---

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

In a message dated 7/16/2003 3:33:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, garyrrenard@... writes:

"This is not a course in philosophical speculation, nor is it
concerned with precise terminology. It is concerned only with
Atonement, or the correction of perception. The means of
the
Atonement is forgiveness."

Thanks for the reminder Gary. I remember Ken saying many years ago that if we are too fearful to go to Jesus/HS we have our Brothers to gently remind us of who we really are. :-)

"Forgiveness...is still, and quietly does nothing. It
merely looks, and waits, and judges not."

:::::grinding my teeth:::::
::::::neck tensing up:::::
:::::want to scream::::::
::::stomach all in knots::::::

Breathe in ..... breathe out
Breathe in .... breathe out

::::::BIG SIGH::::::

This ain't working Hmmmmm I think I need help :-)

Peace

"Ideas Leave Not Their Source"

In a message dated 7/16/2003 2:29:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, starchild1124@... writes:

Don't mind me, I'm used to "the newsgroup from hell" where everyone
is free to speak their mind and say how they honestly think
and feel.

For the first time in a long time I believe in the saying "ignorance is bliss." :-)

I have no clue as to what this lady has been saying since she has been on this listserv, and I have decided to try not to understand. I confuse myself enough. :-)

Peace
Ossie

P.S. With the exception of one post that she spoke about the transition of Eric Butterwork ... for some reason he crossed my mind while I was in Atlanta and was wondering if he was still alive or not. His ministry in NYC made a big impact on my life which gradually led me to the Course although at the time it was something that his ministry did not endorse.


"Ideas Leave Not Their Source"

Stephen wrote:

People, obviously, don't have to debate myself or Gene, but to not

debate us for reasons of defensivness and being indignant about
having the gall to state opinions that go against the grain, is to
refuse to enter dialogue for all the wrong reasons.

You know those aren't the reasons, Stephen. People know why you're
here, and it certainly isn't because you have an interest in "The
Disappearance of the Universe." Besides, I've been all through this
stuff before with Gene, John Lopez and others; it doesn't change
anybody's mind. The truth is that while metaphysics may be
interesting, I'm an activist following the lead of applied
forgiveness. I don't pretend to always do it perfectly at first.
Sometimes it takes me a little while, but I always do it. That's
what's important, not being an analyst trying to come up with a
satisfying intellectual dissection of ACIM or the universe. So I'd
like to remind the sincere members who actually care about the book
this club was named for to remember well what the Course says at the
beginning of The Clarification of Terms:

"This is not a course in philosophical speculation, nor is it
concerned with precise terminology. It is concerned only with
Atonement, or the correction of perception. The means of the
Atonement is forgiveness."

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.

A little piece of Sikh wisdom for you guys.

Thought I might "enlighten" you to the fact that there are plenty of other
people in the world who believe that the world (as it is seen in
Illumination) was Created by God (rather than "made" by the ego).

(Sorry if the formatting makes a mess of the meter.)

~
Stephen



In the realm of humility, the Word is Beauty.
Forms of incomparable beauty are fashioned there.
These things cannot be described.
One who tries to speak of these shall regret the attempt.
The intuitive consciousness, intellect and understanding of the mind are
shaped there.
The consciousness of the spiritual warriors and the Siddhas, the beings of
spiritual perfection, are shaped there.
In the realm of karma, the Word is Power.
No one else dwells there,
except the warriors of great power, the spiritual heroes.
They are totally fulfilled, imbued with the Lord's Essence.
Myriads of Sitas are there, cool and calm in their majestic glory.
Their beauty cannot be described.
Neither death nor deception comes to those,
within whose minds the Lord abides.
The devotees of many worlds dwell there.
They celebrate; their minds are imbued with the True Lord.
In the realm of Truth, the Formless Lord abides.
Having created the creation, He watches over it. By His Glance of Grace, He
bestows happiness.
There are planets, solar systems and galaxies.
If one speaks of them, there is no limit, no end.
There are worlds upon worlds of His Creation.
As He commands, so they exist.
He watches over all, and contemplating the creation, He rejoices.
(Shri Guru Granth Sahib (the Sikh Holy Book) Chapter: So Dar)

Very good post, Carrie. And for everyone who's reading this, Carrie is a
Blue Book student - just like you guys. And she's not the only one who saw
Gary and his wife's games. I'll even add that there have been times when we
haven't seen eye to eye, but I like her really. She's a little bit, ahem,
silly but mostly in a nice kind of way and she wouldn't hurt a soul.

