A letter from Jimmy Twyman.
vals...@my-deja.com
I have purposely tried to stay away from the Course in Miracles
controversy,
not wanting to add more energy to what is already a very sad
situation. Most
of you know that I have been a Course student for many years, and I
have
tried to communicate Course in Miracles principles in the books I have
written, especially in "Emissary of Light." I have observed the
copyright
situation from afar and have prayed for it to be resolved in a way that
honors the brilliant extension of love from the mind and heart of
Jesus, and
which also helps us dissolve the boundaries that seem to separate us
from one
another.
in recent weeks, however, in light the discovery of the original
version of
the manuscript that has been circling the globe, I suddenly feel that I
have
a few words to say. We all know that the truth of A Course in Miracles
is not
found in the words of a book, but in the Spirit of Truth that radiates
from
those words. I steadfastly believe that the Course is the most
important
book in the world today. And when the very Spirit of that Truth is
blanketed
by the meaningless maneuvering of legal experts, it is important for
those
students who have come into a direct experience with this material to
let
their voices be heard.
That is why I decided to write this letter, to show the silliness of
this
entire issue, as well as the importance it holds for us all.
Here is a little story I thought you might be interested in hearing.
Around
two and a half years ago when "Emissary of Light" was first released by
Time/Warner, I received a rather interesting letter from Ken Wapnick.
The
letter was addressed to both me and my publisher, and claimed that I
may have
infringed upon the copyright of A Course in Miracles. According to Ken,
the
book had illegally copied entire sections of the Course, and that
restitution
may be required. The legal department of Time/Warner sent a letter back
to
Ken asking him show them the copied passages. A week later a new
letter was
received saying that perhaps I never actually copied sections of A
Course in
Miracles, but the intent was there.
In an attempt to ease the situation I sent a personal letter to Mr.
Wapnick.
I wrote, "If a man from Italy were to move to the US, it would be
unreasonable to expect that man to speak English without an Italian
accent.
Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect me to talk about God without a
Course
in Miracles accent." (Apparently Ken did not like my analogy and said
that he
held to his original position.)
I also wrote that I believe it is important that the Course not make
the same
mistakes every other religion has made by establishing a priesthood and
infallible dogma. He assured me that he shared my opinion in this, and
that
he for one would do everything he could to make sure that the Course
would
remain free of these chains.
I guess that was before millions of dollars were at stake. When I
heard that
Mr. Wapnick had stated in court that A Course in Miracles was not
written by
Jesus, but that it was a psychological study written by Helen, I knew
something had to be done. I wonder why Ken has set himself up in a kind
of
Judas role, especially when he has claimed time and time again in his
many
books that the Course was indeed written by Jesus. (How does one go
back and
forth like that?) Once again, I guess that was before he stood the
chance of
losing a great deal of money. Now, at least, we know where his
priorities
lie.
What does all of this mean? First of all, it means nothing. Luckily,
the
truth and the way it is expressed in A Course in Miracles is beyond
attack.
And yet, I believe it is important for each one of us to decide if we
will
accept that truth. Jesus himself said in the Course that it is not
essential
that we except his authorship in order to enjoy the benefits therein.
But he
also said that he can help us a little more if we do. So the ball lands
where
it began.
More then anything I wanted to illustrate the insanity of this whole
issue,
and I believe the letter Ken sent to me does just that. I am going to
shut up
now and return to the silence I had observed till now.
In Peace,
James F. Twyman
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Edwin Stewart
If you think that the letter that Ken wrote you illustrates insanity -
to quote you "More than anything I wanted to illustrate the insanity of this
whole issue, and I believe the letter Ken sent to me does just that.", -
then what does your letter calling Ken's actions insane, illustrate?
More insanity?
How can one sign one's letter "In Peace", when one has just called his
brother insane?
I AM Amminadab
>Just one question:
> If you think that the letter that Ken wrote you illustrates insanity -
>to quote you "More than anything I wanted to illustrate the insanity of this
>whole issue, and I believe the letter Ken sent to me does just that.", -
>then what does your letter calling Ken's actions insane, illustrate?
Clarity?
> More insanity?
> How can one sign one's letter "In Peace", when one has just called his
>brother insane?
From a point of peace, it is relatively easy to recognize insanity.
Freedom of thought
Is our most important freedom.
Amminadab
When I say 'you' I really mean 'me'.
Amminadab's Lantern of Truth
http://members.aol.com/amminadab2/
Magsacim
brother insane? >>
And professing that the non-too-gentle ministrations of an untrained ego
manipulating the work of a Master can produce an "improvement" IS sanity?
From the HLC:
{{You will yet come together in my name and your sanity will be restored.}}
Are you willing to grant his name?
Peace in the name of my Teacher,
Carmen
TomWFox
Course in
Miracles, but the intent was there. >>
This, no doubt, was during the March 1993 through June 1999 period when FACIM
was claiming ownership to some of the ideas and concepts expressed in ACIM. I
am assured this was due to a misunderstanding of copyright law.
The "little willingness" was there, though.
Edwin Stewart
I am wondering what teacher you would follow who would teach you that
your brother can be insane? Unless that teacher also gently reminds you
that any insanity seen comes from the observer.
With love and seeing you and Ken and Allen and Peggy and Tom, Dick and
Harry, etc. as whole and perfect. That is my teacher's lesson.
Linda
Magsacim wrote in message <20000120151751...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
Gene Ward Smith
<el-st...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Dear Magpie,
> I am wondering what teacher you would follow who would teach you
that
>your brother can be insane? Unless that teacher also gently reminds
you
>that any insanity seen comes from the observer.
"Not being in their right minds, they turned their defenses from
protection to assault, and acted literally insanely."
"You would not tolerate insane BEHAVIOR on your part, and would hardly
advance the excuse that you could not help it. Why should you tolerate
insane THINKING?"
"Who but the insane would undertake to believe what is not true, and
then protect this belief at the COST of truth?"
"This is why the ego is insane; it teaches that you are NOT what you
ARE."
"The ingeniousness of the ego to preserve itself is enormous, but it
stems from the power of the mind which the ego DENIES. This means that
the ego ATTACKS what is PRESERVING it, and this MUST be a source of
extreme anxiety. That is why the ego NEVER knows what it is doing. It
is perfectly logical, but clearly insane."
With all of that, we also should remember this:
"When a brother behaves insanely, you can heal him only by perceiving
the SANITY in him."
The Course is not teaching that we invent the insanity of our brother
and project it on to him, but rather it is his sanity (which is always
there, for his soul or spirit cannot be shaken in its sanity) which we
should look to.
--
Gene Ward Smith
gsm...@frii.com
dth...@golden.net
> << How can one sign one's letter "In Peace", when one has just called his
> brother insane? >>
Only the truth is true. War is insane. So are lawsuits. Peace is
sanity.
A sane voice must always speak in peace and always recognize war, lawsuits
and other attacks as "insane."
All the best,
Doug
I AM Amminadab
> I am wondering what teacher you would follow who would teach you that
>your brother can be insane?
I follow Jesus, and He taught me about my insanity.... I am healing. My
brothers, who are alegorical manifestations of the Thoughts in My Mind, are
also insane.
[ Why should you condone insane thinking? ] ACIM
What teacher do you follow who teaches that what you have made here is sane?
[What can be expected from insane premises except an insane conclusion? ] ACIM
Jesus said his brother's were insane...... do all your rules have an exception
for Jesus?
[When a brother acts insanely, he is offering you an opportunity to bless him.
] ACIM
> Unless that teacher also gently reminds you
>that any insanity seen comes from the observer.
Sooooo...... when Jesus noticed my insanity..... it was actually coming from
Him?
If that is what you meant, we might be in agreement..... but how does that
apply to God?
[What would be gained if God proved to you that you have thought insanely? ]
ACIM
>With love and seeing you and Ken and Allen and Peggy and Tom, Dick and
>Harry, etc. as whole and perfect.
Seeing her as whole and perfect, yet you still found need to correct her?
That's insane!
Gwen Mathews
So, Holy Spirit can not use any of these things that we have made for His
Purpose??? What you have said above seems contrary to the thought in ACIM that
Purpose is EVERYTHING.
Peace,
Gwen
stairs to heavenly relationships
important book now in existence for many reasons that I've already
stated but mainly because Max Stirner's "The Ego and His Own" is as it
contains statments and conclusions like "we are perfect altogether" &
show me a sinner in the world still if noone any longer had to do what
suits a superior". A special point about acim is I agree with Ken that
the lessons are a psych study or simple and to me idiotic behavior
modification. I was quoted a price of $250 for The Ego as it is out of
print thus am proud to own "the most revolutionary book ever written"
and especially as my five encounter groups have proven in person a
century and a half later Max Stirner's admonition - "we must sharpen
our differences." which I've experienced have made us more forgining of
one another. don
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Deborah
wrote:
>"Not being in their right minds, they turned their defenses from
>protection to assault, and acted literally insanely."
>
>"You would not tolerate insane BEHAVIOR on your part, and would hardly
>advance the excuse that you could not help it. Why should you tolerate
>insane THINKING?"
>
>"Who but the insane would undertake to believe what is not true, and
>then protect this belief at the COST of truth?"
>
>"This is why the ego is insane; it teaches that you are NOT what you
>ARE."
>
>"The ingeniousness of the ego to preserve itself is enormous, but it
>stems from the power of the mind which the ego DENIES. This means that
>the ego ATTACKS what is PRESERVING it, and this MUST be a source of
>extreme anxiety. That is why the ego NEVER knows what it is doing. It
>is perfectly logical, but clearly insane."
So Gene, when you read the course, do you assume it is talking about
someone *else*?
>With all of that, we also should remember this:
>
>"When a brother behaves insanely, you can heal him only by perceiving
>the SANITY in him."
This would be literally the only sort of thing I should be looking for
in my brothers. To look for this and find it is my salvation.
Deborah
Visit my homepage at:
http://users.uniserve.com/~sn1301/welcome.htm
dth...@golden.net
On 21 Jan 2000, I AM Amminadab wrote:
> Linda wrote:
>
> > I am wondering what teacher you would follow who would teach you that
> >your brother can be insane?
>
> I follow Jesus, and He taught me about my insanity.... I am healing. My
> brothers, who are alegorical manifestations of the Thoughts in My Mind, are
> also insane.
<shaking head> It would seem rather obvious that ACIM says the ego is
*always* insane and insofar as any of us yeild to the ego rather than the
HS, our behaviour and thoughts will inevitably be insane.
Among those Jesus specifically says are insane are the teachers of "insane
religion who teach that sin and guilt are real."
Basically Jesus is saying, as I understand it, that such things we're
inclined to view as sin, guilt, shame and blame are actually simply a
mental illness resulting from confusion, or "insanity." It's rather like
saying that everyone we think of as guilty, including ourselves, is not
guilty by reason of insanity :). Distorted perceptions, we're just
looking at things incorrectly.
I might ask Linda what kind of a teacher you would follow who teaches that
your brother IS guilty and goes to court to prove it and demands
punishment for the guilty? In ACIM terms, this is specifically and
precisely the teachers of "insane religion who teach that sin and guilt
are real." When I first read that in ACIM I was thinking of a long list
of teachers of religion from the Pharisees to the Pope. In the light of
recent events, it seems Jesus was doing more than ruminating on ancient
history ...
All the best,
Doug
Gene Ward Smith
wrote:
>So Gene, when you read the course, do you assume it is talking about
>someone *else*?
What is your objection to my providing relevant quotes?
Magsacim
Only the mentally ill can determine who is mentally ill? This goes against
everything in the Course:
T-19.IV.D.11.2 Only the sane can look on stark insanity and raving madness with
pity and compassion, but not with fear. 3 For only if they share in it does it
seem fearful, and you do share in it until you look upon your brother with
perfect faith and love and tenderness.
No one can evaluate insanity truly while still desperately clinging to it.
Please <look> at what you've said with this statement about the reasoning
behind your belief.
Peace,
Carmen
I AM Amminadab
>Only the ego can recognise insanity.
That is upside-down and backwards. Can you support it?
Mike C
I
> >Only the ego can recognise insanity.
>
> That is upside-down and backwards. Can you support it?
The still insane ego does not recognize itself as insane..why would it and
if it did can't you imagine the nothing it would do with it, like
fragmenting into yet another identity so as to blame further eons. Isn't
there tho a transformed healed ego which although no longer that as never
having been that recognizes insanity as the nothing that it is for having
recognizing that nothing in myself is how and only how I was, in grace, able
to release its boundage. The miracle is that something (fill in the blank)
recognizes insanity and has the wherewithall to guide to its disolvement. My
expereince is that the recognizer is ole bottomed me in a state of asking
for help as hoplessly insane and axiomatically answered. Who recognizes my
call, my insanity? Are they the same thing? One could say that sanity need
not call and that only insanity requires assistence but methinks this begs
the issue...we are called insane by He that has been insane so that
consideration and if not that pain may bring me to admission and ask for the
ever present help...and is He that knows insanity insane? Naw. He is
resurrected from insanity but virtue of the experienced
realization that insanity cannot be. There is the quick and the dead. Quick
is that insanity never happened and dead is arguing about who knows that it
did.
love
mike
Mike C
." which I've experienced have made us more forgining of
> one another. don
I didn't remember that you drank.
mike
Mike Down Under
dth...@golden.net wrote in message ...
>A sane voice must always speak in peace and always recognize war, lawsuits
>and other attacks as "insane."
Only the ego can recognise insanity.
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
Magsacim wrote in message <20000121123335...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
><< Only the ego can recognise insanity. >>
>
>
against
>everything in the Course:
>
>T-19.IV.D.11.2 Only the sane can look on stark insanity and raving madness
with
>pity and compassion, but not with fear. 3 For only if they share in it does
it
>seem fearful, and you do share in it until you look upon your brother with
>perfect faith and love and tenderness.
Quotes quotes quotes. Even the Course tells you to not look at it in bits
but as a whole. Quotes can prove nothing but that you don't understand the
Course at all. Anybody can look up quotes in ACIM and find all sorts of
opposing suggestions and paradoxes eg.
T-6.V.B.6. There can be no conflict between sanity and insanity. 2 Only one
is true, and therefore only one is real. 3 The ego tries to persuade you
that it is up to you to decide which voice is true, but the Holy Spirit
teaches you that truth was created by God, and your decision cannot change
it.
This says insanity is illusory. Only the ego recognises the illusory.
