Hello Stephen,

Far be it from me to appear "contradictory" ?:) ?-- but I simply must respond to your post. You mention:

There are many more statements in ACIM that affirm God as Creator of the world/Universe than statements that speak of the ego's illusionary world. ?Why people still ignore this simple fact I just don't know. ?

Now please don't get mad at me, Stephen ?:^) ?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", and God did not create the world (since it does not actually exist). People are not ignoring any simple facts about God creating the world, since those are not the facts. Looking at your reference to Lesson 184:

And Lesson 184 is surely irrefutable in its claim that God is the Creator of the world/Universe; particularly in this passage: ?"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."

I see in this passage no irrefutable claim that God is the creator of the world. Think not "we" made the world (since it does not really exist), but think not "God" made it, either. And the phrase "what is true in earth" is one of those "Levels" issues, where language (the reference to "earth") is being used metaphorically (or, "symbolically", for those so inclined...)

In the next paragraph of Lesson 184, it in fact states: ?"You have need to use the symbols of the world a while. But be you not deceived by them as well". ?(W-184.9)

You then continue:

And there is this from Lesson 263:

"W-263.1. "

Note "would I look upon what *you created* as if it could bemade sinful...". ?The only logical conclusion the evidence ACIM provides is the obvious one - the Universe/world is God's Creation that we are misperceiving.

I find this conclusion neither logical nor obvious. What is obvious at least to me, is that this phrase, "...would I look upon what You created as if it could be made sinful?" is referring to God's Son, which God indeed did create.

In an earlier lesson (Lesson 132), we read: "I who remain as God created me would loose the world from all I thought it was. For I am real because the world is not, and I would know my own reality." (W-132.15.2-3) {bold emphasis mine}

Here is a quote from the Manual: "Can what has no beginning really end? The world will end in an illusion, as it began." (M-14.1-2) ?An illusion; hardly the creation of God.

Earlier, from the Text (referring to 'everyone who identifies with the ego'): "He always perceives the world as outside himself, for this is crucial to his adjustment. He does not realize he makes this world, for there is no world outside of him." (T-12.III.6.6-7) {bold emphasis mine}

We could go on and on here -- I'm sure many other list members will be able to come up with a lot more quotes... ?But the point is that, at least speaking for myself, it's clear that the Course overwhelmingly refers to "the world" as an illusion that we made, and not the creation of God. Now of course there is the position that we made the illusion of the world, and God made us, so therefore...... ?but that's really a different discussion altogether!

In another post here, on the same topic, you say:

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.

"God created the world"...? ?You say that the Course definitely says that... ?I would very much appreciate you providing a reference to this quote (and if it's from the Urtext, the "page number"), as I have never been aware of this.

From your other statements concerning NDE's and Enlightenment and other spiritual paths and studies, it seems to me that you consider the Course to be "one of many" spiritual traditions, and that's fine, I totally respect your beliefs, Stephen. Hearing the Course as Jesus' personal message (as many of us do) is not necessarily the way for everyone, as the Course itself states. But I would humbly suggest that a deeper study of the Course (and perhaps some quality time really doing the Workbook lessons) might give you a firmer basis of the Course's position on the nature of the world... ?Or not!! ?:^) ??I'm certainly not trying to presume to tell you what to do... ?Only to explain my feelings on this matter.

As Jesus tells us (in so many words): "We're all gonna get there, eventually!"

Love & Peace, ??Gene

From: <BBFBBN@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: A + P used to mean
something

I was just listening to one of Ken's tapes on doing the workbook and he

emphasizes that the workbook is for training the mind ... to get the mind
prepared for what text says ...

Ken says that the workbook is to train and prepare the mind for what the
text says!!?? How curious that the Author says the exact opposite:

"W-in.1. A theoretical foundation such as the text provides is necessary as
a framework to make the exercises in this workbook meaningful."

I've read a few whoppers from Ken but that's one to remember. What tape
does he make this claim on?

He repeatedly says if you want to know what the Course says, read the

text.

Are you saying that if you want to know what the Course says you shouldn't
read the Lessons, Manual for Teachers, Psychotherapy PPP suppliament or Song
of Prayer suppliament? Why on earth not?