So you see folks it is possible to get along with a Course student who might
well not believe as you do or even study the same version as yourself.
Carrie and I are poles apart theologically/metaphysically. You just have to
decide that you're not going to resent people for just being different.

Either that or there is always the 'delete button'.

~
Stephen



From: "starchild1124" <starchild1124@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 8:29 PM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Actually, Gene's being nice so
far...

Strange...

From: "garyrrenard" <garyrrenard@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 7:10 PM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Wishing you a mind at peace

Stephen wrote:

Who exactly are you to assume you can make this staggeringly

judgemental
claim?

Just someone who's been watching you people in action for the last
six months.

You've had a bad run, Gary, because you arrived in the newsgroup promoting a
book about your "visitations" and your wife, if I recall correctly, didn't
disclose certain details immediately. Heck, Gary, even Blue Book students
didn't go easy on you. Take a good long look at our posts Gary, and you'll
see that we've been saying for a long time that the resentment and anger
must stop while too many of the Blue Book students on TRCM are interested in
nothing other than nasty comments. Do you really think that kind of thing
is right?

~
Stephenfs

From: "Judith A. Peterson" <jupete@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Wishing you a mind at peace

Okay, I did make a mistake . I meant to say "those of us who choose to
answer at this time will serve to make the DU list stronger."

I was really getting a lot out of sharing our experiences with the Course
and DU - and I will continue to do so. If I want to hear the opinions of
those who insist on shoving the URTEXT down our throats

Nobody is "shoving" the Urtext down your throat, Judith. Some Course
students quote the Blue Book because they are Blue Book students. Gary just
made a statement about his being able to quote extensively from the Blue
Book in DU. Is he shoving that down your throat? No, Judith, I and others
are just Urtext students and that's it. If you can't handle the fact that
people study a different version of the Course from you then that's your
problem.

I can find out where
their website is.

And do you know what, Judith? If you did pop by, you wouldn't have people
going on about how you just need to read the Course a bit more and must be
hateful etc., 'cos you're different from. The level of self-righteousness
in this group is almost tangible.

You want to know why I'm here? It's because I believe that Course
students - all Course students - have got to learn to accept each other.
The Urtext has been downloaded many, many thousands of times and I endlessly
encounter people who don't buy into the "ego illusion - only" model. All I
sense in this group is real resentment at the fact that people who are
different have came by to share their views.

~
Stephen

开云体育

Carrie wrote:

If it's such a great book, why can't it just stand on it's own, and

who cares if a few people criticize it?

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. As far
as the book standing on its own - it is. Very few people read these
boards compared to the book. Incidentally, I never felt angry at the
ng, nor do I now.

Don't mind me, I'm used to "the newsgroup from hell" where everyone

is free to speak their mind and say how they honestly think and feel.

Are you saying that you haven't been free to speak your mind and say
how you honestly think and feel here? Would you prefer that the board
be moderated, (?) because you certainly don't seem to acknowledge the
freedom that has been evident here. As far as the founder Nels is
concerned, I think there's a picture of him in his Yahoo Profile,
plus you can e-mail him. Of course if you want to think that's a hoax
also, then you're welcome. Love and peace, Gary.

开云体育

From: Gene Bogart

To: Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...

Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 6:22 PM

Subject: Re: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: A + P used tomeansomething

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

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

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

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

Maybe this is the real crux of all this discussion; what is "the world" as you are referring to it, the one you say the Course tells us God made. ?Is it the earth, the planets, stars, galaxies... the universe of matter, energy, space, and time?

Is it the "new world", where we will receive new bodies (as the Bible promises), and will rule alongside Jesus in glory for a thousand years?

Or is it the full Awareness of the Son as created by God, which seems to be what most Course students (at least, that I know) believe that the Course is referring to, metaphorically/symbolically, when there is any hint of a statement regarding "the real world" or "the world that God made"...