T-11.V.16. Do not underestimate the appeal of the ego's demonstrations to
those who would listen. 2 Selective perception chooses its witnesses
carefully, and its witnesses are consistent. 3 The case for insanity is
strong to the insane.
Only the ego is insane! Only the insane ego believes in insanity. Both are
illusions. The sane cannot see illusions.
T-13.III.5. You can accept insanity because you made it, but you cannot
accept love because you did not.
The 'you' refers to ego. So not only is the ego the only 'thing' that can
look on insanity, it is the only 'thing' that made it.
And yes there are quotes which appear to support your idea as there are
those which do the opposite. Such is the problem of illusory bits of One.
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith
<mbys...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>T-13.III.5. You can accept insanity because you made it, but you
cannot
>accept love because you did not.
>The 'you' refers to ego. So not only is the ego the only 'thing' that
can
>look on insanity, it is the only 'thing' that made it.
The "you" of this passage clearly does *not* refer to the ego; the ego
did not make insanity, the ego is the insanity we made. In fact, "you"
*never* refers to the ego in the Course. The Course is trying to teach
us we are not an ego!
>And yes there are quotes which appear to support your idea as there
are
>those which do the opposite. Such is the problem of illusory bits of
One.
If you don't go to the Course to learn what it says, where can you go?
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith wrote in message <388961d4....@news.frii.com>...
>The "you" of this passage clearly does *not* refer to the ego; the ego
>did not make insanity, the ego is the insanity we made. In fact, "you"
>*never* refers to the ego in the Course. The Course is trying to teach
>us we are not an ego!
Yup ya got me on this one, you are right here. My mistake.
>>And yes there are quotes which appear to support your idea as there
>are
>>those which do the opposite. Such is the problem of illusory bits of
>One.
>If you don't go to the Course to learn what it says, where can you go?
But not here. I certainly didn't suggest not going to the Course. I am
saying don't treat it as a whole lot of bits. Treat it as a whole. Same as
the Course is saying.
Mike Down Under
Magsacim
I was offering you an opportunity to prove to us that you ARE sane by showing
either pity or compassion for those of our brothers who are in pain - for to
the sane, frightened people are no longer a source of fear.
The quote is knowledge and as such IS the One.
Bless you always,
Carmen
Mike Down Under
>- for to
>the sane, frightened people are no longer a source of fear.
Of course - they no longer see them as frightened! They see them for what
they are. They see past the illusion to the Christ in them. It is only the
ego that can see them as frightened.
Mike Down Under
Magsacim
ego that can see them as frightened. >>
And then, from the Christ in them, they can only bless.
It is a valid test for sanity - on this can we agree?
Blessings and a smile,
Carmen
I AM Amminadab
>T-13.III.5. You can accept insanity because you made it, but you cannot
>accept love because you did not.
>
>The 'you' refers to ego.
No, you are wrong. Jesus NEVER uses "you" when referring to "ego".... that
would be insanity.
bruceh
the Bible. I feel that the "Jesus" of the Course is a symbol of the Holy
Spirit or the Higher Self within us all. The confusion between the
historical Jesus and the ACIM "Jesus" is confusing many.
The historical Jesus in the Bible was the ONE SON of GOD. The Jesus of the
Course is just an elder brother with the only difference between Jesus and
us is time. And time is just an illusion.
We can't forget the symbolism within the Course. The idea of Jesus being
the author of the Course is not at all necessary for one to practice the
Course. Seeing Jesus as separate from us, as being something really
special, is not helpful. And it certainly appears for many it is definitely
NOT helpful to see Jesus of the Course as the historical Jesus.
The Sonship is One and within that Sonship Jesus is a member just as you
are--but even to speak as if Jesus is an individual, I am another
individual, and You are another individual is missing the mark. There are
no individuals in reality--we are the ONE SON, the CHRIST.
Bruce
<vals...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:866bdp$g51$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Dear Friends,
>
> I have purposely tried to stay away from the Course in Miracles
> controversy,
> not wanting to add more energy to what is already a very sad
> situation. Most
> of you know that I have been a Course student for many years, and I
> have
> tried to communicate Course in Miracles principles in the books I have
> written, especially in "Emissary of Light." I have observed the
> copyright
> situation from afar and have prayed for it to be resolved in a way that
> honors the brilliant extension of love from the mind and heart of
> Jesus, and
> which also helps us dissolve the boundaries that seem to separate us
> from one
> another.
>
> in recent weeks, however, in light the discovery of the original
> version of
> the manuscript that has been circling the globe, I suddenly feel that I
> have
> a few words to say. We all know that the truth of A Course in Miracles
> is not
> found in the words of a book, but in the Spirit of Truth that radiates
> from
> those words. I steadfastly believe that the Course is the most
> important
> book in the world today. And when the very Spirit of that Truth is
> blanketed
> by the meaningless maneuvering of legal experts, it is important for
> those
> students who have come into a direct experience with this material to
> let
> their voices be heard.
>
> That is why I decided to write this letter, to show the silliness of
> this
> entire issue, as well as the importance it holds for us all.
>
> Here is a little story I thought you might be interested in hearing.
> Around
> two and a half years ago when "Emissary of Light" was first released by
> Time/Warner, I received a rather interesting letter from Ken Wapnick.
> The
> letter was addressed to both me and my publisher, and claimed that I
> may have
> infringed upon the copyright of A Course in Miracles. According to Ken,
> the
> book had illegally copied entire sections of the Course, and that
> restitution
> may be required. The legal department of Time/Warner sent a letter back
> to
> Ken asking him show them the copied passages. A week later a new
> letter was
> received saying that perhaps I never actually copied sections of A
> Course in
> Miracles, but the intent was there.
>
> In an attempt to ease the situation I sent a personal letter to Mr.
> Wapnick.
> I wrote, "If a man from Italy were to move to the US, it would be
> unreasonable to expect that man to speak English without an Italian
> accent.
> Likewise, it is unreasonable to expect me to talk about God without a
> Course
> in Miracles accent." (Apparently Ken did not like my analogy and said
> that he
> held to his original position.)
>
> I also wrote that I believe it is important that the Course not make
> the same
> mistakes every other religion has made by establishing a priesthood and
> infallible dogma. He assured me that he shared my opinion in this, and
> that
> he for one would do everything he could to make sure that the Course
> would
> remain free of these chains.
>
> I guess that was before millions of dollars were at stake. When I
> heard that
> Mr. Wapnick had stated in court that A Course in Miracles was not
> written by
> Jesus, but that it was a psychological study written by Helen, I knew
> something had to be done. I wonder why Ken has set himself up in a kind
> of
> Judas role, especially when he has claimed time and time again in his
> many
> books that the Course was indeed written by Jesus. (How does one go
> back and
> forth like that?) Once again, I guess that was before he stood the
> chance of
> losing a great deal of money. Now, at least, we know where his
> priorities
> lie.
>
> What does all of this mean? First of all, it means nothing. Luckily,
> the
> truth and the way it is expressed in A Course in Miracles is beyond
> attack.
> And yet, I believe it is important for each one of us to decide if we
> will
> accept that truth. Jesus himself said in the Course that it is not
> essential
> that we except his authorship in order to enjoy the benefits therein.
> But he
> also said that he can help us a little more if we do. So the ball lands
> where
> it began.
>
> More then anything I wanted to illustrate the insanity of this whole
> issue,
> and I believe the letter Ken sent to me does just that. I am going to
> shut up
> now and return to the silence I had observed till now.
>
> In Peace,
> James F. Twyman
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
bruceh
at this also. One way is from the ego the other is from the Holy Spirit.
It is our choice. What shall it be?
Bruce
<dth...@golden.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.05L.100012...@shell.golden.net...
bruceh
Judgment of our brother is always from the ego. Perception of attack is
always from our ego. Peace comes from asking the Holy Spirit to correct our
perception.
Bruce
<dth...@golden.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.05L.100012...@shell.golden.net...
>
>
> > << How can one sign one's letter "In Peace", when one has just called
his
> > brother insane? >>
>
> Only the truth is true. War is insane. So are lawsuits. Peace is
> sanity.
>
>
> A sane voice must always speak in peace and always recognize war, lawsuits
> and other attacks as "insane."
>
> All the best,
>
> Doug
>
Gene Ward Smith
>I really don't think the "Jesus" of the Course is the historical
Jesus of
>the Bible. I feel that the "Jesus" of the Course is a symbol of the
Holy
>Spirit or the Higher Self within us all. The confusion between the
>historical Jesus and the ACIM "Jesus" is confusing many.
>The historical Jesus in the Bible was the ONE SON of GOD.
The historical Jesus was whomever he was; you are mixing up history
with the some of the texts which a historian would use to try to
discover what that historical Jesus was really like. I'm using
"historical Jesus" here to mean the Jesus about whom the statements of
history refer, not to any construction as to what that historical
person was like--this is I think the most common usage.
The authors of the New Testament undoubtedly had theological views,
and in some cases these views are at odds with the positions adopted
by ACIM; this does *not* prove that the "Jesus of history" cannot have
continued on for another 2000 years and written it. While we may have
no way to either verify or falsify this statement, it is a statement
about the world; it is making a factual claim.
I also think a clear distinction needs to be drawn between what you
feel to be true and what ACIM claims *is* true. The former is up to
you to determine, but the latter is not. Whether truly or falsely,
ACIM claims for itself authorship by that same historical figure named
Jesus who chose his Apostles, was crucified, died, and later appeared
to his startled followers in what appeared to be but did not behave as
a human body.
>We can't forget the symbolism within the Course.
We can't understand the symbolism of the Course without being able to
tell what is symbolism and what is not. Assuming anything we don't
like or find slightly confusing is "symbolism" and may safely be
ignored is not a good way to understand anything.
The idea of Jesus being
>the author of the Course is not at all necessary for one to practice
the
>Course. Seeing Jesus as separate from us, as being something really
>special, is not helpful.
Jesus said he was being very careful neither to overstate nor
understate the significance of his role. I think that we can safely
follow his lead in this matter; and assume he meant what he said and
that his significance is neither more nor less than what he claims for
it. That, I think, *is* helpful.
And it certainly appears for many it is definitely
>NOT helpful to see Jesus of the Course as the historical Jesus.
I think part of it may be the fear of morphing into Pat Robertson,
leaping up and shouting "Thank you, Jesus!", and proceeding to condemn
the "sinners". In any case, whatever we find helpful needs to be
distinguished from whatever we find ACIM to be saying. We can't
rewrite it to suit ourselves and keep our intellectual integrity.
dth...@golden.net
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, bruceh wrote:
> Again one's choice on how they perceive--from the ego or the Holy Spirit.
> Judgment of our brother is always from the ego. Perception of attack is
> always from our ego. Peace comes from asking the Holy Spirit to correct our
> perception.
Well there are two kinds of judgement. ACIM says "The Holy Spirits judges
correctly." And there are two kinds of perception and ACIM says "The Holy
Spirit perceives correctly."
So, with all due respect, I don't agree that ACIM says that all judgement
and all perception is of the ego. If it were, your judgement of me would
be ....
Both the Holy Spirit and the Ego can judge and perceive. The difference
is that the one is all mixed up and distorted and the other is correct and
true. At least that's what ACIM says.
All the best,
Doug
Okeewap
>Well there are two kinds of judgement. ACIM says "The Holy Spirits judges
>correctly." And there are two kinds of perception and ACIM says "The Holy
>Spirit perceives correctly."
I interpret the Holy Spirt's correct judgement to mean that the He judges every
thing as innocent instead of guilty as the ego does.
Following are a couple of quotes regarding the Holy Spirts perception:
W-43.1 "Perception is not an attribute of God. 2 His is the realm of knowledge.
3 Yet He has created the Holy Spirit as the Mediator between perception and
knowledge. 4 Without this link with God, perception would have replaced
knowledge forever in your mind. 5 With this link with God, perception will
become so changed and purified that it will lead to knowledge. 6 That is its
function as the Holy Spirit sees it. 7 Therefore, that is its function in
truth."
W-pII.7.1 "The Holy Spirit mediates between illusions and the truth. 2 Since He
must bridge the gap between reality and dreams, perception leads to knowledge
through the grace that God has given Him, to be His gift to everyone who turns
to Him for truth. 3 Across the bridge that He provides are dreams all carried
to the truth, to be dispelled before the light of knowledge. 4 There are sights
and sounds forever laid aside. 5 And where they were perceived before,
forgiveness has made possible perception's tranquil end."
We have access to the Holy Spirt at any stage in our developement. As we move
up the rungs of the ladder Home our understanding of the Holy Spirt, as well as
all of the symbols in the Course changes.
Love, elaine :)
bruceh
on page 480:
'Returning now to Helen and the Course, while her experience most definitely
was of Jesus--a person outside herself--relating to her and dictating to
her, in truth the reality was much different. Helen was able to return her
mind to that memory of God's Love--her true Identity--symbolized by her as
Jesus. By uniting with him, she united with love. That union has no form or
specifics, for love, as we have seen, is abstract and beyond all divisions
of the ego. This love, of which Jesus was the manifestation, flowed through
the separated mind we know as Helen (the water taking shape in the glass)
and came out to the world as the three books we know as A Course in
Miracles. Thus, it was Helen's mind that gave the Course its form; the
content came from outside her ego mind, from a love that nonetheless is
within her mind, as indeed it is in all of us. Recall Helen's own
description, given in Part II, that Jesus made use of her "educational
background, interests and experience, but that was in matters of style
[i.e., form] rather than content."'
I found "Absence From Felicity" fascinating. Near the end of the book,
specifically the sections 'Helen and Jesus: The Illusion and the Reality',
pages 477-491 and the Epilogue, 'Beyond Heaven and Helen: The Priestess',
pages 499-503 are very interesting. I suggest that anyone interested in the
scribing of the Course should read this material. It certainly helps one
get past the concept of Jesus sitting in Helen's mind dictating to her, word
for word.
Bruce
Mike Down Under <mbys...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
news:388c...@aphrodite.tassie.net.au...
> Great stuff Bruce - very refreshing. It also brings to mind what I
remember
> of KW's comments about Jesus and the author of ACIM in court but before I
> restate my memory of them, does someone have a copy of them? If so could
you
> copy them to the list?
>
> Ol' Doug keeps saying:
>
> >Ken's testimony under oath that Jesus is not the author of ACIM does
> >appear to contradict his statements in the video and in his books that
> >affirm in no uncertain terms that it "had to be Jesus."
