---

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

The home page of this group has all the proof needed. This is at
. Nelson
has made a completely open site here so that the membership can be
looked up. In some groups you cannot see that. There can be all
kinds of limitations. Anyway, I looked at the membership as soon as
I joined. I always do, because I like to see if anyone I know is on
it as well. I like to poke around and see if how many people are
around my age, where people are from, interests they have, etc. - if
they have put it on their profile. I check to see the Files, Photos,
Links, etc. In DU there was nothing in those links. I always look to
see who is the moderator, too, and who is the owner. It is easy to
see who because there is a legend on the left frame of the page
telling how to find out. I saw that there was an owner and not a
moderator. I saw Nelson's info and profile right away.

The way these yahoo groups are set up, it tells the day a person
joins, and it cannot be changed by the owner. It is there for anyone
to see. On the profiles it also tells when the profile was last
edited.

There was only one message in the first month. That was from Nelson.
He joined on 5/19/03 and edited his profile on 12/01/97. He is the
earliest member of the group obviously. So his picture and all the
info about him has not been touched since 12/01/97 - way before
Gary's book was published! (I'm writing this message from the group
home, which has no formatging abilities or I would have bolded this.)

I joined on 5/17/03, and my profile was last edited on 7/15/03. (I
eliminated some interests.)

Karen Renard joined on 5/19/03 and last edited her profile on
4/02/02.

Gary Renard joined DU on 5/19/03 and last edited his profile on
5/19/03.

The evidence is in!!! There is no way possible that Karen or Gary or
anyone else could be the owner or moderator of this group! Nelson
posted at least 3 messages before they ever even joined! I even
joined before them!

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

I just answered a post from Carrie at the Newsgroup from Heaven:


"Carrie" <starchild1124@e...> wrote in message
news:<k4SRa.9424$Mc.668809@n...>...

Gary has asked me not to post on his board...

That's not true, Carrie. I asked you to read the entire book
first and then ask your questions. It seems as though every day you
want to say something that isn't true. For example:

I also don't think it's coincidental that Nelson posted

there, "out

of
nowhere" (back from vacation) right after his existence as a real
person was
questioned.
If he loves the book- which he read before it came out to the
public, so
much he started the egroup (before it came out to the public) I

wonder

why
he's not right there, in the middle of the discussions about it,

and

attempting to answer questions that Gary is too busy for?

Carrie, the book was shipped to the first Internet buyers at

the

end of February, 6 weeks before Nelson started the Yahoo Group in
mid-April, which was just before I started participating on another
board at the Fearless Books Website. I didn't participate in the

Yahoo

Group at first. Nelson's name (with a star next to it) was there

from

the beginning (even though you made up the idea here that it was

just

put there recently). The names are in alphabetical order, and
YoungNel starts with a Y. That's why he's listed last. I believe

he

has posted a few times, (some people don't like to post that much,
they just like to read the messages). You can check the archives.

And

why should he answer questions about the book? It's not his book.
Anyway, I'm sure EVERYBODY has already checked his IP address.

(LOL)

Nelson's probably a good guy, Carrie. You should think about
people's feelings sometime. I don't have anything against you, but

I

don't think you serve anyone with constant misinformation. I

thought

that was Gene's job. In any case, I still love you like a sister

and

welcome you to ask your questions after you've read all of the

book,

which is the stated purpose of the Yahoo group. Love and peace,

Gary.

I just answered a post from Carrie at the Newsgroup from Heaven:


"Carrie" <starchild1124@...> wrote in message
news:<k4SRa.9424$Mc.668809@...>...

Gary has asked me not to post on his board...

That's not true, Carrie. I asked you to read the entire book
first and then ask your questions. It seems as though every day you
want to say something that isn't true. For example:

I also don't think it's coincidental that Nelson posted there, "out

of
nowhere" (back from vacation) right after his existence as a real
person was
questioned.
If he loves the book- which he read before it came out to the
public, so
much he started the egroup (before it came out to the public) I wonder
why
he's not right there, in the middle of the discussions about it, and
attempting to answer questions that Gary is too busy for?

