开云体育

Gene, didn't you say once you are also a Sagittarius, like I am?

Two of us together here, writing about the book (and what happened
on the ng in regard to it) might be interesting. (LOL)

I've heard "if you want the truth ask a Sagittarian. But make sure
you really want the truth before you do".

I don't know if I was asked, directly, but they offered me (and
sent me) a copy of the book.

So, I assume my opinion about it might mean something.

I'm trying to read it in an impartial way, forgetting about what
was said about it (and resulted) on the ng.


So far it seems to be very well written.

~ Carrie



--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "ideaofgod"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:

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

Hi Carrie. It wasn't criticism of the book that was answered by

us

at

the ng, it was the deliberate misrepresentation of what the book

said

as presented by Gene, who began attacking it before he ever read

it -

and then resorted to presenting it out of context after that.

I read excerpts from it before drawing any conclusions. It is very
easy to see you perpetrated a hoax, and I said so and say so.

Hi Gene,

I wonder if you will still be seen as "being nice".

Weren't you just giving your opinions and asking questions about
the book when you were seen as NOT being nice?

I just started it and keep picking up on things as I try to just
follow it like a story.

Like... comparing heaven to sex. "...very peak of a perfect sex
organism... never stops... keeps going on forever with no decrease...
powerful flawless intensity."

Maybe it's different "in heaven" (wherever that is, I thought we
were creating it (and/or hell) with our minds at any given time) but
seems like without the contrast of NOT having an orgasm, it would
become meaningless at some point.

Like not being aware of how fast you're going in an airplane without
being able to see something actually going by to judge it by.

I've tried to imagine what it would be like to have the money some
of the superstars (and sports players,etc) have. Like Madonna and
Oprah, for example. $80 million a year. J.K. Rowling (Harry Potter)is
now a billionaire.

If one had enough money to buy anything they ever might want,
whenever they wanted it (even friends (LOL) wouldn't money, in a way
because almost worthless to them?

Because of there being now contrast?

Turning down the contrast on a t.v. or monitor, you have NOTHING.

Seems like living in a state of orgasmic bliss that never decreases
or stops would soon make this (feeling) meaningless also.

With nothing to compare it to.

Since this is (I think) a board set up to discuss the book and I am
now reading the book, I thought I'd start discussing it as I go along.

I also find myself thinking "didn't Gary feel kind of odd not
telling his wife about this and sharing it with her for all that
time?"

And, "how come Gary gets to sit home all day and do nothing
(meditate)- not even have kids to take care of and Karen has to go to
the city and work?"

So far I haven't been able to set aside logical thinking and just
believe it as a story.

Sort of like when I read THE CELESTINE PROPHECY, I couldn't get
past the terrible writing and lack of story. I kept thinking "why
didn't he just write it as a non fiction about the prophecies,
themselves?" Not saying Gary's book isn't well written. And I like
the clear dark printing, makes it easy to read.

And James Redfield didn't do too bad with his books,workshops,
tapes, etc. In spite of my being disappointed in the writing and lack
of story.

~ Carrie







-- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "ideaofgod"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:

--- In

Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "starchild1124"

<starchild1124@y...> wrote:

I didn't follow the discussion about Gary's book all that

closely

when it was the hot topic on the ng, but how I remember Gene

being

involved in it, didn't he question some of the facts in the book?
Like physics and mathematical statements?

This is what started one of the arguements and Gene's

conclusion

that the book was a hoax.

It's not what started it, but the numerous factual errors and
outright absurdities in it are enough by themselves to show the

book

is a hoax.

There has also been talk that maybe the mysterious "Nelson" who
started this egroup- but doesn't seem to be a part of it, is also
Gary's wife, Karen. Based on her past ways of promoting the book.

Nelson is King Log. I think Karen would more likely be Queen Stork.

开云体育

From: mstreet

To: Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:52 PM

Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Actually, Gene's being nice so far...

?

>>Very good post, Carrie.? And for everyone who's reading this, Carrie is a
Blue Book student - just like you guys.<<

?

Hi Stephen:

?