>
> I for one would like to see Ken's actual testimony again coz I'm not so
sure
> that what he said is what Ol' Doug claims. I then want to compare that
with
> what KW has said elsewhere.
>
> Mike Down Under
>
> bruceh wrote in message ...
Mike Down Under
of KW's comments about Jesus and the author of ACIM in court but before I
restate my memory of them, does someone have a copy of them? If so could you
copy them to the list?
Ol' Doug keeps saying:
>Ken's testimony under oath that Jesus is not the author of ACIM does
>appear to contradict his statements in the video and in his books that
>affirm in no uncertain terms that it "had to be Jesus."
I for one would like to see Ken's actual testimony again coz I'm not so sure
that what he said is what Ol' Doug claims. I then want to compare that with
what KW has said elsewhere.
Mike Down Under
bruceh wrote in message ...
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith wrote in message <388bf68e....@news.frii.com>...
>I also think a clear distinction needs to be drawn between what you
>feel to be true and what ACIM claims *is* true. The former is up to
>you to determine, but the latter is not.
This is technical hooha Gene. No matter what the evidence, at the end of the
day it will be evaluated by what we feel is correct. ACIM says repeatedly
that we will always and only see what we believe and that is true in this
situation and every other one.
>ACIM claims for itself authorship by that same historical figure named
>Jesus who chose his Apostles, was crucified, died, and later appeared
>to his startled followers in what appeared to be but did not behave as
>a human body.
It does no such thing. I have challenged you before to show me the words
where it says this and you were unable to do so. I know you want to claim
that where it implies this nonsense and that is good enough as proof, but it
just isn't good enough. Even more so were we to believe your other hooha
statement above. You can't have it both ways.
As you said on another matter recently:
>Subjectively I will say that I reject it utterly and without
>hesitation, but neither of us can prove we are right.
Well the same thing applies here!
>We can't understand the symbolism of the Course without being able to
>tell what is symbolism and what is not. Assuming anything we don't
>like or find slightly confusing is "symbolism" and may safely be
>ignored is not a good way to understand anything.
And how do we tell what is symbolism and what is not? We do it by what feels
right to us. The end result of that is that we will all have different
feelings, which is just as the Course says will happen and that is fine by
me. I know you want to make the Course a precise mathematically correct
document Gene, and maybe for you it is, but stop trying to force this on the
rest of us. It certainly isn't my interpretation of the Course and my
interpretation is fine for me.
>I think part of it may be the fear of morphing into Pat Robertson,
>leaping up and shouting "Thank you, Jesus!", and proceeding to condemn
>the "sinners".
Here you go again telling others what they are thinking!!!! Or maybe this is
a mathematical joke! You have no idea why some don't see Jesus of the Bible
as being the author of the Course. Its fine for me if you want to believe he
was, there are bigger fairytales about the Course than this, but I do object
to your constant telling us who it was when there is no scientific proof of
it at all.
Personally I don't care who the author was. For me it is irrelevant - the
Course stands on its own two feet, regardless who wrote, edited, copyrighted
it. Needing to be right on these things are just a smoke screen put up by
those who are more interested in intellectualizing the Course rather than
trying to put it into practice.
Mike Down Under
Magsacim
that what he said is what Ol' Doug claims. I then want to compare that with
what KW has said elsewhere.
Mike Down Under >>
The work of comparison has been done <for> you, Mike:
ACIM DISTRIBUTION INCONSISTENCIES UNDER OATH:
ITEM #1
Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, in support of relief from defendant, Ryan
Rothgeb, 12/99:
Item 3: Dr. Schucman’s colleague, Dr. William Thetford,
assisted her in converting her notes to a typed manuscript. After the
manuscript had been substantially completed, I WAS ASKED BY Drs. Schucman and
Thetford to provide editorial and CREATIVE REVISIONS. In all, the manuscript
went through five drafts from 1965 to 1975. The result of this
ten-year-CREATIVE effort was A Course in Miracles.
TRANSCRIPTS OF DR. WILLIAM THETFORD, CHARLES PARRISH (Dr. William Thetford’s
long-term Domestic Partner), JUDITH SKUTCH (WHITSON) and DR. KENNETH WAPNICK,
from the video, The Story of A Course in Miracles, copyright 1987, FIP,
suggested retail price: $60 (quoted from FACIM publication, The Lighthouse,
Fall, 1999, issue):
Dr. William Thetford:
“After I typed up whatever Helen might have dictated on a...a particular day,
we would go back over the copy checking carefully to be sure that we had ALL of
the words exactly the way they were supposed to be. Helen, at times, was
tempted to change a word and then she would recognize that, if she did that, it
would not make sense later, so that her integrity in recording this material
PRECISELY as it came was extraordinary.”
Charles Parrish:
“What was remarkable is that there was vir...virtually no changes in the...in
the actual Text of the Course. Uh...All the major editing was involved only in
chapter designation and the physical organization of the printed work. But the
manuscripts were REMARKABLE in their order and clarity, DIRECTLY...uh... just
as Helen translated it from her shorthand notes.”
Judith Skutch Whitson:
“One wanted to shorten it, another wanted to edit it severely, another one
wanted to remove the Christian terminology. Distortions here, distortions
there. It didn’t feel right. We REALLY had a sense that this document was to
stay intact - as Helen took it down - with no changes.”
Dr. Kenneth Wapnick:
“This is the manuscript that I had seen [HLC on screen]. Some of the titles, I
felt, were not really appropriate to the section, the capitalization was
inconsistent, the paragraphing was inconsistent, the punctuation was
inconsistent, etc. So I discussed this with Helen and Bill and saying that I
really felt that it really should be gone through one more time, just to be
sure that it was EXACTLY the way it was supposed to be.”
ITEM #2
Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, in support of relief from defendant, Ryan
Rothgeb, 12/99:
Item 11: In 1975 we decided as a group to publish A Course in Miracles
(sometimes referred to herein as the “Course”) through the existing Foundation,
which would soon change its name to the Foundation for Inner Peace. DR.
SCHUCMAN, THE AUTHOR OF A COURSE IN MIRACLES, assigned her copyright in the
work to the Foundation, which became the Course’s trustee and publisher.
TRANSCRIPTS OF DR. WILLIAM THETFORD and KENNETH WAPNICK, from the video, The
Story of A Course in Miracles, copyright 1987, FIP:
Dr. William Thetford:
“But as I read the material, I recognized that Helen in NO way could have
written this material. It was totally ALIEN to her background, to her
interests and her mode of conceptualizing abstract ideas. That, uh, there’s NO
way she could have done this.”
Dr. Kenneth Wapnick:
“One of the things that I was most impressed with about the Course was the fact
that Jesus was the author of it and I just could not believe that anyone else
could have written it. It was very clear to me that HELEN could’t have written
it and I just couldn’t imagine it having any other source but Jesus, himself.”
Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, Absence from Felicity, copyright 1991, FIP, p 363:
“A cute yet strange aspect to our editing recurred every once in a while, when
after reading a particulary difficult passage Helen would turn to me in
laughter, exclaiming that she did not have the remotest idea what the words
meant.”
ITEM #3
Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, in support of relief from defendant, Ryan
Rothgeb, 12/99:
Item 12: A Course in Miracles was FIRST PUBLISHED in or about the Fall
of 1975, Certificates of Registration for A Couse in Miracles were issued by
the Registrar of Copyrights to the “Foundation for Parasensory Investigation,”
the former name of FIP, on or about November 24, 1975 bearing Registration No.
A-693944, and on June 22, 1976 bearing Registration No. A-805255.
TRANSCRIPTS OF DR. WILLIAM THETFORD, from the video, The Story of A Course in
Miracles, copyright 1987, FIP:
“Helen and Ken and I frequently met at Judy’s apartment at the Beresford on
Central Park West. This was an opportunity for us to gather together, meet
people who were interested in metaphysical ideas...uh...particularly people who
were interested in the Course, since Judy had managed to disseminate the Course
in Xerox form very QUICKLY to a large number of her friends. And I had this
tremendous sense of relief that I could RELEASE those twelve (12) copies that
I’d been hiding in the closet and that Judy had taken the ball and was running
WITH it...that she was doing the things that were NEEDED at that point to
disseminate the material, to begin to get critical reactions from people and,
in a sense, to socialize US to what was going on in the larger world outside of
academia, where we had been confined for so many years.
We met a large number of very eminent people in California [July, 1975 per Dr.
Kenneth Wapnick, Absence from Felicity, ibid], as WELL as in New York, who were
serious students of the Course, all of them wanted additional copies, everyone
was DISSATISFIED with the fact that this was available only by rapidly XEROXING
hundreds and hundreds of pages of material. So it became apparent in the
course of this that we were going to have to entertain the idea of PUBLICATION.
At that point, several people did come up, made offers...uh...to publish
the...the Course in its entirety, but none of this seemed quite right.”
Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, Absence from Felicity, copyright 1991, FIP, p 375:
“Within a month or two of our initial meeting [May 29, 1975 per Declaration of
Dr. Wapnick], Judy arranged for us (Louis included, of course) to spend a
month in the Bay Area of San Francisco (Judy’s second home at that time, and
now her current residence). There we met large numbers of very interested
people, who seemed at times, however, more interested in the story of the
Course’s scribing than in the material itself.”
ITEM #4
Declaration of Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, in support of relief from defendant, Ryan
Rothgeb, 12/99:
Item 13: I is my understanding that since the first publication of A
Course in Miracles, ALL APPLICABLE PROVISIONS of the Copyrights Acts of 1909
and 1976 have been substantially complied with.
SEE ALL OF THE ABOVE PLUS:
Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, Absence from Felicity, copyright 1991, FIP, p. 513:
1975(Summer, Fall) Distribution of 300 photo-offset copies of A Course in
Miracles [plus 12 additional Xerox copies of the HLC made by Dr. Thetford prior
to meeting Dr. Wapnick, for his personal distribution - see above]
Gene Ward Smith
<mbys...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith wrote in message
<388bf68e....@news.frii.com>...
>>I also think a clear distinction needs to be drawn between what you
>>feel to be true and what ACIM claims *is* true. The former is up to
>>you to determine, but the latter is not.
>This is technical hooha Gene. No matter what the evidence, at the end
of the
>day it will be evaluated by what we feel is correct.
If we adopted your point of view in mathematics, we wouldn't have any
mathematics. People "feel" things are correct all the time, but that
is not proof. If we adopted your point of view in any of the sciences,
we would have gotten nowhere--much of the time what people "feel" is
simply wrong.
Are the humanities exempt? If we simply wrote what we "felt" was true,
without using the canons and standards of a professional historian,
would that be fine? Not to historians! You said once that you wrote a
bunch of baloney on your undergraduate term papers in philosophy and
the professors let you get away with it. If so, they were not doing a
very good job, nor you any favors, for there are standards there also.
>>ACIM claims for itself authorship by that same historical figure
named
>>Jesus who chose his Apostles, was crucified, died, and later
appeared
>>to his startled followers in what appeared to be but did not behave
as
>>a human body.
>It does no such thing. I have challenged you before to show me the
words
>where it says this and you were unable to do so.
This is simply false. I did do so, and you complained that it never
said "I, Jesus, dictated this" in the *form* you wanted, though you
yourself agreed the *content* was there. Are you going back on that
now? What is the reason for your desperate clinging to an argument
you've admitted goes nowhere?
>And how do we tell what is symbolism and what is not? We do it by
what feels
>right to us.
In other words, there are no standards of any kind in your
intellectual world. That is convenient if you are determined to
believe what you want in the teeth of any and all evidence, but you
should read what the Course has to say about defending our view of the
world against change.
The end result of that is that we will all have different
>feelings, which is just as the Course says will happen and that is
fine by
>me. I know you want to make the Course a precise mathematically
correct
>document Gene, and maybe for you it is, but stop trying to force this
on the
>rest of us. It certainly isn't my interpretation of the Course and my
>interpretation is fine for me.
It isn't whatever you say it is. Your attempt to pretend some of the
time that the Course does not make this issue extremely clear while at
other times admitting that in fact it does is fairly obviously rooted
in some sort of defense mechanism. The fact that at *all* times,
whether in the phase of admitting this or not, you seem to be very
hostile to anyone who points this out makes that even clearer.
>You have no idea why some don't see Jesus of the Bible
>as being the author of the Course.
That is not what we are discussing. Most people who you might ask
about it will not see Jesus as the author of the Course, and the
reasons are not mysterious. What you are denying (at least some of the
time) is that the Course does not make its claimed authorship
abundantly clear. That is intellectual dishonesty, and there can be no
acceptable reason for it. It is particularly absurd when you wiffle
and waffle back and forth on the issue, cling to technicalities, and
in general make it quite obvious that something other than an
objective quest for the truth is motivating you.
Its fine for me if you want to believe he
>was, there are bigger fairytales about the Course than this, but I do
object
>to your constant telling us who it was when there is no scientific
proof of
>it at all.
I haven't said so. Why not characterize my statements accurately?
Bringing up "scientific proof" is a compete red herring and another
evasion of an issue which seems to be upsetting you a great deal.
If you kidnapped ten scientists at random and made them read the
Course, it is quite likely all ten would think at the end of it that
Jesus was not the author of the Course. It is a practical certainty
that all ten would think the Course itself implies that he is. If you
asked for "scientific proof" for either statement, they would probably
tell you you don't understand what science is about.
Magsacim
Here's <part> of the comparison of Dr. Wapnick's deposition in the Endeavor
Case with <some> of the many things he has written:
ACIM DISTRIBUTION INCONSISTENCIES UNDER OATH:
ITEM #1
DEPOSITION BY Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, in support of relief from the New Christian
Church of Full Endeavor, 3/3/99:
Q. Did you have any understanding when Helen would refer to it that it was in
fact Jesus’ voice?
A. Total understanding, yes.
Q. Are we talking about the biblical Jesus or is there a different Jesus we
may be talking about?
A. It was a different Jesus.
Q. What Jesus are we talking about?
A. It’s a little difficult to answer simply, so may I explain?
Q. That’s what we are here for.
A. I think in terms of the Course in terms of Helen’s experience, there was a
distinct difference between what we refer to as the biblical Jesus and the
historical Jesus. While Helen knew the Bible very, very well, she didn’t like
the Bible and she didn’t like what it taught. She didn’t like the figure of
Jesus as he was presented in the Bible. Her experience of Jesus, that Jesus
that she felt a relationship to, would not be the Jesus of the Bible.
