on the coin but the writing looks Greek
to me. (You can see a picture of it here:
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/Coins/04843p00.jpg) Failing that, I
have the golden bough, but it's from Frazer and not from the Cumaean
Sibyl. If none of this works, what's another hundred years of
wandering beside the flowing river? Just have to figure out which one.
I happen to favor Dante's version (Styx) rather than the "true"
version, Acheron. Styx has more of a musical sound to it, so I can
have the best of times in the grand illusion listening to the lorelei
(opps, wrong mythos) while I'm waiting to be on my way, whiling away
too much time on my hands, waiting for the boat on the river to show
me the way HOOOOOMMMMEEE. :D
cf_c...@yahoo.com
The Google god doesn't seem to like me today - this might be a repeat.
Well, now you've gone and done it, putting the fear of God into me
since I've obviously chosen the wrong path. Oh, woe be me.
As I wrote to Latrinis, my fictitious nephew, Notta Chanse Take, is a
priest. Notta has given his all attempting to be my savior, and I just
don't have the heart to tell him he's got an appointment with the
underworld Daimon Kharon on the boat to Hades, instead of climbing the
stairway to heaven.
Oh, BTW, I just found out that Notta will be moving to the Assam
Valey. He has accepted the missionary position with one of his nun
friends that's already there. I have an eerie feeling that he'll be
tested to live up to his name, so maybe it'll work out after all.
> I hear they're cracking down on the polygamy, so that's not on
> the table any more.
Bummer that. I suppose we'll have to find a different way to cultify
ourselves. So many choices.
> Will I be seeing you in hell, or in a white shirt and black tie knocking on
> doors with yet another new and improved version of the Holey Word of God tucked under your
> arm???? Those are your choices. No need to thank me for filling you in, it's the least a pal
> can do!!
Merci'. You are a pal. I won't be wearing any white shirt and black
cf_c...@yahoo.com
Well, now you've gone and done it, putting the fear of God into me
since I've obviously chosen the wrong path. Oh, woe be me.
As I wrote to Latrinis, my fictitious nephew, Notta Chanse Take, is a
priest. Notta has given his all attempting to be my savior, and I just
don't have the heart to tell him he's got an appointment with the
underworld Daimon Kharon on the boat to Hades, instead of climbing the
stairway to heaven.
Oh, BTW, I just found out that Notta will be moving to the Assam
Valey. He has accepted the missionary position with one of his nun
friends that's already there. I have an eerie feeling that he'll be
tested to live up to his name, so maybe it'll work out after all.
> I hear they're cracking down on the polygamy, so that's not on
> the table any more.
Bummer that. I suppose we'll have to find a different way to cultify
ourselves. So many choices.
> Will I be seeing you in hell, or in a white shirt and black tie knocking on
> doors with yet another new and improved version of the Holey Word of God tucked under your
> arm???? Those are your choices. No need to thank me for filling you in, it's the least a pal
> can do!!
Merci'. You are a pal. I won't be wearing any white shirt and black
Amminadab
>
>
> This is where I believe a different thing. When every perceived
> problem is seen in a different light BY YOU its solved? That seems to
> me a quite egoistic view, a delusion of grandeur. So its all about
> YOU?
Yes, Stephen is incredibly self-centered...... everything focuses upon his
concept of self.
Selflessness is a totally different bird..... a bird he has completely
forgotten.
Lee
I like how you put this, Annie. It's very much how I view
the Course's discussion of time, the 'collapse of time', and
in what sense the Course identifies the experience of
'time's end' as one of its goals.
'Best your way,
~ Lee
Stephen Calder
>
> To explicitly respond to your statement, "I can only gather that you
> are undecided as to the authorship of the Course", I find it
> sufficient to deal with what is written without any special
> attribution. I find no utility in speculating beyond what is presented
> in the Course itself - it can either stand on its own or not without
> piling on baggage. If someone finds it necessary to augment the course
> with beliefs which are not rendered explicit in the material itself,
> then it does not stand on its own for them. This then gets into the
> same puzzlement I wrote about above about the divinely inspired
> hypothesis, and also creates a new set of challenges for the student
> which I think the course claims as unnecessary (i.e. is it "complete"
> or not?).
There is plenty of internal material that points directly to Jesus as
the author, eg:
(1) "The Disciples were officially & specifically told to heal others,
as Physicians of the Lord. They were also told to heal themselves, &
were promised that I would never leave them or forsake them. Atonement
is the natural profession of the Children of God, because they have
professed Me."
(2) "I raised the dead by KNOWING that life is an eternal attribute of
everything that the living God Created. Why do you believe that it is
harder for me to inspire the dis-spirited or to stabilize the unstable?"
(3) "I myself said, “and if I go I will send you ANOTHER comforter, and
he will abide with you.”"
(4) "When I said “I am come as a light into the world,” I surely came to
share this light with you."
(5) "My brothers slept during the so-called “agony in the garden,” but
I could not be angry with them, because I had learned I could not BE
abandoned. Peter swore he would never deny me, but he did so three
times. It should be noted that he did offer to defend me with the sword,
which I naturally refused, not being at all in need of bodily protection."
Stephen Calder
> Marcel wrote:
>
>>
>>This is where I believe a different thing. When every perceived
>>problem is seen in a different light BY YOU its solved? That seems to
>>me a quite egoistic view, a delusion of grandeur. So its all about
>>YOU?
>
>
> Yes, Stephen is incredibly self-centered......
Spell it Self centred and I'll agree.
Deborah Maltman
It is believable to me Marcel. Everyone has their own ego filter to dance
through. The intellectual interpretations are not the important part and
misses the boat, imo. The movement for each student, the experience in
their way, to truth, is what is meaningful for me.
~Deborah
cf_c...@yahoo.com
OK, so there is text in the Course that points to the Christian
tradition's historical Jesus.
I can find sources of this same kind of technique elsewhere. One that
I found bring in the disciples as supporting witnesses.
Then within the course community, it is not hard to find others that
claim to be channeling Jesus.
So I go back to my point. The Course either stands on its own, or it
doesn't. What does the possibility that the historical Jesus was the
author add to the Course itself? If it adds something, then the course
does not stand on its own, and we get into the Pandora's box of which
Jesus should we also consider listening to - the one in the Bible, the
one named Raj, the one that revealed himself to James Padgett,
Nancy's, any and all of them? If it adds nothing, then why make a
point about it?
I get a sense here that many find it necessary to believe that the
Course was authored by the Christian tradition's historical Jesus. I
don't understand why that is necessary. The way I see it used in the
Course is to establish the basis for "trust" in the content of the
Course. It is often used in the same manner by all the supposed Jesus
channelers. I think and believe that the use of this technique is an
affront to our humanity and in the hands of manipulators, the
technique can lead to some disasterous circumstances.
kena...@webtv.net
******Chuck said:
I think and believe that the use of this technique is an affront to our
humanity and in the hands of manipulators, the technique can lead to
some disasterous circumstances.
