开云体育

> From: "ideaofgod"
>
> --- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "Stephen"
> wrote:
>

>> but this is so backwards, I just don't know where to begin...
>> The Course is overwhelmingly specific in it's teaching
>> that "there is no world"

>> Nope. ?It isn't. ?That's just a commonly held belief ?- and I can
>> understand why hearing otherwise is somewhat difficult to swallow.

> One big difficulty is that we don't even have a consensus on what we
> mean by "the world". People will argue that there is no world, and
> then grow angry if I ask what it is that isn't. What is "the world"?
> The idea of space and time? Some illusion? The reality behind the
> illusion? What??

Maybe this is the real crux of all this discussion; what is "the world" as you are referring to it, the one you say the Course tells us God made. ?Is it the earth, the planets, stars, galaxies... the universe of matter, energy, space, and time? ?Is it the "new world", where we will receive new bodies (as the Bible promises), and will rule alongside Jesus in glory for a thousand years? ?Or is it the full Awareness of the Son as created by God, which seems to be what most Course students (at least, that I know) believe that the Course is referring to, metaphorically/symbolically, when there is any hint of a statement regarding "the real world" or "the world that God made"...

Perhaps this issue you have raised here is all just a matter of semantics; simply your definition of "the world". So please define, and maybe we can put this issue to rest.

Peace & Harmony,

Gene B.

"When not one thought of sin remains, the world is over. It will not be destroyed nor attacked nor even touched. It will merely cease to seem to be." (M-14.2.10-12)

Hi Ossie.... After many years and many fights, the warrior in me is
very tired. I know that a change is in the works because after
reading your post I went back to see what was going on and I realized
that I had skipped over most of the posts by the ones who are calling
for love. Bless 'em and release 'em. We're pioneers and there's
gold in them there hills!! Together we can find it!
Blessings,
Suzanne

...at least to me, anyway. He's only accused me of having "low
standards," whereas on the newgroup from hell he called me just about
every name in the book, all for the apparent sin of publishing Gary's
manuscript. In response, I have consistently called Gene a "fine
fellow." This is because the Course teaches me that we either project
our fears or extend our love -- and that when we project fear, we are
taking what we believe about ourselves and trying to blame it on a
brother. Jung wrote about this as well; he once suggested that the
most important political act any individual could undertake was to
withdraw his projections from the world.

So whenever Gene tries to attack me, Gary, Ken Wapnick, or the fence
post, I can tell that he's having a pretty terrific struggle with
what the psychologists call "self-esteem." I call him a fine fellow --
and I suggest that you all do, too, in your own words -- because I
think that's the real truth of the matter and because he can
obviously use some strokes.

But Gary and I should probably apologize for always bringing such
fine fellows in our wake; we're the ones who came out with this book
and have subsequently joined public discussion groups like we have
nothing to hide. Do something noticeable like that, and you'll always
get a few fine fellows on your case sooner or later. Marianne used to
participate in her own groups a little, but I can't rememember the
head of HarperCollins, her first publisher, coming out to back her up
(LOL)!

As far as the copyright of the Course goes, I've personally decided
to leave that in the hands of Judge Robert Sweet in New York, who
actually has the power and responsibility to decide. Whichever way he
goes, the case will probably be appealed, and go on for at least a
couple more years, giving everyone plenty more opportunities to
project their fears about it -- if that's what they want. A while
back, I decided that I had more interesting things to do.

Cheers,
D. Patrick Miller
Fearless Books

---

Do you Yahoo!?
- Now only $29.95 per month!

---

Do you Yahoo!?
- Now only $29.95 per month!

Hi Ossie. That other Gene and Stephen are regular posters at another
message board called trcm on Google, which has been referred to by
some (not me) as "The Newsgroup From Hell." (I think they're proud of
that name.) Gene actually has kind of a bet going there about how
long it will take him to get kicked out of the yahoo Disappearance
club. I guess when he posted that over there he didn't realize we
have no rules. In any case, these guys are legally opposing the
copyright of the Course, (notice that Stephen said in one of his
posts to me, "When the copyright's over..") they hate Ken Wapnick and
they hate me because they think my book supports Ken, plus I received
permission from him to use all those quotes from the Course in my
book, so I must be conspiring to get the "official" published version
of ACIM to the world! (Shame on me.) To say they have alterior
motives and axes to grind would be an understatement! They'd like to
ruin the Yahoo club. (The ego works in mysterious ways.) Whether they
succeed or not remains to be seen. So I ask you, please don't leave
the club. That's just what they want you and others to do. And
believe me, if you left I'd really miss you. So even if you don't
post for a while, please stay. Love and peace, Gary.

