Let's examine the credibility of Gary Renard
J.
wrote:
>>
>>I'm not calling Gary Renard or anyone else a liar here. I am simply
saying
>>that I'm far from convinced Gary is telling the whole truth about the
>>origins and source of the material. He may well be telling the whole
truth
>>but so far I remain unconvinced.
Okay.
Okay? Lets face it. If A Course in Miracles was based solely on the
testimony of Helen Schucman and the quality of writing exhibited by Gary
Renard, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Moreover, I have no
problem saying all available evidence indicates Gary Renard is lying
when he claims eight years of visitation by ascended masters. No one has
any obligation to believe Renard or park their brain because someone
like Renard makes a wild claim.
If the issue is Renard's credibility, and the claim by Miller that
Renard is an honest, sane man describing extraordinary events, then I'd
like to see if Renard has a criminal record, any history of illegal drug
use, mental health problems or mental conditions controlled by
prescription medication.
Makes one wonder how closely Pat Miller looked at Renard before he
decided to pass Renard off as the next prophet of The Course world.
Sounds fair and prudent if people are asked to suspend rational judgment
by people hoping to make money on Renard's wild claims, someone should
at least make a surface examination of Gary Renard. In other words, if
Renard is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, perhaps his readers should
be advised of that fact.
Stephen Calder
He's not, as you would know if you'd read it.
Gary doesn't assert that he has any special spiritual qualities; in real
life, as in the book, he's a smart ass but doesn't take credit for being
other than a messenger. You've set up him as a self-proclaimed prophet
so you can shoot him down. He's not saying he's that. You're tilting at
windmills.
--
Stephen
Byron Bay, Australia
R1200C
mirac...@gmail.com
someone who doesn't need redemption to offer redemption to? I just give
that as an example.
Wouldn't you want there to be ascended masters that would come and
assist you if you need it? I guess that lends itself to an imbalance
about embodiment. How if I pose it this way, wouldn't you want a
purified state whereby you could come and go at will? I think it is
outrageous! You just have some issues about perceived specialness.
Like, jealous, you know...Why Gary?
I'll tell you why. He's probably a nice, quiet guy. He probably had
genuine quips that the beings joked that he was being a wise guy to
build his esteem or something to be the carrier of this message. I
think Gary was probably nerdie and generic and had this experience. If
HE can have it, so would you. But why not identify with the Christ in
you? You are THAT! Are these thoughts limited in any way? If there is
judgement, it is perfect I would imagine.
I know it would happen over a period of time because the time is used
to make manifest the ascendancy. It would be true that it would be
prepared. But anything, a tiny blessing, effects the entire Sonship
without limit to its extention. It is representative of the
transformation of your mind. It's happening here, in your mind.
My best to you in finding the truth of the matter.
Free
~Deborah
"Stephen Calder"
You're tilting at windmills.
I like it.
~Deborah
Amminadab
>
>
> Gary doesn't assert that he has any special spiritual qualities;
Except that he is Saint Thomas, and that he is the prophet bringing us words
from the Ascended Masters.
> in
> real life, as in the book, he's a smart ass but doesn't take credit
> for being other than a messenger. You've set up him as a
> self-proclaimed prophet so you can shoot him down. He's not saying
> he's that. You're tilting at windmills.
He IS saying what you claim he is not saying.
Amminadab
--
Amminadab's Lantern
http://amminadab.com
Noggin
<mirac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102947281....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Wouldn't you want there to be ascended masters that would come and
> assist you if you need it?
Sure, but we could live without the opportunistic scammers who ply their wares on the wishful
thinkers for fun and prophet.
Wanting something to be doesn't mean that it exists, just because "some guy" says so.
I mean, come on!! Use your noggin here.
Doug Thompson
"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:41bd982e$0$17694$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
> J. wrote:
>> other words, if Renard is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, perhaps his
>> readers should be advised of that fact.
>
>
> He's not, as you would know if you'd read it.
>
> Gary doesn't assert that he has any special spiritual qualities; in real
> life, as in the book, he's a smart ass but doesn't take credit for being
> other than a messenger. You've set up him as a self-proclaimed prophet so
> you can shoot him down. He's not saying he's that. You're tilting at
> windmills.
Well actually Stephen, in the material you have quoted here for us, Gary's
visitors assert that unlike most people (or was it unlike almost all
people?) Gary was ready and able to hear. Apparently if the tapes had been
played to you and I we'd not have heard anything ... This is a claim to
Gary's specialness coming from the "Ascended Masters" who of course have a
pretty strong claim to specialness from the Ego viewpoint. Now this is
highly suspicious ... and in marked contrast to the way Jesus, in ACIM,
speaks to Helen and Bill of their "specialness."
So here is a claim to specialness being made either by Gary through his
fictional characters or by genuine ascended masters for whom Gary is making
rather remarkable and totally unique claims. While many "Ascended Masters"
have incarnated on Earth from time to time, I know of no other case where a
claim was made that Ascended Masters from "the future" (a questionable
concept for any genuine ascended master at best) travelled back in time to
show up in their own past to re-arrange it by spending eight years talking
to one man's tape recorder, one man who then destroyed the tapes after
writing a book which includes much less than a full transcript of eight
years of conversation.
Ya right.
If there really were such time travellers from the future, ascended masters
or not, Eight Years worth of tapes from them would be of enormous interest
and value. Gary saw fit to destroy the tapes and give us instead his
massively abridged summary account of what he found important. And of
course there is no way to check how accurate his account is. So if he's
telling the truth, that there really were visitors from the future and he
really taped them for 8 years and then destroyed the tapes, he is guilty of
crimes against humanity as bad if not worse than the burning of the Library
at Alexandria. Clearly, if he is telling the truth, he is a man who is a
long way from having demonstrated himself to be trustworthy when in
possession of precious, irreplaceable, unique information!
Again, I have no way of proving whether he is or isn't telling the truth but
the overall plausibility of the theory that he wrote a science fiction book,
did a pretty good job, drew enough from ACIM to make it "inspirational" and
then found that some of his readers wanted to believe it was all "fact" so
he went along with that for the bucks is much higher than the plausibility
that he had supernatural visitors, taped them, and then destroyed the tapes.
It would not be a very different story from that of his Idol, Ken Wapnick,
who has written some very inspirational, if fanciful commentary on the
Course (liberally quoted by Renard) and then went on to lie extensively in
the name of money.
The whole thing has quite a stench of fraud and hoaxery about it Stephen ...
which is not to say that it is necessarily a fraud and a hoax ... but rather
to say that it is all designed for the less critical and more credulous
among us ... Once you start to test it, it falls on its face.
Either Renard the fiction writer is lying, or Renard the Messenger (which is
the definition of the word "Prophet" by the way) is presenting material
which claims divine authority, contradicts ACIM on some key points, and thus
claims the authority to correct and update ACIM. That is the claim Gary is
making when he says it's non-fiction. He claims for the words he set to
paper, not the authority of his imagination (however inspired) but the
authority of not one, but two Ascended Masters ... "from the future" yet!
That is quite a claim to make and that is the claim he is making for his
"message" (or
"prophecy").
Thus he is a "self-proclaimed Prophet" of the divine ... that is precisely
what his claim is. No more but certainly no less. This is not the usual
claim of science fiction writers!
As St. Paul taught, every prophecy should be tested because he well knew
that the self-deceived as well as the charlatans and the frauds could
present falsehood as truth in the guise of prophecy.
We must at least TEST such claims to prophecy before accepting them as
authentic.
You, Stephen, seem to have failed to grasp that you are dealing with a claim
to Prophetic (messenger/message from the divine) whose implications are
quite enormous, if true, and totally scandalous, if false.
John is not tilting at any windmills nor making any straw-man arguments
here. He's going to the heart of the matter which most seem to have missed.
If Gary is telling the truth (and I'm on 99% sure he's not) then the
implications of his account are staggering. If he's not telling the truth,
as seems quite obvious at even a superficial glance, then we have nothing
new under the sun. The history of religion is fraught with charlatans and
frauds and hallucinations. Just on the odds, that is by far the mostly
likely explanation.
If Ascended Masters from the future really were to travel back in time to
change the course of history, which is the claim Gary is making, we'd expect
them to have something rather profound to say to us, as Jesus did in his
lifetime, as all the recognized Prophets did in theirs, and as Jesus did in
ACIM. Of all the commentary on "Disappearance" I've seen ... nothing
remotely profound has surfaced, and indeed nothing that Gary or you or I
could not have dreamed up on our own over the past eight years. What a
contrast to ACIM where the content was clearly far and away beyond anything
Bill or Helen could have dreamed up on their own!
C'mon Stephen! ... recognize that the History of Religion is fraught with
scams and frauds and charlatans and hoaxes, that you will inevitably run
into quite a few, and that the odds are high that this is just one more.
With that knowledge in mind evaluate the material critically. If there is
no sign of fraud or even honest self-deception and if there is something in
the content of supreme value and merit THEN and ONLY then could the material
be a serious candidate for being accepted as what it claims to be and what
Gary claims for it.
I think John is mistaken in looking for a criminal record or history of
mental illness. Neither, in my view, would be meaningful for evaluating
Gary's claims for his work as most "genuine" Prophets spent quite a bit of
time in jail and probably would have been certified as insane by
contemporary mental health professionals (recall how worried Helen was that
she was going crazy when the dictation began).