~~~People claiming to channel the Christ
or other so-called enlightened being
have been around for ages. I do not see
how their behavior is an affront to humanity.
There are fakes and frauds in many areas
of spirituality. However, there are even
more in traditional religions, imo. And these
people are the ones who declare war in the
name of God or some Higher Power, killing
and maming and destroying lives along
with the environment. Their techniques DO
lead to disasterous circumstances.
Kay
Noggin
<cf_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5a8539cf.0408...@posting.google.com...
>
> I get a sense here that many find it necessary to believe that the
> Course was authored by the Christian tradition's historical Jesus. I
> don't understand why that is necessary. The way I see it used in the
> Course is to establish the basis for "trust" in the content of the
> Course. It is often used in the same manner by all the supposed Jesus
> channelers. I think and believe that the use of this technique is an
> affront to our humanity and in the hands of manipulators, the
> technique can lead to some disasterous circumstances.
What about IMPLYING that Jesus wrote something, but never coming right out and saying he did?
I'm also curious about what you mean by the Curse standing on it's own. As what?
Amminadab
>
>
> It is believable to me Marcel. Everyone has their own ego filter to
> dance through. The intellectual interpretations are not the
> important part and misses the boat, imo. The movement for each
> student, the experience in their way, to truth, is what is meaningful
> for me.
>
Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
Amminadab
Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
>However, there are even
> more in traditional religions, imo. And these
> people are the ones who declare war in the
> name of God or some Higher Power, killing
> and maming and destroying lives along
> with the environment. Their techniques DO
> lead to disasterous circumstances.
This is what you see from your Happy Dream?
Amazing!
Deborah Maltman
"Amminadab" <am...@amminadab.com> wrote in message
news:2ohlvaF...@uni-berlin.de...
I don't have a belief one way of the other about Stephen and his level of
awakeness and his mind being healed or not. Gosh, Amminadab, that doesn't
concern me. I haven't thought about it, nor do I intend to put time in with
thinking about it. I follow what comes from inside, for me. If something
someone, including Stephen, says, speaks to me, resonates with me, my inner
voice tells me to pay attention to it, etc., I listen.
Why do you ask me this question?
~Deborah
Stephen Calder
> Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message news:<yGvUc.435$aA.1...@news.optus.net.au>...
>
>>
>>There is plenty of internal material that points directly to Jesus as
>>the author, eg:
>>
>>
>>(1) "The Disciples were officially & specifically told to heal others,
>>as Physicians of the Lord. They were also told to heal themselves, &
>>were promised that I would never leave them or forsake them. Atonement
>>is the natural profession of the Children of God, because they have
>>professed Me."
>>
>>(2) "I raised the dead by KNOWING that life is an eternal attribute of
>>everything that the living God Created. Why do you believe that it is
>>harder for me to inspire the dis-spirited or to stabilize the unstable?"
>>
>>(3) "I myself said, “and if I go I will send you ANOTHER comforter, and
>>he will abide with you.”"
>>
>>(4) "When I said “I am come as a light into the world,” I surely came to
>>share this light with you."
>>
>>(5) "My brothers slept during the so-called “agony in the garden,” but
>>I could not be angry with them, because I had learned I could not BE
>>abandoned. Peter swore he would never deny me, but he did so three
>>times. It should be noted that he did offer to defend me with the sword,
>>which I naturally refused, not being at all in need of bodily protection."
>
>
> OK, so there is text in the Course that points to the Christian
> tradition's historical Jesus.
That understates it. Jesus clearly identifies himself as the author.
>
> I can find sources of this same kind of technique elsewhere. One that
> I found bring in the disciples as supporting witnesses.
No supporting witnesses are needed. Jesus himself is explicit.
>
> Then within the course community, it is not hard to find others that
> claim to be channeling Jesus.
Irrelevant.
>
> So I go back to my point. The Course either stands on its own, or it
> doesn't. What does the possibility that the historical Jesus was the
> author add to the Course itself?
If the author claims to be Jesus, the only thing to decide is whether
the author is a fake. It may not add anything to the Course, except that
the master is already well loved by so many. What does it take away if
he is the author?
If it adds something, then the course
> does not stand on its own,
What does "standing on its own" mean. It doesn't stand on its own, it
needs you to actually do it.
and we get into the Pandora's box of which
> Jesus should we also consider listening to - the one in the Bible, the
> one named Raj, the one that revealed himself to James Padgett,
> Nancy's, any and all of them? If it adds nothing, then why make a
> point about it?
There is only one.
>
> I get a sense here that many find it necessary to believe that the
> Course was authored by the Christian tradition's historical Jesus. I
> don't understand why that is necessary.
It's not necessary.
The way I see it used in the
> Course is to establish the basis for "trust" in the content of the
> Course.
I don't see a problem with that. Any reason to trust it will do.
It is often used in the same manner by all the supposed Jesus
> channelers. I think and believe that the use of this technique is an
> affront to our humanity and in the hands of manipulators, the
> technique can lead to some disasterous circumstances.
What disaster will befall if Jesus is the author of the Course?
Amminadab
>
>
> I don't have a belief one way of the other about Stephen and his
> level of awakeness and his mind being healed or not. Gosh,
> Amminadab, that doesn't concern me. I haven't thought about it, nor
> do I intend to put time in with thinking about it.
Now that is curious. You have expressed opinion as to whether or not I have
overcome the ego..... what makes Stephen and his claims so different?
>
> Why do you ask me this question?
>
>
You asked me to point out your inconsistencies.
Deborah Maltman
Send me what you wrote, I don't know what you are talking about. I will
take a look at it and see what it is all about what I wrote.
Are you sure you understood what I was saying?
~Deborah
kena...@webtv.net
There are fakes and frauds in many areas of spirituality.
Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
~~~Why do you want to gossip about other
people all the time? Very unattractive.
Are you implying that Stephen is a fake and
a fraud?
However, there are even
more in traditional religions, imo. And these people are the ones who
declare war in the name of God or some Higher Power, killing and maming
and destroying lives along
with the environment. Their techniques DO lead to disasterous
circumstances.
This is what you see from your Happy Dream?
Amazing!
Amminadab
~~~Well amazing you are not. In fact you are
becoming quite predictable.
Kay
Deborah Maltman
"Deborah Maltman" <dmal...@execulink.com> wrote in message
news:10i87nk...@corp.supernews.com...
Send me what I wrote, that is, that which you are referring to.
~Deborah
Amminadab
Annie Liley
> Deborah Maltman wrote:
>
>>
>>It is believable to me Marcel. Everyone has their own ego filter to
>>dance through. The intellectual interpretations are not the
>>important part and misses the boat, imo. The movement for each
>>student, the experience in their way, to truth, is what is meaningful
>>for me.
>>
>
>
> Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
>
> Amminadab
What use to me are my beliefs when all they do is impose a limitation
upon my sight and prevent me from seeing the Truth about my brother and
myself?
