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?
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. Love and
peace, Gary.

From: <BBFBBN@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Age

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.

Ah, Ossie, don't worry about that. I am *very* far from a "Creationist"
(and they get my back up a bit as well), Panentheism and Mysticism, which
are what I'm describing, are very different from this. But, Ossie, and this
is important, Jehova's witnesses, like all groups, have a right to believe
what they want to believe. You're going to have to accept that about those
of us who are Urtext students as well (though even many Blue Book students
believe in the "God created" view).

(Besides, I was once told by another Course student who believed that the
world was nothing but an illusion that ACIM obviously meant that dinosaurs
never actually existed at all! That one reminded me of (reverse)
Creationism, I can tell you!)

And, while I'm trying to be 'gentle' with you in this post, I do feel that I
have to say that I am absolutely not "taking/quoting text and manipulating
it". ACIM says:

"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)

"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)

"The world WAS made as "a natural grand division," or a projecting outward
of God. That is why everything that He created is like Him" (ACIM Urtext)

"Think but an instant on this: God gave the Sonship to you, to ensure your
perfect creation. This was His Gift, for as He withheld Himself not from
you, He withheld not His creation. Nothing that ever was created but is
yours. Your relationships are with the universe. And this universe, being of
God, is far beyond the petty sum of all the separate bodies YOU perceive.
For all its parts are joined in God through Christ, where they become like
to their Father. For Christ knows of no separation from His Father, Who is
His One relationship, in which He gives as His Father gives to Him." (ACIM
Urtext)

There is no "manipulation" here - just quotes - and the relationship of
NDE's and accounts of Enlightenment to the model I'm sharing with you is
absolutely solid. (I can post many of them if you like - again, without
comment, if need be.)

~
Stephen

From: "Judith A. Peterson" <jupete@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Age

And to whomever that was who said NDE's prove that God made the world,

NDE's and accounts of Enlightenment support the idea that God created the
world. 'Proof' is a very big word.

you
need to speak with Jon Mundy. He had an NDE and he said he learned from

his

NDE that "there is no world - we made it all up."

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

Hi Billy.... My friend who was at Ken's workshop is Don Wylie.
Could that be the same Don? If so, he came to our study group today
and when we asked him if he wanted to go to lunch with us he said he
was going home because he couldn't wait to read some more of DU.
This book is having a huge impact on our groups and how cool is it
that Gary is so available!
Blessings,
Suzanne

开云体育

From: Gene Bogart

To: Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...

Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 11:06 PM

Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: A + P used to meansomething

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...)

You're clutching at straws here.? This sentence isn't related to the other one at all (which isn't even 'metaphorical/symbolic' anyway.)

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}

?

"Since the Separation, the words “create” and “make” are inevitably confused. When you make something, you make it first out of a sense of lack or need, and second, out of a something that already exists. Anything can be that is made is made for a specific purpose. It has no true generalizability."? (ACIM Urtext)

?

The world you made is made of things that have specific purposes, as the ego cannot?see the?Oneness from which you have "made it out of".? As Lesson 184 says:

?

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.

?

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.

?

A few quotes are not 'overwhelming', but that's hardly the point.? My model obviously has to include both "God created" and "ego made" type quotes so you're going to find it very tricky find any quote that actually refutes my position.

?

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:

?

All right, after lurking under a Yahoo synonym for a while ("Stilman
Alexander Grippe" was a truly awful pseudonym I was fond of when I
was twelve) I'm coming out of the closet to reveal something I've
never told Gary about deciding to publish his book. There was a
point, after we had begun corresponding about the possibility of THE
DISAPPEARANCE becoming a Fearless Books title, that I employed an old
habit of my more paranoid days -- I used to be an investigative
reporter, and paranoia was a requirement in that line of work -- and
deliberately entertained a "worst case" scenario regarding the
manuscript. 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? If that were the case, what was he trying to get people to
do? Evil geniuses (EGs) are seldom content with fame and riches
(although they seldom turn to a micro-publisher, working out of a
small room in his house, to get that!) EGs usually want unlimited
power and influence; they want people to DO something that they
believe in. They want to see the whole world line up according to
their view of how things ought to be.

Following this fearful line of reasoning, I carefully reviewed my own
reactions to Gary's manuscript, using myself as a "test case" of
someone influenced by the book – the very first person, actually - to
see exactly what Gary might be trying to get people to do. The answer
was quick and sure. The manuscript had gotten me to think about
forgiveness more than I had been recently, and more importantly, to
refresh the ongoing PRACTICE of forgiveness that I had first learned
from the Course. 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!