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

~~~~~~~

Q: God runs the world, God will save it.

M: That's what you say! Did God come and tell you that the world is His creation and concern and not yours?

Q: Why should it be my sole concern?

M: Consider. The world in which you live, who else knows about it?

Q: You know. Everybody knows.

M: Did anybody come from outside of your world to tell you? Myself and everybody else appear and disappear in your world. We are all at your mercy.

Q: It cannot be so bad! I exist in your world as you exist in mine.

M: You have no evidence of my world. You are completely wrapped up in the world of your own making.

Q: My own feeling is that my spiritual development is not in my hands. Making one's own plans and carrying them out leads nowhere. I just run in circles round myself. When God considers the fruit to be ripe, He will pluck it and eat it. Whichever fruit seems green to Him will remain on the world's tree for another day.

M: You think God knows you? Even the world He does not know.

Q: Yours is a different God. Mine is different. Mine is merciful. He suffers along with us.

M: You pray to save one, while thousands die. And if all stop dying, there will be no space on earth

Q: I am not afraid of death. My concern is with sorrow and suffering. My God is a simple God and rather helpless. He has no power to compel us to be wise. He can only stand and wait.

M: If you and your God are both helpless, does it not imply that the world is accidental? And if it is, the only thing you can do is to go beyond it.

~~~~~~~

Q: Why do you deny being to the world?

M: I do not negate the world. I see it as appearing in consciousness, which is the totality of the known in the immensity of the unknown. What begins and ends is mere appearance. The world can be said to appear, but not to be. The appearance may last very long on some scale of time, and be very short on another, but ultimately it comes to the same. Whatever is time bound is momentary and has no reality.

Q: Surely, you see the actual world as it surrounds you. YOU seem to behave quite normally!

M: That is how it appears to you. What in your case occupies the entire field of consciousness, is a mere speck in mine. The world lasts, but for a moment. It is your memory that makes you think that the world continues. Myself, I don't live by memory. I see the world as it is, a momentary appearance in consciousness.

Q: In your consciousness?

M: All idea of 'me' and 'mine', even of 'I am' is in consciousness.

Q: Is then your 'absolute being' (paramakash) un–consciousness?

M: The idea of un–consciousness exists in consciousness only.

Q: Then; how do you know you are in the supreme state?

M: Because I am in it. It is the only natural state.

Q: Can you describe it?

M: Only by negation, as uncaused, independent, unrelated, undivided, uncomposed, unshakable, unquestionable, unreachable by effort. Every positive definition is from memory and, therefore, inapplicable. And yet my state is supremely actual and, therefore, possible, realizable, attainable.

Q: Are you not immersed timelessly in an abstraction?

M: Abstraction is mental and verbal and disappears in sleep, or swoon; it reappears in time; I am in my own state (swarupa)timelessly in the now. Past and future are in the mind only – I am now.

Q: The world too is now.

M: Which world?

Q: The world around us.

M: It is your world you have in mind, not mine. What do you know of me, when even my talk with you is in your world only? You have no reason to believe that my world is identical with yours. My world is real, true, as it is perceived, while yours appears and disappears, according to the state of your mind. Your world is something alien, and you are afraid of it. My world is myself. I am at home.

Q: If you are the world, how can you be conscious of it? Is not the subject of consciousness different from its object?

M: Consciousness and the world appear and disappear together, hence they are two aspects of the same state.

Q: In sleep I am not, and the world continues.

M: How do you know?

Q: On waking up I come to know. My memory tells me.

M: Memory is in the mind. The mind continues in sleep.

Q: It is partly in abeyance.

M: But its world picture is not affected. As long as the mind is there, your body and your worid are there. Your world is mind–made, subjective, enclosed within the mind, fragmentary, temporary, personal, hanging on the thread of memory.

Q: So is yours?

M: Oh, no. I live in a world of realities, while yours is of imaginings. Your world is personal, private, unshareable, intimately your own, Nobody can enter it, see as you see, hear as you hear, feel your emotions and think your thoughts. In your world you are truly alone, enclosed in your ever–changing dream, which you take for life. My world is an open world, common to all, accessible to all. In my world there is community, insight, love, real quality; the individual is the total, the totality – in the individual. All are one and the One is all.

Q: Is your world full of things and people as is mine?

M: No, it is full of myself.

Q: But do you see and hear as we do?