DR. KENNETH WAPNICK, Absence from Felicity, copyright 1991, FACIM, p. 229:
(quoted as excerpted from manuscript)
“Jesus then continued:
...You have every right to examine <my> credentials - in fact, I urge you to do
so. You haven’t read the Bible in years.”
(commentary by Dr. Wapnick)
“Incidentally, Jesus’ urging Helen to read the Bible should be understood in
the context of her having used the avoidance of the Bible as a symbolic means
of avoiding Jesus.”
Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, ibid, p. 398:
A very specific message came on October 2, 1976. Because of its special
nature, I present it out of its proper chronological sequence. Helen and I
were sitting on her couch, and she asked me if I believed in the physical
resurrection of Jesus. I replied, not really, for if the body were not real
and alive, how could it then resurrect? Besides, the definition of the
resurrection basically given in the Course is that of the awakening from the
dream of death, a process that occurs in the mind, not the body, since it is
the mind alone that sleeps. However, I went on, it was certainly possible that
Jesus’ followers would have experienced this awakening as a physical event,
given the level of their understanding, confusing form for content. I then
suggested to Helen that she ask the “Boss” himself, since who better than Jesus
could respond to her question. The following answer then came:
Was There a Physical Resurrection?
My body disappeared because I had no illusion about it. The last one had gone.
It was laid in the tomb, but there was nothing left to bury...
I did assume a human form with human attributes afterwards, to speak to those
who were to prove the body’s worthlessness to the world...etc.”
ITEM #2
DEPOSITION BY Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, in support of relief from the New Christian
Church of Full Endeavor, 3/3/99:
Q. When you believed it was Jesus, could you define for me or explain to me
who Jesus was or is at that time in your mind?
A. That is a little hard to say. I was raised Jewish. So I had no real
connection with the biblical Jesus at all. And to me, Jesus was a symbol and
it was certainly not the New Testament Jesus or the Christian Jesus.
DR. KENNETH WAPNICK, Absence from Felicity, copyright 1991, FACIM, p. 335:
(quoted from author of the book)
“A few words need to be inserted here regarding my relationship with Jesus. I
was, as Helen had pointed out, a very funny Christian. Baptized a Roman
Catholic the previous September [1972] (though, as I mentioned earlier, without
any identification with the Church or its teachings), and very much attracted
to life as a Trappist monk, I was nonetheless curiously involved with Jesus.
This was all the more remarkable considering that during this Israeli period,
when I was not in monasteries, I spent almost all of my time in the places
associated with Jesus, having very strong experiences of God’s presence while
there. I even had had a very powerful dream of Jesus coming to me the night
before I went to Jerusalem...
I ended up spending a week at the monastery [Gethsemani, KY], during which time
Jesus finally “showed up” for me. It occurred very early Sunday morning. I
was up about an hour before the monks’ first prayer service, which was to begin
at 3:00 A.M., and was continuing my first-time reading of the Course
manuscript. That morning I was reading the closing pages of the text. As I
began the paragraphs beginning with the words “Deny me not the little gift I
ask,” it suddenly dawned on the conscious, non-intellectual part of my mind,
<who> the first person of the Course truly was. I had known, of course, but
not really. And now suddenly I did know. Tears welled up inside me as I made
my way down to the Church for Matins...After a time I began to hear what was
now becoming a familiar inner voice, which I always identified with God. But
now, all at once, it occurred to me in a moment I shall never forget, that the
voice was more personal than I had ever before experienced, and that the person
was Jesus, the same Jesus whose gentle, loving, and authoritative voice was the
source of A Course in Miracles. I could not contain the tears that streamed
down my face, nor the inner joy I felt. It clearly had been, and still has
remained, the central experience of my existence here on earth.”
DR. KENNETH WAPNICK, ibid:
(quoted from author of the book)
“I entered the interior of the cave [located on Mt. Netofa, Israel] for the
last time, and not too long afterwards, while digging in an area I had already
been through, found a stone-carved ring. It had etchings on it that I could
neither decipher nor recognize, though it seemed ancient indeed...I felt then
that the ring symbolized a gift from Jesus to me, symbolic of a wedding ring
between our two selves.” p. 342
“After all, the true gift was the ring’s meaning to me, not the object itself:
the content not the form. We later visited a museum in Jerusalem, where the
ring was dated from a period before the time of Jesus.” p. 356
“I later learned that it was believed by some historians that this general area
(Lower Galilee) was a hiding place for the new Christians who were fleeing the
authorities and seeking secret places in which to meet after Jesus’ death. It
was conceivable therefore, we [Helen, Bill & KW] that some of the followers of
Jesus may have come to this very cave.” p. 340
ITEM #4:
DEPOSITION BY Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, in support of relief from the New Christian
Church of Full Endeavor, 3/3/99:
Q. When you say you discussed Jesus [with Dr. Schucman], ...you discussed
Jesus as an illusion or a dream?
A. Yes, as an illusion, a figure.
DR. KENNETH WAPNICK, ibid:
(commentary by the author)
"Helen basically fought with Jesus, projecting onto him her own failures,
seeking to make him responsible for her feelings of unhappiness. Bill, on the
other hand, continually attempted to deny the person of Jesus, finding it
difficult even to say his name, preferring J.C. in place of the name "Jesus."
In his later years, Bill would publicly as well as privately state his belief
tht the source of the Course was the Christ Mind or Christ Consciousness,
thereby continuing to avoid the personal presence and love of the one to whose
Course he so faithfully dedicated his life. This denial was a particularly
important defense for him." p. 239
Gene Ward Smith
I suggest that anyone interested in the
>scribing of the Course should read this material. It certainly helps
one
>get past the concept of Jesus sitting in Helen's mind dictating to
her, word
>for word.
Only if you want to "get past" what the Course says. The word for word
aspect raises an interesting point--much of the Course is in verse. A
question for anyone who thinks Helen did this without realizing it is
how likely that hypothesis is. Are there other examples of this
phenomenon? Another question and a basic one for Course students is
whether we *want* to get past what the Course tells us, and how much
trust we are going to place in it.
dth...@golden.net
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, bruceh wrote:
> In "Absence From Felicity" (which was published in 1991), Ken Wapnick says
> on page 480:
> 'Returning now to Helen and the Course, while her experience most definitely
> was of Jesus--a person outside herself--relating to her and dictating to
> her, in truth the reality was much different.
Thanks for that Bruce. It's an excellent point and one difficult to make
amidst all the sound and fury sometimes. I don't know when Ken decided
that Jesus is just a symbol Helen used to refer to a part of her own mind
or that while Helen asserted Jesus was the author and nearly everyone else
at least believed ACIM's author claims to be Jesus, Ken decided he knew
better but at some point he did develop that belief and he's been fairly
consistent for many years, when pressed, in asserting that Jesus' only
existence is that of a symbol and of course mere "symbols" can't author
books. This is consistent with his perculiar dualistic philosophy which
was quite well developed before he even met Helen and Bill. I say
"peculiar" because even most devout Wapnickians don't understand or share
what Ken is affirming here. There is no Jesus and there never was!
Whoever that guy from Nazereth the New Testament talks about actually was,
he's got nothing to do with ACIM. He was not "crucified, dead and buried
and on the third day rose to ascend to the right hand of God" because he
"was not" in the first place. Rather than an historical person like you
or I or Ken or Helen or Bill, he's pure myth, that is to say pure
"symbol".
Well it's a looooooooooooong stretch, but I think he really believes, very
profoundly, in dualism, and that there is not today nor was there ever a
person named Jesus, let alone a person named Jesus who authored ACIM.
I don't know what you mean or think of when you think or speak of Jesus,
but I know what I think of. Ken's idea of Jesus is something different.
Yet I find the author of ACIM fits my idea of Jesus much better than
Ken's. If Jesus never existed and is just a myth, and was never
crucified, and never rose from the tomb, why would ACIM's author refer to
these well known historical facts about the life of the historical Jesus?
Needless to say I don't agree with Ken's point of view on this but I am
fairly sure his belief is fairly sincere, an opinion that routinely gets
me into a lot of trouble :).
My bottom line remains "by their fruits ye shall know them." The fruit of
this dualistic and inevitably antinomial viewpoint is enmity and conflict.
Without any intellectualizing I know in my gut that there's something VERY
OFF COLOUR about that - that is not what the Jesus of the New Testament or
the Jesus of ACIM advocates.
Ken's right, his Jesus is a very different sort of fellow and had nothing
at all to do with either the New Testament or ACIM. ACIM's Jesus says I
became a man." That Jesus is no symbol any more than you or I are
symbols. In the unexpurgated HLC edition of ACIM we find the word "Soul"
used to describe what we are and what God created. Did God simply create
symbols? If we are to suppose that then we have to redefine the word
symbol away from the sense in which Ken is using it and understanding
Jesus, I think.
I don't have any problem with people believing these things or even
teaching these things. What I can't condone is suing everyone who thinks
or teaches other ideas that are more consistent with what ACIM actually
says - or for that matter, suing anyone at all for any reason at all in
preference to discussion and negotiation. If ACIM really does teach us to
indulge our hatreds and pick fights with everyone and manipulate and
coerce people then I would conclude that it really does have nothing to do
with Jesus and would file it under "another insane teaching" alonside
Hitler's "Mein Kamph."
Ken is an interesting chap and while I'm often horrified when I probe his
writings and teachings, I can't say it's not interesting.
I'm going to quote the rest of your piece, it's worth pondering.
> Helen was able to return her
> mind to that memory of God's Love--her true Identity--symbolized by her as
> Jesus. By uniting with him, she united with love. That union has no form or
> specifics, for love, as we have seen, is abstract and beyond all divisions
> of the ego. This love, of which Jesus was the manifestation, flowed through
> the separated mind we know as Helen (the water taking shape in the glass)
> and came out to the world as the three books we know as A Course in
> Miracles. Thus, it was Helen's mind that gave the Course its form; the
> content came from outside her ego mind, from a love that nonetheless is
> within her mind, as indeed it is in all of us. Recall Helen's own
> description, given in Part II, that Jesus made use of her "educational
> background, interests and experience, but that was in matters of style
> [i.e., form] rather than content."'
>
> I found "Absence From Felicity" fascinating. Near the end of the book,
> specifically the sections 'Helen and Jesus: The Illusion and the Reality',
> pages 477-491 and the Epilogue, 'Beyond Heaven and Helen: The Priestess',
> pages 499-503 are very interesting. I suggest that anyone interested in the
> scribing of the Course should read this material. It certainly helps one
> get past the concept of Jesus sitting in Helen's mind dictating to her, word
> for word.
>
> Bruce
>
> Mike Down Under <mbys...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:388c...@aphrodite.tassie.net.au...
> > Great stuff Bruce - very refreshing. It also brings to mind what I
> remember
> > of KW's comments about Jesus and the author of ACIM in court but before I
> > restate my memory of them, does someone have a copy of them? If so could
> you
> > copy them to the list?
> >
> > Ol' Doug keeps saying:
> >
> > >Ken's testimony under oath that Jesus is not the author of ACIM does
> > >appear to contradict his statements in the video and in his books that
> > >affirm in no uncertain terms that it "had to be Jesus."
> >
> > I for one would like to see Ken's actual testimony again coz I'm not so
> sure
> > that what he said is what Ol' Doug claims. I then want to compare that
> with
> > what KW has said elsewhere.
There are some 250 examples of Ken saying in writing and on the ACIM
promotional video that Jesus, not Helen authored ACIM. There are a number
of other places, and Bruce has quoted one, where Ken offers us his
understanding of who or what Jesus is. The way he uses the term changes
the obvious meaning of statements which Ken has made hundreds of times
"Jesus authored the Course, Helen could not have done it." Now there is a
level of deception in that he knows very well how most people are going
to interpret words like "Jesus wrote the course."
If not actually lying, Ken is being somewhat ingenuous at least. He knows
what most people understand "Jesus" to be and it's not a symbol of some
myth that most people understand.
This does come out in the depositions and you can look them up on Tom
Whitmore's web site.
There was a time not long ago when Ken threatened to sue one person for
libel for asserting that Ken did not believe Jesus wrote the Course. That
was just before EA's lawyers argued in court that if Jesus wrote it, it's
not eligible for copyright. Immediately Ken's tune changed and now he
tries to avoid mentioning Jesus at all and simply asserts in court
documents that Helen is the author of ACIM. I think it's fairly obvious
that there are legal reasons for that, to avoid the legal arguments about
the invalidity of copyright on divinely authored materials.
But I do think that as Ken understands it, there is no Jesus, that 'Jesus'
is simply a symbol of abstract principles. Thus he can argue with equal
conviction that Jesus did write the course and that Jesus didn't write the
course. Ken's mind and communications do tend to work this way. He's
very inventive with language. I think he's driving his lawyers bananas!
It's like the old "White man speak with forked tongue" problem. When you
look at what Ken says you must be very very careful because it often
appears to mean one thing on the surface but actually means something very
different underneath. Plain talk and candour aren't his strong suits.
You know he never says that he didn't make important changes to ACIM.
I've gone over "Absence" with a fine tooth comb. He says Helen didn't
make important changes. Like the audience of the sleight of hand artist,
we ASSUME, since they were BOTH involved in the editing, that he didn't
either. But he doesn't say that :).
In the video though, he and Bill and Charles Parrish and Judith Skutch all
say the same line "virtually no changes." Now that one we can pin down
since the HCL has escaped his attempts to suppress it. I don't think
anyone could construe the removal of 25% of the first five chapters and
the reversing of the meaning of some of it and the extensive substitution
of words adds up to "virtually no changes."
BUT!!!! This isn't Ken's doing, or at least not his alone. The Guardians
as a group are making this false assertion. And that makes the whole
riddle vastly more significant and intriguing. What *happened* to make
these folks all say something we now know to be manifestly incorrect?
That at least Ken *knew* it was incorrect can explain his energetic
efforts to suppress the HLC and cover up the lie. But why was it hatched
in the first place?
I dunno ...
All the best,
Doug
Gene Ward Smith
>That at least Ken *knew* it was incorrect can explain his energetic
>efforts to suppress the HLC and cover up the lie. But why was it
hatched
>in the first place?
I think at its root the situation arose out of the fact that none of
the principals fully accepted what the Course was saying. We at least
have the evidence of Ken saying that about Bill and Helen, and while
he won't say it about himself, it would seem his reservations were
very similar. Bill, to his eternal credit, seems to have insisted on
sticking to the words of the Course even when he couldn't really buy
everything it was saying; but when Ken and Helen moved the ball he was
not the man to blow the whistle on them--he may have felt comfortable
with the changes, and have been convinced that they changed nothing of
significance. That, after all, is what some people who compare the two
versions now conclude.
