--- 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?
The Course teaches
that the desire to be self-existing and to father God is the
authority problem which lead to and sustains the separation, so it
most certainly is not teaching "nonduality". The word the Course
uses
is "Oneness"; I suggest sticking to it and not trying to rewrite it
to say something else.
I have no problem with the word "Oneness." I think our major
disagreement may be one of levels, because I think the Course is
teaching that the ego's desire to usurp God's power, be something
other than what it really is (spirit) and make a false image of
itself is the authority problem.
How can the ego have a desire to usurp the power of God before it
even exists? The ego is a *consequence* of the belief in the
separation; it cannot be the basis for it.
As for "metaphor", Ken gets this wrong and even Ascended Masters
don't seem to know what the word means.
Perhaps the word "symbol" would be more accurate, but I never had
any
trouble knowing what was meant by the word metaphor in this case,
even if it's not technically correct.
If you have no trouble understanding what is meant, perhaps you can
explain it.