This realization had an eerie echo to my earliest days of being a
Course student, when I was very skeptical of the path I was
undertaking at the same time I found myself irresistibly drawn into
it. I remember going through a very careful "worst case" analysis in
which I tried to figure out what Helen Schucman and Bill Thetford had
been up to in creating the Course -- if it had not in fact happened
in the fantastic way they said it did, but instead had been carefully
manufactured to create a certain effect that they believed in. But
all I could see was that the Course was steadily making me less
paranoid, less angry, more forgiving, less argumentative, more
creative, and more courageous than I had been before. So if Helen and
Bill had been up to something nefarious, it hadn't worked out like
they expected; the Course was only making me a more sensible and
decent person, and so it seemed with most Course students I spoke to.
I remember Marianne Williamson once telling me in an interview that
her own personal proof of the Course's effectiveness was not "how
good or bad a person I seem to be now, but because I know, beyond the
shadow of a doubt, how much worse off I would have been *without* the
Course." How many of us can second THAT emotion?!

This all came up for me when I was reading the recent posts casting
aspersions on Ken Wapnick for how he edited or otherwise interfered
with the Course, how he (and Gary, and A+P) have got the metaphysics
all wrong, etc. I remember, from my reporting days, how delicious and
utterly irresistible these kinds of intellectual battles can be, and
how wonderful it feels to line up all the "facts" on your side and
deliver them to the other side with a slashing riposte... wonderful,
that is, until the other side comes back with their "facts" and
bashes YOUR line of reasoning, and then you have to come right back
at them, and on and on and on... until, after too many years and
brain cells wasted, you finally realize what the end result of
intellectual battling is: more intellectual battling!

So it goes with the Course; it's such an enormous and complicated
document that anybody can find contradictions in it, or find
arguments that support only their point of view and none other, and
marshal up the "right interpretation" that anyone in their right mind
would simply have to agree with. But after eighteen years of study, I
have to stick to MY conclusion that the Course is trying to get us to
DO one thing only: begin, and then constantly intensify, a daily,
moment-by-moment practice of forgiveness. If that isn't going on
constantly, then intellectual analysis is a waste of time.

Every time I try to decide whether the world is "real" or not, or
that reality itself is "dual" or "nondual" I come up with the same
answer: I HAVEN'T THE FAINTEST FRIGGING IDEA. What's more important
is, why did I have a minor freak-out over something my wife said or
did a moment ago? Why did I react with fear, or try to correct her,
instead of applying forgiveness upfront so I wouldn't have to do it
later? How can I be so slow, after all this practice?? Until I get
that kind of mundane (and extremely important!) stuff completely
straightened out, I'll leave duality and nonduality up to those who
want to argue about it.

But for those who do, I leave a little anecdote I love about the
nature of reality, credited to Will Taylor, M.D. He recalls that
Stephen Hawking, the famed theoretical physicist, had been explaining
the "non-materiality" of reality when "one of his graduate
students... penetrated the notion that all these little subatomic
particles didn't have a material presence in the Newtonian billiard-
ball sense at all, but were rather transient arrangements of
energy... Lost in his disorientation, [the student] asked Hawking
what held the universe together. Hawking leaned back in his
wheelchair and said, `Stories.'"

D. Patrick Miller
Publisher, Fearless Books
(formerly "S.A. Grippe")

In a message dated 7/15/2003 5:41:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, jupete@... writes:

Ossie - please don't leave. My understanding is this is a place to discuss
Disappearance of the Universe and how it amplifies on the
teachings of the
Course.

I do hope so. Since I moved to Colorado I have met some very interesting teachers ... I think they are on the right track and then I realize they are trying to make this world real.

After reading Gary's book, and attending the workshops by Ken, I realized that it is time to get back on track. I've known since I picked up the the Course for the first time that this was my Path ... time to take it to the next level.

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

"Ideas Leave Not Their Source"

Linda.....I enjoyed your post. And I understand what you're saying
concerning your faith and the strength of your convictions.

Susan

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

Dear Stephen and ideaofgod,

I was mildly interested a little while ago, but I've been quiet a

little and thinking about what has been said in the meantime.

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. At least that
is how I feel.

One thing that I have realized in studying the Course:

"The sole responsibility of God's Teacher is to accept the Atonement

for himself." M48

I used to go to discussion groups. I used to talk online. (This is

the first time I have "spoken" online for more than one e-mail for
years in a group.)

I used to be interested in batting back and forth different ideas of

what the Course means.