M: Yes, I appear to hear and see and talk and act, but to me it just happens, as to you digestion or perspiration happens. The body–mind machine looks after it, but leaves me out of it. Just as you do not need to worry about growing hair, so I need not worry about words and actions. They just happen and leave me unconcerned, for in my world nothing ever goes wrong.

~~~~~~~

So you see, Gene, "the world" is ego because you are ego, forgiven because you are forgiven (real world), Heaven because you are in Heaven.

~

Stephen

Strange...

I just came from "the newsgroup from hell" (and seems like calling
it this, means you are aware of what it's like- so why are you
surprised what you find there?) and looked down here, thinking maybe
there would be some kind of real ACIM discussion going on.

I haven't gotten enough into the book yet to see if it's all that
ACIM based, that this might be discussed here.

But, I once thought Jeanette's board was for "serious spiritual
discussion" (ACIM, etc) and asked a question on it, Jeanette jumped
on me saying it was against her rules. I went over the rules
pointing out it wasn't, and she came up with a new rule about
discussing her rules was against the rules.

Because of this she spent weeks telling people on the ng how I was
the only one (of two) people who had their IP numbers banned on her
board. (I never tried posting on there again so don't know if this is
true).

What I had asked there was about a quote I'd seen elsewhere "If
Jesus can't change her, why do you think YOU can?"

And, the point,(for discussion) would Jesus try and "change"
someone, or accept them as they are?

I've also thrown out ACIM topics and questions for possible
discussion on the ng and they mainly get ignored.

I happened on The Jerry Springer Show on t.v. last night and the
few mins of it I watched reminded me so much of the TRCM ng (LOL)

So, I came here, thinking maybe there were real discussion going on
and not getting into personalities and "who did what" and who is
getting unfairly treated and a victim of the world they see (by a
Brother in Christ)... and find the ng being discussed like so much
gossip.

"The ng from hell". Wouldn't hell (and however we see people on it)
be coming from the perception of the person seeing it and deciding
it's whatever and however it is?

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.

I remember questioning how come Gary had been living this (which
was a big part of his life) for 9 years, behind his wife's back, not
telling her, and apparently she didn't mind this after she found out.

It seemed like a logical question. The book was being discussed on
the ng at the time.

Also, some felt it backed up (in some way) Ken Wapnick's side of
the copyright issue, and also easily got approval for publication
from the foundation? (again, I haven't read enough of it to see what
this refers to, if anything) But seems like this might a legitimate
feeling from those who read it or even heard about it.

Then Gary got defensive and angry and left, and Gary's wife started
writing passionate posts about how wonderful the book was-using a
fake name- saying she wasn't at all connected with Gary, the book or
Fearless Publications, and just an objective, impartial reader who
loved the book and thought it was wonderful. Who had also sent in
an "impartial"review about it to Amazon (not saying she was the
author's wife).

All of which didn't help create good feelings about the book and it
being whatever was being claimed it was. And what it was published as.

Then there was the recent post, again by Gary's wife, claiming to
be a member of Endeaver Academy and telling how many copies they had
bought and how wonderful it was.

When this came to light, it was supposedly a cute little joke.

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.

Maybe the ng isn't so much "from hell" as people feel more free to
tell the truth and how they honestly feel and think there.

And people who are into playing games and seeing lies and fraud
as "cute" aren't happy with it.

WHY can't anyone read a book and ask questions about it and come to
their own conclusions about it- whatever those are, like Gene?

Something is wrong with him because of this?

I was just thinking the ng was similar to The Jerry Springer-
Tabloid t.v. show, but reading on here, I'm now seeing it as at least
honest and sincere about what it is at the time.

Whatever that is.

It's not like anyone from the ng CAN'T come here and read what
people say about them here- and see it being discussed here. Like
maybe everyone here will be on the same side- about how people on the
ng from hell are like? So, Gene, for example wouldn't want to come
here and say how he honestly feels and thinks, because he wouldn't
get any support, here? They must be wrong if someone has different
opinions/questions about the book, the story, the facts in it, and
the way it's promoted?

And you wonder why some think there must be something wrong with
the book when those involved with it are so defensive and quick to
attack others (and lie/fraud) because of it?

If it's such a great book, why can't it just stand on it's own, and
who cares if a few people criticize it?

Don't mind me, I'm used to "the newsgroup from hell" where everyone
is free to speak their mind and say how they honestly think and feel.