I am sure some people will object that Jesus would not have chosen
Bill and Helen knowing they had a strong resistance to the Course; but
he knew very well they had a strong resistance, and pointed that out.
Arguments about whom Jesus could not possibly choose for some purpose
may make some sense but obviously need to be treated with care given
the fact that he chose Judas. The idea that he would only chose
followers who would get his message right (the basis for the seductive
idea of Apostolic authority) is subverted in the Course, which claims
they often got in wrong.
Jesus told Helen he chose her because she would do the job, and
despite all of her resistance, she did. He also said that the tenacity
with which Bill and Helen clung to their erroneous thought system was
part of the reason he chose them--it showed they had developed the
capacity for allegiance to a thought system. I conclude from this that
the assumption that Bill or Helen had an inside track on understanding
the Course is a dangerous one; I know of no support for it in any of
the messages to Helen, we must make it at our own risk and on the
basis of whatever innate plausibility the idea holds for us.
dth...@golden.net
This is worth thinking about. When people first pick up the Course and
read and realize that the author is affirming his identity as JEsus, just
what sort of Jesus are people thinking about?
Let's think of people who don't even know what ACIM is. Ask then "who is
Jesus?" and what will they say?
And WHERE will they get their ideas of who Jesus is if not from the New
Testament, directly or indirectly?
Now if the author of ACIM has no connection whatsoever to the chief
character of the New Testament why oh why oh why would he go to such
great lengths to identify himself as that person?
Why not just call himself Norbert?
If only the truth is true, presenting under the name Norbert or Jesus or
any other would make no difference. Yet the ostensible author of ACIM
goes to considerable lengths to identify himself with the Jesus of the New
Testament. There are numerous references to historical episodes in Jesus'
life. The author frequently says "When I said" and quotes a New Testament
passage attributed to the historical Jesus.
If Norbert really is the author and not Jesus, why would Norbert go to
such lengths to identify himself with Jesus?
If Jesus is just a symbol and a myth, Norbert would serve as well as a
myth symbol. But the author of ACIM clearly chooses the name Jesus and
powerfully identifies with the history of the New Testament. If, as Ken
claims (with all sincerity) this isn't the real Jesus, why did Norbert do
that?
Jesus Christ is the author of ACIM and says so bluntly. You can agree or
disagree, believe or disbelieve but the text says so. Blunty. Now why
does Ken want to make Jesus into a symblic myth? To avoid dealing with
the fact that Jesus of Nazereth, that guy whose bio is recoreded in the
New Testament with less than perfect accuracy, is the author. Ken can't
accept that and probably never could. Ken is not alone. Many people
could deal with the text more easily if Norbert had written it but alas,
the author does not claim to be Norbert, the author claims to be Jesus.
You don't have to believe that's true, it's certain that Ken doesn't, but
you can't deny the text makes that claim. Well ok, you can deny it, Ken
does. But it's not a credible denial.
All the best
Doug
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith wrote in message <388d265d....@news.frii.com>...
>>scribing of the Course should read this material. It certainly helps
>one
>>get past the concept of Jesus sitting in Helen's mind dictating to
>her, word
>>for word.
>
The Course doesn't say anything about the dictation of the Course.
>The word for word
>aspect raises an interesting point--much of the Course is in verse. A
>question for anyone who thinks Helen did this without realizing it is
>how likely that hypothesis is. Are there other examples of this
>phenomenon?
It is no less a phenomenon than the idea of Jesus (someone that appears to
be dead to most people in the world) dictating the Course to Helen. I
suspect it would be much easier to get a court of law to accept helen wrote
it than Jesus (regardless of who actually wrote it).
>Another question and a basic one for Course students is
>whether we *want* to get past what the Course tells us, and how much
>trust we are going to place in it.
Nobody is suggesting we get past what the Course says. That seems to be your
idea!
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith wrote in message <388cf5c0....@news.frii.com>...
>If we adopted your point of view in mathematics, we wouldn't have any
>mathematics. People "feel" things are correct all the time, but that
>is not proof. If we adopted your point of view in any of the sciences,
>simply wrong.
If we adopted ACIM, then we would have no need for mathematics and sciences
at all.
I repeat that <all> proofs in the end rely on what people feel about them.
>This is simply false. I did do so, and you complained that it never
>said "I, Jesus, dictated this" in the *form* you wanted, though you
>yourself agreed the *content* was there. Are you going back on that
>now? What is the reason for your desperate clinging to an argument
>you've admitted goes nowhere?
I said then, since and now that your argument was insufficient and prooved
nothing.
I never agreed that the content was there. I did say that I felt there were
certain passages which <implied> Jesus could be the author and that were
others which <implied> he wasn't, but no passages which proved either.
>>And how do we tell what is symbolism and what is not? We do it by
>what feels right to us.
>In other words, there are no standards of any kind in your
>intellectual world. That is convenient if you are determined to
>believe what you want in the teeth of any and all evidence, but you
>should read what the Course has to say about defending our view of the
>world against change.
The Course says we will see what we believe. Experimentation in modern
physics (and increasingly in most sciences) is based on the premises that
the observer is never separate from the experiment and affects the result in
ways that would have been considered inconceivable before. We are <all> One.
The Course is quite clear in telling us that defense is a waste of time and
that when we defend we will be attacked. There is no point in defending our
view of the world as it is an illusion.
>>You have no idea why some don't see Jesus of the Bible
>>as being the author of the Course.
>
>That is not what we are discussing.
I am discussing it. It seems to be increasingly important, but you just
won't look at it.
>What you are denying (at least some of the
>time) is that the Course does not make its claimed authorship
>abundantly clear.
Yoy speak in circles with a double negative. I am not denying that at all. I
am saying quite unequivocably that the Course does not make its authorship
clear and nor does it claim who is the author.
>Bringing up "scientific proof" is a compete red herring and another
>evasion of an issue which seems to be upsetting you a great deal.
I have said I don't care who is the author of the Course as it stands on its
own merits and it isn't possible to prove who the author was. I don't see
the slightest thing upsetting about that. It is you that insists on
something which has no proof what so ever. It is you that has said that the
Course would have no merit if Jesus weren't the author. It appears that I
have nothing to loose either way and that you have set yourself up to loose
on something that can't be prooven. I can understand why you are so upset.
Relax, it really doesn't matter one hoot. :-)
>If you kidnapped ten scientists at random and made them read the
>Course, it is quite likely all ten would think at the end of it that
>Jesus was not the author of the Course. It is a practical certainty
>that all ten would think the Course itself implies that he is. If you
>asked for "scientific proof" for either statement, they would probably
>tell you you don't understand what science is about.
Gene Gene Gene. You accuse me of bringing up red herrings and then you try
to land a red whale!
Good grief, I hope you can do better than this in your philosophy papers.
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
Magsacim wrote in message <20000124222028...@ng-cu1.aol.com>...
>Mike:
>
>Here's <part> of the comparison of Dr. Wapnick's deposition in the Endeavor
>Case with <some> of the many things he has written:
Thanks Mags. I will try and get to this tomorrow.
However, I have used some of the phrases to search through my files and find
my copies of the depositions, but no luck.
Can you (or someone) possibly either post his full depositions to the list,
or better still, post an address where they can be found as I would rather
work with the full thing.
Mike Down Under
Pamela
So why did Pat tell me that you, like Ken, don't believe that Jesus
is the author of the course?
Pamela
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Cbecktel
>mathematics. People "feel" things are correct all the time, but that
>is not proof. If we adopted your point of view in any of the sciences,
>we would have gotten nowhere--much of the time what people "feel" is
>simply wrong.
the HS's thinking is the "exact" opposite of the ego's (science). that is why
using science as a guide to understanding the course won't work.
PRICH1053
>From: Pamela pamelareub...@hotmail.com.invalid
>Date: Tue, 25 January 2000 08:54 AM EST
>Message-id: <1c88e830...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com>
>
Pamela wrote:
Dear Doug:
So why did Pat tell me that you, like Ken, don't believe that Jesus is the
author of the course?
> Pamela
>
>
Wha-a-a-a-t?!
>
You must be confusing me with someone else. I never said any such thing.
Pat
PRICH1053
>From: "Mike Down Under" mbys...@postoffice.utas.edu.au
>Date: Tue, 25 January 2000 07:44 AM EST
>Message-id: <388d...@aphrodite.tassie.net.au>
>
>
Mike Down Under wrote:
>
If we adopted ACIM, then we would have no need for mathematics and sciences
at all.
>
>
Actually, we already have no need for mathematics and sciences. Ego would have
us think we do, because it's more "evidence" that this illusion is real.
Love, Pat
Gene Ward Smith
>the HS's thinking is the "exact" opposite of the ego's (science).
that is why
>using science as a guide to understanding the course won't work.
Tell it to Jesus--he's the one who talked about mathematics and
psychology in the Course. He even seems to think that something
mathematicians have shown to be impossible actually is impossible. I
don't know by what means he knows such things, but I don't suppose you
do either.
Gene Ward Smith
<mbys...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith wrote in message
<388cf5c0....@news.frii.com>...
>I never agreed that the content was there. I did say that I felt
there were
>certain passages which <implied> Jesus could be the author and that
were
>others which <implied> he wasn't, but no passages which proved
either.
This is not my recollection, and in any case is nonsense. There are no
passages which imply Jesus is not the author. You did point out, in
one of your characteristic quibbles, that some of it is not in first
person. This, of course, implies nothing.
To see that the Course claims Jesus as the author is a simple exercise
in reading. It isn't rocket science. To deny it is to deny the
obvious, and like any denial of the obvious is not an exercise in
reason but in ego defenses. To quibble about it is pointless, and
merely raises questions about the one doing the quibbling.
You are in this connection evidencing fear and avoidance of the
obvious. The Course tells us "the ego is *afraid* of the obvious", and
and this appears to be happening here. If you would forget your fear
and your desire to make the truth what you want it to be, rather than
what it is, you might be able to confront whatever it is you are
running from.
>The Course says we will see what we believe. Experimentation in
modern
>physics (and increasingly in most sciences) is based on the premises
that
>the observer is never separate from the experiment and affects the
result in
>ways that would have been considered inconceivable before. We are
<all> One.
Quantum mechanics would never have been discovered if people simply
interpreted things according to what they "felt" was true. It
contradicted and still contradicts what people "feel"; but it *does*
provide mathematical models for what they observe.
>>>You have no idea why some don't see Jesus of the Bible
>>>as being the author of the Course.
>
>>That is not what we are discussing.
>I am discussing it. It seems to be increasingly important, but you
just
>won't look at it.
If you want to discuss it, we can. I'm not avoiding the topic, but you
haven't said anything about it. Instead you've been at your game of
evasive quibbling again.
>Yoy speak in circles with a double negative. I am not denying that at
all. I
>am saying quite unequivocably that the Course does not make its
authorship
>clear and nor does it claim who is the author.
I'm not interested in discussions of whether or not the earth is flat,
so I don't see much point in continuing. I will point out the world is
not flat, and if it was, Mike would not be Down Under. Realizing the
earth is shaped like a ball is not a threat. Realizing the Course says
what it says and not what Mike Down Under wants to make it say is also
not a threat. If it only was there as an echo chamber for what you
already believe, why bother with it?
>I have said I don't care who is the author of the Course as it stands
on its
>own merits and it isn't possible to prove who the author was.
Obviously it doesn't prove who the author is. It does inform us, if we
choose to believe it, who the author is, and denying this can't make
that fact (for that is what is) go away. Denying facts is folly;
persist in it if you must, but you really should face the facts,
whatever they are.
Pamela
I am so sorry. Maybe it was Richard who said this to me? Please
forgive my error.
Pamela
PRICH1053
>Date: Tue, 25 January 2000 10:55 AM EST
>Message-id: <388dc012....@news.frii.com>
>
>
Dear Gene,
Before you get your toupee in a twist, I am not writing to dissuade you from
the mission given you by the Holy Spirit. And I'm not trying to tell you how
to live your life or attend to your healing. You've already told us you're not
interested in observations or advice when it comes to healing.
But I can't help noting, Gene, that you seem to use the words "fear" and
"avoidance" in your posts more than the rest of us.
Could this be.........projection??!!
I hasten to add that I realize I am projecting too, if I'm seeing these
thoughts in a brother but I am, at least, admitting it and asking that my
perception be changed by the HS.
The things we accuse others of are simply reflections of our own thoughts, so
you might want to think before typing. .
Pat
--------------------------------------------
Gene wrote to Mike D.U.:
>
You are in this connection evidencing fear and avoidance of the obvious. The
Course tells us "the ego is *afraid* of the obvious", and and this appears to
be happening here. If you would forget your fear and your desire to make the
truth what you want it to be, rather than what it is, you might be able to
confront whatever it is you are running from.
>
(snipped)
PRICH1053
>From: Pamela pamelareub...@hotmail.com.invalid
>Message-id: <10405393...@usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com>
>
Pamela wrote:
Dear Pat.
I am so sorry. Maybe it was Richard who said this to me? Please forgive my
error.
>
>
Dear Pamela,
No problem. Nothing to forgive (Except the entire world we see - LOL.)
Pat
Gene Ward Smith
>Before you get your toupee in a twist, I am not writing to dissuade
you from
>the mission given you by the Holy Spirit. And I'm not trying to tell
you how
>to live your life or attend to your healing. You've already told us
you're not
>interested in observations or advice when it comes to healing.
Not at all. I said I was not interested in advice which tells me to
quit using my "lower mind" on behalf of the Course. By the way, does
this mean we are back in communication? I'm going to assume it is
acceptable for me to respond to your articles again unless you tell me
otherwise.
>But I can't help noting, Gene, that you seem to use the words "fear"
and
>"avoidance" in your posts more than the rest of us.
In connection with this Jesus as the author of the Course business, I
had to face the fact that I did not want to have my options foreclosed
myself. My preference and general tendency is not to come to final
conclusions or decisions, and I did not like the way the Course put me
into the position of either accepting it in its entirety or regarding
it as fundamentally flawed. That, however, is what it did. I faced the
facts because they were facts, and I will not treat myself with such
contempt as to pull the wool over my eyes in so obvious a way. I think
to do that is to denigrate our own value in our eyes.
>Could this be.........projection??!!