More and more, though, spirit experiences I have had just kind of

quiet me inside. I just don't feel like talking about it as much
unless it is to encourage someone. I started out with a worldly
situation so difficult that I didn't know how I would ever be able to
forgive it. The only way I was able to was to use the There is no
world idea. It not only worked, but it has caused so many changes in
my mind - kind of like mini-revelations that I can't even keep track.
I don't need the stories of all the near death people. I don't care if
there are other mystical people who say differently. I do not deny
that there are other methods of awakening. Great! So Christian mystics
have found other venues. Great! Hindus, Buddhists, mystical Christians
have all found awakening by different paths that lead ultimately to
the same. Great! I do not deny that those work. I would have to deny,
though, the amazing story of my own, though, if I were to deny the
help that my beliefs have given me. All I

can say is that it works for me. Ossie said that and you said, "Who

cares?" Who cares? The only one it should matter to is Ossie. So it
doesn't matter that you don't care.

"The sole responsibility of God's Teacher is to accept the Atonement

for himself." M48

Just as what matters to you need not matter to Ossie.

I could decide to spend hours and hours doing research to give you

your answers, but I have found in life that no matter what "proof" or
help one gives someone, I will not convince if the person was really
asking to be helped or convinced. I may be totally wrong, but if I am,
sooner or later, the Holy Spirit, the same one who guided me to the
Course - will guide me in another direction in thinking. At that point
I might be asking and open, but if people are happy where they are -
if what they are doing works for them, what need would they have to
defend their points of view? (And how about all those Course lessons
on being defenseless rather than defensive?) Or convince someone who
does not want to be convinced. If you genuinely cared about
convincing, there are many sources of information other than here
where people just simply want to give one another support.

I was graced with a period of time when I was in a state of

perception that was not the ego. It was drastically different. When I
started to come out of it, I noticed that as long as I was thinking no
thoughts, this stream of love flowing through me was there,but when I
started to analyse and wonder intellectually, it would disappear. I
was able for a period to go in and out of this state simply by
analyzing/inrtellectualizing and not. The way I got into this state in
the first place was to utterly disbelieve the world I was seeing and
"see" instead what was "real" in so far as I could. Somehow I was able
to withdraw attention enough that I was put into this state and no
longer had to do anything. It flowed naturally without any effort.

A terrific Course teacher, too, cautioned me against words. And

there are a number of references in the Course that someone might want
to look up,k if interested. That's where HE got them. Also, caution
about being a teacher. The ego is so sneaky and it is particularly
difficult to see when thinking one is "helping" spiritually. There
would be that temptation for me if I indulged in a citation game.

I watched closely for quite some time to see if this was true in

myself. So far it has been. When I get caught up in words, I do not
"hear" the guidance within. Same with attempting to "teach" someone
something. It puts me into the ego very fast.

So it isn't that I don't care about either one of you. I do. A lot!

But I do not care to indulge in this. I have seen too many times when
I was thrown right into the ego. And I do not have a responsibility to
convince you.

"The sole responsibility of God's Teacher is to accept the Atonement

for himself." M48

Love,
Linda

Stephen <cracker.jack@n...> wrote:
From:
To:
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



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



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

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

From: <BBFBBN@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Age

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

And the quotes from ACIM itself that don't sit well with such an absolutist
statement have absolutely no bearing on what you claim about the Course?

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.

*Nobody*, Ossie, has ever been able to debate against the model I've shared
with you *at all* when ACIM is accepted as the evidentiary ground upon which
such a debate should be undertaken. The model of the world being nothing
but an illusion becomes untenable very quickly when faced with the actual
statements from ACIM pertinent to the issue. Did I give you a rude
awakening to this?

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.

Perhaps what you really mean to say is "There are plenty of other people who
can discuss alternative views of the Course but I don't believe I'm someone
who can do that."?

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

Suit yourself. But why not just simply avoid conversations that you don't
like?

~
Stephen

---

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

From: LindaL

All right, you ladies. For one who is not in in the Course world society, what is an NDE? :-)

Hi Linda, ?(OK if a guy jumps in here?)

NDE = Near Death Experience

"Judith A. Peterson" wrote:
Ossie - please don't leave.

And Ossie: ?Don't you even THINK of leaving... ?:^) ??Your input here is very much appreciated!

Love & Bliss to All,

Gene

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

---

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

Ossie - please don't leave. My understanding is this is a place to discuss
Disappearance of the Universe and how it amplifies on the teachings of the
Course.

And to whomever that was who said NDE's prove that God made the world, you
need to speak with Jon Mundy. He had an NDE and he said he learned from his
NDE that "there is no world - we made it all up."

Judy

"The sole responsibility of God's Teacher is to accept the Atonement for himself." M48

"The sole responsibility of God's Teacher is to accept the Atonement for himself." M48

"The sole responsibility of God's Teacher is to accept the Atonement for himself." M48

---

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

Hey Gary,

In light of some of the recent commentary here, I just wanted to say (and I'm sure I'm speaking for many of us, here):

WE LUV YA, BABY!

(And I say that tendentiously!)

Gino