~ Carrie




--- 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. In response, I have consistently called Gene a "fine
fellow." This is because the Course teaches me that we either

project

our fears or extend our love -- and that when we project fear, we

are

taking what we believe about ourselves and trying to blame it on a
brother. Jung wrote about this as well; he once suggested that the
most important political act any individual could undertake was to
withdraw his projections from the world.

So whenever Gene tries to attack me, Gary, Ken Wapnick, or the

fence

post, I can tell that he's having a pretty terrific struggle with
what the psychologists call "self-esteem." I call him a fine

fellow --

and I suggest that you all do, too, in your own words -- because I
think that's the real truth of the matter and because he can
obviously use some strokes.

But Gary and I should probably apologize for always bringing such
fine fellows in our wake; we're the ones who came out with this

book

and have subsequently joined public discussion groups like we have
nothing to hide. Do something noticeable like that, and you'll

always

get a few fine fellows on your case sooner or later. Marianne used

to

participate in her own groups a little, but I can't rememember the
head of HarperCollins, her first publisher, coming out to back her

up

(LOL)!

As far as the copyright of the Course goes, I've personally decided
to leave that in the hands of Judge Robert Sweet in New York, who
actually has the power and responsibility to decide. Whichever way

he

goes, the case will probably be appealed, and go on for at least a
couple more years, giving everyone plenty more opportunities to
project their fears about it -- if that's what they want. A while
back, I decided that I had more interesting things to do.

Cheers,
D. Patrick Miller
Fearless Books

From: "sa_grippe" <sa_grippe@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 5:10 PM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Actually, Gene's being nice so
far...

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

Actually, Pat, the copyright ends, in certain places, on Jan 1St 2007 no
matter what - and there is absolutely nothing that Ken or FACIM can do about
it. Helen for purposes of copyright is the author of ACIM and she died on
February 9,1981. Many countries in the world are only signatory to the UCC
(universal copyright convention) which only protects a work for 'life of the
author plus 25 years'. So, Ken and FACIM are fighting for three and a half
years more control - at most. They just won't be able to take down
web-sites hosted in certain countries after that date or stop ACIM being
published in those countries either. (And there is even a strong rumour
that the copyright on ACIM reverts automatically to Helen's heirs at the end
of this year.)

~
Stephen

In a message dated 7/16/2003 12:26:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, melbywells@... writes:

We should thank them because without
them, we would never be able to find our unconscious guilt--they are
our escape route. Earlier, on page 34, is says that we have to choose
between our universe and God, but that there is no hurry,
that it
isn't easy, but it is possible.

That is the ultimate goal, but I also need not skip steps ... if I see my myself getting upset, rankled ... I need to be aware of that for I am very good at rationalizing, minimizing my feelings about things ... and making it into something else ("denial").

When I was in Unity and other new age thought groups ... that was the knee jerk reaction .. "bless them" "see them in light" .... LOL yeah I did that and underneath it was all this hatred.

No more shortcuts for now. This Course is about undoing the ego thought system in all is various disguises, (for that is the true shortcut) ... and I need to be vigilant at looking at them for what they are ... then as Ken stated when I am finally in touch with what it costs me to not have the Peace of God, then I will be ready to see it another way.

And as uncomfortable as it is, this is not about them ... but about me ::::sighing::::

One day as I continue to "choose" to see with the right Teacher, when things like this occur ... I will be able to smile ...

But not yet ... I still have a long way to go.

Peace


"Ideas Leave Not Their Source"

Stephen wrote:

Who exactly are you to assume you can make this staggeringly

judgemental
claim?

Just someone who's been watching you people in action for the last
six months.

Okay, I did make a mistake . I meant to say "those of us who choose to
answer at this time will serve to make the DU list stronger."

I was really getting a lot out of sharing our experiences with the Course
and DU - and I will continue to do so. If I want to hear the opinions of
those who insist on shoving the URTEXT down our throats I can find out where
their website is.

I will say there is one thing God did create in this world we see with the
body's eyes. That is the delete button on the computer. At least every
time I hit it I say "thank God for the delete button."

Let's not forget to laugh.

Judy

Judy wrote:

It doesn't fail. When we pick the right Teacher we have the power of

the
universe - and this power can't be seen by the eyes of the body.

I'll read this over when I have time and see if I have made sense. I
