--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "garyrrenard"
<garyrrenard@y...> wrote:
ideaofGod writes:
If you have no trouble understanding what is meant, perhaps you
can
explain it.
And perhaps, Dr. Smith, my teachers already have, and you
refuse
to acknowledge it or simply disagree.
Or they could be no more literate than you, for some inexplicable
reason, and simply be confused.
In any case, I'm hardly the
only one who thinks this way. If you wish to attempt to invalidate
the clear opinions and beliefs of hundreds of thousands of other
Course students and "correct" them toward your way of thinking then
that is your privilege.
At least I am honest in my approach. I present facts and arguments,
and make no attempt to decieve.
I do not agree with your characterizations of
what the Course would mean under the Holy Spirit's thought system
which I adhere to...
If you want to respond using facts and giving citations, don't let me
stop you, but kindly don't drag the Holy Spirit in here as another
member of your Amen chorus.
any more than you would agree with other's
characterizations of your beliefs. Incidentally, I've given many
more
citations in the last few days than you have.
You've given none to back up the points at issue.
If you insist on
believing that God created a world which the Course teaches does
not
exist, then that is your right.
Did I say that? No. If you want to discuss such issues with me, it
works better if you switch your brain into the "on" position.
It's also my right to not agree with
you.
How can you, unless you at least read what I say?
Nor do I agree that the blue book is Ken Wapnick's
interpretation of the Course.
Did I say that? No. However, it *was* edited tendentiously.
Our takes on the Course do not agree. I have no problem in
agreeing to disagree with you. But don't expect any more than that
from me.
My expectations for you are suitably low. Don't sweat it.