If we're at all aware of what's going on in the "field of religion" since
recorded history began, we know that a lot of totally ridiculous ideas arise
and are embraced, sometimes by large numbers, sometimes by small. Here in
Quebec we've had the "Solar Temple" cult with its mass suicides. The USA
has had Jim Jones and then the Branch Davidian heavy artillery collectors
(who should have stockpiled more anti-tank weapons! :)). Jesus warns us in
the New Testament of "false prophets" who can be very persuasive and might
even deceive "the elect." There are, and are going to be, a lot of false
prophets, some of whom due to severe denial and split minds will not be
deliberately or consciously or intentionally deceiving anyone. No liar is
worse than the self-deceived!
Didn't Jesus tell us to be "gentle as lambs and wary as serpents" about such
claims? Wary because most of them are going to be false! How can we tell
which is which? Well first, I suggest, look for the obvious signs of
self-interest, financial gain and profit, and "specialness." These are all
signs of "ego-religion" which is to say they are indicators of the
self-deceived or the outright charlatan.
As I understand it, Gary was quite upfront about seeking to make a lot of
money with his book and invest in Hawaiian real estate and it required his
visitors from the future to tell him to go get published with Pat. As I've
pointed out, if they really were visitors from the future they'd not have
had to tell him because they'd have known what he would do. (what he had
already done, from their deterministic future) That they had to tell him
almost proves that they weren't visitors from the future as Gary presents
"the future."
Here's why: ACIM often mentions the future of the human race, that the
remedy for the separation may take millions of years for instance, and that
it depends on the current "celestial speedup." Jesus tells us in the NT
that "only the Father" (and not Jesus) knows the precise date and time for
anything to come. So Jesus, in ACIM and in the NT, is presenting an idea of
the "future" as highly "conditional" on what we do, and not as something
that is "fixed" in any way, except for the ultimate outcome of universal
salvation. So much for Calvinist pre-destination. Yet any visitor from the
future who has anything to say about what "will happen" is clearly either
bullshitting us or is coming from a Calvinistic "determined future." And is
therefore contradicting Jesus. Yet Gary's visitors from the future not only
have things to say about what "will happen" (deterministic) but meddle in
their own past ... by visiting Gary ... so as to CHANGE the (our) future
(which is their past)! All of which would be totally unethical within a
deterministic perspective. If it is fixed you can't change it and if you
change it ... as Gary's visitors did just by visiting ... then it's not
deterministic and nothing about the "future" they knew necessarily relates
to the new future they create by altering their own past.
Now if we take Jesus in ACIM and the New Testament as "likely to be correct"
... that the future is conditional ... then it follows we'll get no visitors
from the future, and aside from Gary's Book, no spiritual or metaphysical
tome has ever dealt with visitors from the future. Visitors from eternity
yes, visitors with "conditional prophecies" about "the future" yes ... as in
"if you don't change your ways, you're going to regret it" ... but always
with that conditionality. The future is not deterministic.
Gary presents a completely unique metaphysics which completely contradicts
not only ACIM, but just about every other spiritual tradition, just by
presenting visitors from the future who apparently know what will happen,
not conditionally, but certainly, because our future is their past. This
is, in Jesus' thought, a complete impossibility.
So if Gary is right and these visitors from the future really did show up
(which as you can see I doubt) then we have to conclude that ACIM is wrong
and should be junked. They don't say that in Gary's book, they say quite
the opposite and in doing that they are completely self-contradictory. I
think Gary is just not a very good liar and didn't see the total
contradiction and logical impossibility of his "future visitors" hypothesis.
I think he watched one too many episodes of Star Trek ... and was trying to
write a screen play for one!
So really "the story" here about these visitors from the future and the
destroyed tapes and all ... just doesn't hold water ... it's not plausible.
It's more than "highly improbable." It's simply not credible as soon as you
look closely at it, on any number of counts, and I've not even looked
closely at it yet! I'm just going on what has been quoted from it by
others.
So, having noted just a handful of the numerous problems with even
entertaining the notion that the work is anything other than science
fiction, we must ask the more important question: "Is there any good reason
to accept Gary's account as factual?" There are many reasons to reject it,
but even more important is the question as to what profundity and great
insights it ADDS to our understanding. What benefits accrue to the one who
accepts this material at face value as legit?
So far no one has said anything about that, but that would be the most
significant indicator I think.
All the best,
Doug
J.
>
> I think John is mistaken in looking for a criminal record or history of
> mental illness. Neither, in my view, would be meaningful for evaluating
> Gary's claims for his work as most "genuine" Prophets spent quite a bit of
> time in jail and probably would have been certified as insane by
> contemporary mental health professionals (recall how worried Helen was that
> she was going crazy when the dictation began).
I don't particularly want to look into Renard's record. The point is
Renard's reality claims are accepted by many without the slightest
effort to know something about Renard's background and history. One
reason responsible people generally refrain from endorsing wild, reality
claims, is often enough, given time --these wild claims are exposed as a
hoax. Then the irresponsible people who helped support and give credence
for the hoax --like Stephen says, "Ah,well. No harm done." While the
gullible who were actually harmed and duped in various ways become
enraged. After all Lazarus's wild claims were the genesis of Katie's
continued animosity around here.
Consequently, it difficult not scrutinize the wild claims made by Renard.
Paul Michaels
"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:41bd982e$0$17694$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
The windmill started it.
Paul
Carrie
"J." <jl2...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:326gb8F...@individual.net...
No harm done, except those who believe Gary's visitors teaching about ACIM
(like making time and events in it real) believe this is what ACIM teaches.
Same with Raj, who not only tells people the world is real, and there are
mean, abusive people in it that need to be defended against, there is
scarcity and lack, instead of "Seek First the Kingdom" (and other ego/fear
based beliefs), he claims to be the author of ACIM.
Unless we accept the fact that there are many different vairations of
ACIM, depending on what someone is looking for and wants to see.
Since they first look inside and see, and then out, and see proof of.
They would be creating their own version of ACIM and Jesus, from that.
Those who aren't open to Gary's and Paul Tuttle's (and Master Teacher's,
etc) version of ACIM wouldn't be attracted to it?
~ Carrie
Stephen Calder
>Stephen Calder wrote:
>
>
>>Gary doesn't assert that he has any special spiritual qualities;
>>
>>
>
>Except that he is Saint Thomas, and that he is the prophet bringing us words
>from the Ascended Masters.
>
>
Notice that the church made Thomas a saint, not Gary. The irony is the
this "saint" had to go through several more earthly lifetimes before
learning the full meaning of forgiveness.
>
>
>
>>in
>>real life, as in the book, he's a smart ass but doesn't take credit
>>for being other than a messenger. You've set up him as a
>>self-proclaimed prophet so you can shoot him down. He's not saying
>>he's that. You're tilting at windmills.
>>
>>
>
>He IS saying what you claim he is not saying.
>
>Amminadab
>
>
Your statement is untrue. This merely illustrates the strength of your
prejudice against him.
J.
>> Except that he is Saint Thomas, and that he is the prophet bringing us
>> words from the Ascended Masters.
>>
>>
>
> Notice that the church made Thomas a saint, not Gary. The irony is the
> this "saint" had to go through several more earthly lifetimes before
> learning the full meaning of forgiveness.
Stephen, have you ever met a Reptilian shape-shifter you'd didn't like?
That's how demonic ascended masters work. They make Thomas a saint
through high Masonic intrique, then let you think the idea, "ironic!"
Your seething, brain stem hatred just bubbles up to the surface. I'd
have that checked out before its too late. Before long you will start
seeing irony every where.
Stephen Calder
You misunderstand ACIM. Time is not sequential.
If you've read the book and see no benefit in it, there's clearly no
point in my trying to convince you.
I admit the possibility that I could have been taken in by a clever
fraud. If that's the case I'll still thank Gary for a very useful and
inspiring work.
I see no contradiction between what Arten and Pursah are saying and what
the Course says.
Robin Evans
that he has over used Carries salivary glands and now she's as dried up in
r/l as her writing is here LOL...
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:41be198e$0$17708$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
Robin Evans
head or tail of this load of garbage please enlighten me...?
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
Stephen Calder
> Stephen Calder wrote:
>
>>> Except that he is Saint Thomas, and that he is the prophet bringing
>>> us words from the Ascended Masters.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Notice that the church made Thomas a saint, not Gary. The irony is
>> the this "saint" had to go through several more earthly lifetimes
>> before learning the full meaning of forgiveness.
>
>
> Stephen, have you ever met a Reptilian shape-shifter you'd didn't
> like? That's how demonic ascended masters work. They make Thomas a
> saint through high Masonic intrique, then let you think the idea,
> "ironic!"
You're having me on.
>
> Your seething, brain stem hatred just bubbles up to the surface.
Are you sure it's mine?
> I'd have that checked out before its too late. Before long you will
> start seeing irony every where.
>
The irony is that you espouse the Course but not forgiveness.
J.
> I admit the possibility that I could have been taken in by a clever
> fraud. If that's the case I'll still thank Gary for a very useful and
> inspiring work.
>
> I see no contradiction between what Arten and Pursah are saying and what
> the Course says.
The channeled source indicates that Arten and Pursah are criminal agents
of the High Masonic command. Do you now want to reconsider your
pre-mature evaluation of a situation that is so far beyond your tiny ego
mind, that if you truly had an indication of the horror of the situation
you would fall to your knees and wish you had worthless ego had never
been mis-created. Repent, promoting this evil, before it too late. Time
paradigms cannot be changed. Once the reptilian shape-shifters gets you
it might take a million years just to begin to recover.
>
>
>
J.
See Stephen, you are seeing irony every where. That's how your brain
stem is compromised by reptillian shape shifter. You see irony and begin
to doubt your brothers when pushing forgiveness.
>
>
>
>
Amminadab
>
>
> I see no contradiction between what Arten and Pursah are saying and
> what the Course says.