Stephen Calder
> Deborah Maltman wrote:
>
>>
>>It is believable to me Marcel. Everyone has their own ego filter to
>>dance through. The intellectual interpretations are not the
>>important part and misses the boat, imo. The movement for each
>>student, the experience in their way, to truth, is what is meaningful
>>for me.
>>
>
>
> Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
>
> Amminadab
Let's decide it by a vote! LOL.
Deborah Maltman
LOL
~Deborah
Stephen Calder
Good answer, Deborah.
Amminadab
>
>>
>> Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
>>
>> Amminadab
>
>
> What use to me are my beliefs when all they do is impose a limitation
> upon my sight and prevent me from seeing the Truth about my brother
> and myself?
So you can affirm his miracles(?)..... but not his awakeness, nor his
healing.
Curious.
Amminadab
>
>>
>>
>> Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
>>
>> Amminadab
>
>
> Let's decide it by a vote! LOL.
>
Not a single one of your friends or peers is standing for your claims.
Stephen Calder
> Stephen Calder wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
>>>
>>>Amminadab
>>
>>
>>Let's decide it by a vote! LOL.
>>
>
>
> Not a single one of your friends or peers is standing for your claims.
>
> Amminadab
Thay don't have to. It makes no difference to me.
J
> Amminadab wrote:
>
> > Stephen Calder wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
> >>>
> >>>Amminadab
> >>
> >>
> >>Let's decide it by a vote! LOL.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Not a single one of your friends or peers is standing for your claims.
> >
> > Amminadab
>
>
> Thay don't have to. It makes no difference to me.
Just an observation, Stephen and Ammi. It appears both of you can slug it
out with the best of them, while criticising others slugging it out. Seems
to me, the only difference is neither of you are dealing with cult idiots
calling you obcence names.
Alababa
[snip]
> Just an observation, Stephen and Ammi. It appears both of you can slug it
> out with the best of them, while criticising others slugging it out. Seems
> to me, the only difference is neither of you are dealing with cult idiots
> calling you obcence names.
Just an observation, John and Juan. It appears _both_
of you (the one who claims he is an Hispanic American
and the one who claims he never made that claim), are
in the habit of calling women "dumb bunnies" & "civil
servent types", merely for disagreeing with your POV,
but you just can't seem to get over the fact that one
single person has called you "pigfucker", even though
he doesn't post here any longer, & hasn't in a while.
BTW John, in case you've forgotten since the last one
reminded you, you're free to killfile or ignore posts
from anybody who disturbs you. That you choose to try
to one-up them, even though you keep getting your ass
kicked, is the sure sign of idiocy. Cult, or no cult.
J
"Alababa" <a...@baba.com> wrote in message
news:PvGdnXgkAJD...@adelphia.com...
> J wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Just an observation, Stephen and Ammi. It appears both of you can slug
it
> > out with the best of them, while criticising others slugging it out.
Seems
> > to me, the only difference is neither of you are dealing with cult
idiots
> > calling you obcence names.
> but you just can't seem to get over the fact that one
> single person has called you "pigfucker", even though
> he doesn't post here any longer, & hasn't in a while.
You are lying as usual, Sindler. There might be a post somewhere an Eots
troll has posted which hasn't insulted me, and insulted me with an
obscenity, but clearly there aren't many. So take a hike, Alan. Your days as
a mean-spirited Eots troll are clearly numbered. Even an cult idiot like you
can see your trashing of Carrie is no longer supported.
J
> question is, am I happy and fulfilled?
>
> I am that and love to share it.
Interesting. You should remember that when you indicate that someone is in
fact doing something wrong in a dream.
Stephen Calder
I hope I remember to say unhelpful rather than wrong. Peace is the goal,
not judgement.
Noggin
"Amminadab" <am...@amminadab.com> wrote in message news:2oj1vrF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Stephen Calder wrote:
> Not a single one of your friends or peers is standing for your claims.
Or yours, or Nancy Lorieau's, or Queen Flynn's.
That's because you ACIMites are a contemptuous bunch who let's face it, each believe that you are
the ONLY one who REALLY gets it. The best you can do for each other is pander to each other with
false flatteries when it suits you to have that person on your "side".
kena...@webtv.net
I am consistent.
Amminadab
~~~~as in never change your mind?
Kay
kena...@webtv.net
~~~Let's have a party
Send in the clowns - ;-)))
Kay
kena...@webtv.net
Stephen Calder wrote:
Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
Amminadab
Let's decide it by a vote! LOL.
Not a single one of your friends or peers is standing for your claims.
Amminadab
Thay don't have to. It makes no difference to me.
~~~Yes - - - rather like what others think of
me does not change who I am. ;-))
Kay
kena...@webtv.net
Stephen Calder wrote:
Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
Amminadab
Let's decide it by a vote! LOL.
Not a single one of your friends or peers is standing for your claims.
Amminadab
Thay don't have to. It makes no difference to me.
~~~~P.S. What others think of me does not
change who I am, and is their business and
not mind. <grin> Ahhhh what a breath of
fresh air! ;-)))
Kay
Amminadab
>
> ~~~~P.S. What others think of me does not
> change who I am, and is their business and
> not mind. <grin> Ahhhh what a breath of
> fresh air! ;-)))
Sounds like a prescription for loneliness and isolation.
Amminadab
Annie Liley
I think I'll let Jesus decide for me and then I won't have to worry
about it. I'm pretty sure he told me if I let him decide for everything
for me, I wouldn't have nothin' to worry about and then what - I'd just
be happy and joyous and carefree - So VOTE 1 for Jesus's perception of
Stephen and everyone I see. Let me remember the Truth about my brother
behind the false image I have made and in that we rest in peace.
Thankyou Jesus - thankyou Lord.
Annie Liley
> Annie Liley wrote:
>
>>>Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
>>>
>>>Amminadab
>>
>>
>>What use to me are my beliefs when all they do is impose a limitation
>>upon my sight and prevent me from seeing the Truth about my brother
>>and myself?
>
>
> So you can affirm his miracles(?)..... but not his awakeness, nor his
> healing.
>
> Curious.
>
> Amminadab
No - of course I couldn't Ammi - it's not my place to judge whether he's
awake or not - that's a great ego distraction that I'm aware has had to
be corrected in me - attempting to decide who's awake or not and what
awake looks like. If I'm seeing rightly through the vision of Christ,
then of course he is awake because God only creates mind awake -
anything else is illusionary. Besides it really isn't of my business
nor is it helpful to me to try to determine what anything or anyone is -
in fact it's my job to give up my judgements about what anyone or
anything is so I can see what really IS. If healing means to make happy
by the recognition that minds are joined and behind the bodies image,
then yes Stephen offers a healed mind. I do have to remember the
offering doesn't come from Stephen and remember all healing is of God
and his rememberance of God and who he is in reality is communicable by
anyone who is open to receiving that communication. At times I'm not -
that has nothing to do with the miracle worker - it has to do with me
and my stubborn refusal to accept the offering of peace and love being
given me.