Carrie, the book was shipped to the first Internet buyers at the
end of February, 6 weeks before Nelson started the Yahoo Group in
mid-April, which was just before I started participating on another
board at the Fearless Books Website. I didn't participate in the Yahoo
Group at first. Nelson's name (with a star next to it) was there from
the beginning (even though you made up the idea here that it was just
put there recently). The names are in alphabetical order, and
YoungNel starts with a Y. That's why he's listed last. I believe he
has posted a few times, (some people don't like to post that much,
they just like to read the messages). You can check the archives. And
why should he answer questions about the book? It's not his book.
Anyway, I'm sure EVERYBODY has already checked his IP address. (LOL)
Nelson's probably a good guy, Carrie. You should think about
people's feelings sometime. I don't have anything against you, but I
don't think you serve anyone with constant misinformation. I thought
that was Gene's job. In any case, I still love you like a sister and
welcome you to ask your questions after you've read all of the book,
which is the stated purpose of the Yahoo group. Love and peace, Gary.

Judy wrote:

Yesterday my Inner Teacher guided me to the Introduction to Chapter

11. If
you read all of paragraphs 3 and 4 the Answer is there. I don't think
I
need to quote it but will if anyone wants.

Thanks, Judy. I read those two paragraphs (T193-194, second edition)
and found them to help me too. Blessings to you, Gary.

When I try to do this too fast I make mistakes. This should read
"The closer I come to the foundation of the eg's thought system, the darker
and more obsure becomes the way." Of course the closer I come to His
thought system the clearer the light becomes.

Judy

Hi, everyone -

Well, I have to say during the interchange the past week or two my peace has
been disturbed and it looks to me the same is true for most of you on this
list - although I realize that is judgment and projection on my part.

Yesterday my Inner Teacher guided me to the Introduction to Chapter 11. If
you read all of paragraphs 3 and 4 the Answer is there. I don't think I
need to quote it but will if anyone wants.

The light is in me. The closer I come to the foundation of the ego's
thought system, the clearer the light becomes. Yet the little spark in my
mind is enough to lighten it. I will bring this light "fearlessly" with me
and bravely hold it up to the foundation of the ego's thought system. I
will be willing to judge it with perfect honesty.

We all know - or should know as ACIM students - that form is an illusion and
we should be concerned with content. My brother can say the Urtext is the
true teaching of Jesus - and he is right for him. For me it is ACIM - and I
am right for me. However the Urtext and ACIM are both form. It is the
content that is important.

So let's all let that light shine and quit arguing about who is right. I
want to be happy.

I usually don't sign off with love, because I don't know what love is. But
I am willing to find out and in the end what I perceive to be "all of us"
will know.

I will say my peace has returned. I am spirit - I am as God created me.

Judy

You've made it quite clear you don't much like Jesus. Shall I dig

up

the quotes?

No, let me do the footwork, because I think you'd have a hard time
coming up with quotes where I actually said I don't "like" Jesus.
What I've often said is what I say in the Foreword to DISAPPEARANCE:

"As shocking as it may sound to other ACIM students, I've never much
cared whether Jesus Christ had anything to do with it. The
authenticity of the Course has been verified me because it
*works* ... but *not* because it purports to have a divine source."

That is, my focus on the Course has always been primarily
utilitarian, not religious. Paradoxically, that's what I think the
message of Jesus has always been: "Don't worship me, but do the work
of forgiveness as I have done it, so that you can eventually
recognize we are no different."

I try to do that work on a regular basis, and I've made some progress
over the years. That's how I can keep calling you -- in all
sincerity -- a fine fellow, even as you continue to question my
integrity, intelligence, etc., and so on.

If you do come up with quotes about me not liking Jesus, please do
footnote them with date, time, IP address from which I posted it, the
full documentation of my bad words against Jesus... the whole ball of
wax. I'll want to show it to Him tomorrow at our Putt Putt date, even
though I know what he'll say already:

"Good ol' Gene. He's a fine fellow, isn't he? Now, shall I give you a
handicap on the windmill?"