So you don't believe that the Holy Trinity is real?
Doug Thompson
I spent a week researching it) who have made less outlandish claims which
were quite false for the purpose of making money by exploiting the
gullibility and credibility of spiritual seekers whose bullshit detectors
had dead batteries.
Do you have any basis to rule out the most likely, plausible, and probable
explanation?
Just wondering.
Doug
<mirac...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1102947281....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Doug Thompson
"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:41be198e$0$17708$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
Actually Stephen, Ryan is right here. He is making precisely the claim you
state that he's not making.
<facetious mode on>
And of course he's wrong about being St. Thomas. I'm St. Thomas.
I think the first thing that happens when Reptilian larvae are eating your
brain stem is the inability to distinguish between satire and comedy on the
hand and the straight goods on the other. I'm told that garlic and silver
crucifixes can help ...
<facetious mode off>
"Prophet" means "Messenger of God." Setting down words on paper, or
speaking them, and claiming for them divine authority rather than claiming
they are just one's own opinion, however inspired, is to engage in the act
of Prophecy. "Ascended Master" is close enough to "the divine" to make of
Gary a self-proclaimed prophet. Now you are proclaiming him a prophet too
while (falsely) stating that he's making no such claims.
I'll accept for the moment that you are just likely confused and not
deliberately trying to deceive here ...
all the best,
Doug
Doug Thompson
up to even the least scrutiny. I'm not sure a history of mental illness or
trouble with the law would be helpful to us in that regard. Unless there
were a criminal history of Con jobs or fraud, I doubt it would be relevant
even if Gary has a criminal record. Ten per cent of Americans do have
criminal records.
There are a lot of gullible people in the universe ... think how many still
believe the Pope is infallible, that the Israeli government poisoned Arafat,
and that Islam will be recognized as the perfect religion if only more
Americans are killed! We're into the "Flat Earth Society" level of credulity
here.
Renard's background isn't necessarily remotely relevant here ... God has a
habit of picking unlikely vessels for his messengers. It would be an ad
hominem argument to question Gary's message based on Gary's background. The
message stands or falls on its own merits, not Gary's personal history, in
my view.
And if he really WERE the Apostle Thomas as he claims, he'd know a heck of a
lot more about Jesus' thought system than he betrays in "Disappearance." In
that regard, and that alone, his claims to credentials can be scrutinized
... and fail the test.
From what I've heard of "Disappearance" we have what I view as a very
interesting, entertaining and even to some inspiring SciFi exploration of
some spiritual themes. I think that's great! I think Gary's taken some
speculations of his own, the genre of Science Fiction, and put together a
"winner." The problem I have with the material is only the claim that is
being made that it is "Fact" and not "fiction." Yet even that claim,
although Gary has made it, was made with some coyness. A while ago he was
on the ng here promoting his book and the question was put to him frequently
about the fictional or non-fictional nature and while he finally said it was
non-fiction, he was hesitant, reluctant, and far from sounding like one
confidently and passionately convinced ... as I would expect anyone to be if
something like that had REALLY happened.
Within the past week or so Pat Miller has demonstrated comparable coyness
about answering the very simple question as to whether he believes the
material is fact or fiction. Again, I'd expect him to have an opinion and
if he honestly thought it was factual, he'd be passionately and
unequivocally stating his belief and backing it up. Instead of that we get
all manner of evasive and specious replies about the material being
inspiring, about fan mail, about it renewing interest in the Course (which
it actually trashes), and about strong sales.
There are ways to present "fiction" with sufficient ambiguity that the
reader can choose to accept it as "true" ... as has been done often by
Richard Bach, and in Conversations With God. No claims are made about the
material being non-fiction, the material is "inspired" and many readers
choose to accept large parts of it as "true" in some way ... and in some way
most fiction is "true" ... at least it's all true except for the facts. The
Celestine Prophecy is another example. It's a fictional account of
imaginary events with an 'inspiring' message that contains a good deal of
"truth." It's art, it's poetry ... it's not history and it's not
journalism.
The problem for me arises only in claiming as fact that which is fiction.
If that is really what has happened here ... and the weight of probability
certainly points in this direction ... we are witnessing something that is
not remotely "new!" The Course has been plagued by a certain level of
dishonesty for quite a long time.
It's not the Reptilian larvae which concern me here, but the pandemic of
dishonesty in the Course Community.
All the best,
Doug
"J." <jl2...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:326gb8F...@individual.net...
Robin Evans
> the material being inspiring, about fan mail, about it renewing interest
> in the Course (which it actually trashes), and about strong sales.
>
>
That's not my experience - DOU does not "trash" the Course...
Doug Thompson
> I see no contradiction between what Arten and Pursah are saying and what
> the Course says.
The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people
don't see it and I can only conclude that those people aren't intimately
familar with what the Course really does say. The people you need to
question are those who DO see it! Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
Arten and Pursah say that the Atonement is part of the creation. ACIM
disagrees. The Atonement was a response to the separation illusion, it is
not "built-in" to Creation. Arten and Pursah say that the Trinity is just a
"theological device" while ACIM says it's real. Arten and Pursah present
Ken Wapnick as the Great White Father ... you know, the guy who abridged the
Course and lied for 25 years about doing that and then sued everyone in
sight to suppress Course Scholarship and the publication of the Authentic
Course while engaging in perjury and witness tampering on a large scale ...
until he was finally defeated in court ... a fact Arten and Pursah, if they
were genuinely from a deterministic future, would have known about ... but
were curiously silent about!
Jesus, in ACIM, refuses to talk about any history other than his own
personal history. The reason is given "it's still going on today" so there
is no need to talk about the past. What then of these "meat-bots from
Mars?" What value is there to us in that information, even if it were true?
Well there is one value ... it makes the eyes of all but the most credulous
roll and recognize Gary is having us on!
During a period of time when no one was getting Ken's permission to publish
anything quoting the Course, without having to fight for it in court, Gary
somehow got permission. Ever wondered why? I think it's just one more fib
propagated by the FACIM and its supporters in what became, in the latter
days of the suit, a progressively more desparate and more criminal struggle
to vindicate Ken's self-proclaimed self-image as "the guardian of the sacred
trust." Gary showed up at a critical moment with some Ken's Fan Club
Propaganda which could not hurt his cause which was, at the time, in a
tail-spin.
Then there is the whole issue of predestination and the structure of time
... is "the future" radically indeterminate and subject to what we do in the
present or is it fixed, and pre-determined. ACIM lays down one clear model,
DOU the opposite. That's a contradiction.
And if you can't see the contradiction there then I submit, with all due
respect, that you don't understand the situation.
Now as you know I'm pretty sceptical about this material. The
"contradictions" between Gary's work and the Course appear to me in almost
every quote I see from the former. And so far no one has pointed to a
single unique and profound insight Gary's book offers ... and if it really
were the Prophetic insight he claims for it, (and despite your denials, that
claim IS central) then one would expect something more than paraphrases of
Ken Wapnick's fanciful commentaries ... and so far, except for flat out
contradictions of the Course, I've seen nothing other than paraphrases of
Wapnick.
What do you see in it Stephen? Quite aside from the "lack of vices" which
others see, what "virtues" do you find in the material that would lead you
to believe it is something more than good, inventive, creative, and
inspiring science fiction?
If we are really dealing with genuine material coming from Ascended Masters,
"from the future" yet ... then it should have some transcendendent merit, as
ACIM does. Does it? OR is it an implausible and problematic grade C Sci Fi
plot with a lot of paraphrases of Wapnickian course commentary, rife with
contradictions of the Course, as is Wapnick's commentary.
I dunno ... I haven't read it and so far have seen no reason to ... you keep
quoting it and every time you do your quotes just convince me more that the
prima facae case of fraud is established beyond any reasonable shadow of a
doubt.
Meat-bots from Mars ... now c'mon .....
All the best,
Doug
Doug Thompson
"Amminadab" <am...@amminadab.com> wrote in message
news:326qflF...@individual.net...
> Stephen Calder wrote:
>>
>>
>> I see no contradiction between what Arten and Pursah are saying and
>> what the Course says.
>
> So you don't believe that the Holy Trinity is real?
I suspect that Stephen has no opinion on the Trinity and has no clue what
ACIM actually says about the Trinity, or the Atonement, otherwise he would
notice the glaring contradiction. I rather suspect that Gary might have
read the Course, at least once, and hasn't any better understanding of what
it really says than does Stephen. I've read it about 20 times now and I
don't understand all of it yet ... and I'm of above average IQ, and have
formal post-secondary training in theology and textual exegesis, ... so I
really don't think anyone who has read it less than that can possibly really
know what it says.
Ken, whose formal training is in Psychology, not Theology let alone textual
criticism, after reading it once, set out to Abridge it and claim that while
others interpret the Course, he alone knows what it means. More recently
he's claimed that he never claimed to be a Course Scholar. To be a scholar
you have to read it. More than once.
And it's this man, according to Gary's visitors from the future ... who is
to be recognized as "The Authority."
I just don't think so.
I could be wrong ... my mind remains open to sound arguments which might
convince me ... so far I have seen precisely NONE!
All the best,
Doug
JELLY
"Doug Thompson" <n...@spam.nospam> wrote:
:
: What a contrast to ACIM where the content
: Bill or Helen could have dreamed up on their own!
What specifically
in A COURSE IN MIRACLES
was BEYOND ANYTHING that
William Thetford and Helen Schucman
could have dreamed up on their own?
ThankYou:)
JELLY
JELLY
:
: Unless we accept the fact that there are many different variations of
: ACIM, depending on what someone is looking for and wants to see.
:
: Since they first look inside and see, and then out, and see proof of.