Now I understand why he emphasized that.

Why do you think the Author emphasises these statements:

"God created time so that man could use it creatively, and convince himself
of his own ability to create. Time is a teaching device, and a means to an
end. It will cease when it is no longer useful for facilitating learning."
(ACIM Urtext)

"And when correction is completed, time IS eternity." (ACIM Urtext)

"The acceptance of the Atonement by everyone is only a matter of time. In
fact, both TIME and MATTER were created for this purpose." (ACIM Urtext)
(emphasis as original)

~
Stephen

From: <BBFBBN@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 8:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: A + P used to mean
something

In a message dated 7/15/2003 11:15:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,

cracker.jack@... writes:

There are many more statements in ACIM that affirm God as Creator of the

world/Universe than statements that speak of the ego's illusionary world.
Why people still ignore this

simple fact I just don't know.

The Ego is doing a very good job. People still think that God created

anything of form .. amazing.

Excuse me? Who is proclaiming that God created anything of 'form'?

Where is form here:

"Finally I turned my eyes to the pine-covered hills behind the monastery and
still, there was no division, only something "there" that was flowing with
and through every vista and particular object of vision. To see the Oneness
of everything is like having special 3D glasses put before your eyes; I
thought to myself: for sure, this is what they mean when they say "God is
everywhere." (Bernadette Roberts)

And where is form here:

"W-184.1. You live by symbols. 2 You have made up names for everything you
see. 3 Each one becomes a separate entity, identified by its own name. 4 By
this you carve it out of unity. 5 By this you designate its special
attributes, and set it off from other things by emphasizing space
surrounding it. 6 This space you lay between all things to which you give a
different name; all happenings in terms of place and time; all bodies which
are greeted by a name."

"W-184.2. This space you see as setting off all things from one another is
the means by which the world's perception is achieved. 2 You see something
where nothing is, and see as well nothing where there is unity; a space
between all things, between all things and you. 3 Thus do you think that you
have given life in separation. 4 By this split you think you are established
as a unity which functions with an independent will."

"W-184.15. Father, our Name is Yours. 2 In It we are united with all living
things, and You Who are their one Creator. 3 What we made and call by many
different names is but a shadow we have tried to cast across Your Own
reality. 4 And we are glad and thankful we were wrong. 5 All our mistakes we
give to You, that we may be absolved from all effects our errors seemed to
have. 6 And we accept the truth You give, in place of every one of them. 7
Your Name is our salvation and escape from what we made. 8 Your Name unites
us in the oneness which is our inheritance and peace. 9 Amen."

To give form is to "carve out of unity". The Course says God's Creation is
One, as those who have testified to Enlightenment completely agree.

~
Stephen

--- 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.

From: "garyrrenard" <garyrrenard@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 6:15 PM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: age

Hi Sue-chan. I agree completely, and I believe my teachers do also.
On P.16 of "Disappearance" Arten makes the following controversial
statement: "Perhaps the most overlooked error of all religions and
philosophies, including the New Age models, is the failure to
understand that although doing things like thinking positively,
being "in the now," saying prayers, affirmations, denying negative
thoughts and listening to famous speakers may have a temporarily
helpful impact, they *cannot* release that which is locked in the
deep canyons of your unconscious mind."

That's why, as you point out, we need the Holy Spirit. By thinking
with Him and letting our minds be trained to have His thought system
take over, He can do what we cannot do for ourselves: heal the
unconscious guilt that we were not even aware of.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

"The Holy Spirit is nothing more than your own right mind." (ACIM Urtext)

"Thinking with Him" simply means being more 'right-minded', Gary, which, in
turn, means thinking more self-less-ly rather than self-ish-ly
(egocentrically) and "Prayer is the re-statement of INCLUSION, directed by
the Holy Spirit under the laws of God." (ACIM Urtext)

So how can prayer "have a temporarily helpful impact" when S-1.I.1 says
"Prayer is a way offered by the Holy Spirit to reach God."?

~
Stephen

In a message dated 7/15/2003 3:02:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, cracker.jack@... writes:

Mostly.... but not entirely.