From: "garyrrenard" <garyrrenard@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:07 AM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Urtext

Gene Bogart wrote:

"Now, we know that time does not exist." (ACIM Urtext, pg. 35)

Thanks Gene. There's just no getting away from it, is there?

Tsk, Tsk, silly boy.

You can't just answer one quote with another - they just cancel each other
out and you would be left without any answer at all. You have to find a way
to make things *congruent*, Gary. What are you left with if you don't?
Saying that this quote.....

"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)

.... is wrong, while this quote....

"Now, we know that time does not exist." (ACIM Urtext)

..... is right?

Why should that be the case? Why isn't it the other way around? And why
did the Author say something that you must be syaing is wrong in the first
place? Or is there more to it than that? Sadly, too many Course students
when faced with this issue and others like it are all too tempted to just
deal with the quotes they like and ignore those they can't fathom. But the
funny thing is it's totally unnecessary:

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

..... and well I never! Is it not possible that if "time IS eternity" when
correction is completed, the Universe is also Heaven when correction is
completed:

"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)

The
funny thing is, since most of the people who study the Urtext also
believe that the Hugh Lynn Casey version of the Course was supposed
to be the "final" edit (by Bill) then that would mean there are even
*fewer* differences in meaning when you compare Bill's edit

What are actually trying to say with this statement? Whatever you're trying
to say, the JCIM pretty much "is" the Urtext minus the conversational stuff
and 'special messages'.

and the
more professional, published one

LOL

that was done later by Helen, with
Ken acting as her assistant.

That would be Ken assisting Helen with the editing when she slept through
parts of it?

The Hugh Lynn version and the blue book are very much the same,

See above, you're talking nonsense. The Blue Book is 're-worked' while the
JCIM is best described as just missing some material. Plus, there is a
comparisons document going around which with the JCIM which shows exactly
how extensive the editing was.

especially in the heart of the Course, Text Chapters 15 on.

So it's alright that the first half of the Course (there are 31 chapters) is
heavily edited? And you're wrong anyway. I'm just after opening up my
comparisons document and scrolling down to "Chapter 15" and the scroll bar
on the side of my word-processor lies about two thirds of the way down.
That still means plenty of changes in the second half of the Course.

~
Stephen

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

The

funny thing is, since most of the people who study the Urtext also
believe that the Hugh Lynn Casey version of the Course was supposed
to be the "final" edit (by Bill)...

You've taken a poll, or did Pursah tell you?

In other

words, by the end of the Text they both mean the same thing.

This sentence makes no sense. They either say the same thing or they
do not; in some cases, they do not.

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

Well folks, I was good today and got all my work done, so I can
indulge the extreme pleasure of answering a Classic Gene Post. What
makes it a Classic is his assertion of intellectual superiority,
which he will always go for whole-hog if you give him half a

chance.

It is simply a fact that I am an intellectual. If the
word "intelligentsia" bothers you, or the implication it might apply
to me, I suggest it is your ego problem. The ego "lives" by
comparison. However, Course students should trying to learn
differently, and get over the idea that they are egos, that the ego
has value as such, or that their value is given by the value of their
ego.

Case in point:
Hmm... this would imply that because Gene believes the book to be
an "obvious hoax", that makes HIM the Intelligentsia.

It does not imply any such thing. This incredibly confused thinking
does at least show you need not worry about the question. If your
value depends on intelligence, then you are in trouble.

By the way, why the majuscule?

Those of you

who find the book sound, worthwhile, and inspiring -- the 99.75% of
readers I referred to earlier -- well, you're just not quite up

there

in the Smarts Department with Gene.

Are you attacking me because you think this is true, but I shouldn't
have suggested it, or because you think it isn't true?

So thanks once again, Gene, for the comic relief. Jesus loves you
(and even me!)... that much I know for sure.

