From: "Linda Langlois" <lklanglois@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 7:06 PM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: A + P used to mean something
Stephen, I know several students of ACIM who learned on their own
independently without studying Ken Wapnick who came to the same
conclusion. If I were to read it independently, I would, too. I am
curious as to whether you have you come to your conclusions
independently or have you been influenced by someone else?
That's ad hominem, Linda. Nobody comes to ACIM with a blank slate, but that
doesn't invalidate my position.
I can say that I hadn't studied Ken or anyone else before I concluded that
the Course says what I firmly believe it does about the 'world'. Before I
became involved in on-line ACIM discussions it was just another book on my
shelf, though one that certainly held a great deal of interest for me (the
only such, allegedly, 'channeled' work I might add). I was certainly very
familiar with the idea of Enlightenment having read much about it in various
traditions. So I'll happily admit that I was already aquainted with
Enlightenment as being "At one with everything" for a long time before I
began studying ACIM in earnest. But that's hardly the point, is it? The
testimonies of Enlightenment that I've read say what they say and there is
certainly no changing that - and the same goes with NDE accounts.
What does one make of the fact that many in the ACIM community, particularly
FACIM/Ken certainly, press a view that is totally counter to what we know
about mysticism and nde accounts? Something just isn't right here, Linda; a
fact that becomes all the more pressing when one considers that ACIM
contains many more statements and passages discussing God as the Creator of
the Universe/world than statements and passages that discuss the 'world the
ego made'. Then there is Lesson 184 to consider. To believe that the world
is nothing but the ego's dream means, by necessity, that one is saying that
this Lesson (among others btw) is wrong and simply doesn't belong in the
Course. That just doesn't work for me.
Coming from the other position there is no problem. After all, when you
believe ACIM is saying that "God created the world" and the "ego made a
world of illusions" you need to have statements in ACIM which say both of
these things - and, as we all know, it definatley does say both of these
things.
In my time debating this I've seen some quite creative ways of handling the
occasional isolated passage that stipulates God as creator of the world, but
advocates of the "ego made" model genuinely aren't capable of doing much
more than that - and, believe me, I have tried to get them to debate the
point. The reason for this is obvious: unlike the "need both statements"
position, advocates of the counter-view have an up-hill struggle to 'explain
away' statements that just don't fit with the "ego made the world" model.
~
Stephen