Many things could be projection, but it seems to me it makes more
sense to ask this question if you see me running away from an obvious
fact. By that I mean not something you think is true and believe I
also should think is true, but something for which there is objective
evidence which you could present and which only a willful rejection of
the truth could blind me to. Do you see such a thing?
>I hasten to add that I realize I am projecting too, if I'm seeing
these
>thoughts in a brother but I am, at least, admitting it and asking
that my
>perception be changed by the HS.
I think in general it makes more sense to work on our own projections
than to attempt to locate those of another. Otherwise we end up with
projections of projections.
>The things we accuse others of are simply reflections of our own
thoughts, so
>you might want to think before typing. .
How far does this extend? If someone makes a mistake on a calculus
test, are you saying it isn't that they got the wrong answer, but that
I am wrong in thinking I have the right one? I do know that
irrationality, particularly if it seems to be deliberate, is something
I find disturbing, but I don't think this shows I am more than usually
irrational myself. It may mean I am more afraid of my own
irrationality than most people, and hence less tolerant of it in
general, but even if I have an irrational dislike of the irrational,
it doesn't seem to follow that I will see unreason everywhere I look.
I'd like to see you support your statement above from the Course, by
the way.
PRICH1053
>Message-id: <388de07c....@news.frii.com>
By the way, does this mean we are back in communication? I'm going to assume it
is acceptable for me to respond to your articles again unless you tell me
otherwise.
>
Sure, if you like. It's just that our exchanges don't seem terribly productive
on the face of if. Following is an example:l
>
I wrote:
But I can't help noting, Gene, that you seem to use the words "fear" and
"avoidance" in your posts more than the rest of us.
>
You responded:
In connection with this Jesus as the author of the Course business, I
had to face the fact that I did not want to have my options foreclosed myself.
My preference and general tendency is not to come to final conclusions or
decisions, and I did not like the way the Course put me into the position of
either accepting it in its entirety or regarding it as fundamentally flawed.
That, however, is what it did. I faced the facts because they were facts, and I
will not treat myself with such contempt as to pull the wool over my eyes in so
obvious a way. I think to do that is to denigrate our own value in our eyes.
>
>
Now see, this is what I mean. I mentioned that you described your brother Mike
Down Under as fearful and avoiding the truth. How does your response answer
that? It's as if the computer is losing entire paragraphs!
>
I asked: (snidely, I'll admit.)
Could this be.........projection??!!
>
You responded:
Many things could be projection, but it seems to me it makes more sense to ask
this question if you see me running away from an obvious fact.
>
Pat here:
Here's where we're talking at cross purposes again. All things are projections
I have invented the world I see" doesn't mean it's all invented and finished.
It means I continue to inventthe world I see. If I pick up a book and point to
a "fact," I am giving credence to another part of the illusion.
>
You wrote:
By that I mean not something you think is true and believe I also should think
is true, but something for which there is objective
evidence which you could present and which only a willful rejection of the
truth could blind me to. Do you see such a thing?
>
I see what you call "objective evidence" as illusion. Or at least I try to.
When I have completely succeeded, I'll be in the Real World, instead of the one
I/we keep making.
>
You wrote:
I think in general it makes more sense to work on our own projections than to
attempt to locate those of another.
>
I told you at the time that that's what I was doing. I spotted my own
projections onto you and decided to see if you had noticed you were projecting
onto Mike. I've been working on mine all morning.
>
You said:
Otherwise we end up with projections of projections.
>
Yes, and the result is this meaningless world. If you find meaning in a book,
I believe you're digging more deeply into the illusion.
>
I said:
The things we accuse others of are simply reflections of our own thoughts, so
you might want to think before typing. .
>
You said:
How far does this extend? If someone makes a mistake on a calculus
test, are you saying it isn't that they got the wrong answer, but that I am
wrong in thinking I have the right one? I do know that irrationality,
particularly if it seems to be deliberate, is something I find disturbing, but
I don't think this shows I am more than usually irrational myself.
>
Are you defining "rational" in worldly terms or from a Course approach?.
Wordly terms, I suppose.
>
You wrote:
It may mean I am more afraid of my own
irrationality than most people, and hence less tolerant of it in general, but
even if I have an irrational dislike of the irrational,
it doesn't seem to follow that I will see unreason everywhere I look.
>
It will assure that you will see it more than one who isn't afraid of it. And
what does it matter if you have an irrational tendency or two? You think the
Course seems rational to one who isn't on the path?!
>
You wrote:
I'd like to see you support your statement above from the Course, by the way.
>
Gladly, although I don't have the electronic files that make for an easy
search. But I know these two inside and out. "I have invented the world I
see." More specifically, it says, "I am responsible for what I see. I choose
the feelings I experience, and I decide upon the goal I would achieve. And
everything that seems to happen to me, I ask for, and receive as I have asked."
If you're looking for something that mentions projection, I'll see what I can
do.
Pat
I AM Amminadab
>Just show me ONE passage in it where it does as you say. However, it must do
>so BLUNTLY and not just implie it as Gene's quotes do.
>
Why? Do you really think you might believe it more readily if it was said
BLUNTLY, rather than implied, over and over and over again?
We have the following interesting passage in the HLC:
{{You have surely begun to realize that this is a very practical course, which
means EXACTLY what it says. So does the Bible, if it is properly understood.
There has been a marked tendency on the part of many of the Bible's followers,
and also its translators, to be entirely literal about fear and ITS effects,
but NOT about love and ITS results. Thus, "hellfire" means "burning," but
raising the dead becomes allegorical. Actually, it is PARTICULARLY the
references to the outcomes of love which SHOULD be taken literally because the
Bible is ABOUT love, being about God.}}
In the WSV, it is reduced to the following:
<<You have surely begun to realize that this is a very practical course, and
one that means exactly what it says.>>
T-8.IX.8.1
This isn't the bluntness on authorship that you were seeking, but I thought it
appropriate for the recent denials of raising the dead, and the continueing
denial that acim has any relationship with the Bible.
Freedom of thought
Is our most important freedom.
Amminadab
When I say 'you' I really mean 'me'.
Amminadab's Lantern of Truth
http://members.aol.com/amminadab2/
I AM Amminadab
>Does anyone on this list <FULLY> accept what the Course is saying? If so,
>why are you still here?
Is there somewhere else you would have me be?
bruceh
If your going to use Christ as Jesus' surname, why don't you use his middle
name also?
We have all heard of Jesus H. Christ. Do you know what the "H" stands for?
Jesus' middle name is Howard which came from his heavenly Father's first
name.
Our Father who art in heaven
Howard be his name...
Some people don't think that Christ was really Jesus' surname. They quite
often use the surname of Murphy. You know--Jesus Murphy!
Bruce H.
<dth...@golden.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.05L.100012...@shell.golden.net...
>
SNIP
> Jesus Christ is the author of ACIM and says so bluntly.
SNIP
> All the best
>
> Doug
>
>
Deborah
wrote:
>Many things could be projection, but it seems to me it makes more
>sense to ask this question if you see me running away from an obvious
>fact. By that I mean not something you think is true and believe I
>also should think is true, but something for which there is objective
>evidence which you could present and which only a willful rejection of
>the truth could blind me to. Do you see such a thing?
Jesus is a symbol, Gene. He "was" a man who walked the earth.
It was not his reality then, and it is not his reality now. "The man
was an illusion for he seemed to be a separate being walking by
himself, within a body that appeared to hold his self from Self, as
all illusions do....Jesus remains a savior because he saw the false
without accepting it as true. And Christ needed his form that he might
appear to men and save them from their own illusions".
It would be pretty hillarious, wouldn't it, if the One Who used
Jesus's form to teach the lesson that there is no death intends now to
teach you that He is merely Jesus, who "was a man", an illusion.
Jesus "died" long before his body was crucified. He became identified
with Christ. This is what the name of Jesus symbolizes, in the course.
The name is symbolic. It is what it symbolizes that matters.
Deborah
Visit my homepage at:
http://users.uniserve.com/~sn1301/welcome.htm
Magsacim
>Does anyone on this list <FULLY> accept what the Course is saying? If so,
>why are you still here? >>
M-26.4. Do not despair, then, because of limitations. 2 It is your
function to escape from them, but not to be without them. 3 If you would be
heard by those who suffer, you must speak their language. 4 If you would be a
savior, you must understand what needs to be escaped. 5 Salvation is not
theoretical.
Jesus didn't go "poof" when he "got it," did he, dear?
Why then do you assume that "being here" is <proof> that someone hasn't "got
it"? (They <might> be "where" you say you wish to be. : )
Lift your brothers up where you would have yourself be lifted. Persist in
pushing them down and there is no hope for you because you <do> go with them.
Why would you be angry at the thought that they might offer help to you?
What is this "rejection" really for? (Be honest ; )
Mid term marks are not recorded and your goal is guaranteed. (So why not
lighten up? : )
Blessings on your path,
Carmen
Gene Ward Smith
>Gene wrote:
>Dear Gene,
I was talking about what might lend support to your thesis that I
might be projecting in relation to this issue. I am aware that I had
some unwillingness to face the issue, and may be assuming that other
people must be feeling some such reluctance much more strongly to
behave in a way which strikes me as manifestly irrational. From my
perspective I was trying to engage you in dialogue, and concede the
point that I am quite capable of projecting.
It boils down to the feeling that if people seem to be running from
something, they must be afraid of it; if I was acting like that, I
would be acting out of fear.
>If I pick up a book and point to
>a "fact," I am giving credence to another part of the illusion.
Then stop reading and stop thinking and by all means stop posting to
Usenet newsgroups! Your position not only puts you in the position
where you really should be hiding in a cave, it involves you in
contradiction.
>You wrote:
>By that I mean not something you think is true and believe I also
should think
>is true, but something for which there is objective
>evidence which you could present and which only a willful rejection
of the
>truth could blind me to. Do you see such a thing?
>I see what you call "objective evidence" as illusion.
What do you mean you "see" this? Are you saying it is true?
>Yes, and the result is this meaningless world. If you find meaning
in a book,
>I believe you're digging more deeply into the illusion.
If what you are saying means nothing and cannot possibly mean
anything, why are you saying it?
>Are you defining "rational" in worldly terms or from a Course
approach?.
>Wordly terms, I suppose.
Are you certain that they are so different? When the Course says that
both the ego *and* the Holy Spirit can make use of reason, does this
not suggest they are in some sense the same?
>You wrote:
>It may mean I am more afraid of my own
>irrationality than most people, and hence less tolerant of it in
general, but
>even if I have an irrational dislike of the irrational,
>it doesn't seem to follow that I will see unreason everywhere I look.
>It will assure that you will see it more than one who isn't afraid of
it.
Is this a fact? If so, how do you know it to be true?
And
>what does it matter if you have an irrational tendency or two? You
think the
>Course seems rational to one who isn't on the path?!
The Course makes extensive use of reason and logical argument, which
it plainly regards as tools which can work for or against the purposes
of the ego.
>You wrote:
>I'd like to see you support your statement above from the Course, by
the way.
>Gladly, although I don't have the electronic files that make for an
easy
>search. But I know these two inside and out. "I have invented the
world I
>see." More specifically, it says, "I am responsible for what I see. I
choose
>the feelings I experience, and I decide upon the goal I would
achieve. And
>everything that seems to happen to me, I ask for, and receive as I
have asked."
The statement in question was "The things we accuse others of are
simply reflections of our own thoughts"; I see no support for that in
what you have quoted. Note that your use of "accuse" was very broad,
and seemed to encompass such things as "accusing" people of making
mistakes about matters of fact--at least, so far as I could tell from
context. If you want to pursue this it would also help to know what,
exactly, you meant by it.
Gene Ward Smith
wrote:
>Jesus is a symbol, Gene. He "was" a man who walked the earth.
>It was not his reality then, and it is not his reality now. "The man
>was an illusion for he seemed to be a separate being walking by
>himself, within a body that appeared to hold his self from Self, as
>all illusions do....Jesus remains a savior because he saw the false
>without accepting it as true. And Christ needed his form that he
might
>appear to men and save them from their own illusions".
The man "Jesus" was no more and no less of an illusion than the woman
"Deborah"; there is no reason to single him out on that score, and to
do so is extremely misleading. This kind of context swtiching is
something is something we need to be aware of if we are not going to
end up speaking allegedly Course-based nonsense.
>It would be pretty hillarious, wouldn't it, if the One Who used
>Jesus's form to teach the lesson that there is no death intends now
to
>teach you that He is merely Jesus, who "was a man", an illusion.
I don't see how this is at issue here.
>The name is symbolic. It is what it symbolizes that matters.
It isn't clear to me that in the passages below "I" and "me" mean "the
Christ" and not Jesus more specifically; in fact, much of this will
not make sense on this assumption
{{I am in charge of the process of Atonement, which I undertook to
begin. When you offer a miracle unto any of my brothers, you do it
unto YOURSELF and me. The reason YOU come before ME is that I do not
need miracles for my own Atonement, but I stand at the end in case you
fail temporarily. The purpose of my part in the Atonement is the
canceling out of all lacks of love which men could not otherwise
correct. The word "sin" should be changed to "lack of love," because
"sin" is a man-made word with threat connotations which he made up
himself. No REAL threat is involved anywhere. Nothing is gained by
frightening yourselves, and it is very destructive to do so. }}
{{The miracle, on the other hand, is a sign of love among equals.
Equals cannot be in awe of one another because awe implies inequality.
It is therefore an inappropriate reaction to me. An elder brother is
entitled to respect for his greater experience, and a reasonable
amount of obedience for his greater wisdom. He is also entitled to
love because he IS a brother, and also to devotion if he is devoted.
It is only my devotion that entitles me to yours. There is nothing
about me that YOU cannot attain. I have nothing that does not come
from God. The main difference between us as yet is that I have NOTHING
ELSE. This leaves me in a state of true holiness, which is only a
POTENTIAL in you.
"No man cometh unto the Father but by me" is among the most
misunderstood statements in the Bible. It does NOT mean that I am in
any way separate or different from you EXCEPT IN TIME, which does not
really exist at all. Actually, the quotation is more meaningful if it
is considered on a vertical rather than a horizontal axis. Regarded
along the vertical, man stands below me and I stand below God. In the
process of "rising up," I AM higher. This is because, without me, the
distance between God and man would be too great for you to
encompass.}}
{{I cannot unite your will with God's FOR you, but I CAN erase all
misperceptions from your mind if you will bring it under my guidance.