Again - who cares what Stephen does or doesn't do or what he claims
about himself - what purpose do this questions serve? How does it help
us remember our unity in Christ - how does it help me remember the
unreality of the world of pain and sickness and death? How does it help
me remember that the Holy Spirit is in charge and I don't have to be
concerned about what my brother does or doesn't do and that perfect
trust is his due because he is perfectly trustworthy? How are these
questions helpful? If there's an attempt to expose Stephen as a fraud
that's all he'll be to anyone who is looking to him to see that. If
there's an attempt to expose him as the Christ beyond all worldly
appearances that's what will be seen.
Amminadab
> If I'm seeing rightly through the vision
> of Christ, then of course he is awake because God only creates mind
> awake - anything else is illusionary.
Ummmmm..... that makes no sense.
Why then did Jesus write the Course?
If He saw only "mind awake" there would have been no reason.
Deborah
wrote:
>Annie Liley wrote:
>> If I'm seeing rightly through the vision
>> of Christ, then of course he is awake because God only creates mind
>> awake - anything else is illusionary.
>
>Ummmmm..... that makes no sense.
>
>Why then did Jesus write the Course?
>
>If He saw only "mind awake" there would have been no reason.
True,. But if Jesus is a "manifestation of the Holy Spirit", Who is
well aware of the illusion, or at least, of our belief in it, he would
have seen a reason.
I don't think seeing with the vision of Christ is the same thing as
being awake, per the course. It is synonymous with seeing "the
forgiven world". And having what the course calls "real
relationships" with others. These are relationships where we are open
to who the other person is in the present. Unblemished by the past.
We have "real relationships" with just about everyone who we don't
"know". Who we don't have any history with. But that's just
accidental. We're being asked to have real relationships with people
we think we DO know... through forgiveness. We need the vision of
Christ to achieve that.
And Ryan, I've noticed that you have a phenomenal memory. It
impresses me to no end, until I realize that memory is valueless, per
the course. It is the most valueless thing imaginable. If we could
only meet all our brothers for the first time, today, that's what the
course is teaching us to do.
Deborah (BC)
kena...@webtv.net
******* If we could only meet all our brothers for the first time,
today, that's what the course is teaching us to do.
~~~So true - and only thru forgiveness is
it possible. Great post Deborah.
Kay
Deborah (BC)
Lee
kena...@webtv.net wrote:
> From: deborah@invalid (Deborah)
> "Amminadab" <am...@amminadab.com> wrote:
> Annie Liley wrote:
> If I'm seeing rightly through the vision of Christ, then of
> course he is awake because God only creates mind awake - anything
> else is illusionary.
>
> Ummmmm..... that makes no sense.
> Why then did Jesus write the Course?
> If He saw only "mind awake" there would have been no reason.
>
> True,. But if Jesus is a "manifestation of the Holy Spirit", Who
> is well aware of the illusion, or at least, of our belief in it,
> he would have seen a reason.
> I don't think seeing with the vision of Christ is the same thing
> as being awake, per the course. It is synonymous with seeing "the
> forgiven world". And having what the course calls "real
> relationships" with others. These are relationships where we are
> open to who the other person is in the present. Unblemished by
> the past.
> We have "real relationships" with just about everyone who we don't
> "know". Who we don't have any history with. But that's just
> accidental. We're being asked to have real relationships with
> people we think we DO know... through forgiveness. We need the
> vision of Christ to achieve that.
> ...
>
>
> ******* If we could only meet all our brothers for the first time,
> today, that's what the course is teaching us to do.
Just wanted to be the first to greet you both, today. ;))
Best of love n miracles to you, both, this day
~ Lee
Noggin
"Annie Liley" <annie...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:WMcVc.564$aA.1...@news.optus.net.au...
> I think I'll let Jesus decide for me and then I won't have to worry
> about it. I'm pretty sure he told me if I let him decide for everything
> for me, I wouldn't have nothin' to worry about and then what - I'd just
> be happy and joyous and carefree - So VOTE 1 for Jesus's perception of
> Stephen and everyone I see. Let me remember the Truth about my brother
> behind the false image I have made and in that we rest in peace.
> Thankyou Jesus - thankyou Lord.
How can you remember anything if Jesus is doing your thinking for you? Did you ever hear the
old saw "I think, therefore I am"? If someone else thinks for you, what does that make you?
But let's get real here, all you're doing is declaring your own thoughts to be those of Jesus and
thereby relieving yourself of any responsiblity for them while imposing responsibility on
everyone else to accept your assertion that you speak and act on the word of Jesus. Pure
contempt.
Stephen Calder
I'll go along with this.
Noggin
> Amminadab wrote:
>
> > Annie Liley wrote:
> >
> >>>Do you believe that Stephen is awake, and that his mind is healed?
> >>>
> >>>Amminadab
> >>
> >>
> >>What use to me are my beliefs when all they do is impose a limitation
> >>upon my sight and prevent me from seeing the Truth about my brother
> >>and myself?
> >
> >
> > So you can affirm his miracles(?)..... but not his awakeness, nor his
> > healing.
> >
> > Curious.
> >
> > Amminadab
>
> No - of course I couldn't Ammi - it's not my place to judge whether he's
> awake or not - that's a great ego distraction that I'm aware has had to
> be corrected in me - attempting to decide who's awake or not and what
> awake looks like. If I'm seeing rightly through the vision of Christ,
> then of course he is awake because God only creates mind awake -
> anything else is illusionary.
One minute Jesus is thinking for you, and the next you can't make a judgement. Which is it?
cf_c...@yahoo.com
> <cf_c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5a8539cf.0408...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > I get a sense here that many find it necessary to believe that the
> > Course was authored by the Christian tradition's historical Jesus. I
> > don't understand why that is necessary. The way I see it used in the
> > Course is to establish the basis for "trust" in the content of the
> > Course. It is often used in the same manner by all the supposed Jesus
> > channelers. I think and believe that the use of this technique is an
> > affront to our humanity and in the hands of manipulators, the
> > technique can lead to some disasterous circumstances.
>
> What about IMPLYING that Jesus wrote something, but never coming right out and saying he did?
>
> I'm also curious about what you mean by the Curse standing on it's own. As what?
One of the claims made for the Course is:
"A Course in Miracles is a complete self-study spiritual thought
system. As a three-volume curriculum consisting of a Text, Workbook
for Students, and Manual for Teachers, it teaches that the way to
universal love and peace—or remembering God—is by undoing guilt
through forgiving others."
Many here reflect the sense that the Course is all that is needed in
order to achieve the "peace" reflected in the claim. If it is
complete, it seems to me that it should be able to "stand on its own".
Otherwise, it is incomplete.