have
the feeling I did, though - coming from the ego we can't make sense
because
the ego just doesn't - coming from the HS we are One.

Judy

Hi Judy. Yes, your beautiful posting made perfect sense. Thank you so
much. Love and peace, Gary.

Elizabeth wrote:

(from P.34 of "Disappearance.) "There's no hurry, for time is

hypothetical smoke, and we'll relay some of J's teachings to you on
how to escape it." Does this "it" refer to time and/or the universe?


Hi Elizabeth. Yes, I believe it does.

And

what would happen if the universe we see with our bodies' eyes was
destroyed? And if all the people we see with our bodies' eyes were
destroyed too? How would we/could we "uncover" our unconscious guilt?
Elizabeth
"What is forgiveness but a willingness that truth be true?"

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. It don't think it
would be possible to "destroy" the entire universe because in the
illusion, energy cannot be destroyed, only changed. However, the
universe will disappear when everyone has completed their forgiveness
lessons and, as the Course puts it, "Not one illusion is accorded
faith, and not one spot of darkness still remains to hide the face of
Christ from anyone." (T669) Love and peace, Gary.

Hi, Gary -

I don't have a lot of time today - another ego illusion. I should just take
the time.

This very same thing is playing out in my life - and it is what plays out
over and over and over. One of these days we will all say "There must be a
better way."

I am the president of a foundation which helps children of no income and low
income families in a barrio in Mexico. We get them proper nutrition and
education.

Other people come along and try to make the foundation conform to fulfill
some ego desires they have of specialness - and when it doesn't work they
try to destroy the foundation. It's the old "if I can't have it my way I'll
destroy it," syndrome that we see played out over and over in our special
relationships. It really is all the same - only the faces and names change.

Anyway the Answer to this is to be led by the Holy Spirit - we all share the
same ego and we all have the Holy Spirit and we all can choose which one we
permit to lead us. Ultimately we all will answer the call to return to God.
But those of us who chose to answer at this time will serve to make the DU
stronger. Those who are guided by the ego will fall by the wayside.

It doesn't fail. When we pick the right Teacher we have the power of the
universe - and this power can't be seen by the eyes of the body.

I'll read this over when I have time and see if I have made sense. I have
the feeling I did, though - coming from the ego we can't make sense because
the ego just doesn't - coming from the HS we are One.

Judy

From: "garyrrenard" <garyrrenard@...>
To: <Disappearance_of_the_Universe@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 3:27 PM
Subject: [Disappearance_of_the_Universe] Re: Wishing you a mind at peace

Hi Ossie. That other Gene and Stephen are regular posters at another
message board called trcm on Google, which has been referred to by
some (not me) as "The Newsgroup From Hell." (I think they're proud of
that name.)

Gene and myself most certainly do not belong to the camp that delights in
TRCM being "The Newsgroup From Hell".

Gene actually has kind of a bet going there about how
long it will take him to get kicked out of the yahoo Disappearance
club. I guess when he posted that over there he didn't realize we
have no rules. In any case, these guys are legally opposing the
copyright of the Course, (notice that Stephen said in one of his
posts to me, "When the copyright's over..") they hate Ken Wapnick and
they hate me because they think my book supports Ken,

Who exactly are you to assume you can make this staggeringly judgemental
claim? A disagreement over the copyright policy is hardly the same as
hatred. Similarly, a belief that you simply made up Arten and Pursah is not
hatred either. This is a foolish and irresponsible statement to make, Gary,
and it goes back to something I said yesterday about people having an
internal problem with people who disagree with them. You've got a big one.
Get over it. I think the copyright policy as it is now is extremely wrong
for various reasons - and that's it. The fact that you are the kind of
person who would label someone as 'hateful' so easily just because they
question the party-line does not show you to be very right minded at all.

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 do not believe there is any 'conspiracy', and you might find it a useful
practice to adopt to find out what people really believe rather than giving
into the temptation of projecting onto them what is most satisfying and
tempting to the ego to believe.

I would be very happy with a situation in which FACIM/Ken simply decided
that the copyright policy on ACIM (all versions) was the same as that
applied to, say, the NIV Bible which is very ammicable. FACIM's preference
for works that either flatter Ken or at least adhere to his metaphysics even
if they don't totally agree with every theological point he makes is plainly
wrong.

To say they have alterior
motives and axes to grind would be an understatement! They'd like to
ruin the Yahoo club. (The ego works in mysterious ways.)

Not true.

~
Stephen