From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: A Course In Miracles / Reincarnation
Keywords: A Course In Miracles
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:33:07 GMT
Followup-To: talk.religion.newage,sci.skeptic,talk.religion.misc
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD


	I must admit to being somewhat intrigued by the "Course in Miracles",
and hope all sides will hang in there, AND PLEASE SUSPEND JUDGEMENT until
we get a little more information on this subject up to the light of day.

In article <1992Oct8.142016.26786@ntb.ch> milsom@ntb.ch (Paul Milsom) writes:
>
>
>Hello John Ata. You're absolutely right! You say:
>
>	>Prexistence of the soul and reincarnation are two separate issues.
>	>The former deals with existence of the soul as spirit before birth
>	>while the latter deals with the same spirit living multiple human
>	>lives serially.  Rejecting the latter does not necessarily mean
>	>rejecting the former. 
>
>Yes. You are right. I cannot prove that they were actually voting against 
>reincarnation, nor can I, with my limited knowledge, prove or argue 
>convincingly that reincarnation was a generally held belief before this 
>Council.

	As I stated in a previous post, I have the impression that historical
fact is of no great significance to "A Course in Miracles", except insofar as
it is used in a more or less allegorical fashion. This trend runs parallel
to much of the work of the "historical criticism of the scriptures" crowd,
who have been pulverizing the canon into pure allegory for over 100 years.
It is my belief that the concepts expressed in "A Course in Miracles" are
logical extensions of this movement, and I would like Paul Milsom, or someone 
else who espouses this doctrine (if they don't my calling ACIM that) to
respond as to whether they also regard this as being the case.

	(Exchange on reincarnation deleted - I see no reason here to get 
embroiled in theoretical squabbling over whether there is any basis for
speculation about reincarnation in the Bible. I understand that ACIM refuses
to condemn other religious views than Christianity - but I think it is
contradictory to what I see as the thrust of ACIM to indulge in narrow
debates on what certain passages imply. If I'm wrong in this assertion,
please say so.)

>
>I have spent over seven years in a "Hauskreis", a kind of bible-group. We 
>have read Matthew and John, and a few other books. We have two trained people 
>from the church who explain (sometimes interpret) things for us. They told me 
>that God had made an exception here, and had indeed reincarnated Isiah (in a 
>kind of one-off -"einmalig") for His own special reasons.

>
>We also dealt with the man who was blind from birth. They couldn't answer my 
>question of "*why* the apostles imagined that the man could sin before he was 
>born. They said the disciples probably didn't mean it like that. The reason 
>that the man was there anyway was just to help Jesus get his message across. 
>It didn't interest me so much why the man was there, just why the apostles 
>should ask such a stupid question if reincarnation doesn't exist.

        The statement that Paul has participated in some kind of communal
Christian movement in Europe is more interesting to me that the rationalization
of reincarnation (Remember, if my initial evaluation is right, and much of
scripture is primarily meaningful in an allegorical way, then the issue of
literal reincarnation is simply moot.

	Here's what I am interested in:

	1. What are the connections nowadays between the "A Course of
	Miracles" teachings and the Christian communes in the German
	and Scandanavian countries ?

	2. Are there common political attitudes among such groups ?
	(My experience with born-again Protestants in Europe is 
	that they HAVE been active in the Peace Movement in some
	way.)

	3. If the answer to #2 is yes, is there the possibility that
	there are some existential issues getting worked out here ?
	Let me take a few sentences to try and explain myself. My 
	experience rests primarily with Swedes, who never stray
	very far from the existential issues. Some of these people
	were actively attempting to penetrate the former Soviet Union
	in order to propagate the gospel in the early to middle 1980s.
	With the end of the Cold War, and the reintroduction of
	Christianity into Russia, et al, it strikes me that such people
	may be having to deal with the end of the "mission" they
	had been performing. Also the end of the threat of war, the 
	violence of the European Right, and the continued materialism
	pervading European culture might suggest to me that there are
	some very real existential challenges to such people. I'm
	merely speculating here, and if I'm off base, so state.