I think you better check this out with Carrie. She was claiming last week, that Helen got the Blue wrong. And of course, implying that she knew better.

?

~ Martha

From: "ideaofgod" <gwsmith@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:50 PM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Forgiveness Question

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

If the world and all the people in it were destroyed by a nuclear

war

or a comet hitting the earth, etc. the ego would continue, because
the ego is an illusory mind. It would then make more bodies, human

or

otherwise, seemingly on this planet or elsewhere, to act out,
project, etc. keeping its thought system intact.

Are you saying there is a single mind-thing called "The Ego", which
made the apparent world and everything in it? If so, is this A&P, or
do you claim you can support it from the Course?

Personally, I wonder what all the Illusionists around here think about life
elsewhere in the Universe? Do other, non-human civilisations, all have egos
as well? It's interesting because in the 'alien/ufo' community there is a
popular theory that the only reason we aren't ever contacted directly, en
masse, is because we, as a species, have 'fallen from grace' whereas other
civilisations haven't.

And another thing! What about cats, dogs and duck-billed platypuses? Do
they have ego's like us or what? Is it just we humans who are 'projecting'
the Universe or do pigeons and donkeys need to achieve Atonement as well in
order that the "Sonship" will fully awaken from the dream?

It don't think it
would be possible to "destroy" the entire universe because in the
illusion, energy cannot be destroyed, only changed.

Then how did the energy get there in the first place?

Something tells me that Gary probably doesn't think about 'energy' like you
do, Professor. I don't think anyone's found a way to measure positive
energy (of the 'higher vibratory touchy-feely' kind) in joules just yet.

~
Stephen

From: "ideaofgod" <gwsmith@...>

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.)

I don't hate Ken, with whom I am actually on friendly terms. Nor am I
legally challenging the copyright on the Course--the case concerns
the Hugh Lynn Cayce version of the Text.

I suggest that sticking to facts would be good for what ails you.

I'm glad you mentioned this Gene - you've made me realise that Gary made
another mistake I should have commented upon. I am not involved in any of
the current litigations, etc., that Ken has launched against people for
whatever reason and never have been. (That said, if I ever win the lottery
I'd be more than happy to contribute!)

~
Stephen

开云体育

From: LindaL

To: Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 10:03 PM

Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Wishing you a mind at peace

I don't feel resentful about it, Stephen.

Why would I?

I choose not to get involved with debates about it, but that doesn't have anything to do with resenting it. I have a copy of the Urtext, but I haven't really looked at it. Would?someone like to give a little background of it?

Just what is the big controversy?

Is it in Miller's book?

I remember something about the Edgar Cayce Society.

How it was a first version.

Why is it so different in content?

I do know of at least one case where a person is believed to have been awakened by reading the Blue Book as you call it after studying it upwards of 8 hours a day for quite a long time.

And this seems contrary to what you and or Gene Smith say - that the Atonement is impossible using the Blue Book.

(Personally, I believe that anyone can experience the Atonement no matter what he believes if he "comes before?God with empty hands.")?Is there anything parallel to that with students of the Urtext?

?Why IS it that Helen and Ted did not ok it?

You know; ?a thought might be, for any who'd like to discuss the Urtext versus the "Blue Book" versions of the Course, and debate the relative qualities and accuracies thereof... ?perhaps starting a "Comparing the Urtext with the Blue Book" group at yahoogroups might be a good thing. ?I would check it out if someone started it, and any who wished could further the discussions and debates over there!

Until that time (if in fact, time really does exist), I think Gary's idea here was a good one:

??? > So now I'm going to do (and anyone is welcome to join me) what

> the Course says on P.401 of the Workbook:
>
> "Forgiveness...is still, and quietly does nothing. It merely
> looks, and waits, and judges not."
>
> Love and peace, Gary.

Amen to that.

"God is." ??(Where have my lips gone..?)

Gene B.

In a message dated 7/16/2003 5:37:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, sa_grippe@... writes:

It's happened at least three times
now in a very distinct, unmistakable manner: same-day
feedback. So
thanks, guy -- your karma works in most mysterious ways!