ONLY your misperceptions stand in your own way. Without them your
choice is certain. Sane perception INDUCES sane choosing. The
Atonement was an act based on true perception. I cannot choose for
you, but I CAN help you make your own right choice. "Many are called
but few are chosen" should read, "ALL are called but few choose to
listen. Therefore, they do not choose RIGHT." }}
{{Your mind and mine can unite in shining your ego away, and releasing
the strength of God into everything you think and will and do.}}
{{You were in darkness until God's Will was done completely by ANY
part of the Sonship. When this was done, it was perfectly accomplished
by ALL. How else could it BE perfectly accomplished? My mission was
simply to unite the will of the Sonship with the Will of the Father by
being aware of the Father's Will myself. This is the awareness I came
to give you, and your problem in accepting it IS the problem of this
world. Dispelling it is salvation, and in this sense I AM the
salvation of the world.
The world must despise and reject me because the world IS the belief
that love is impossible. YOUR reactions to me are the reactions of the
world to God. If you will accept the fact that I am with you, you are
DENYING the world and ACCEPTING God. My will is His, and YOUR will to
hear me is the decision to hear His Voice and abide in His Will. As
God sent me to you, so will I send you to others. And I will go to
them WITH you, so we can teach them peace and union.}}
{{When you unite with me, you are uniting WITHOUT the ego because I
have renounced the ego in myself, and therefore CANNOT unite with
yours. OUR union is therefore the way to renounce the ego in YOURSELF.
The truth in both of us is BEYOND the ego. By willing that, you HAVE
gone beyond it toward truth. Our success in transcending the ego is
guaranteed by God, and I can share this confidence for both of us and
ALL of us. I bring God's peace back to all His children because I
received it of Him for us all. Nothing can prevail against our united
wills because nothing can prevail against God's. Would you know the
Will of God for YOU? Ask it of me who knows it FOR you, and you will
find it. I will deny you nothing, as God denies ME nothing.}}
{{I go before you because I AM beyond the ego. Reach, therefore, for
my hand because you WANT to transcend the ego. My will will NEVER be
wanting, and if you WANT to share it, you WILL. I give it willingly
and gladly because I need you as much as you need me.}}
>Deborah
>Visit my homepage at:
>http://users.uniserve.com/~sn1301/welcome.htm
--
Gene Ward Smith
gsm...@frii.com
Magsacim
<< "I have invented the world I
see.">>
Yes, but does the world you see contain <NO> love? REAL love? Surely yes -
and <could> that be "just illusion"?
<<More specifically, it says, "I am responsible for what I see. I choose
the feelings I experience, and I decide upon the goal I would achieve. And
everything that seems to happen to me, I ask for, and receive as I have asked."
>>
Precisely - <everything> we say says "what" we're "seeing."
You might enjoy the thought contained in this little deletion from the HLC:
[[ Miracle Principle #39. The Spiritual eye is the mechanism of miracles
because what It perceives IS true. It perceives both the Creations of God and
the creations of man. Among the creations of man, It can also separate the true
from the false by Its ability to perceive totally, rather than selectively. It
thus becomes the proper instrument for reality testing, which always involves
the necessary distinction between the false and the true.]]
By implication, SOME of "the creations of man" ARE loving AND eternal (and NOT
illusion : ).
Why then the sorting out process of the false from the true with the Holy
Spirit?
Because WITHIN and BEHIND what we saw before, with just a little bit of vision,
there is a WHOLE LOT of love, IMHO...and it IS eternal and it's right HERE <in>
the world.
It is our only path out of darkness.
"Projection," as you define it, contains the desire to attack. The HLC says
Love can be "projected," too. The only difference between "projection" and
Christ's Vision is the Love that It contains.
We will only see in the world but what we give it.
Sending you love and a smile on your journey,
Carmen
Gwen Mathews
>
>If your going to use Christ as Jesus' surname, why don't you use his middle
>name also?
>
>We have all heard of Jesus H. Christ. Do you know what the "H" stands for?
>Jesus' middle name is Howard which came from his heavenly Father's first
>name.
>
>Our Father who art in heaven
>Howard be his name...
>
>Some people don't think that Christ was really Jesus' surname. They quite
>often use the surname of Murphy. You know--Jesus Murphy!
>
>Bruce H.
Well, well, well, if ya keep an open mind ya larn somethin' everyday. .. where
I'm frum, Jesus' full name is Jesusmarynjoseph. . .:) also known as "Sweet
Jesus" for short. :))
Peace,
Gwen
ellen
>If your going to use Christ as Jesus'
> surname, why don't you use his middle
> name also?
>We have all heard of Jesus H. Christ. Do
> you know what the "H" stands for?
> Jesus' middle name is Howard which
> came from his heavenly Father's first
name.
>Our Father who art in heaven
Howard be his name...
>Some people don't think that Christ was
> really Jesus' surname. They quite often
> use the surname of Murphy. You
> know--Jesus Murphy!
Hey Bruce,
Where I come from Jesus' middle name is Marion and he took on his
mother's husbands name as his surname. You know as in:
Jesus Marion Joseph
peace, ellen ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Love waits on welcome, not on time ACIM
ellen
Magsacim
appropriate for the recent denials of raising the dead, and the continueing
denial that acim has any relationship with the Bible. >>
Dearest Ammi,
I must have missed some postings here (darn server!). Does someone say there
is no relationship between acim and the Bible?
Dear Lord, even Dr. Wapnick says the following:
“I would say that not only is the Course the most important book SINCE the
Bible, I think that...that it’s...uh...probably one of the MOST important books
throughout the whole period of civilization. <<I think that it certainly
purifies the Bible of a lot of its misconceptions and distortions>>...”
(transcript from video, The Story of the Course, copyright 1987, FIP)
Yikes! Who says there is no connection with the Bible?
Is< no one> to be believed???
Or does the above have some <other> connotation?
Truly stunned,
Carmen
bruceh
I find it really difficult discussing this stuff with you. To me it seems
like you are trying to completely ignore the metaphysics of the Course.
Either that, or you are trying to shoe horn your Anabaptist theology into
the Course. It just makes it really difficult for me to see where your
coming from.
- If I said that the Course teaches that the world is an illusion, would you
agree to that?
- If I said that Jesus, you, and I are part of that illusion, would you
agree to that?
- If I said that the concept of there being individuals is what the
separation is, would you agree with that?
- If I said that matter, energy, space, and time do not exist, would you
agree with that?
- If I said we are all the One Son safely in heaven dreaming a dream of
separation, would you agree with that.
Bruce
<dth...@golden.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSI.4.05L.100012...@shell.golden.net...
>
>
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2000, bruceh wrote:
>
> > In "Absence From Felicity" (which was published in 1991), Ken Wapnick
says
> > on page 480:
> > 'Returning now to Helen and the Course, while her experience most
definitely
> > was of Jesus--a person outside herself--relating to her and dictating to
> > her, in truth the reality was much different.
>
> Thanks for that Bruce. It's an excellent point and one difficult to make
> amidst all the sound and fury sometimes. I don't know when Ken decided
> that Jesus is just a symbol Helen used to refer to a part of her own mind
> or that while Helen asserted Jesus was the author and nearly everyone else
> at least believed ACIM's author claims to be Jesus, Ken decided he knew
> better but at some point he did develop that belief and he's been fairly
> consistent for many years, when pressed, in asserting that Jesus' only
> existence is that of a symbol and of course mere "symbols" can't author
> books. This is consistent with his perculiar dualistic philosophy which
> was quite well developed before he even met Helen and Bill. I say
> "peculiar" because even most devout Wapnickians don't understand or share
> what Ken is affirming here. There is no Jesus and there never was!
> Whoever that guy from Nazereth the New Testament talks about actually was,
> he's got nothing to do with ACIM. He was not "crucified, dead and buried
> and on the third day rose to ascend to the right hand of God" because he
> "was not" in the first place. Rather than an historical person like you
> or I or Ken or Helen or Bill, he's pure myth, that is to say pure
> "symbol".
>
> Well it's a looooooooooooong stretch, but I think he really believes, very
> profoundly, in dualism, and that there is not today nor was there ever a
> person named Jesus, let alone a person named Jesus who authored ACIM.
>
> I don't know what you mean or think of when you think or speak of Jesus,
> but I know what I think of. Ken's idea of Jesus is something different.
> Yet I find the author of ACIM fits my idea of Jesus much better than
> Ken's. If Jesus never existed and is just a myth, and was never
> crucified, and never rose from the tomb, why would ACIM's author refer to
> these well known historical facts about the life of the historical Jesus?
>
> Needless to say I don't agree with Ken's point of view on this but I am
> fairly sure his belief is fairly sincere, an opinion that routinely gets
> me into a lot of trouble :).
>
> My bottom line remains "by their fruits ye shall know them." The fruit of
> this dualistic and inevitably antinomial viewpoint is enmity and conflict.
> Without any intellectualizing I know in my gut that there's something VERY
> OFF COLOUR about that - that is not what the Jesus of the New Testament or
> the Jesus of ACIM advocates.
>
> Ken's right, his Jesus is a very different sort of fellow and had nothing
> at all to do with either the New Testament or ACIM. ACIM's Jesus says I
> became a man." That Jesus is no symbol any more than you or I are
> symbols. In the unexpurgated HLC edition of ACIM we find the word "Soul"
> used to describe what we are and what God created. Did God simply create
> symbols? If we are to suppose that then we have to redefine the word
> symbol away from the sense in which Ken is using it and understanding
> Jesus, I think.
>
> I don't have any problem with people believing these things or even
> teaching these things. What I can't condone is suing everyone who thinks
> or teaches other ideas that are more consistent with what ACIM actually
> says - or for that matter, suing anyone at all for any reason at all in
> preference to discussion and negotiation. If ACIM really does teach us to
> indulge our hatreds and pick fights with everyone and manipulate and
> coerce people then I would conclude that it really does have nothing to do
> with Jesus and would file it under "another insane teaching" alonside
> Hitler's "Mein Kamph."
>
> Ken is an interesting chap and while I'm often horrified when I probe his
> writings and teachings, I can't say it's not interesting.
>
> I'm going to quote the rest of your piece, it's worth pondering.
>
>
> > Helen was able to return her
> > mind to that memory of God's Love--her true Identity--symbolized by her
as
> > Jesus. By uniting with him, she united with love. That union has no form
or
> > specifics, for love, as we have seen, is abstract and beyond all
divisions
> > of the ego. This love, of which Jesus was the manifestation, flowed
through
> > the separated mind we know as Helen (the water taking shape in the
glass)
> > and came out to the world as the three books we know as A Course in
> > Miracles. Thus, it was Helen's mind that gave the Course its form; the
> > content came from outside her ego mind, from a love that nonetheless is
> > within her mind, as indeed it is in all of us. Recall Helen's own
> > description, given in Part II, that Jesus made use of her "educational
> > background, interests and experience, but that was in matters of style
> > [i.e., form] rather than content."'
> >
> > I found "Absence From Felicity" fascinating. Near the end of the book,
> > specifically the sections 'Helen and Jesus: The Illusion and the
Reality',
> > pages 477-491 and the Epilogue, 'Beyond Heaven and Helen: The
Priestess',
> > pages 499-503 are very interesting. I suggest that anyone interested in
the
> > scribing of the Course should read this material. It certainly helps
one
> > get past the concept of Jesus sitting in Helen's mind dictating to her,
word
> > for word.
> >
> > Bruce
> >
> > Mike Down Under <mbys...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:388c...@aphrodite.tassie.net.au...
> > > Great stuff Bruce - very refreshing. It also brings to mind what I
> > remember
> > > of KW's comments about Jesus and the author of ACIM in court but
before I
> > > restate my memory of them, does someone have a copy of them? If so
could
> > you
> > > copy them to the list?
> > >
> > > Ol' Doug keeps saying:
> > >
> > > >Ken's testimony under oath that Jesus is not the author of ACIM does
> > > >appear to contradict his statements in the video and in his books
that
> > > >affirm in no uncertain terms that it "had to be Jesus."
> > >
> > > I for one would like to see Ken's actual testimony again coz I'm not
so
> > sure
> > > that what he said is what Ol' Doug claims. I then want to compare that
> > with
> > > what KW has said elsewhere.
>
> There are some 250 examples of Ken saying in writing and on the ACIM
> promotional video that Jesus, not Helen authored ACIM. There are a number
> of other places, and Bruce has quoted one, where Ken offers us his
> understanding of who or what Jesus is. The way he uses the term changes
> the obvious meaning of statements which Ken has made hundreds of times
> "Jesus authored the Course, Helen could not have done it." Now there is a
> level of deception in that he knows very well how most people are going
> to interpret words like "Jesus wrote the course."
>
> If not actually lying, Ken is being somewhat ingenuous at least. He knows
> what most people understand "Jesus" to be and it's not a symbol of some
> myth that most people understand.
>
> This does come out in the depositions and you can look them up on Tom
> Whitmore's web site.
>
> There was a time not long ago when Ken threatened to sue one person for
> libel for asserting that Ken did not believe Jesus wrote the Course. That
> was just before EA's lawyers argued in court that if Jesus wrote it, it's
> not eligible for copyright. Immediately Ken's tune changed and now he
> tries to avoid mentioning Jesus at all and simply asserts in court
> documents that Helen is the author of ACIM. I think it's fairly obvious
> that there are legal reasons for that, to avoid the legal arguments about
> the invalidity of copyright on divinely authored materials.
>
> But I do think that as Ken understands it, there is no Jesus, that 'Jesus'
> is simply a symbol of abstract principles. Thus he can argue with equal
> conviction that Jesus did write the course and that Jesus didn't write the
> course. Ken's mind and communications do tend to work this way. He's
> very inventive with language. I think he's driving his lawyers bananas!
>
> It's like the old "White man speak with forked tongue" problem. When you
> look at what Ken says you must be very very careful because it often
> appears to mean one thing on the surface but actually means something very
> different underneath. Plain talk and candour aren't his strong suits.
>
> You know he never says that he didn't make important changes to ACIM.
> I've gone over "Absence" with a fine tooth comb. He says Helen didn't
> make important changes. Like the audience of the sleight of hand artist,
> we ASSUME, since they were BOTH involved in the editing, that he didn't
> either. But he doesn't say that :).