I repeat,

The goal of the Course is to not fix the world or make it a better place, it is to awaken from this world of illusion we made

In a message dated 7/15/2003 3:44:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, cracker.jack@... writes:

I'd be delighted if everyone was as tolerant of others having alternative views of the Course as yourself, Linda. But why can't we not still do that and explore the issue?

I will not discuss anymore with anyone who say that they study ACIM and believe that this world is real.

There are plenty of other listservs that love to deal with alternative views of the Course. I do not believe this is the place for that.

If I am mistaken .. then I will make my leave.

Peace
Ossie

"Ideas Leave Not Their Source"

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

Even Arten and Pursah agreed that he is a very good teacher for this

period of time.

This is an argument you imagine I will find convincing?

But the bottom line is that until I hear something that Ken says

that does not jive with my inner teacher ... I will continue to
utlize the books, workshops and any teaching tools available to
achieve my goal which is to awaken from the dream.

Who cares?

From: "ideaofgod" <gwsmith@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 8:01 PM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Non-duality and Metaphor

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

Helow Dr. Smith. I think the Course teaches that spirit and God are
identical, and this would be in agreement with what you say,
depending on your definition of "soul."

I use "soul" to mean exactly what the Course says it means--a
creation of God and an integral part of the Sonship. As for your
claim about what the Course says, I suggest reading it more
carefully; it says nothing of the kind and in fact the entire Course
would make no sense whatever if it were true, since it would say God
was deluded into thinking he was separated from God, and therefore
created the Holy Spirit so that God could communicate with Himself.
In other words, God is completely insane and trying to cure His
insanity with a mind that is insane.

I suggest rather than tossing this kind of thing out there, you
should give a citation--to the Course in some version, not Arten or
Pursah. *Where*, exactly, does the Course ever say "spirit" is the
same as God?

These are very fair points, Gary. Saying "Arten and Pursah said..." falls
very short of "Arten and Pursah said and the Course agrees by saying ..." in
terms of plausibility if "Arten" and "Pursah" are found to have been saying
something that is contradicted by the Course.

~
Stephen

开云体育

From: LindaL

To: Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 7:38 PM

Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: reality

Can we all agree to disagree - as in any great marriage or relationship? I believe as Jim does and differently than you do, but how you believe is ok with me. I do not have a desire to change your mind. I only have a desire to change my perception and no one else's.

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

Hi Suzanne. Thanks so much for sharing these things with me. You'll
never know how much I appreciate it. It helps that you're keeping me
posted. Please continue to! Love and peace, Gary.

Hi Gary.... Just a note to let you know that there were 10 of us at
my study group this morning (Memphis TN) and ALL ten of us were
either reading or have read your book. I even picked up another
person who wants to come to the book study Thurs. One member of our
group said he had just returned from Ken's workshop in Atlanta and
that DU was the hot topic there. I have to say that in all my
years of ACIM involvement I have never seen a book about ACIM cause
so much excitement.

I think DU has come at just the right time. I have certainly
found it has given me a spiritual boost.

Blessings,
Suzanne
PS Hugh Prather is "da man"! Good move on your part to contact him.
He keeps it real!

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. 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. I do not agree with your characterizations of
what the Course would mean under the Holy Spirit's thought system
which I adhere to, 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. 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.
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?
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.

开云体育

From: BBFBBN@...

To: Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...

The goal of the Course is to not fix the world or make it a better place, it is to awaken from this world of illusion we made.

Mostly.... but not entirely.? In the Manual for Teachers we have two interesting sections, 11 "How is peace possible in this world" and 12 How many Teachers of God are needed to save the world?", which have as their central focus our own waking up from the dream in order to see the "world of peace".? Of particular interest is the statement in Section 11 which reads:

?

"M-11.1.9 What the world is, is but a fact. 10 You cannot choose what this should be. 11 But you can choose how you would see it. 12 Indeed, you choose this."

?

So the 'manifesto for a better world' in ACIM, to borrow a phrase, is essentially that each of us must become Enlightened (though not necessarily by going through this particular form of the Universal Course).? Unfortunately, living to see a fully Enlightened planet in our lifetimes is unlikely.? What is occuring now is quite slow (by human terms):

?