I guess there is truth in the saying "No such thing as bad publicity" :-)


"Ideas Leave Not Their Source"

---

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

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "ideaofgod"
<gwsmith@s...> wrote:

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

...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.

I did no such thing. I questioned your integrity, your

intelligence,

your education, and your editing ability--all with good reason.

Hmm... I seem to remember "hoaxer," "liar," and "fraud," just for
starters. "Idiotic" and "stupid", or words to that effect, were in
there somewhere. On the other hand, I have never questioned your
integrity, intelligence, education, etc., because I feel no need to
do so. I learned about projection a long time ago.

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.

Then you might have said this sincerely.

And that's what you haven't understood from the beginning, Gene -- I
was always utterly sincere. I think you are a fine fellow (a holy son
of God, that is) who lapses into some fearful name-calling and
judgments every now and then. The fears you have, and that you
frequently project, prevent you even from seeing when someone wishes
you well, and blesses your true nature. That's OK for now; you'll get
over it eventually.

How you feel about DISAPPEARANCE is admittedly not very significant
to me, however. As a publisher, I have to pay attention to how *most*
people respond to the work I do. On the first printing of
DISAPPEARANCE, almost sold out now, the positive/negative votes seem
to be running about 1995 to 5, or an approval rate of 99.75% (Please
check my math; it wasn't my strong suit in school.) I can live with
that!

I've also noticed the oddest synchronicity: every time you start
making noise on discussion groups about Gary's book, my direct
website sales go through the roof! It's happened at least three times
now in a very distinct, unmistakable manner: same-day feedback. So
thanks, guy -- your karma works in most mysterious ways!

dpm
www.fearlessbooks.com

开云体育

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

And this seems contrary to what you and or Gene Smith say - that the
Atonement is impossible using the Blue Book.

Kindly do not put words in my mouth and stick to facts. I never said
this, and clearly it is nonsense.

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

Hi Carrie. It wasn't criticism of the book that was answered by us

at

the ng, it was the deliberate misrepresentation of what the book

said

as presented by Gene, who began attacking it before he ever read

it -

and then resorted to presenting it out of context after that.

I read excerpts from it before drawing any conclusions. It is very
easy to see you perpetrated a hoax, and I said so and say so.

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "starchild1124"
<starchild1124@y...> wrote:

I didn't follow the discussion about Gary's book all that closely
when it was the hot topic on the ng, but how I remember Gene being
involved in it, didn't he question some of the facts in the book?
Like physics and mathematical statements?

This is what started one of the arguements and Gene's conclusion
that the book was a hoax.

It's not what started it, but the numerous factual errors and
outright absurdities in it are enough by themselves to show the book
is a hoax.

There has also been talk that maybe the mysterious "Nelson" who
started this egroup- but doesn't seem to be a part of it, is also
Gary's wife, Karen. Based on her past ways of promoting the book.

Nelson is King Log. I think Karen would more likely be Queen Stork.

开云体育

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

If the world and all the people in it were destroyed by a nuclear

war

or a comet hitting the earth, etc. the ego would continue, because
the ego is an illusory mind. It would then make more bodies, human

or

otherwise, seemingly on this planet or elsewhere, to act out,
project, etc. keeping its thought system intact.

Are you saying there is a single mind-thing called "The Ego", which
made the apparent world and everything in it? If so, is this A&P, or
do you claim you can support it from the Course?

It don't think it

would be possible to "destroy" the entire universe because in the
illusion, energy cannot be destroyed, only changed.

Then how did the energy get there in the first place?

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

...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.

I did no such thing. I questioned your integrity, your intelligence,
your education, and your editing ability--all with good reason.

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.

Then you might have said this sincerely.

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., BBFBBN@a...
wrote:

But this is part of the ego. It will go out and seek to

destroy ... anything

that threatens its destruction.

Such as what Jesus is actually teaching. Hence we see people hiding
from a discussion of what that actually is, and involving themselves
with attempts to rewrite the Course in a way the ego finds more
palatable.