Hi, Stephen -

Thank you for the website with the interview of Jon Mundy. He is truly a
great teacher and I love to read whatever I can of his writings. I have two
of his books - don't have them in front of me so I may be a bit wrong on
the names. One is the 10 Rules of Happiness, which is based on the
attributes of God's teachers found in the manual. The other is Awaken to
Your Own Guide. I would highly recommend these books.

Unfortunately where I live I cannot easily make it to any of his lectures.

Again, thank you.

Judy

He's an ACIM student! And he conveniently had an NDE after studying the
Course:

"I didn't begin to 'get' the Course until 1976 when I had a Near Death
experience. The Course just started really to click with me."


I'm sure there'll be a lot more of these. After all, when I once

bombarded

a Course student with a million and one testimonies of Enlightenment which
all proclaimed the Oneness of everything they conveniently retorted with

an

account of their own Enlightenment in which everything - surprise,
surprise - vanished!

Sorry, Judith, but Mundy's account just can't be considered as evidence.
Heck, many NDE researchers even (for good reason) prefer it when they get
accounts from people who have track-records as (previously being)

long-term

atheists.

Try finding an NDE account from someone on the above site (or others), who
hasn't studied ACIM, who claims the world is nothing but an illusion and

God

knows nothing about it. Nobody else has so far (for the very simple

reason,

one believes, that these are ideas that are the exact opposite of the kind
of thing we find NDE'rs testifying).

Personally, I'd place Mundy's account in the same tray as Gary's 'Ascended
Masters' who have also conveniently turned up with a bang-on 'Wapnickian'
take on things.

~
Stephen


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Disappearance_of_the_Universe-unsubscribe@...



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Hmmm something just came up ... I have a lot of resentment against being

raised as a jehovah's witness and I need to Forgive that (and this is a
toughie for me), and the postings by folks who think the Course teaches this
world is real and that God has anything to do with this insane nightmare
reminds me of the jehovah's witnesses. They are so good at taking/quoting
text and manipulating it ... yeah that is what is coming up now ...
otherwise the previous posts would not have upset me.

Forgiveness lessons ... :::crying now:::: never know where they are going

to come from.

Peace out

Ossie

Ossie - this is one reason it is important to stick with this list. When
someone pushes our button it shows us an area within on which we need to
work. That is why we bless our brother - he is our saviour because he shows
us where, inside, we need to look with Jesus.

The other reason is that you help others - at least you help me. I can't
speak for the rest.

Thank you,

Judy

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "jane4r1"
<melbywells@e...> wrote:

I don't know the purpose behind the "previous posts."

This is, supposedly, a list having to do with the Course. What's your
point?

From: "jane4r1" <melbywells@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 4:51 AM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Wishing you a mind at peace

Ossie,
I am often moved by your posts and would really miss you if you left.
And I absolutely agree with you when you say:

"They are so good at taking/quoting text and manipulating it ... yeah
that is what is coming up now ... otherwise the previous posts would
not have upset me."

I don't know the purpose behind the "previous posts." It seems they
are trying to convince us that they are right, and that we are all
mistaken. Or perhaps it may seem that they are merely sharing their
ideas with us.

Technically, Elizabeth, debating actually lies somewhere inbetween the two
options you list. Placing your ideas before your peers is actually a
courageous act, in a 'right-minded' sense, in that one is risking to be
vulnerable. (Thus sometimes participants in a debate can seem quite
forcefull and agressive to mask that fact). Nobody actually knows when they
throw out an idea whether or not it will be critically appraised or slammed.
You're showing a bit of your Self when you are creative, novel and
innovative. Will you be appreciated for this, even if people disagree, or
will you be resented? Is it not safer, the ego tells us, to let fear hold
us back?

Aristotle once wrote: "The law is reason free from passion." and relatedly,
debating (or more accurately, scholarship) is, at it's best, "thought free
from the ego". You see there are things called 'logical fallacies'
() and they are exactly what
our own egos do to us when we 'think to ourselves'. (In many ways they are
99% of what the ego is.) Debating points in a respectful and fearless
manner helps us to rid ourselves of the ego in that we are learning how to
'think' without the ego and to see another as 'who they are' and not as a
threat simply because they are different. It might surprise you but,
genuinely, turning down the volume on the ego is really all it takes for the
creative part of our mind to manifest itself.

You write above that you agree with saying to your someone, for the utterly
dreadful act of disagreeing with you, that they must just be "good at
taking/quoting text and manipulating it". Why? This comment, and way of
thinking, is only designed to make another feel rejected and yourself
further separated from them.

People sometimes write "we'll agree to disagree" or "it's okay that we
disagree" but do they really mean that? Sometimes, yes, but many times, if
they are framing this within the context of "we can't talk about what we
disagree upon" (as is most often the case), they are saying quite the
opposite. After all, that is quite obviously a statement of "it's not okay
that we (voice) disagreements" and, consequently, "It's not really okay that
we disagree".