>
>		>>(tha quote deleted for brevity's sake)
>
>	>This is more of a New Age interpretation of Jesus which conveniently 	
>	>remembers the loving aspect of God but ignores His justice.  Just for an 
>	>example:
>
>			"Woe to you..hypocrites!..shedding the blood of the 			
>			prophets..murdered the prophets..sin of your forefathers!         
>			You snakes! You brood of vipers .. condemned to hell..
>
>Wow, it sure sounds like a fun belief you got there. Somebody really wanted 
>to put strong words into Jesus's mouth. Pity they just don't go along with 
>his main message of love and forgiveness. Anybody else who comes along and 
>says something like "Listen, you've got it all wrong, God loves you *all*, 
>and forgives you!", he'd sure better be careful, or he might get crucified 
>right away, before people start to believe him.

	Mere rationalization. Are not these scriptures not merely another
lesson in not taking counsel of one's fears (which I understand to be
on of the major themes in "A Course in Miracles") ?. Why did this fellow
let his emotional reactions cause him to reject the truth of these 
passages ? Is this not the ego raising its ugly head again ?

	I am puzzled as to whether the end result of "A Course
in Miracles" is likely to be greater faith, or greater doubt, given
the nature of the Bible, which goes in for lots and lots of "just so
stories." A Course of Miracles seems to consciously break with Kant's
connection between rationalism and reality, and chooses the rational
over the real. But our Orthodox Christian faith has a good deal in it
which is admittedly unpleasant, and stakes a claim on the truth.
And, as I (and many other analysts, including such diverse sources
as Daniel Boorstin, Camille Paglia, and the Discovery Channel) have
contended, the intellectual roots of Judeochristianity are rooted in
the written word and in historicity.

>
>Again, to come back to "Justice". In A Course In Miracles, Jesus says:
>
>	"What can it be but arrogance to think your little errors cannot be 	
>	undone by Heaven's justice? And what could this mean except that they are 
>	sins and not mistakes, forever uncorrectable, and to be met with 		
>	vengeance, not with justice? Are you willing to be released from all 	
>	effects of sin? You cannot answer this until you see all that the answer 
>	must entail. For if you answer "yes" it means you will forego all values 
>	of this world in favour of the peace of Heaven.  Not one sin would you 	
>	retain." (Text, Page 501 - "The Justice of Heaven")

	Quoting Christ in this vein is certainly a daring act of faith, and
is apparently self-innoculating, since Orthodoxy has no choice but to
engage in an act of deliberate opposition to break through the subtle
and seductive appeal of this approach. In many ways, A Course in Miracles is
ruthlessly faithful and ruthlessly honest. But our bottom line is, "By
their fruits you shall know them." Only by paying attention to the 
bottom line can we tell whether this is the work of Christ or the work of
the devil. Gamaliel the Pharisee apparently knew this, too, in the Book
of Acts when he is reported to have advised the Sanhedrin to not persecute
the Christians, because if they were of God, nothing would stop them, and
if they were not, they would simply die out onn their own.


>
>I'm really sorry - my ego got the better of me once again. If you want to be 
>too nasty for the net, you can Email me. I'm not attacking you personally, 
>John, it's just those "God of wrath" ideas I don't agree with. I don't think 
>they came from you, anyway. They've been around for thousands of years.
>
>I also should add, as I did in my letter to Tom, that my ego is pushing me 
>here to go *against* the teachings of ACIM, which says:
>
>Manual For Teachers, p.57. Chapter "Is Reincarnation so?"
>	(A "Teacher" is also a student. I see it as me (Paul) here.)
>
>	"Our course is not concerned with any concept that is not acceptable to 
>	anyone, regardless of his formal beliefs. His ego will be enough for him 
>	to cope with, and it is not the part of wisdom to add sectarian 		
>	controversies to his burdens."
>
>
>				Love in Christ,     Paul.
>
>Hey, and don't worry. If you're right, you'll have the last laugh anyway, 
>because I'll probably go to hell, and you can thumb your nose at me from 
>Heaven. 

	This is surely meant in irony. As liberal and humorous as it seems
to be intended, I find it hard to believe that it reflects the essential 
spirit of the ACIM teaching. One of the real difficulties orthodox Christians
may encounter in dealing with the ACIM types is if they do not succeed in
following through 100% with the implications of their teaching. This is a
problem in any church, but given the very extravagent spiritual demands
of A Course in Miracles, I would suggest that it is not one to be taken
lightly.

	Hang in there with Christ.


	Bill R.


	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any 
government agency."

-- 
Bill R.
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:08:09 GMT
Subject: Oops
Organization: HP Western Response Center