You've made it quite clear you don't much like Jesus. Shall I dig up
the quotes?

I peeked at Stephen's brief posting and saw this: (Martha is first.)

Hi Stephen:

I am not sure I am following you completely, but perhaps you can help
me with this: how do you feel the Course suggests that we come to
realize our Oneness?

Essentially, Martha, this is just the Lessons. For a better
understanding look at Lessons 28, 29 and 184.

~
Stephen

I couldn't help but notice that Stephen recommended Lesson 29, "God
is in everything I see" yet he conveniently forgot to mention Lesson
30: "God is in everything I see because God is in my mind." A Course
in Miracles does *not* seek to make the world real or bring God into
it. The two Lessons are about switching over to the Holy Spirit's way
of seeing. Or as this same Lesson 30 puts it, "The idea for today is
the springboard for vision." Love and peace, Gary.

开云体育

From: Gene Bogart

To: Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:55 PM

Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] I know what I'm going to do

It's actually a bit more interesting than just a case of "was time created or made?".
~ Stephen

"Now, we know that time does not exist." (ACIM Urtext, pg. 35)

开云体育

From: mstreet

To: Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...

Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 7:52 PM

Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Forgiveness Question

Stephen wrote:

>>while everything that's ever been said about the Oneness of everything by those who have achieved Enlightenment adds up perfectly.<<

?

Hi Stephen:

?

I am not sure I am following you completely, but perhaps you can help me with this: how do you feel the Course suggests that we come to realize our Oneness?

Billy wrote:

Hope I am not too off topic, but this helps me to digest the

unreality
of time, and can see Pursah appearing from a future state, to
the present, thorough the past. It is all occuring right now in this
instant, and all we have to recognize at this point is the importance
of
forgiving our dream scripts, to remember the resplendent truth that we
never left home.

Billy

Thanks Billy. The rest of your post was excellent too, as were a
couple of others on this subject. It all reminded me of an exchange I
recorded with Arten on P.59.

ARTEN: ...As Einstein noted, past, present and future all occur
simultaneously.
GARY: That Einstein was a really smart guy.
ARTEN: Yes, but he still had to learn it actually never happened at
all.

Paul wrote:

OK...BUT "THE MANUSCRIPT FOR A COURSE IN MIRACLES WAS COMPLETED IN
1973." IF PURSAH PRACTICED FOR 41 YEARS AND IT TOOK GARY 9 YEARS TO
WRITE THE BOOK...IT DOESN'T ADD UP.

Hi Paul, I remind you of what Arten said on P.21-22
of "Disappearance."

"...our bodies symbolize the last earthly identities we had. We won't
tell you when that was, because it's in your future and we don't want
to get into a pattern of giving you information about what is
seemingly yet to come."

So Arten and Pursah's final lifetimes, which Pursah is describing
when she says she practiced the Course for 41 years, are in our
future. Thus she could have practiced the Course from say, 2052 to
2093 and it wouldn't matter that the Course was completed in 1973, or
how long it took me to write the book. For more, see P.249-253. Also,
remember that when Pursah speaks in the past tense it's because time
is over for her. The situations being described are in the future. I
hope that clarifies things for you. Love and peace, Gary.

Gene Bogart wrote:

"Now, we know that time does not exist." (ACIM Urtext, pg. 35)

Thanks Gene. There's just no getting away from it, is there? The
funny thing is, since most of the people who study the Urtext also
believe that the Hugh Lynn Casey version of the Course was supposed
to be the "final" edit (by Bill) then that would mean there are even
*fewer* differences in meaning when you compare Bill's edit and the
more professional, published one that was done later by Helen, with
Ken acting as her assistant.
The Hugh Lynn version and the blue book are very much the same,
especially in the heart of the Course, Text Chapters 15 on. In other
words, by the end of the Text they both mean the same thing. There
was an artistic process involved for Jesus to get the reader (and an
admittedly fearful Helen) to the truth that the Course is teaching.
Peace, Gary.