: They would be creating their own version of ACIM and Jesus, from that.
Well, dear Carrie, what are you talking about?
Who or what are ACIM and Jesus?
ThankYou:)
JELLY
Robin Evans
pulling that one and never actually saying what it is they are talking
about!
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote in message
news:n7msr0df1p1icpc5d...@4ax.com...
JELLY
:
: It's not the Reptilian larvae which concern me here,
IMO most people are not really ready for ACIM, thus a
hopeless increase of confusion about truth, facts and
reality is in most cases a very *predictable* result.
ThankYou:)
JELLY
Robin Evans
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote in message
news:5cnsr0tohjmhbev23...@4ax.com...
JELLY
:
What's this?
Cosmic conspiracy paranoia?
Oh oh, a multidimensional boost of fear ... LOL
ThankYou:)
JELLY
JELLY
:
:
: "Amminadab" <am...@amminadab.com> wrote in message
: > Stephen Calder wrote:
: >>
: >>
: >> I see no contradiction between what Arten and Pursah are saying and
: >> what the Course says.
: >
: > So you don't believe that the Holy Trinity is real?
:
: I suspect that Stephen has no opinion on the Trinity and has no clue what
: ACIM actually says about the Trinity, or the Atonement, otherwise he would
: notice the glaring contradiction. I rather suspect that Gary might have
: read the Course, at least once, and hasn't any better understanding of what
: it really says than does Stephen. I've read it about 20 times now and I
: don't understand all of it yet ... and I'm of above average IQ, and have
: formal post-secondary training in theology and textual exegesis, ... so I
: really don't think anyone who has read it less than that can possibly really
: know what it says.
LOL ... you're so cute ...
Do you really think ACIM is about intellectual acrobatics?
: Ken, whose formal training is in Psychology, not Theology let alone textual
: criticism, after reading it once, set out to Abridge it and claim that while
: others interpret the Course, he alone knows what it means. More recently
: he's claimed that he never claimed to be a Course Scholar. To be a scholar
: you have to read it. More than once.
:
: And it's this man, according to Gary's visitors from the future ... who is
: to be recognized as "The Authority."
:
: I just don't think so.
:
: I could be wrong ... my mind remains open to sound arguments which might
: convince me ... so far I have seen precisely NONE!
:
: All the best,
:
: Doug
Hmm, so your mind is open, you say.
Can't recall you ever mentioning your "heart".
But you extremely stubbornly persist to insist that all
things must on all accounts fit into your preconceived mindset.
My impression is that you are intellectually evading what ACIM teaches.
ThankYou:)
JELLY
Robin Evans
no meaning at all...
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote in message
news:ssosr0haslfgn4mlp...@4ax.com...
JELLY
:
:
:
: He's not, as you would know if you'd read it.
Well, actually, ACIM teaches that every human being is by default
"paranoid schizophrenic", or a manifestation of such a mind condition.
ThankYou:)
JELLY
Robin Evans
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote in message
news:gqqsr0huf74d044m4...@4ax.com...
JELLY
:
: "JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote:
: >
: > "Doug Thompson" <n...@spam.nospam> wrote:
: > :
: > :
: > : "Amminadab" <am...@amminadab.com> wrote:
: > : >
: > JELLY
:
: He is indeed - but he is so intelligent that what you say to him
: Robin (Bodhi) Evans
I don't worry about recognizable effects, but intuitively believe
in every little bit helps, somehow, sometime, somewhere, someone.
ThankYou:)
JELLY
Robin Evans
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote in message
news:sbrsr05jbucckot0n...@4ax.com...
Stephen Calder
>This woman Carrie, is a complete drip... If anyone else can make neither
>head or tail of this load of garbage please enlighten me...?
>
>
>
>
Carrie, the Course talks about events in past time, too.
Stephen Calder
>Stephen Calder wrote:
>
>
>>I see no contradiction between what Arten and Pursah are saying and
>>what the Course says.
>>
>>
>
>So you don't believe that the Holy Trinity is real?
>
>Amminadab
>
>
The Son of God IS part of the Holy Trinity, but the Trinity Itself is
ONE. There is no confusion within Its levels because they are of One
Mind and One Will. This Single Purpose creates perfect integration and
establishes the peace of God. Yet this Vision can be perceived only by
the truly innocent.
The Holy Spirit is the only part of the Holy Trinity which is symbolic.
He is referred to in the Bible as the Healer, the Comforter, and the
Guide. He is also described as something “separate,” apart from the
Father and from the Son. I myself said, “If I go I will send you another
comforter, and He will abide with you. ”The Holy Spirit is a difficult
concept to grasp precisely because it IS symbolic, and therefore open to
many different interpretations. As a man and as one of God’s creations,
my right thinking, which came from the Universal Inspiration which IS
the Holy Spirit, taught me first and foremost that this Inspiration is
for all. I could not have It myself WITHOUT knowing this.
The Holy Trinity is holy because It is One. If you exclude yourself from
this union, you are perceiving the Holy Trinity as separated. You must
be included in It, because It is everything. Unless you take your place
in It and fulfill your function as part of It, It is as bereft as you
are. No part of It can be imprisoned if Its truth is to be known. Can
you be separated from your identification and be at peace? Dissociation
is not a solution; it is a delusion. The delusional believe that truth
will assail them, and so they do not see it because they prefer the
delusion. Judging truth as something they do not want, they perceive
deception and block knowledge.
Noggin
"Doug Thompson" <n...@spam.nospam> wrote in message news:QeadnbDx_dF...@golden.net...
>I think his wild claims should be scrutinized John ... and they don't stand up to even the least
>scrutiny.
You and John have been making wild claims long before Gary started. You've also declared only
bitter, sick, insane people would put them under scrutiny.
Once again, you are trapped in the inevitable vortex of hypocrisy that is ACIM.
Noggin
"Robin Evans" <mirac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:327345F...@individual.net...
>
> That's not my experience - DOU does not "trash" the Course...
Anything Doug doesn't agree with is "trash". But he's not projecting. That's just his smug
obnoxious little weapon that Jesus gave him, but he's immune because he "called it" first.
Noggin
"J." <jl2...@netzero.com> wrote in message news:326nrnF...@individual.net...
> Stephen Calder wrote:
>
>> I admit the possibility that I could have been taken in by a clever fraud. If that's the case
>> I'll still thank Gary for a very useful and inspiring work.
>>
>> I see no contradiction between what Arten and Pursah are saying and what the Course says.
Oh, well as long as those two clever entities who only like Gary but no one else say the same
thing as some crazy old drunk lady, that resolves it!
It must be a message from God!!
When is it going to actually benefit anyone, do you suspect? We never needed special messages
from God in order to come up with endless excuses. There were plenty of deluded lazy asses long
before all the divine transmissions began.
What a gang of nut cases, fighting over which contemptuous liar is the right contemptuous liar.
Noggin
"Doug Thompson" <n...@spam.nospam> wrote in message news:7qKdnYWD7KA...@golden.net...
>
> I could be wrong ... my mind remains open to sound arguments which might convince me ... so far
> I have seen precisely NONE!
Sound arguments? Minds??
Come on, Doug, just change your mind and be nice to Gary like you want everyone to do for you.
You've never met a sound argument or a functional mind that didn't give you spasms.
Robin Evans
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"Noggin" <pir...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:fDDvd.5242$hc7.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Robin Evans
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"Noggin" <pir...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:hLDvd.5246$hc7.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
www.dr4baxs.com
formal post-secondary training in theology and textual exegesis, ... so I
really don't think anyone who has read it less than that can possibly really
know what it says.
sv: so true! Thank you for admitting this -- the course is a deep, profound and
life-changing book and will most likely be understood through applying it to a
lifetime or more? sheryl
www.dr4baxs.com
textual
criticism, after reading it once, set out to Abridge it and claim that while
others interpret the Course, he alone knows what it means. More recently
he's claimed that he never claimed to be a Course Scholar. To be a scholar
you have to read it. More than once.
And it's this man, according to Gary's visitors from the future ... who is
to be recognized as "The Authority."
sv: that's a very good point -- he would have been what 25 - 30 when he first
edited it? sheryl
www.dr4baxs.com
> in A COURSE IN MIRACLES
> was BEYOND ANYTHING that
> William Thetford and Helen Schucman
> could have dreamed up on their own?
sv: you obviously haven't read the course if you're asking a question like that
- sheryl
www.dr4baxs.com
a
habit of picking unlikely vessels for his messengers. It would be an ad
hominem argument to question Gary's message based on Gary's background. The
message stands or falls on its own merits, not Gary's personal history, in
my view.
sv: yes, I agree
Amminadab
> Amminadab wrote:
>
>>
>> So you don't believe that the Holy Trinity is real?
>>
>>
>>
>
> ONE. There is no confusion within Its levels because they are of One
> Mind and One Will. This Single Purpose creates perfect integration and
> establishes the peace of God. Yet this Vision can be perceived only by
> the truly innocent.
>
You didn't answer my very simple question.
You gave a three paragraph response..... but couldn't offer a clear, direct
answer.
I wonder why?
Hedging bets, I assume.
Amminadab
--
Amminadab's Lantern
http://amminadab.com
Noggin
"Robin Evans" <mirac...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:328h9kF...@individual.net...
> Yes it seems so - he is getting real boring...
Yeah, once you don't need to feed an addiction to familiar blather anymore, it all is pretty
damned boring, huh?
Noggin
" www.dr4baxs.com" <sherylv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041214121327...@mb-m29.aol.com...
He asked for specifics, actually. Do you know the meaning of the word, Spineless?
Not everyone functions in the realm of the vague and ridiculous.
