From: "garyrrenard" <garyrrenard@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:03 PM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Duality, Metaphor, etc.
And perhaps, Dr. Smith, my teachers already have, and you refuse
to acknowledge it or simply disagree. 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
....argumentum ad populum.
"(Tell B. that 50,000,000 Frenchman CAN be wrong, because the notion is too
fragmented. What CAN'T be wrong is the Universal Sonship of which he is a
part.)" (ACIM Urtext)
Course students and "correct" them toward your way of thinking then
that is your privilege.
Nobody, least of all Dr. Smith, is on a mission to correct "hundreds of
thousands of other Course students" to any particular way of thinking. This
is simply about debating a point, Gary, accepting that our mutual respect
for the Course should suffice as the evidentiary ground upon which a
conclusion can be reached and respectful dialogue undertaken..
If you insist on
believing that God created a world which the Course teaches does not
exist, then that is your right. It's also my right to not agree with
you.
Of course, but why can the "God created" lobby so easily debate this point
while the "ego made" (only) lobby are so frequently reduced to the level of
outright denial when exact quotes from ACIM are placed right in front of
them? (Ossie's rather lame attempt to disregard the Lessons was an
outstanding display of this very thing.)
"And in the sunlight YOU will stand in quiet, in innocence and wholly
unafraid. And from you will the rest YOU found extend, so that YOUR peace
can never fall away, and leave YOU homeless. Those who offer peace to
everyone have found a home in Heaven the world can NOT destroy. For it is
large enough to hold the world within its peace. In YOU is all of Heaven;
every leaf that falls is given life in you. Each bird that ever sang will
sing again in you. And every flower that ever bloomed has saved its perfume
and its loveliness for you." (ACIM Urtext)
"When you have perceived the real world, you will recognize that you did NOT
believe it. But the swiftness with which your new and ONLY real perception
will be translated into knowledge, will leave you only an instant to realize
that this judgment is true. And then everything you made will be forgotten,
the good and bad, the false and the true. For as Heaven and earth become
one, even the real world will vanish from your sight. The end of the world
is not its destruction, but its TRANSLATION into Heaven. The
REINTERPRETATION of the world is the transfer of ALL perception to
knowledge. (ACIM Urtext)
"W-184.8. Think not you made the world. 2 Illusions, yes! 3 But what is true
in earth and Heaven is beyond your naming." (ACIM Urtext)
Nor do I agree that the blue book is Ken Wapnick's
interpretation of the Course. For that to be true, I would have to
believe that Ken edited the Course, despite the presence of Helen and
Bill, who had been working on the Course for ten years by 1975, while
Ken had only been on the scene for 3 years. Bill Thetford openly
supported and used, both on camera and while taking part in study
groups in California, the official, edited "blue book" version of the
Course for 13 years (1975-1988.) It's interesting how the discussion
about which version to use only came about after the deaths of Helen
and Bill. If the published version was not the right version, then
why did they support it? Who am I supposed to follow the lead of? You
or them?
Why not follow the Author's lead!
"Ask him later if this should be included in the written part of the course
at all or whether you should keep these notes separately. He is in charge of
these decisions." (ACIM Urtext)
"It is ESSENTIAL that this whole authority problem be voluntarily dismissed
at once and for all before B's course." (ACIM Urtext)
"B. was quite right in maintaining that this course is a prerequisite for
his." (ACIM Urtext)
What Helen, Bill and Ken have done and believed is certainly interesting but
it pales by comparison when placed against the Author's own statements and,
obviously, the JCIM/Thetford redaction was "authorised" by the "author".
What version Bill used and preferred is purely academic.
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.
So you're saying to Gene "I'll disagree with you but don't expect me to
explain why"? Okay, Gary, you have no 'obligation' to explain your beliefs
(none of us do - until we want to convince another of our views, in which
case we do incur the burden of proof). But it strikes me that this is a bit
of a cop-out on your part given that we are all ACIM students here each
throwing out opinions and thoughts. Engaging other's in dialogue is as much
a task we undertake for ourselves if we are committed to understanding ACIM
(and being sure we do understand it as opposed to what we want it to say) as
it is is about understanding another's viewpoints.
~
Stephen