>
> In the video though, he and Bill and Charles Parrish and Judith Skutch all
> say the same line "virtually no changes." Now that one we can pin down
> since the HCL has escaped his attempts to suppress it. I don't think
> anyone could construe the removal of 25% of the first five chapters and
> the reversing of the meaning of some of it and the extensive substitution
> of words adds up to "virtually no changes."
>
> BUT!!!! This isn't Ken's doing, or at least not his alone. The Guardians
> as a group are making this false assertion. And that makes the whole
> riddle vastly more significant and intriguing. What *happened* to make
> these folks all say something we now know to be manifestly incorrect?
>
> That at least Ken *knew* it was incorrect can explain his energetic
> efforts to suppress the HLC and cover up the lie. But why was it hatched
> in the first place?
>
> I dunno ...
>
> All the best,
>
> Doug
>
ellen
>Please help me understand how" who
> wrote ACIM" has anything to do with
> teaching and learning Love, forgivness,
> and peace.
Ya got me????
>I am trying so hard not to make
> judgements, but I just don't understand
> why so many people think this is so
> important!?
Ya got me????
>Why can't we all just let our lights shine
> and help to heal the world?
OK!!!! Thanks, sweety :))))
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith wrote in message <388d414e....@news.frii.com>...
>I think at its root the situation arose out of the fact that none of
>the principals fully accepted what the Course was saying.
Does anyone on this list <FULLY> accept what the Course is saying? If so,
why are you still here?
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
dth...@golden.net wrote in message ...
>Jesus Christ is the author of ACIM and says so bluntly. You can agree or
>disagree, believe or disbelieve but the text says so. Blunty.
Sigh! Well Gene hasn't been able to show me where it says this in ACIM so
maybe you can.
Just show me ONE passage in it where it does as you say. However, it must do
so BLUNTLY and not just implie it as Gene's quotes do.
Mike Down Under
kal...@my-deja.com
miracl...@webtv.net (ellen) wrote:
> Thanks, Carmen ((((smile))))
>
> peace, ellen ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> Love waits on welcome, not on time ACIM
Instant comes to mind.
The hold instant is the Holy Spirit's most useful learning device for
teaching you love's meaning. For its porpose is to suspend judgement
entirely. Judgement always rests on the past, for past experience is the
basis on which you judge. from: ch.15 #5
Please help me understand how" who wrote ACIM" has anything to do with
teaching and learning Love, forgivness, and peace. I am trying so hard
not to make judgements, but I just don't understand why so many people
think this is so important!? Why can't we all just let our lights shine
and help to heal the world? In light and love, Kalena
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith wrote in message <388de07c....@news.frii.com>...
>I think in general it makes more sense to work on our own projections
>projections of projections.
I note Gene said the above just after he said to me the following:
>You are in this connection evidencing fear and avoidance of the
obvious. The Course tells us "the ego is *afraid* of the obvious", and
and this appears to be happening here. If you would forget your fear
and your desire to make the truth what you want it to be, rather than
what it is, you might be able to confront whatever it is you are
running from.<
I guess they add up to zero!
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
Deborah wrote in message <388dfc9b...@news.uniserve.com>...
>Jesus is a symbol, Gene. He "was" a man who walked the earth.
>It was not his reality then, and it is not his reality now. "The man
>was an illusion for he seemed to be a separate being walking by
>himself, within a body that appeared to hold his self from Self, as
>It would be pretty hillarious, wouldn't it, if the One Who used
>Jesus's form to teach the lesson that there is no death intends now to
>teach you that He is merely Jesus, who "was a man", an illusion.
Exactly! This is one of the more damming arguments against Jesus being the
author of the Course! There never was such a person except in history which
never existed either.
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
I AM Amminadab wrote in message
<20000125150814...@ng-fs1.aol.com>...
>mike down under wrote:
>
>>Just show me ONE passage in it where it does as you say. However, it must
do
>>so BLUNTLY and not just implie it as Gene's quotes do.
>This isn't the bluntness on authorship that you were seeking,
Exactly. None of what you said had anything to do with it.
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith wrote in message <388e055a....@news.frii.com>...
>If what you are saying means nothing and cannot possibly mean
>anything, why are you saying it?
Ah Gene you are at last showing some signs of understanding the Course. This
is just what the Course is asking every one of us why we persist in the
insanity of thinking we are here when to do so means nothing and cannot
possible mean anything.
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith wrote in message <388e0bb4....@news.frii.com>...
>The man "Jesus" was no more and no less of an illusion than the woman
>"Deborah"; there is no reason to single him out on that score, and to
>do so is extremely misleading.
True, but so what? Your comment above just further emphasises the futility
of persisting with idea that it is important to <defend> the illusion that
Jesus was the author of the Course. It doesn't help your argument to suggest
anyone else is an illusion too! That just further confirms my premise that
it is futile to argue Jesus was the author.
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
Magsacim wrote in message <20000125152415...@ng-fh1.aol.com>...
><< mike down under wrote:
>
>>Does anyone on this list <FULLY> accept what the Course is saying? If so,
>>why are you still here? >>
>Jesus didn't go "poof" when he "got it," did he, dear?
The only 'poof' was when we thought Jesus arrived in the illusion. After
all, what better slight of hand could there have been than that?
I really don't understand why ACIM adherents can make such a fuss and have
so much attachment to an illusory figure which we magically created.
Mike Down Under
Deborah
wrote:
>The man "Jesus" was no more and no less of an illusion than the woman
>"Deborah"; there is no reason to single him out on that score, and to
>do so is extremely misleading.
What makes you think I'm singling him out? The only way in which I
*am* singling him out is in terms of his symbolism within the course.
I am not symbolized as the one of God's Helpers as Jesus is, in the
course.
"Is he God's only Helper? No indeed. For Christ takes many forms with
different names until their oneness can be recognized."
Now Gene you can throw all the quotes you like at me in support of
your claim of "objective evidence" that some channelled entity named
"Jesus" is the author of the course. But you are ignoring statements
like the above. They don't support your pet theory, do they? They
don't support the notion of an eternity individuality.
Do you want Jesus to be eternally individual because this is what you
think you want for yourself? What have you got against having an True
Identity that is like unto God? Is that really so bad?
Gene Ward Smith
<mbys...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>I really don't understand why ACIM adherents can make such a fuss and
have
>so much attachment to an illusory figure which we magically created.
Were you magically created also--what does this mean?
Gene Ward Smith
<mbys...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith wrote in message
>>If what you are saying means nothing and cannot possibly mean
>>anything, why are you saying it?
>Ah Gene you are at last showing some signs of understanding the
Course. This
>is just what the Course is asking every one of us why we persist in
the
>insanity of thinking we are here when to do so means nothing and
cannot
>possible mean anything.
If what you just said means nothing and cannot mean anything, why did
you say it? Should we all ignore everything you post from now on?
Gene Ward Smith
<mbys...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>Exactly! This is one of the more damming arguments against Jesus
being the
>author of the Course! There never was such a person except in history
which
>never existed either.
The same is true of Helen Schucman--what's your point, presuming you
can make one without writing a sentence which mean nothing and cannot
possibly mean anything?
Gene Ward Smith
<mbys...@postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote:
>That just further confirms my premise that
>it is futile to argue Jesus was the author.
You can't confirm your premise. In fact, you can't have a premise,
unless you abandon your basic premise that there can be no such thing
as a premise or a conclusion.
AKaplan123
>>anything, why are you saying it?
>
>Ah Gene you are at last showing some signs of understanding the Course. This
>is just what the Course is asking every one of us why we persist in the
>insanity of thinking we are here when to do so means nothing and cannot
>possible mean anything.
>
>
Yes it does show some signs but Gene doesn't understand that one can view
something as insane or irrational or illogical but yet repeatedly do and think
it. However, if Gene gave us a glimpse of his life I bet we could find much
what would be considered irrational behavour and thoughts.
Bill Hasselbach
wrote:
>
> Well, well, well, if ya keep an open mind ya larn somethin' everyday. .. where
> I'm frum, Jesus' full name is Jesusmarynjoseph. . .:) also known as "Sweet
> Jesus" for short. :))
>
> Peace,
> Gwen
That's better than when he was a kid. They called him.
L.B.J. ( Little Baby Jesus )
Love, Forever
Bill
The ego is a mechanism to hold us in the dream.
To think an ego thought is to be afraid of the dark,
Instead of shining it away.
1 + 1 + 1 + Infinity = 1
I thought there were stones in my path,
But each was a stepping stone.
AKaplan123
>possibly mean anything?
>
When Gene starts talking like this one knows that he feels vulnerable. I know
that because when I start talking like that I feel vulnerable.
Gene Ward Smith
wrote:
>"Is he God's only Helper? No indeed. For Christ takes many forms
with
>different names until their oneness can be recognized."
>Now Gene you can throw all the quotes you like at me in support of
>your claim of "objective evidence" that some channelled entity named
>"Jesus" is the author of the course. But you are ignoring statements
>like the above. They don't support your pet theory, do they? They
>don't support the notion of an eternity individuality.
I'm not ignoring the above, but it has no logical bearing on the
question. It is both obvious and irrelevant.
>Do you want Jesus to be eternally individual because this is what you
>think you want for yourself? What have you got against having an True
>Identity that is like unto God? Is that really so bad?
That I have a True Identity which is like unto God is precisely what I
have been arguing *for*.
Deborah
wrote:
>>Do you want Jesus to be eternally individual because this is what you
>>think you want for yourself? What have you got against having an True
>>Identity that is like unto God? Is that really so bad?
>
>That I have a True Identity which is like unto God is precisely what I
>have been arguing *for*.
You don't have to argue for that : )
Magsacim
author of the Course! There never was such a person except in history which
never existed either.
>>
This "argument" is "damning" only to the insane.
When I said I am with you always, I meant it. Literally. (Look it up. : )
Keep trying, dears, the goal is guaranteed.
Carmen
Gene Ward Smith
>Please help me understand how" who wrote ACIM" has anything to do
with
>teaching and learning Love, forgivness, and peace. I am trying so
hard
>not to make judgements, but I just don't understand why so many
people
>think this is so important!?
I presume if it had not held some sort of significance, it would not
have been mentioned, and certainly not so emphatically. Jesus tells us
in the Course that while allowing him to help us personally is not a
requirement in order to make use of it, it does help. He has promised
help and guidance if we want it, and tells us that uniting our mind
with his furthers the cause of the Atonement. "When you unite with me,
you are uniting WITHOUT the ego because I have renounced the ego in
myself, and therefore CANNOT unite with yours. OUR union is therefore
the way to renounce the ego in YOURSELF."
Why can't we all just let our lights shine
>and help to heal the world? In light and love, Kalena
The Course is a guidebook which tells us how to do that; if we don't
attend to all that it has to say, we are likely to miss something
which will help.
There is also the little matter of particular concern to me, which is
that the Course tells us something very definite about authorship, and
to say that it does not is untrue. How can a falsehood possibly help
us?
Deborah
wrote:
>There is also the little matter of particular concern to me, which is
>that the Course tells us something very definite about authorship, and
>to say that it does not is untrue. How can a falsehood possibly help
>us?
Gene, it's just not a matter of "other people must understand the
implication of the identification of the author as I do" or else the
course is lying. Can you comprehend this?
Deborah
>This "argument" is "damning" only to the insane.
>
>When I said I am with you always, I meant it. Literally. (Look it up. : )
It was "Jesus as the manifestation of the Holy Spirit" Who said that.
(I know. Personally.)
Gene Ward Smith
wrote:
>Gene, it's just not a matter of "other people must understand the
>implication of the identification of the author as I do" or else the
>course is lying. Can you comprehend this?
I don't think I've said anything like that, but basic intellectual
integrity requires we acknowlege any *obvious* meanings as being what
they are. Is that so hard?
Mike Down Under
>teaching and learning Love, forgivness, and peace. I am trying so hard
>not to make judgements, but I just don't understand why so many people
>and help to heal the world? In light and love, Kalena
I don't believe it has the slightest thing to do with it. I am truly amazed
at those who say that unless Jesus wrote the Course it would mean nothing to
them. This suggests it means nothing to them either way and that they are
just attached to Jesus which seems to be the antithesis of what the Course
is about!
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith wrote in message <388e866f....@news.frii.com>...
>{{When I said, "I am with you always," I meant it literally. I am not
>absent to ANYONE, in ANY situation. BECAUSE I am always with you, YOU
>are the Way and the Truth and the Light. You did not make this power
>any more than I did. It was created to BE shared, and therefore cannot
>be meaningfully perceived as belonging to anyone AT THE EXPENSE of
>another. Such a perception makes it meaningless by eliminating or
>overlooking its REAL and ONLY meaning.}}
>
>Of course I presume once again some will think "literally" means
>something other than literally.
Does it say who said this? We are One!
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith wrote in message <388e525f....@news.frii.com>...
>On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:57:37 +1100, "Mike Down Under" wrote:
>
>>Exactly! This is one of the more damming arguments against Jesus
>being the
>>author of the Course! There never was such a person except in history
>which
>>never existed either.
>
Agreed, but I'm not arguing that she wrote it either. I'm saying that we
can't tell. There is no proof as to who wrote it and you certainly haven't
been able to produce any.
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith wrote in message <388e51fa....@news.frii.com>...
>>>If what you are saying means nothing and cannot possibly mean
>>>anything, why are you saying it?
>
>>Ah Gene you are at last showing some signs of understanding the
>Course. This
>>is just what the Course is asking every one of us why we persist in
>the
>>insanity of thinking we are here when to do so means nothing and
>cannot
>>possible mean anything.
>
>If what you just said means nothing and cannot mean anything, why did
>you say it? Should we all ignore everything you post from now on?
Yup your still heading in the right direction, there's hope for you yet.
When you fully accept that you mean nothing and cannot mean anything you
will have returned to where you never left and mean everything.
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
Gene Ward Smith wrote in message <388e8708....@news.frii.com>...
>There is also the little matter of particular concern to me, which is
>that the Course tells us something very definite about authorship, and
>to say that it does not is untrue. How can a falsehood possibly help
>us?
You keep saying this but you are unable to supply anything concrete in
evidence at all.
Either put up or shut up!
Mike Down Under
Mike Down Under
Deborah wrote in message <388ea5ac....@news.uniserve.com>...
>Gene, it's just not a matter of "other people must understand the
>implication of the identification of the author as I do" or else the
>course is lying. Can you comprehend this?
Obviously not. This is probably part of Gene's re-editing of the Course. I
can just see it being copyrighted under the name of Jesus Wordsmith. LOL
Mike Down Under