Noggin
Of Curse you do, since you're working up your nerve to introduce yourself as the next "unlikely
vessel", huh?
It's amazing the amount of effort and contempt for common sense you zombies put into coming up
with non-sensical explanations and ways to promote big piles of stinking horseshit that don't
even serve you.
Noggin
LOL...pie-in-the-sky. Quite fruity!
Could you get any more ridiculous?
Carrie
I think some of it (maybe all) is just to experience it. Get the feel of
it (content) and not understand the actually words. Words are so limited.
~ Carrie
www.dr4baxs.com
yourself as the next "unlikely
vessel", huh?
sv: uh...actually? yes. ;() sheryl
Noggin
Figures. We've been watching you exercise your contempt for months now.
Can't wait for the reviews!!
JELLY
:
: "JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote:
:
: > in message <6oadneaLsJJ...@golden.net>
: > "Doug Thompson" <n...@spam.nospam> wrote:
: > :
: > : What a contrast to ACIM where the content
: > : was clearly far and away beyond anything
: > : Bill or Helen could have dreamed up on their own!
: >
: > What specifically
: > in A COURSE IN MIRACLES
: > was BEYOND ANYTHING that
: > William Thetford and Helen Schucman
: > could have dreamed up on their own?
:
: if you're asking a question like that
: - sheryl
You are wrong on that account, and IMO
are saying that to EVADE the question.
FACT is that I've READ ACIM five times
completely, and books 2 to 5 more than
once completely.
Just because *you* OBVIOUSLY could not
have dreamed up ACIM by your self, and
because you OBVIOUSLY can not consider
anyone to be capable of having dreamed
up ACIM, in no way constitutes a FACT.
This is now OBVIOUSLY a very optimally
good opportunity to demonstrate *your*
profound knowledge & understanding and
bring some light into my lack thereof.
The question again: What specifically
in A COURSE IN MIRACLES was/is BEYOND
ANYTHING that could have "dreamed up"
by William Thetford & Helen Schucman.
ThankYou:)
JELLY
JELLY
: > don't understand all of it yet ... and I'm of
: > above average IQ, and have formal post-secondary
: > training in theology and textual exegesis, ...
: > so I really don't think anyone who has read it
: > less than that can possibly really know what it
: > says.
: course is a deep, profound and life-changing book
: and will most likely be understood through applying
: it to a lifetime or more? sheryl
So our A COURSE IN MIRACLES experts OBVIOUSLY ignore
what ACIM makes very clear in the following quote,
which is TIME SAVING. Doug's claim that at least 20
readings of ACIM is necessary is preposterous, and
hilarious when one takes into account that he sees
himself as the guardian of what ACIM really means.
T-18.VII.4. "It is impossible to accept the holy
instant without reservation unless, just for an
instant, you are willing to see no past or
future. You cannot prepare for it without
placing it in the future. Release is given you
the instant you desire it. MANY HAVE SPENT A
LIFETIME IN PREPARATION, AND HAVE INDEED
ACHIEVED THEIR INSTANTS OF SUCCESS. THIS
COURSE DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO TEACH MORE THAN THEY
LEARNED IN TIME, BUT IT DOES AIM AT SAVING TIME.
You may be attempting to follow a very long
road to the goal you have accepted. It is
extremely difficult to reach Atonement by
fighting against sin. Enormous effort is
expended in the attempt to make holy what is
hated and despised. NOR IS A LIFETIME OF
CONTEMPLATION AND LONG PERIODS OF MEDITATION
AIMED AT DETACHMENT FROM THE BODY NECESSARY.
All such attempts will ultimately succeed
because of their purpose. Yet the means are
tedious and very time consuming, for all of them
look to the future for release from a state of
present unworthiness and inadequacy."
ThankYou:)
JELLY
JELLY
: > let alone textual criticism, after reading it once, set
: > out to Abridge it and claim that while others interpret
: > the Course, he alone knows what it means. More recently
: > he's claimed that he never claimed to be a Course Scholar.
: > To be a scholar you have to read it. More than once.
: >
: > And it's this man, according to Gary's visitors from the
: > future ... who is to be recognized as "The Authority."
: 25 - 30 when he first edited it? sheryl
I'd like to know where in A COURSE IN MIRACLES there
is the slightest hint that the purpose and teaching
is aimed at "to be a scholar", which is what Doug
stubbornly is trying to assert??? Dear Doug, ACIM
teaches to go beyond (intellectual) dualism, and you
seem (only) to want to be "The Authority" on ACIM's
potential of a head banging game in a play of ideas.
ThankYou:)
JELLY
www.dr4baxs.com
in A COURSE IN MIRACLES was/is BEYOND
ANYTHING that could have "dreamed up"
by William Thetford & Helen Schucman.
sv: and I'll answer again - if you have to ask a question like that then you
obviously haven't read ACIM. sheryl
Robin Evans
--
Robin (Bodhi) Evans
San Miguel de Allende - Mexico
www.sanmiguelnow.com
www.sanmiguelnow.com/church/church.htm
"Noggin" <pir...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:_IFvd.5276$hc7.5...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
JELLY
: > :
: > : "JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote:
: > :
: > : > in message <6oadneaLsJJ...@golden.net>
: > : > "Doug Thompson" <n...@spam.nospam> wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : What a contrast to ACIM where the content
: > : > : was clearly far and away beyond anything
: > : > : Bill or Helen could have dreamed up on their own!
: > : >
: > : > in A COURSE IN MIRACLES
: > : > William Thetford and Helen Schucman
: > : > could have dreamed up on their own?
: > : > JELLY
: > :
: > : you obviously haven't read the course
: > : if you're asking a question like that
: > : - sheryl
: >
: > You are wrong on that account, and IMO
: > are saying that to EVADE the question.
: >
: > FACT is that I've READ ACIM five times
: > completely, and books 2 to 5 more than
: > once completely.
: >
: > Just because *you* OBVIOUSLY could not
: > have dreamed up ACIM by your self, and
: > because you OBVIOUSLY can not consider
: > anyone to be capable of having dreamed
: > up ACIM, in no way constitutes a FACT.
: >
: > This is now OBVIOUSLY a very optimally
: > good opportunity to demonstrate *your*
: > profound knowledge & understanding and
: > bring some light into my lack thereof.
: > in A COURSE IN MIRACLES was/is BEYOND
: > ANYTHING that could have "dreamed up"
: > by William Thetford & Helen Schucman.
:
: And I'll answer again - if you have
: obviously haven't read ACIM. sheryl
Well thank you for a stupid answer :-))))
JELLY
Noggin
That's not an answer, it's another mindless vagueary.
Are you capable of being specific?
What's your alleged "speeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeritchual book" going to read like?
ACIM is really good. It really works. I used to be worse, now I'm better. It's typical of it's
type, a really good book.
LOL...God, you're dumb!! You'll probably fucking plagiarize the above since you've never had an
original thought in your life. Or any kind of a thought for that matter.
Stephen Calder
>"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
>news:41be198e$0$17708$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
>
>>Amminadab wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Stephen Calder wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gary doesn't assert that he has any special spiritual qualities;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Except that he is Saint Thomas, and that he is the prophet bringing us
>>>words from the Ascended Masters.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Notice that the church made Thomas a saint, not Gary. The irony is the
>>this "saint" had to go through several more earthly lifetimes before
>>learning the full meaning of forgiveness.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>in
>>>>real life, as in the book, he's a smart ass but doesn't take credit
>>>>for being other than a messenger. You've set up him as a
>>>>self-proclaimed prophet so you can shoot him down. He's not saying
>>>>he's that. You're tilting at windmills.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>He IS saying what you claim he is not saying.
>>>
>>>Amminadab
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Your statement is untrue. This merely illustrates the strength of your
>>prejudice against him.
>>
>>
>
>Actually Stephen, Ryan is right here. He is making precisely the claim you
>state that he's not making.
>
><facetious mode on>
>
>And of course he's wrong about being St. Thomas. I'm St. Thomas.
>
>I think the first thing that happens when Reptilian larvae are eating your
>brain stem is the inability to distinguish between satire and comedy on the
>hand and the straight goods on the other. I'm told that garlic and silver
>crucifixes can help ...
>
><facetious mode off>
>
>"Prophet" means "Messenger of God." Setting down words on paper, or
>speaking them, and claiming for them divine authority rather than claiming
>they are just one's own opinion, however inspired, is to engage in the act
>of Prophecy. "Ascended Master" is close enough to "the divine" to make of
>Gary a self-proclaimed prophet. Now you are proclaiming him a prophet too
>while (falsely) stating that he's making no such claims.
>
>I'll accept for the moment that you are just likely confused and not
>deliberately trying to deceive here ...
>
>all the best,
>
>Doug
>
>
>
>
Confusion reigns but it's not mine.
1. Gary is not saying HE is an ascended master.
2. Gary is not saying he has divine authority.
3. Gary is not saying he is infallible.
4. Gary is not claiming he is anything special. There is no reason why
YOU could not have been a disciple of Jesus in a former lifetime.
5. Gary is not saying he has no further need to practise forgiveness. On
the contrary, if you read the book, his teachers are constantly
encouraging him to keep doing so.
--
Stephen
Byron Bay, Australia
R1200C
Stephen Calder
>in message <6oadneaLsJJ...@golden.net>
>"Doug Thompson" <n...@spam.nospam> wrote:
>:
>: What a contrast to ACIM where the content
>: was clearly far and away beyond anything
>: Bill or Helen could have dreamed up on their own!
>
>What specifically
>in A COURSE IN MIRACLES
>was BEYOND ANYTHING that
>William Thetford and Helen Schucman
>could have dreamed up on their own?