The sense that I get from some is that it is necessary or somehow
helpful to believe in the Christian Tradition's historical Jesus. If
this is the case, then it is not complete since the Course doesn't say
that you must believe in the "Christian Tradition's historical Jesus",
nor does it say what aspects of the "Christian Tradition's historical
Jesus" should be believed (clearly not all are to be believed since
the "Christian Tradition's historical Jesus" died on the cross for the
sins of mankind and the Course teaches there are no sins).
If this is not the case that the belief that the "Christian
Tradition's historical Jesus" was the author of the Course is
important, then it doesn't matter and discussing it serves no purpose
other than to create opportunities for debate about something that
doesn't matter.
Annie Liley
AMEN
cf_c...@yahoo.com
> cf_c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message news:<yGvUc.435$aA.1...@news.optus.net.au>...
> >
>
> >>
> >>There is plenty of internal material that points directly to Jesus as
> >>the author, eg:
> >>
> >>
> >>(1) "The Disciples were officially & specifically told to heal others,
> >>as Physicians of the Lord. They were also told to heal themselves, &
> >>were promised that I would never leave them or forsake them. Atonement
> >>is the natural profession of the Children of God, because they have
> >>professed Me."
> >>
> >>(2) "I raised the dead by KNOWING that life is an eternal attribute of
> >>everything that the living God Created. Why do you believe that it is
> >>harder for me to inspire the dis-spirited or to stabilize the unstable?"
> >>
> >>(3) "I myself said, “and if I go I will send you ANOTHER comforter, and
> >>he will abide with you.”"
> >>
> >>(4) "When I said “I am come as a light into the world,” I surely came to
> >>share this light with you."
> >>
> >>(5) "My brothers slept during the so-called “agony in the garden,” but
> >>I could not be angry with them, because I had learned I could not BE
> >>abandoned. Peter swore he would never deny me, but he did so three
> >>times. It should be noted that he did offer to defend me with the sword,
> >>which I naturally refused, not being at all in need of bodily protection."
> >
> >
> > OK, so there is text in the Course that points to the Christian
> > tradition's historical Jesus.
>
> That understates it. Jesus clearly identifies himself as the author.
>
>
> >
> > I can find sources of this same kind of technique elsewhere. One that
> > I found bring in the disciples as supporting witnesses.
>
> No supporting witnesses are needed. Jesus himself is explicit.
I'm still trying to understand from you how or why this is important.
> >
> > Then within the course community, it is not hard to find others that
> > claim to be channeling Jesus.
>
> Irrelevant.
So the words of Jesus are irrelevant to you?
> >
> > So I go back to my point. The Course either stands on its own, or it
> > doesn't. What does the possibility that the historical Jesus was the
> > author add to the Course itself?
>
> If the author claims to be Jesus, the only thing to decide is whether
> the author is a fake.
What criteria should someone use to decide whether the author is a
fake? It seems to me that one either chooses to believe that author is
the "traditional historic Jesus", or doesn't.
> It may not add anything to the Course, except that
> the master is already well loved by so many. What does it take away if
> he is the author?
It's not an issue with me either way, I was responding to Lee. I am
trying to understand why some people seem to place emphasis on the
divine authorship, which some here seem to think important.
> If it adds something, then the course
> > does not stand on its own,
>
> What does "standing on its own" mean. It doesn't stand on its own, it
> needs you to actually do it.
It doesn't need me. It's a book and it either is complete or not. The
claim made by some is:
"A Course in Miracles is a complete self-study spiritual thought
system. As a three-volume curriculum consisting of a Text, Workbook
for Students, and Manual for Teachers, it teaches that the way to
universal love and peace—or remembering God—is by undoing guilt
through forgiving others."
The words I have read from you seem to reflect this claim.
> and we get into the Pandora's box of which
> > Jesus should we also consider listening to - the one in the Bible, the
> > one named Raj, the one that revealed himself to James Padgett,
> > Nancy's, any and all of them? If it adds nothing, then why make a
> > point about it?
>
> There is only one.
OK, so how would you suggest I go about distinguishing the real "one"
from all the "fakes"?
> > I get a sense here that many find it necessary to believe that the
> > Course was authored by the Christian tradition's historical Jesus. I
> > don't understand why that is necessary.
>
> It's not necessary.
If it isn't necessary, you engage in a lot of unnecessary dialog. How
is that helping yurself?
> The way I see it used in the
> > Course is to establish the basis for "trust" in the content of the
> > Course.
>
> I don't see a problem with that. Any reason to trust it will do.
Only if it's not fake. How does one go about determining if it's fake?
> > It is often used in the same manner by all the supposed Jesus
> > channelers. I think and believe that the use of this technique is an
> > affront to our humanity and in the hands of manipulators, the
> > technique can lead to some disasterous circumstances.
>
> What disaster will befall if Jesus is the author of the Course?
The only disasters or benefits that will come out of this is what we
humans do with it. I'm just looking at what others are doing with it
and commenting accordingly.
Stephen Calder
Helpful, perhaps, but not necessary. It wasn't even helpful to me at
first, since I had rejected traditional Christianity (Anglican) and the
terminology was very offputting. It was only after I had an awakening
experience that this was no longer a problem for me.
Those who have an established relationship with Jesus and know of his
loving gentleness along with his compassionate encouragement and
patience, together with an uncompromising teaching of true forgiveness,
will find all these familar characteristics of the great master
exemplified and embodied in the Course. To those who know him, the
familiarity is strong, but of course it could never be proven to those
who don't.
If
> this is the case, then it is not complete since the Course doesn't say
> that you must believe in the "Christian Tradition's historical Jesus",
> nor does it say what aspects of the "Christian Tradition's historical
> Jesus" should be believed (clearly not all are to be believed since
> the "Christian Tradition's historical Jesus" died on the cross for the
> sins of mankind and the Course teaches there are no sins).
Not only that, but if you study the early parts of the text it makes
specific corrections to misguided thinking about what Jesus taught.
There is even more of this material in the urtext, where the author also
discusses Freud and suggests new ways of looking at psychological terms.
>
> If this is not the case that the belief that the "Christian
> Tradition's historical Jesus" was the author of the Course is
> important, then it doesn't matter and discussing it serves no purpose
> other than to create opportunities for debate about something that
> doesn't matter.
I don't think it hurts to debate the subject. I would say it is
important but not crucial. I am always curious as to who IS the author
is not the historical Jesus. It's one of only very few explanations that
make sense to me. Another is that a another great mind or being used the
identity of Jesus (who, as the Course says, was an illusion of a man,
just like you and me) with great integrity to pass on this message to
humanity. That's kind of stretching it for me. Why try to pass yourself
of as Jesus? Another is that this is a message from an unknown source
which Helen took to be Jesus, and which belief the source encouraged.
Again, the motive seems questionable.
The proposition that Helen and Bill wrote it just won't hold water in
the face of their own evidence to the contrary. It stands in stark
contrast to the known facts about Helen's life, certainly up to the end
of the transcriptions.