And why is that? The answer is "ego". We're recognising within ourselves
something that is saying "I'll just get angry if they won't understand
me/agree with me." or "I'm fearful that I might lose the argument and feel a
fool/be made to look a fool". And so the ego/fear wins and we feel it is
safer to stay silent and not take the risk of throwing out our ideas and
risking vulnerability. But, Elizabeth, avoiding that, denying it and not
making the effort to temper egocentric and fearful thoughts is simply not
the answer.

So far, in this group, the responses I have received for presenting a view
(that I realise would mean a drastic reversal in thinking for most of you)
have been very fearful - I must be a manipulator of the text - and people
rush to support this idea. I perhaps need to study ACIM more to eventually
agree with what is the 'correct' view, etc.,. I understand why the
temptation to rush to these types of defenses is great when placed against
what just might happen if my quotes and commentry are given careful and
consideration but this isn't an act that liberates the mind, Elizabeth, it
is just more self-entrapment.

People, obviously, don't have to debate myself or Gene, but to not debate us
for reasons of defensiveness and being indignant about us having the gall to
state opinions that go against the grain, is to refuse to enter dialogue for
all the wrong reasons.

Nevertheless, I do find the obsession with endlessly
quoting "Urtext" annoying,

I must confess that I find that slightly amusing. You see, something tells
me that if someone could provide a large list of quotes that said the
opposite of what I'm arguing for you probably wouldn't find them so
annoying. It is not possible that what really annoys you about the sheer
number of quotes I can provide is that they are quite clearly refuting the
'party line' on the nature of the 'world'?

and the belief that the sheer number of
quotes re: one idea vs. another idea, simply childish. As if the
number of times something is written actually proves or means
anything.

All it means is that the quote has to be dealt with. We shouldn't get into
a quote-war, obviously, whereby one person can provide one quote that says
one thing and another can provide a quote that says the opposite. Instead,
the purpose of a good debate is that we all look at finding a way in which
all evidence pertaining to an issue fits together congruently. In those
terms, the model I provide, with needs ACIM to have statements which both
say that "God created" and "Ego made" fits the bill. The "Ego made - only"
model, on the other hand, has significant problems (and not just in relation
to ACIM itself) that I've yet to see anyone overcome.

The whole quiting business frankly confuses me but more
to the point, bores the hell out of me.

Turning off to something that contradicts what you believe and just
'blanking it out' could very easily be just another defense.

~
Stephen

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "acimgirl"
<acimgirl@e...> wrote:

Hi D. Patrick.... In reading your post I'm reminded of the story

Hugh

Prather told us about Bill Thetford. Bill used to meet informally
with folks and one day two students came to him who were having a
dispute over how they viewed something in the Course. Bill's
solution was for them to tear the pages out of the book and rip

them

up.

Well yes, but not the URTEXT, for God's sake!

He said for them to not allow what the Course says to come
between them.

Just another guy too willing to let forgiveness get in the way of a
perfectly good argument, I guess.

Hi D. Patrick.... In reading your post I'm reminded of the story Hugh
Prather told us about Bill Thetford. Bill used to meet informally
with folks and one day two students came to him who were having a
dispute over how they viewed something in the Course. Bill's
solution was for them to tear the pages out of the book and rip them
up. He said for them to not allow what the Course says to come
between them.
Blessings,
Suzanne

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "Stephen"
<cracker.jack@n...> wrote:

but this is so backwards, I just don't know where to begin...

The Course is overwhelmingly specific in it's teaching that "there is
no world"

Nope. It isn't. That's just a commonly held belief - and I can

understand why hearing otherwise is somewhat difficult to swallow.

One big difficulty is that we don't even have a consensus on what we
mean by "the world". People will argue that there is no world, and
then grow angry if I ask what it is that isn't. What is "the world"?
The idea of space and time? Some illusion? The reality behind the
illusion? What??

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "sa_grippe"
<sa_grippe@y...> wrote:

What if, I nervously thought, Gary really is some kind of

literary evil genius who made up this rather extraordinary story of
ascended masters and is intent on pulling a fast one on me and

future

readers?

Don't worry your head, Mr. S. A. Grippe. Gary is not a genius. He is
not even close to being a genius. Sadly, however, it would hardly
take a genius or even someone exceptionally talented to pull off
Disappearence. I think Joe Smith was a lot more impressive,
personally. Your standards are woefully low.

So if Gary was really out to dominate the world, his

scheme was to push as many people as he could into doing more
forgiving. (Oh, and call himself a former saint who had fallen, in
this life, to the status of slacker and smart ass.) Hmm... so maybe
he wasn't a genius, but he certainly didn't seem very evil either!