>
>ThankYou:)
>JELLY
>
>
This:
Nothing real can be threatened
Nothing unreal exists
Herein lies the peace of God.
Stephen Calder
>"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
>news:41be1e56$0$17698$61c6...@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
>
>
>
>>I see no contradiction between what Arten and Pursah are saying and what
>>the Course says.
>>
>>
>
>The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. A lot of people
>don't see it and I can only conclude that those people aren't intimately
>familar with what the Course really does say. The people you need to
>question are those who DO see it! Absence of evidence is not evidence of
>absence.
>
>Arten and Pursah say that the Atonement is part of the creation. ACIM
>disagrees. The Atonement was a response to the separation illusion, it is
>not "built-in" to Creation. Arten and Pursah say that the Trinity is just a
>"theological device" while ACIM says it's real. Arten and Pursah present
>Ken Wapnick as the Great White Father ... you know, the guy who abridged the
>Course and lied for 25 years about doing that and then sued everyone in
>sight to suppress Course Scholarship and the publication of the Authentic
>Course while engaging in perjury and witness tampering on a large scale ...
>until he was finally defeated in court ... a fact Arten and Pursah, if they
>were genuinely from a deterministic future, would have known about ... but
>were curiously silent about!
>
>Jesus, in ACIM, refuses to talk about any history other than his own
>personal history. The reason is given "it's still going on today" so there
>is no need to talk about the past. What then of these "meat-bots from
>Mars?" What value is there to us in that information, even if it were true?
>Well there is one value ... it makes the eyes of all but the most credulous
>roll and recognize Gary is having us on!
>
>During a period of time when no one was getting Ken's permission to publish
>anything quoting the Course, without having to fight for it in court, Gary
>somehow got permission. Ever wondered why? I think it's just one more fib
>propagated by the FACIM and its supporters in what became, in the latter
>days of the suit, a progressively more desparate and more criminal struggle
>to vindicate Ken's self-proclaimed self-image as "the guardian of the sacred
>trust." Gary showed up at a critical moment with some Ken's Fan Club
>Propaganda which could not hurt his cause which was, at the time, in a
>tail-spin.
>
>Then there is the whole issue of predestination and the structure of time
>... is "the future" radically indeterminate and subject to what we do in the
>present or is it fixed, and pre-determined. ACIM lays down one clear model,
>DOU the opposite. That's a contradiction.
>
>And if you can't see the contradiction there then I submit, with all due
>respect, that you don't understand the situation.
>
>Now as you know I'm pretty sceptical about this material. The
>"contradictions" between Gary's work and the Course appear to me in almost
>every quote I see from the former. And so far no one has pointed to a
>single unique and profound insight Gary's book offers ... and if it really
>were the Prophetic insight he claims for it, (and despite your denials, that
>claim IS central) then one would expect something more than paraphrases of
>Ken Wapnick's fanciful commentaries ... and so far, except for flat out
>contradictions of the Course, I've seen nothing other than paraphrases of
>Wapnick.
>
>What do you see in it Stephen? Quite aside from the "lack of vices" which
>others see, what "virtues" do you find in the material that would lead you
>to believe it is something more than good, inventive, creative, and
>inspiring science fiction?
>
>If we are really dealing with genuine material coming from Ascended Masters,
>"from the future" yet ... then it should have some transcendendent merit, as
>ACIM does. Does it? OR is it an implausible and problematic grade C Sci Fi
>plot with a lot of paraphrases of Wapnickian course commentary, rife with
>contradictions of the Course, as is Wapnick's commentary.
>
>I dunno ... I haven't read it and so far have seen no reason to ... you keep
>quoting it and every time you do your quotes just convince me more that the
>prima facae case of fraud is established beyond any reasonable shadow of a
>doubt.
>
>Meat-bots from Mars ... now c'mon .....
>
>All the best,
>
>Doug
>
>
>
>
1. There are no meat bots from Mars in the book.
2. Your understanding of the Course is lacking and Arten and Pursah's is
not.
3. The merits of the book are best understood by reading it. If you have
and still take this stance, you're probably unconvinceable by anything I
say.
Stephen Calder
>"Amminadab" <am...@amminadab.com> wrote in message
>news:326qflF...@individual.net...
>
>
>>Stephen Calder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I see no contradiction between what Arten and Pursah are saying and
>>>what the Course says.
>>>
>>>
>>So you don't believe that the Holy Trinity is real?
>>
>>
>
>I suspect that Stephen has no opinion on the Trinity and has no clue what
>ACIM actually says about the Trinity, or the Atonement, otherwise he would
>notice the glaring contradiction. I rather suspect that Gary might have
>read the Course, at least once, and hasn't any better understanding of what
>it really says than does Stephen. I've read it about 20 times now and I
>don't understand all of it yet ... and I'm of above average IQ, and have
>formal post-secondary training in theology and textual exegesis, ... so I
>really don't think anyone who has read it less than that can possibly really
>know what it says.
>
>
Just shows how wrong an intelligent, educated person can be. I don't
claim any formal qualifications. None are required in order to practise
forgiveness and be happy.
Thank God.
I have read the Course several times (the text 3 times at least). I have
done the workbook (5 times). I read from it every day.
J.
If there is confusion about Gary's claims --then the confusion is
generated by Renard. After all, doesn't Gary claim one his ascended
masters is his future self and future re-incarnation?
> 2. Gary is not saying he has divine authority.
Of course he is. He's not claiming his book is simply his opinion. His
ascended master are assumed to have divine authority. After all, they
are ascended masters. He is not being taught by ordinary Joe and Blow
from future. Moreover, as a spokesperson for these ascended master, Gary
is claiming divine authority through the words of these ascended masters.
> 3. Gary is not saying he is infallible.
No, he is tacitly claiming his ascended masters are infallible.
> 4. Gary is not claiming he is anything special. There is no reason why
> YOU could not have been a disciple of Jesus in a former lifetime.
Get a life, Stephen. Claiming a special relationship with Jesus is
claiming he is something special. You might just attempt to be
intellectually honest.
> 5. Gary is not saying he has no further need to practise forgiveness. On
> the contrary, if you read the book, his teachers are constantly
> encouraging him to keep doing so.
He,he, he! Yeah, after blatantly promoting himself, Renard then claims
he is flawed. Well not even Renard can easily claim perfection.
>
>
>
Stephen Calder
Do you believe that Jesus is real? The Course says he was an illusion of
a man.
Stephen Calder
>"Sheryl" sherylv...@aol.com ( www.dr4baxs.com) wrote:
>:
>: "JELLY" <je...@mnet-online.de> wrote:
>:
>: > in message <6oadneaLsJJ...@golden.net>
>: > "Doug Thompson" <n...@spam.nospam> wrote:
>: > :
>: > : What a contrast to ACIM where the content
>: > : was clearly far and away beyond anything
>: > : Bill or Helen could have dreamed up on their own!
>: >
>: > What specifically
>: > in A COURSE IN MIRACLES
>: > was BEYOND ANYTHING that
>: > William Thetford and Helen Schucman
>: > could have dreamed up on their own?
>: > JELLY
>:
>: you obviously haven't read the course
>: if you're asking a question like that
>: - sheryl
>
>You are wrong on that account, and IMO
>are saying that to EVADE the question.
>
>FACT is that I've READ ACIM five times
>completely, and books 2 to 5 more than
>once completely.
>
>
There are FIVE books? I've only seen three.
Tomaso
~ I wondered about that too. It's my guess that he is referring to
The Song of Prayer and Psychotherapy: Purpose, Process & Practice,
which are called by FIP "Supplements to A Course in Miracles."
Be of Good Cheer,
Fox ;o)
http://www.angelic-visions.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~miraclestudies
http://peacefulpath.home.att.net/
J.
No, its a phrase created by Gene Smith which condenses the bizarre,
wacko metaphysics Renard introduces and associates with Course
metaphysics. Do you want to talk about that Stephen. Or do you want to
still want to argue like a dishonest, slime ball culty?
> 2. Your understanding of the Course is lacking and Arten and Pursah's is
> not.
Well that's it in a nut shell. Like Renard, you want to set yourself up
as some kind of expert on what the Course says and does not say, and who
understand ACIM and who doesn't. Isn't it rather obvious that idiots who
can't understand time traveling, wise-cracking ascended master are not
real, don't even have an elementary understanding of Course metaphysics
much less a claim of expertise.
> 3. The merits of the book are best understood by reading it. If you have
> and still take this stance, you're probably unconvinceable by anything I
> say.
Exactly what are the merits of censored "spiritual" book, which are not
fatally compromised by the lack of ethics of its author? In other words,
how can Renard credibly talk about forgiveness when Renard anoints his
own censor and celebrates the very censorship keeping other Course
authors from publishing to Renard's economic advantage? Like Renard and
Miller, ethical conduct does not seem to be your concern. Which is why
you are all very minor players and are all quickly gaining a reputation
for dishonesty, and less than fair play.
>
>
>
>
Stephen Calder
>
>
>> 4. Gary is not claiming he is anything special. There is no reason
>> why YOU could not have been a disciple of Jesus in a former lifetime.
>
>
> Get a life, Stephen. Claiming a special relationship with Jesus is
> claiming he is something special. You might just attempt to be
> intellectually honest.
I have a special relationship with Jesus. It's open to anyone.
J.
> So our A COURSE IN MIRACLES experts OBVIOUSLY ignore
> what ACIM makes very clear in the following quote,
> which is TIME SAVING. Doug's claim that at least 20
> readings of ACIM is necessary is preposterous,
Doug makes no such claim. If you are going to be a gad fly, at least get
the claims right.