Helen's true self spoke to her, taking the form of one she would be sure
to trust? But who is her and my true self but the Christ mind?
The Course is very carefully planned, beautifully written in modern
English (with some anachronisms where metric considerations require
them), full of wisdom, beauty and light, and written by a mind that is a
master of English literature as well psychotherapy and a number of other
disciplines. Philosophy, both eastern and western. Metaphysics. It's
quite an accomplishment, and all the more extraordinary when you embark
on the journey and find miracles starting to happen, and your life
probably gets turned upside down but it's okay, very exciting to know
that you've found your true purpose. Jesus becomes a real presence, and
if to you that's just my mind interpreting what's happening as Jesus
being with me, that's okay with me. The important thing is that it
works. It does!
Stephen Calder
Huh? Other people claiming to be channelling Jesus is irrelevant to his
authorship of the Course.
>
>
>>>So I go back to my point. The Course either stands on its own, or it
>>>doesn't. What does the possibility that the historical Jesus was the
>>>author add to the Course itself?
>>
>>If the author claims to be Jesus, the only thing to decide is whether
>>the author is a fake.
>
>
> What criteria should someone use to decide whether the author is a
> fake? It seems to me that one either chooses to believe that author is
> the "traditional historic Jesus", or doesn't.
Leaving the question of athtorship open? Okay.
>
>
>>It may not add anything to the Course, except that
>>the master is already well loved by so many. What does it take away if
>>he is the author?
>
>
> It's not an issue with me either way, I was responding to Lee. I am
> trying to understand why some people seem to place emphasis on the
> divine authorship, which some here seem to think important.
It's important but not crucial. The Course will work anyway.
>
>
>> If it adds something, then the course
>>
>>>does not stand on its own,
>>
>>What does "standing on its own" mean. It doesn't stand on its own, it
>>needs you to actually do it.
>
>
> It doesn't need me. It's a book and it either is complete or not. The
> claim made by some is:
> "A Course in Miracles is a complete self-study spiritual thought
> system. As a three-volume curriculum consisting of a Text, Workbook
> for Students, and Manual for Teachers, it teaches that the way to
> universal love and peace—or remembering God—is by undoing guilt
> through forgiving others."
>
> The words I have read from you seem to reflect this claim.
It's complete in that sense. But it's not an ordinary book. It's
designed to be used in a very specific way for a very specific and
unique purpose.
Unless used in that way, you might as well use it as a doorstop.
>
>
>> and we get into the Pandora's box of which
>>
>>>Jesus should we also consider listening to - the one in the Bible, the
>>>one named Raj, the one that revealed himself to James Padgett,
>>>Nancy's, any and all of them? If it adds nothing, then why make a
>>>point about it?
>>
>>There is only one.
>
>
> OK, so how would you suggest I go about distinguishing the real "one"
> from all the "fakes"?
Get into contact with him yourself.
>
>
>>>I get a sense here that many find it necessary to believe that the
>>>Course was authored by the Christian tradition's historical Jesus. I
>>>don't understand why that is necessary.
>>
>>It's not necessary.
>
>
> If it isn't necessary, you engage in a lot of unnecessary dialog. How
> is that helping yurself?
I'm just having fun tossing a few ideas around. It's no big deal.
>
>
>> The way I see it used in the
>>
>>>Course is to establish the basis for "trust" in the content of the
>>>Course.
>>
>>I don't see a problem with that. Any reason to trust it will do.
>
>
> Only if it's not fake. How does one go about determining if it's fake?
When I first opened its pages and read, I had an unshakeable conviction
that this was the truth. There was never any question of it being a fake
for me. I have no idea how you are going to determine whether it is a
fake without actually doing the lessons, and going through the process,
and if you suspect it's a fake, you probably won't do that.
>
>
>>>It is often used in the same manner by all the supposed Jesus
>>>channelers. I think and believe that the use of this technique is an
>>>affront to our humanity and in the hands of manipulators, the
>>>technique can lead to some disasterous circumstances.
>>
>>What disaster will befall if Jesus is the author of the Course?
>
>
> The only disasters or benefits that will come out of this is what we
> humans do with it. I'm just looking at what others are doing with it
> and commenting accordingly.
Fair enough.
kena...@webtv.net
greeting! It is nearly 7 pm here as
I open your post, yet the love is
fresh as the morning dew ;-))
I spent the day with a friend, celebrating
her Birthday. We had lunch at a new Tai
Resturant and then strolled thru an art
gallery. Small town local artists, and
truly inspired. God is in everything
and what a blessing this life is.
May you be well --- may you feel God's
kiss upon your cheek.
;-))
Kay
cf_c...@yahoo.com
It's irrelevant only to the extent that all the Jesus appearances
agree. If they don't we get into whose Jesus is the real Jesus, and
which is false. If I remember, there is something in the Bible that
Jesus said about being wary of those that claimed to be Jesus.
> >>>So I go back to my point. The Course either stands on its own, or it
> >>>doesn't. What does the possibility that the historical Jesus was the
> >>>author add to the Course itself?
> >>
> >>If the author claims to be Jesus, the only thing to decide is whether
> >>the author is a fake.
> >
> >
> > What criteria should someone use to decide whether the author is a
> > fake? It seems to me that one either chooses to believe that author is
> > the "traditional historic Jesus", or doesn't.
>
> Leaving the question of athtorship open? Okay.
> >
> >
> >>It may not add anything to the Course, except that
> >>the master is already well loved by so many. What does it take away if
> >>he is the author?
> >
> >
> > It's not an issue with me either way, I was responding to Lee. I am
> > trying to understand why some people seem to place emphasis on the
> > divine authorship, which some here seem to think important.
>
> It's important but not crucial. The Course will work anyway.
But why is it important? That's what I don't get.
> >> If it adds something, then the course
> >>
> >>>does not stand on its own,
> >>
> >>What does "standing on its own" mean. It doesn't stand on its own, it
> >>needs you to actually do it.
> >
> >
> > It doesn't need me. It's a book and it either is complete or not. The
> > claim made by some is:
> > "A Course in Miracles is a complete self-study spiritual thought
> > system. As a three-volume curriculum consisting of a Text, Workbook
> > for Students, and Manual for Teachers, it teaches that the way to
> > universal love and peace—or remembering God—is by undoing guilt
> > through forgiving others."
> >
> > The words I have read from you seem to reflect this claim.
>
> It's complete in that sense. But it's not an ordinary book. It's
> designed to be used in a very specific way for a very specific and
> unique purpose.
>
> Unless used in that way, you might as well use it as a doorstop.
I would prefer its use as a doorstop to the way it is used here as a
club.
> >> and we get into the Pandora's box of which
> >>
> >>>Jesus should we also consider listening to - the one in the Bible, the
> >>>one named Raj, the one that revealed himself to James Padgett,
> >>>Nancy's, any and all of them? If it adds nothing, then why make a
> >>>point about it?