"Just as the Separation occurred over many millions of years, the Last Judgment will extend over a similarly long period, and perhaps even longer. Its length depends, however, on the effectiveness of the present speed-up. We have frequently noted that the miracle is a device for shortening but not abolishing time. If a sufficient number of people become truly miracle-minded quickly, the shortening process can be almost immeasurable. But it is essential that these individuals free themselves from fear sooner than would ordinarily be the case, because they MUST emerge from basic conflict it they are to bring peace to the minds of others."? (ACIM Urtext)

?

.....and has not yet ocurred on a wide-scale:

?

"The history of man in the world as he saw it has not been characterized by any geniune or comprehensive re-awakening, or re-birth." (ACIM Urtext)

?

.....though the requirements and conditions to achieve a 'comprehensive re-awakening' are really quite simple:

?

"Only after the Separation was it necessary to direct the creative force to learning, because changed behavior had become mandatory.? Human beings can learn to improve their behavior, and can also learn to become better and better learners. This increase serves (HS notes that this was written "served") to bring them in closer and closer accord with the Sonship."? (ACIM Urtext)

?

So it's not *totally* accurate to say that "The goal of the Course is not to fix the world or make it a better place...".? Widespread occurrences of Enlightenment might be a while away yet (in all paths and faiths) but I think we can safely say that the Course states?this will come to humankind eventually and that it's a part of the "overall-plan" - which obviously isn't in "our" hands, though one wonders how much of the small steps in this "overall-plan" are being made through us?

?

Consider the internet.? Today, opening up an e-mail list or web-site that shares the work of someone who has achieved Enlightenment and discussing it with hundreds of people around the world is no big deal.? It wasn't like that 10-15 years ago - and nothing like that existed in the rest of human history.? The statement "present speed-up" is an apt term and if we look closely at human behaviour (in all faiths) we can see that the discussion of Enlightenment has definately 'heated-up' and piqued the curiosity of many minds.? The rest will simply happen as it will happen.

?

~

Stephen

In a message dated 7/15/2003 2:17:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, gwsmith@... writes:

If you read only the Blue Book, you cannot read it
independently from
Ken's interpretation. Something to bear in mind.

When I was raised on the Bible I did not understand what I was reading. So there were teachers. As I started to think on my own I had questions about the bible that did not jive with what I was reading and what was being taught ... and no one could answer the questions ... and if they did ... the answers did not sit right with me.

Many many years later I come across ACIM. I have been exposed to various teachers of the Course... but the only one who has been consistent in the Course's Teaching that satisfies my spirit is Ken Wapnick. So I have learned to stop looking for new teachers and just rely on my inner teacher and when I am stumped and need assistance I deal with those who view the Course in the way Ken teaches it. Even Arten and Pursah agreed that he is a very good teacher for this period of time.

But the bottom line is that until I hear something that Ken says that does not jive with my inner teacher ... I will continue to utlize the books, workshops and any teaching tools available to achieve my goal which is to awaken from the dream.

Another goal is to not have to refer to teachers in "form" but to solely rely on my inner Teacher, but because of the level of my fear, this is what I must do at this time.

Peace
Ossie

"Ideas Leave Not Their Source"

In a message dated 7/15/2003 11:15:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, cracker.jack@... writes:

There are many more statements in ACIM that affirm God as Creator of the world/Universe than statements that speak of the ego's illusionary world. Why people still ignore this
simple fact I just don't know.

The Ego is doing a very good job. People still think that God created anything of form .. amazing.

I was just listening to one of Ken's tapes on doing the workbook and he emphasizes that the workbook is for training the mind ... to get the mind prepared for what text says ... He repeatedly says if you want to know what the Course says, read the text.

Now I understand why he emphasized that.

:-)

"Ideas Leave Not Their Source"

--- In Disappearance_of_the_Universe@..., "Linda
Langlois" <lklanglois@y...> wrote:

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.

If you read only the Blue Book, you cannot read it independently from
Ken's interpretation. Something to bear in mind.