J.
> sherylv...@aol.com ( www.dr4baxs.com) wrote:
> :
> : "Doug Thompson" <n...@spam.nospam> wrote:
> : >
> : > Ken, whose formal training is in Psychology, not Theology
> : > let alone textual criticism, after reading it once, set
> : > out to Abridge it and claim that while others interpret
> : > the Course, he alone knows what it means. More recently
> : > he's claimed that he never claimed to be a Course Scholar.
> : > To be a scholar you have to read it. More than once.
> : >
> : > And it's this man, according to Gary's visitors from the
> : > future ... who is to be recognized as "The Authority."
> :
> : that's a very good point -- he would have been what
> : 25 - 30 when he first edited it? sheryl
>
> I'd like to know where in A COURSE IN MIRACLES there
> is the slightest hint that the purpose and teaching
> is aimed at "to be a scholar", which is what Doug
> stubbornly is trying to assert???
He's not making this claim. Try again. And with honesty.
Richard
>
>No, its a phrase created by Gene Smith which condenses the bizarre,
>wacko metaphysics Renard introduces and associates with Course
>metaphysics. Do you want to talk about that Stephen. Or do you want to
>still want to argue like a dishonest, slime ball culty?
I, for one, prefer the term "meat puppet" to "meat bot". The body is
just that--a meat puppet-- with no will of its own, whose strings are
pulled by mind. Calling the body a "meat puppet", while colorful, also
has the advantage of conveying the idea that the body is not
autonomous, an idea which is not that far removed from Course
metaphysics.
Richard
Stephen Calder
Oh, okay, maybe that's it.
JELLY
:
Volume 1 - A COURSE IN MIRACLES
Textbook, Workbook, Handbook.
Volume 2 - Supplements to ACIM
Psychotherapy, Song of Prayer.
Volume 2, the Supplements (Book 4 and 5)
were supposedly also dictated by "The Voice
of Jesus Christ". Now that you make obvious,
Stephen, that you want to split hairs I'll
restate more precisely: Fact is that I've
read ACIM's first book five times completely,
and ACIM's book 2 & 3 and ACIM's two supplements
more than once completely. Not that's not
a big deal, but for some pathetic reason
SherylV...@aol.com ( www.dr4baxs.com )
is convinced that I "obviously" could not have.
JELLY
: > Just because *you* OBVIOUSLY could not
: > have dreamed up ACIM by your self, and
: > because you OBVIOUSLY can not consider
: > anyone to be capable of having dreamed
: > up ACIM, in no way constitutes a FACT.
: >
: > This is now OBVIOUSLY a very optimally
: > good opportunity to demonstrate *your*
: > profound knowledge & understanding and
: > bring some light into my lack thereof.
: >
: > The question again: What specifically
: > in A COURSE IN MIRACLES was/is BEYOND
JELLY
: "There are FIVE books? I've only seen three."
Tomaso <Tom...@aso.moc> wrote:
: ~ I wondered about that too. It's my guess that he is referring to
: The Song of Prayer and Psychotherapy: Purpose, Process & Practice,
: which are called by FIP "Supplements to A Course in Miracles."
JELLY writes:
: Exactly :)
Amminadab
>
>
> 1. Gary is not saying HE is an ascended master.
Yes he is.
> 2. Gary is not saying he has divine authority.
Yes he is.
> 3. Gary is not saying he is infallible.
Except that anyone who challenges him is told they have "forgiveness
issues".
> 4. Gary is not claiming he is anything special.
How come ascended masters have not visited YOU?
>There is no reason why
> YOU could not have been a disciple of Jesus in a former lifetime.
I am a disciple of Jesus NOW....... there is no such thing as "former
lifetime". Life is eternal, and there is only One.
> 5. Gary is not saying he has no further need to practise forgiveness.
> On the contrary, if you read the book, his teachers are constantly
> encouraging him to keep doing so.
He is a lousy messenger when even he cannot learn the lesson he would pass
along.
Amminadab
--
Amminadab's Lantern
http://amminadab.com
Amminadab
>
> 1. There are no meat bots from Mars in the book.
He claims that Humanity comes from Mars, and that Humanity is controlled by
sunspots.
Both are preposterous.
> 2. Your understanding of the Course is lacking and Arten and Pursah's
> is not.
The solid Wapnickian interpretation does not bode well for A & P. It just
doesn't hold.
> 3. The merits of the book are best understood by reading it. If you
> have and still take this stance, you're probably unconvinceable by
> anything I say.
There are enough points from the book on the table to make for a credible
discussion. You refuse to address those points.
Amminadab
Third time: So you don't believe that the Holy Trinity is real?
Amminadab
This makes four times you have avoided the question.
So you don't believe that the Holy Trinity is real?
A "yes" or a "no" would be much clearer.
Indeed do I believe that Jesus is real. You don't?
J.
Really? And what apostle do you claim to be?
>
>
J.
Interesting, Richard. Do you also believe the meat puppet is controled
by sunspots and do you believe that humans came from Mars?
Doug Thompson
>
> 1. Gary is not saying HE is an ascended master.
Gary wrote a book ... remember that GARY wrote the book, and he claims for
his words that they came from Ascended Masters. He is claiming his words
are those of an Ascended Master and that they are not, in fact, his own
words. True or False, that IS Gary's claim!
> 2. Gary is not saying he has divine authority.
Gary wrote a book ... remember that GARY wrote the book, and he claims for
his words that they came from Ascended Masters who have Divine Authority.
He is claiming his words are those of an Ascended Master with Divine
Authority and that they are not, in fact, his own words. True or False,
that IS Gary's claim!
> 3. Gary is not saying he is infallible.
Gary wrote a book ... remember that GARY wrote the book, and he claims for
his words that they came from Ascended Masters who have the Divine Authority
of an infallible God. He is claiming his words are those of an Ascended
Master with the Divine Authority of an infallible God and that they are not,
in fact, his own words. True or False, that IS Gary's claim!
> 4. Gary is not claiming he is anything special.
The quotes you've offered us literally OOOOOZE specialness. I'm quite
frankly surprised you failed to pick up on that ... you're usually quite
sensitive to such things.
> There is no reason why YOU could not have been a disciple of Jesus in a
> former lifetime.
The claim to be a disciple is not only a claim to specialness (inside
knowledge) but a claim to Authority and something approximating
infallibility.
Gary claims for his words the divine and infallible authority of Ascended
Masters. If he wrote the words he is claiming that authority for himself.
If he is simply quoting genuine Ascended Masters then you're right, he's not
claiming anything "special" other than that he's claiming they spoke to him,
and not you. But then if he's telling the truth he is not CLAIMING
specialness, merely reporting that it was conferred upon him by Ascended
Masters. However, so far there is not a shred of evidence that Gary's claim
is anything other than fiction, and a great deal of evidence which raises
grave doubts about the accuracy of his report. If his claim is fiction then
I think if you look up "Charlatan" and "Fraud" in your dictionary you will
find descriptions of Gary's claims which are more accurate than Gary's
claims. :)
There are ZILLIONS of pages of spiritual bogosity written and published
every day. What is it about this particular one which contradicts ACIM so
much and so seriously while claiming some sort of association with ACIM,
which leads you to suspect it IS valid and authentic? I've listed lots of
reasons to doubt its validity -- what reason have you to accept it? Rather
than dealing with these you are evading them and failing to see the totally
obvious.
Similar claims to "Authority" are made by ACIM and for ACIM by others,
including me. ACIM passes the tests for authenticity, DOU fails them all.
And further why are you denying the obvious ... that Gary is making claims
for his writing which are ... quite literally ... incredible?? Maybe you
just don't want to see what is in fact before your eyes?
I can see why John suspects some brain dysfunction here ... your higher
mental powers appear to have been switched off.
All the best,
Doug
J.
The claim of discipleship to Jesus is the basis of apostalic succesion,
which is the Pope's claim to power. It is also the power claim of
various other Christian denomination. Consequently the claim to be the
disciple Thomas is an important claim. And certainly a claim to specialness.
>
> Gary claims for his words the divine and infallible authority of Ascended
> Masters. If he wrote the words he is claiming that authority for himself.
> If he is simply quoting genuine Ascended Masters then you're right, he's not
> claiming anything "special" other than that he's claiming they spoke to him,
> and not you.
Sounds like with his reality claim, Renard is fulfilling the role of
prophet. What's a prophet except a messanger for divine authority?
What Stephen fails to get is belief in Renard and his ascended masters
is essentially a mind-less superstition unless Stephen want to invest
religious faith in Renard and these masters. Yet he doesn't want to
invest religious faith in Renard and it pretty clear that he would balk
at the notion he is investing religious faith in Renard.
So what is Stephen doing when he believes in the bizarre simply because
it might be possible and he wants it to be possible. Yet he wants to
claim this belief is not religious faith?? Sounds like garden variety
superstition to me.
Doug Thompson
> 2. Your understanding of the Course is lacking and Arten and Pursah's is
> not.
First off, there is no evidence that "Arten" and "Pursah" exist at all as
anything other than fictional characters developed by Gary to articulate
Wapnickian Course interpretation. On the other hand, there is a prima facae
case which has not been refuted that they are PRECISELY that and nothing
more. Like Wapnick they contradict the Course extensively. This requires
no "understanding" of the Course to recognize, it simply requires
familiarity with what it actually says. Wapnick is not shy about saying
that he dismisses as "metaphorical" a great deal of it, including everything
that disagrees with his interpretation. Again, this requires no
interpretation or understanding to recognize ... it simply requires
familiarity with the material. I don't claim to understand the material
perfectly, but I do claim to be familiar with it.