> >>
> >>There is only one.
> >
> >
> > OK, so how would you suggest I go about distinguishing the real "one"
> > from all the "fakes"?
>
> Get into contact with him yourself.
How about I get in contact with myself, and then it doesn't matter?
> >>>I get a sense here that many find it necessary to believe that the
> >>>Course was authored by the Christian tradition's historical Jesus. I
> >>>don't understand why that is necessary.
> >>
> >>It's not necessary.
> >
> >
> > If it isn't necessary, you engage in a lot of unnecessary dialog. How
> > is that helping yurself?
>
> I'm just having fun tossing a few ideas around. It's no big deal.
So your presence here is for your amusement?
> >> The way I see it used in the
> >>
> >>>Course is to establish the basis for "trust" in the content of the
> >>>Course.
> >>
> >>I don't see a problem with that. Any reason to trust it will do.
> >
> >
> > Only if it's not fake. How does one go about determining if it's fake?
>
>
> When I first opened its pages and read, I had an unshakeable conviction
> that this was the truth. There was never any question of it being a fake
> for me. I have no idea how you are going to determine whether it is a
> fake without actually doing the lessons, and going through the process,
> and if you suspect it's a fake, you probably won't do that.
OK, so by this measure, if someone doesn't get the Course, the author
"Jesus" is a fake. Is that right?
[snip]
Stephen Calder
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>Then within the course community, it is not hard to find others that
>>>>>claim to be channeling Jesus.
>>>>
>>>>Irrelevant.
>>>
>>>
>>>So the words of Jesus are irrelevant to you?
>>
>>Huh? Other people claiming to be channelling Jesus is irrelevant to his
>>authorship of the Course.
>
>
> It's irrelevant only to the extent that all the Jesus appearances
> agree. If they don't we get into whose Jesus is the real Jesus, and
> which is false. If I remember, there is something in the Bible that
> Jesus said about being wary of those that claimed to be Jesus.
Yes, those who claim they are the Christ while not seeing that their
brother is also the Christ.
>>>
>>>
>>>It's not an issue with me either way, I was responding to Lee. I am
>>>trying to understand why some people seem to place emphasis on the
>>>divine authorship, which some here seem to think important.
>>
>>It's important but not crucial. The Course will work anyway.
>
>
> But why is it important? That's what I don't get.
It's only important to me because I have a personal relationship with
Jesus, and because no other explanation of the source of the Course
makes sense to me. If it's not important to you, no problem.
>
>
>>>> If it adds something, then the course
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>does not stand on its own,
>>>>
>>>>What does "standing on its own" mean. It doesn't stand on its own, it
>>>>needs you to actually do it.
>>>
>>>
>>>It doesn't need me. It's a book and it either is complete or not. The
>>>claim made by some is:
>>>"A Course in Miracles is a complete self-study spiritual thought
>>>system. As a three-volume curriculum consisting of a Text, Workbook
>>>for Students, and Manual for Teachers, it teaches that the way to
>>>universal love and peace—or remembering God—is by undoing guilt
>>>through forgiving others."
>>>
>>>The words I have read from you seem to reflect this claim.
>>
>>It's complete in that sense. But it's not an ordinary book. It's
>>designed to be used in a very specific way for a very specific and
>>unique purpose.
>>
>>Unless used in that way, you might as well use it as a doorstop.
>
>
> I would prefer its use as a doorstop to the way it is used here as a
> club.
I hear you. I don't like it used that way either, but it's human nature
to twist things.
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
>
>
>>>> and we get into the Pandora's box of which
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Jesus should we also consider listening to - the one in the Bible, the
>>>>>one named Raj, the one that revealed himself to James Padgett,
>>>>>Nancy's, any and all of them? If it adds nothing, then why make a
>>>>>point about it?
>>>>
>>>>There is only one.
>>>
>>>
>>>OK, so how would you suggest I go about distinguishing the real "one"
>>>from all the "fakes"?
>>
>>Get into contact with him yourself.
>
>
> How about I get in contact with myself, and then it doesn't matter?
That will work as long as it's your True Self you contact. The test is
whether you are at peace.
>
>
>>>>>I get a sense here that many find it necessary to believe that the
>>>>>Course was authored by the Christian tradition's historical Jesus. I
>>>>>don't understand why that is necessary.
>>>>
>>>>It's not necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>If it isn't necessary, you engage in a lot of unnecessary dialog. How
>>>is that helping yurself?
>>
>>I'm just having fun tossing a few ideas around. It's no big deal.
>
>
> So your presence here is for your amusement?
No, it's for yours!
Seriously, I think it's an interesting topic and it helps me to clarify
my on ideas. You are VERY helpful to me. Thank you.
>
>
>>>> The way I see it used in the
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Course is to establish the basis for "trust" in the content of the
>>>>>Course.
>>>>
>>>>I don't see a problem with that. Any reason to trust it will do.
>>>
>>>
>>>Only if it's not fake. How does one go about determining if it's fake?
>>
>>
>>When I first opened its pages and read, I had an unshakeable conviction
>>that this was the truth. There was never any question of it being a fake
>>for me. I have no idea how you are going to determine whether it is a
>>fake without actually doing the lessons, and going through the process,
>>and if you suspect it's a fake, you probably won't do that.
>
>
> OK, so by this measure, if someone doesn't get the Course, the author
> "Jesus" is a fake. Is that right?
I'm not sure what you mean by "get." The idea there is something to get
is a misunderstanding. You have it all already, the Course is designed
to cut through what's covering it over. We're trimming the leaves and
bracnhes so the sun can come through.
To return to your question, if the Course doesn't work to achieve this,
it's not a flaw in the Course.
Annie Liley
Jesus alludes to this in the following passage:
Chapter 21 - The Imagined World - ACIM (HLC) - There is no need to learn
through pain. And gentle lessons are acquired joyously, and are
remembered gladly. What gives you happiness you WANT to learn and not
forget. It is not this you would deny. YOUR question is whether the
means by which this course is learned will BRING to you the joy it
promises. If you believed it would, the learning of it would be no
problem. You are not happy learners yet because you still remain
uncertain that vision gives you MORE than judgment does, and you have
learned that BOTH you cannot have.
Lee Flynn
<cf_c...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
> "Lee" <4gi...@innocent.com> wrote in ...
> ...
> > cf_c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > "Marcel" <Mars...@home.nl> wrote ...
> > >
> > >> Well, don't you think that the course - which is a community /
> > >> party so to say - is more spiritual than most other spiritual
> > >> programs?
> > >
> > > Cling, cling, cling, clang, clang, clang went the bell.
> > >
> > > Is that you Diogenes?
> > >
> > > The course seems to state otherwise. But I admire your
> > > forthrightness.
> >
> > Hi Chuck,
> >
> > I can only gather that you are undecided as to the
> > authorship of the Course. (Any guesses, btw ?)