Let me repost something apposite I posted on t.r.c-m recently:

Truth will correct the errors in my mind


What can correct illusions but the truth?
And what are errors but illusions which
Remain unrecognized for what they are?
Where truth has entered errors disappear.
They merely vanish, leaving not a trace
By which to be remembered. They are gone
Because without belief they have no life
And so they disappear to nothingness
Returning whence they came. From dust to dust
They come and go, for only truth remains.

Hi again Billy....

Well that's our Don! He is going to teach an introductory ACIM class
that will be starting up very soon.

We have two ACIM groups that I facilitate. We take turns reading. It
is very informal and we stop after each paragraph and make sure we
get it before going on. Gary's book does come up in the discussions
because it is packed with so much food for thought. As I said when I
first got here, it is almost as though Gary's teachers have been
working with us "undercover" because we have come up with so many of
the same examples that they use "on our own".

The book study is a separate group that we started this year. We
have studied Hugh Prather's THE LITTLE BOOK OF LETTING GO, Eckhart
Tolle's THE POWER OF NOW, and now Gary's book. We started DU
Thursday and we found ourselves reading the parts and not summarizing
because it has so many profound things in it that we didn't want to
miss anything. We let Spirit lead us as to how to go about it.

We have a core group of folks who have been meeting together for
a long time and then we have some who come and go. Everyone is
welcome. We laugh a lot.

Blessings,
Suzanne

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., LindaL
<lklanglois@y...> wrote:

I suspect that the reason no one has been responding with a million

citations and so forth is that they don't feel like it.

No, it's because they can't.

At least that is how I feel.

Aren't you interested in what the Course actually does say, as
opposed to what you think you recall it saying?

I think you are engaged in a manuever to escape the atonement. If so,
it won't work. :)

From: "garyrrenard" <garyrrenard@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 3:18 AM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Duality, Metaphor, etc

Hey gang, Just got back from my study group meeting, which was great,
and I saw all of these messages. For most of you, thanks for your
many comments and obervations. For Stephen and Gene well, as the
Bible says, "You will know them by their fruits." Since I've put a
book out that has hundreds of citations from the Course in it that
back up what the teachers say, and since many people are finding it
helpful, then how about this?

Heh... just wait until the copyright is over, Gary. You'll soon have a lot
of competition when people start 'channelling' Jesus, the Angel Gabriel and,
hell, possibly even Helen, Bill, the twelve disciples and Arten and Pursah
themselves to boot. And, guess what? All of these books will be absolutely
full of quotes from (most likely) the Blue Book 'proving' just how accurate
all of these 'entities' and 'visitors' are. Your book sticks in people's
minds because it has an utterly zany premise, completely toes the party line
and has been promoted on a well known ACIM web-site. Alas, something even
wilder will probably come along soon unless, that is, Arten and Pursah pop
by for a follow up.

Especially you Gene, since we've been over the ground of our
theoretical disagreements before on other groups, but also you
Stephen, what I'd really like to know something about is
your personal experiences of forgiveness. People here have been
sharing some very insightful stories about how they forgive, or
struggle to, and how it influences their relationships and view of
reality. And the most frequent kind of comment that Patrick and I
hear about my book is that it's helping readers take forgiveness more
seriously, and really get down to the work of doing it. If my book is
succeeding, it's because it's helping people forgive -- not because
its metaphysics work for everyone. So anyway, I'm just curious about
what kind of difference forgiveness has made in your life.

Forgiveness works extremely well for me. Before the Course I used to
believe that people were 'bad' or 'nasty', like say, Hitler or maybe just
the odd individual who says something bad to me. I did always believe that
"Souls" evolve over 'lifetimes' but thanks to ACIM I realise that people are
just making 'mistakes' due to 'fear', 'guilt', 'separation', etc.,. And the
same goes for myself too.

Consider a small child throwing a tantrum, they don't really hate their
parents and (usually!) the parents have no problem "forgiving" them and even
overlooking these things. Why? Because the parent realises that child (as
any developmental psychologist will tell you) doesn't know the dangers of
the world or realise that everything and everyone in it isn't just there to
please them. As adults we're exactly the same (excepting that, in the main,
we have a bit more self-control (usually)).

It really is amazing why we have so difficult a time 'forgiving' each other
when we are, fundamentally, just making the same mistakes as children. The
actual 'psychology' of it isn't really that different. We, being
egocentric, don't quite understand the world or each other - we're not
"mature" spiritually. Of course we should stop someone who is, say, a
serial-killer or a rapist - just as we would stop an infant from hitting
another with a knife or other sharp object, but if we could learn to
restrain each other, as adults, in the same way (that is, without hatred,
fear and anger) we'd be on the right track.

Forgiveness isn't really that complicated a business when you don't believe
in "sin" and understand that people only do the things they do because they
have given in to their own fears and guilt. It's sometimes hard to apply,
but it's a much better way of living one's life than beliving, say, as
fundamentalist Christians do, that 'evil' exists and that there is a lot of
it in the world.

~
Stephen