The Wapnickian view of ACIM is flatly contradicted by vast amounts of what
is actually written in ACIM. So too with several of the quotes from DU
you've offered ... they are flat contradictions of ACIM. This isn't to say
that ACIM might not be wrong and they might be right (which is the implicit
claim being made) but only to say that what Ken Wapnick and Arten say the
Course says is NOT in fact what the Course says on many points.
This is what I mean by "trashing" the Course. The "thought system" being
presented, right or wrong, is not that of Jesus or the Course and it is
quite obviously dishonest to claim that it is!
> 3. The merits of the book are best understood by reading it. If you have
> and still take this stance, you're probably unconvinceable by anything I
> say.
I can tell you the merits of ACIM. I know you also can explain the merits
of ACIM. Why can't you say anything of the merits of DU? Rather than
attacking critics with specious and ad hominem arguments you might try
simply telling us what is so good about it. If indeed it has genuine merit
and internal evidence of authenticity as well as the evidence you've shown
us of bogosity, pointing that out is far more likely to encourage people to
read it than making wholly false criticisms of very fair, reasoned, and
pretty obvious critiques.
The material LOOKS BOGUS on quite a number of grounds ... what is there that
makes it look anything else? Now by bogus I don't mean that it might not be
inspiriting fiction nor that Gary's opinions on spiritual matters don't have
some merit, I mean bogus in its claims to be something other than fiction.
All the best,
Doug
J.
> The material LOOKS BOGUS on quite a number of grounds ... what is there that
> makes it look anything else? Now by bogus I don't mean that it might not be
> inspiriting fiction nor that Gary's opinions on spiritual matters don't have
> some merit, I mean bogus in its claims to be something other than fiction.
You might try the word, "superstitious," rather than bogus.
Bogus is arguable. Only Renard knows for certain whether his material is
an accurate representation of real events.
What cannot be argued is his material is superstitious. Because Renard's
reality claims demands an unwarranted and unmerited belief in bizzare
and highly unlikely events, which for all purposes can neither be proved
or disproved. Because superstition is a trivialization of authentic
religious faith, one can argue that by introducing superstition into
Course discourse and metaphysics, Renard trivializes the authentic
religious faith demanded by Course study.
>
> All the best,
>
> Doug
>
>
JELLY
I have thank you
in message news:7qKdnYWD7KA...@golden.net
Are you (one of) Doug Thompson's alter ego(s) btw?
JELLY
JELLY
:
: JELLY wrote:
: > sherylv...@aol.com ( www.dr4baxs.com) wrote:
: > :
: > : "Doug Thompson" <n...@spam.nospam> wrote:
: > : >
: > : > Ken, whose formal training is in Psychology, not Theology
: > : > let alone textual criticism, after reading it once, set
: > : > out to Abridge it and claim that while others interpret
: > : > the Course, he alone knows what it means. More recently
: > : > he's claimed that he never claimed to be a Course Scholar.
: > : > To be a scholar you have to read it. More than once.
: > : >
: > : > And it's this man, according to Gary's visitors from the
: > : > future ... who is to be recognized as "The Authority."
: > :
: > : that's a very good point -- he would have been what
: > : 25 - 30 when he first edited it? sheryl
: >
: > I'd like to know where in A COURSE IN MIRACLES there
: > is the slightest hint that the purpose and teaching
: > is aimed at "to be a scholar", which is what Doug
: > stubbornly is trying to assert???
:
: He's not making this claim. Try again. And with honesty.
Not expressly, but it is imo obviously
implied in what and how he posts here.
BTW, with honesty, are you (one of) Doug's alter ego(s)?
: > Dear Doug, ACIM
JELLY
JELLY
: > "Doug Thompson" <n...@spam.nospam> wrote:
: > :
: > : What a contrast to ACIM where the content
: > : was clearly far and away beyond anything
: > : Bill or Helen could have dreamed up on their own!
: >
: > What specifically
: > was BEYOND ANYTHING that
: > William Thetford and Helen Schucman
: > could have dreamed up on their own?
: > JELLY
:
:
: Nothing real can be threatened
: Nothing unreal exists
: Herein lies the peace of God.
: -- Stephen
Why couldn't Bill AND/OR Helen have had those
fairly simple philosophical thoughts without
any metaphysical or divine help?
JELLY
Stephen Calder
Here's a catalogue of bizarre and unlikely events:
After his resurrection, Jesus appears and disappears within a locked room.
Jesus walks along the road with people he knew well and they do not
recognise him.
Jesus easily escapes an angry mob out to capture and imprison him (or
worse).
One of Jesus' disciples is bitten by a venomous snake and is unharmed.
Jesus blasts a fig tree.
Surely these reported events, which can neither be proved nor disproved,
trivialise the Christian faith by the same logic.
Stephen Calder
It's put simply and elegantly and points directly to a great experience
of truth but its meaning is not always obvious at first reading.
And it's just one example. The Course is full of them.
Richard
>
>Really? And what apostle do you claim to be?
The words "special relationship" have meaning within a Course context.
Neither speaker is acknowledging this context. The first speaker
probably did not use them that way, but his statement still may be
true, as the phrase is used in the Course.
I have, shall we say, a "personal" relationship with Jesus, which I
suspect is what the first speaker was claiming for himself. My
relationship-- which means I accept him as my Teacher-- does not
bestow upon me the title of "apostle". The second speaker should know
that one can have a relationship with Jesus without being one of the
twelve.
Richard
Richard
>>>
>>>No, its a phrase created by Gene Smith which condenses the bizarre,
>>>wacko metaphysics Renard introduces and associates with Course
>>>metaphysics. Do you want to talk about that Stephen. Or do you want to
>>>still want to argue like a dishonest, slime ball culty?
>>
>>
>> I, for one, prefer the term "meat puppet" to "meat bot". The body is
>> just that--a meat puppet-- with no will of its own, whose strings are
>> pulled by mind. Calling the body a "meat puppet", while colorful, also
>> has the advantage of conveying the idea that the body is not
>> autonomous, an idea which is not that far removed from Course
>> metaphysics.
>Interesting, Richard. Do you also believe the meat puppet is controled
>by sunspots and do you believe that humans came from Mars?
No. Humans and Mars come from the same place, tho. You'll forgive me,
John, in that I have not read the book and have no way of knowing what
it does or does not say. If I'm not mistaken, you've not read the
material, either, and are depending on Gene's characterization (which
may be accurate) of it.
With all respect to Gene, he and I have often read the same material
and come to vastly different ideas about what is being presented. If
he says the book says something, I don't know that I'd cite him as an
authority (tho he may be). In this case, if someone (such as Mr
Calder), who obviously likes the book, reports the book claims humans
are meat bots from Mars, I'd be inclined to accept that's what the
book has to say.
It's like this: I know you've read criticism of the Course. Did the
criticism come from somebody who read and understood the material? My
experience has been that most criticism comes from people who haven't
got a clue, or have a clue taken so far out of context as to be
meaningless.
As to "meat puppets", do you find the idea (as I've explained it) to
be bizarre, wacko metaphysics which are at variance with the Course?
Richard
J.
>>>>>1. There are no meat bots from Mars in the book.
>>>>
>>>>No, its a phrase created by Gene Smith which condenses the bizarre,
>>>>wacko metaphysics Renard introduces and associates with Course
>>>>metaphysics. Do you want to talk about that Stephen. Or do you want to
>>>>still want to argue like a dishonest, slime ball culty?
>>>
>>>
>>>I, for one, prefer the term "meat puppet" to "meat bot". The body is
>>>just that--a meat puppet-- with no will of its own, whose strings are
>>>pulled by mind. Calling the body a "meat puppet", while colorful, also
>>>has the advantage of conveying the idea that the body is not
>>>autonomous, an idea which is not that far removed from Course
>>>metaphysics.
>
>
>>Interesting, Richard. Do you also believe the meat puppet is controled
>>by sunspots and do you believe that humans came from Mars?
>
>
> No. Humans and Mars come from the same place, tho. You'll forgive me,
> John, in that I have not read the book and have no way of knowing what
> it does or does not say. If I'm not mistaken, you've not read the
> material, either, and are depending on Gene's characterization (which
> may be accurate) of it.
No, Richard. Many long passages of the book have been posted.
Consequently, its likely I've actually read ten pages of DOU --or
better. In addition someone showed me a copy and I browsed for perhaps
twenty minutes.
I'd say this is more than sufficent to support my main criticism of
Renard and his book.
1) In the book, Renard anoints his own censor, Wapnick, at time when
other Course writers were being denied fair use of Course material. This
shows a callous disregard for basic artistic and intellectual ethics, to
Renard's benifit and at the expense of other Course writers. Moreover it
brings into question how a censorsed "spiritual" can be considered
spiritual. Censored writers who celebrate their own censorship lack
credibility.
2)Bringing in extraneous, wacko metaphysics and dishonestly associating
it with Course metaphysics,unnecesarily confuses and trivilizes A Course
in Miracles.
3)Renard's reality claim for the material, attempts to set up an
alternative source of divine authority in Course metaphysics, using
Renard as spokeman or prophet for this authority and certainly tacitly
and dishonestly asserts authority over other Course writers and
commentators.
>
> As to "meat puppets", do you find the idea (as I've explained it) to
> be bizarre, wacko metaphysics which are at variance with the Course?
Let's say for the sake of discussion, a meat puppet has descriptive
value for what the Course teaches about the body. I'd say whatever
usefulness this term has is compromised if you claim its genetics
orginated on Mars and its actions are controled by sunspots.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
J.
Ms. Jelly there are plenty of preposterous claims around here without
you making up preposterous claims.
>