> >
> > For anyone who has reason to believe that ACIM was
> > authentically Authored as divinely inspired material,
> > it would be a curious humility, indeed, that would
> > deny that it is "more spiritual" than most alternatives. ;)
>
> The Course does not make this claim of itself.
Were this true, it would not prevent some students from
coming to that determination, for themselves, and witnessing
truthfully to that process for others.
> Given the absence of an
> explicit statement, and assuming it was divinely inspired,
> there are two possible explanations that I see:
>
> a. It was not stated because it does not matter.
It was stated, actually. See below.
>
> b. It was not stated because it was overlooked.
>
> In the context of the hypothesis, explanation b doesn't make sense to
> me. In the context of the hypothesis, explanation a does make sense to
> me based on what I see in the course.
>
> To explicitly respond to your statement, "I can only gather that you
> are undecided as to the authorship of the Course", I find it
> sufficient to deal with what is written without any special
> attribution.
I like that term, "special attribution." ;))
And I'm very familiar with that stance toward the Course. I staked out
a version of that stance for over ten years -- proudly. I would call it
indecision as to the authorship of the Course. ;) In my experience, only
two types of readers emphasize that stance. Those who don't want
their disbelief on the record, and those who are undecided as to the
material's proper attribution. ;)
There seem to me three main possibilities, wrt to the question of
authorship:
I can believe it's a hoax.
I can believe it's for real.
I can remain undecided (open-minded).
As I stated, those who believe it's for real would probably have no
problem stating that it's 'more spiritual' than most other paths, given
how far upstream our access is to this path's source material.
> I find no utility in speculating beyond what is presented
> in the Course itself - it can either stand on its own or not without
> piling on baggage.
Actually, what follows was a prayer given Helen specifically to share
with her collaborator, Bill Thetford, to address his own ambivalence
regarding the material. Note its reference to
"the divinity of the messages we have received."
3676. [ SPECIAL MESSAGE directly to WT:
I would like to pray that my will be united with thine,
recognizing that thy perfect love will suffice (or correct) for
my imperfect love. I pray that I may accept the Atonement with
conviction, recognizing its inevitable worth, and my own divine
worth as part of this identification with thee. I pray that my
fear be replaced by an active sense of thy love, and thy
continual willingness to help me overcome the split, or divided
will, which is responsible for my difficulty with this. I
accept the divinity of the messages we have received, and
affirm my will in both accepting and acting upon the Atonement
principle.
Here I am, Lord
3679. The major problem that both of you have is the continuing
split will, which naturally interferes with your true
identification. To the extent that you hold onto this split, it
will take longer to get through and will MARKEDLY interfere
with your own integration efforts. Reliance has to be placed on
Me, which is sufficient once you do this without distantiation
or division in loyalties. This will be strengthened through a
continual affirmation of the goal you both want to achieve, and
an awareness of its inevitability. In this way, you will both
perceive and KNOW your true worth, and the importance of
maintaining a COMPLETE identification. ] ~ Urtext of ACIM
> If someone finds it necessary to augment the course
> with beliefs which are not rendered explicit in the material itself,
> then it does not stand on its own for them. This then gets into the
> same puzzlement I wrote about above about the divinely inspired
> hypothesis, and also creates a new set of challenges for the student
> which I think the course claims as unnecessary (i.e. is it "complete"
> or not?).
>
> > That is all I hear Marcel suggesting, btw ... "more spiritual
> > than <most>."
> >
> > What spiritual program did you have in mind, that
> > might represent a more pure (or directly authentic)
> > representation as to the truth of us, and life ?
>
> I don't have any program in mind which is "more pure (or directly
> authentic) representation as to the truth of us, and life" than any
> other.
Your wording here requires that I clarify that "more spiritual
than most" is the notion Marcel raised -- <not> the notion
of one being more so "than <any> other."
> I don't think or believe that such an animal exists in truth.
I can respect that you might feel that way. That's why I qualified my
statement by saying,
"For anyone who has <reason> to believe that ACIM was
authentically Authored as divinely inspired material ..."
For many ACIM students, there is a level of knowing and trust that
gradually overtakes the very natural skepticism that they bring to
the Course. For these students, there is often the experience of
spending months or years feeling more comfortable with a 'healthy'
reserve of skepticism -- 'riding the fence' as to the source or validity
of this material. And at a certain point, they find that they have
simply crossed a threshold where they have sufficient personal
experience to have dispelled those doubts -- more than not.
Personally, I spent over ten years riding the fence, and insisting in
my groups that the material should be allowed to 'stand on its own',
in respect of the many, present, for whom the authorship was an
open question. Once my own experience very dramatically dispelled
all residual doubt as to whether the Course articulates the truth of
us, I recognized for myself "the divinity of the material" (to use the
phrase from the Special Message, above).
> I do think that asserting one path as being "more spiritual" than
> another is specious, because it cannot be proven in any meaningful
> way.
I agree that the claim can muddy discussion of the Course on its
objective merits, but I can tell you that my own recognition of
the Course's authenticity is not quieted by whether my direct
testimony is considered meaningful by all who attend an ACIM
forum. ;)
> Each "formalized" path offers what it offers, and can be
> evaluated on that basis without adding claims that cannot
> be proven.
On the other hand, if what it offers - and what is received - are
both within a domain of experience that cannot <be> proven, a
student's evaluation and reports of that evaluation are no less
valid for him or herself, nor less valuable toward the open
inquiry of other students of the path.
>
> I do think each of us can find inspiration anywhere we look, if it is
> an objective to be inspired. I do not believe the Divine Creator is
> constrained in any manner,
I'm happy to hear you say so, Chuck.
> so attributing something as being "more
> spiritual" than something else is a contradiction.
If the Creator is not constrained, it can perhaps be allowed that
a document that purports to reflect our deepest truth might
actually do just that. Incredible as that may seem. ;)
Love n miracles abound, this lucid moment
~ Lee
Noggin
scores of other "if sos" with never a moment's thought that there is a way to turn an "if so"
into an "is so" or a "not so".
I think it's what called building a house of cards. So I can understand why it becomes so vitally
imperative that no "if so" ever be contested, because there goes all that hard work should it
turn out to be a "not so".
For some it seems to be almost a matter of life and death urgency to assure that no "if so" be
subjected to scrutiny, hence the hysterics when one is. So what is the value of a life lived in
the search, service and defense of "if sos" vs one lived in the search, service and defense of
"is sos"?
Human experience provides the answer to that question without qualification. "If sos" provide
nothing of the kind. All they provide are more "if sos".
And of Curse, we can't ignore the fact that no good scam can flourish in the search, service, and
defense of "is so" or "not so", but they can still pretend to nevertheless. That's why Lee is
such a poser. One "is so" or "not so" will take him apart and expose his life for the completely
useless mess it "IS".
"Lee Flynn" <lucid...@att.net> wrote in message
news:oD4Wc.496881$Gx4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...