Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 1

message: [to Gary D:] Thanks for your article on ACIM that I started. It looks very impressive. Where are the followers located? I have the impression that ACIM is quite popular here in the Netherlands and in the USA. There is one controversial group in Wisconsin. Shouldn't that one be mentiond? Andries 17:50, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial construction handshakes

message: GaryD, "Christian in statement", what does that mean? It may be my English because I never lived in an English speaking country but I really don't know what that means. Can you please clarify? Thanks in advance. Andries 18:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: "Christian in statement"

message: Admittedly, I am a student of ACIM, and have an innate bias in favor of it.  Obviously much of the article that was there before my recent edits was written by those who had a strong bias against ACIM.  Such things as implying that it might be a ploy of the Devil, and then giving no counter-argument, to me seems to be a bit one sided.  
I am a firm believer in letting everyone have their say, but also in trying to make a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts out of this.  As such, the recent edits that I made to this page made every attempt, within reason, to retain almost all of the original anti-ACIM material as possible, but to attempt to present both views in as detached and objective of a fashion as I am able.  
I have corrected all of the simple factual errors that I found in the article, of which there were several, and I have also tried to give as comprehensive and complete of an explanation of ACIM's philosophy as I am able.
I believe that the Wikipedia was intended to be a sort of an alternative to Brittanica.  As such, I tend to think that by trying to make the article present both the views of anti-ACIM people, as well as the views of ACIM students, it becomes a more presentable and well rounded article. -Scott P. 01:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Yeah, representing relevant POVs isnt a "trying" issue, rather its a "do or do not, there is no try" issue. WP articles must represent all important POV's and by so doing become intrinsically NPOV. The problem is in the introductory paragraphs which set the tone - either they are too clinical and not representative of anything in the article, or they are too suggestive of one POV, leaving the whole article leaning to one side or another. So at a certain point its a question of writing style and ability - many prolific contributors of detail and substance arent very good at writing clear concise and well rounded introductions - and vice versa. We all have different strengths in different areas of writing, and we "try" to make things come together.  
:That said, I greatly appreciate your admission of bias, and Im trying to give enough detail in response to your edits, primarily to help you with your future writings here on WP, and secondarily to improve the article as it is ATM. You claimed the balance was leaning the other way, and hence its rather natural for it to swing in the opposite direction. You will be pleasantly surprised to find that truely improved, NPOV edits are almost universally appreciated, and extremes tend to quickly lose steam after the tone is properly set. Sinreg, -SV|t 08:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to Allow Both Sides to Present Themselves 

message: Also, in step with the general Brittanica tradition of allowing various belief systems to first be told in the hypothetical voice of an adherent of the given belief system, but then always grounding any stated beliefs that might appear to be controversial with opposing beliefs or facts, I have attempted to generally follow this same practice here in my most recent edits.  I hope nobody is offended by this. - Scott P. 01:49, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
: Its not a question of offense - though a comparison between WP and Britannica is rather insulting to WP ;). The problem with this style is that its not NPOV. All claims and POV must be put in context as POV claims -very simple. Wether its a whole section titled "what people x say" or a note in the intro, citing a particular source. In any case Britannica style is not WP style, though we do use (for rewrite) their expired copyright stuff from early last century. "Britannica Tradition" has been superceded :) -SV|t 08:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PS: Following the Brittanica Tradition Further 

message: ''
1. A Course In Miracles (or "ACIM") is a book on spiritual principles,
* First thing - What is it? ~ A book by someone about something, read by someone, who draws x conclusions and bases x associations and concepts on it. -SV
2. alleged to have been written by none other than the person of Jesus Christ, 
* The wording "none other than..." is improper for an NPOV article. Because this sentence is speculative, (and particular to a POV interpretation) it can be dealt with later - deal with what it (the book) is first. Save claims and speculation for POV section or explicitly cite them as claims by x. -SV
3. via a certain type of channeling process known as inner dictation in which Helen Schucman describes herself as having been the "scribe". 
* Same as 1 - but at least this is clearer. -SV
4. The official copyright claim for the book lists Helen Schucman and "Anonymous" as the authors. Presumably, here the listing of Anonymous as an author is a veiled reference to Schucman's belief or claim that Jesus Christ was the true author.
* This is highly speculative, and more its speculative about a rather unconventional or difficult to rationalise claim. It needs to be determined then, if she actually claimed the work to be "ghostwritten by Gee-zuss" or if its only the claim of its practicioners. -SV
5. The book was written in the style of a textbook, and contains various teachings and exercises covering the topics of forgiveness, brotherhood, and the nature of love. 
* This (my wording) seems clear, but works only as an intro to the contents of the book - a secondary paragraph. -SV
6. Schucman describes having "received" the material between 1965 and 1978, and to have transcribed it with the assistance of Bill Thetford. 
* This seems to contradict 3 - please distinguish her claims from the claims of her followers. -SV
7. The title of the book was derived from the book's core premise that love is a miracle, and it surpasses all others in value. -SV
* This seems like a claim, its not necessary to attribute it perhaps, but consider "title of the book is claimed to refer to love— as a miracle above all other miracles."-SV
8. The 365 practical exercises it contains were designed to be performed daily over the course of a year, and contain various meditations, prayers and mental exercises intended to provide practical illustrations and applications for the advancement of spiritual wisdom through forgiveness and love. 
* The combination of "practical" and "spiritual" is almost oxymoronic, or otherwise expressive of a particular POV which advocates a spiritual view. The problem with allowing for one such POV, it means that all variations of such POV must also be considered. Its not POV to represent POV as claims - it is POV to use language which implicitly accepts a POV premise. -SV
9. The general teaching sections of the book consistently aim at enabling students to gain a conceptual framework (...) by which to apply the 365 daily lessons. 
* Remove my "metaphoric language" - overdone -SV
* IMHO my version was superior in that it seperated logically the general concept introduction, the claims of authorship, the contents, and the nature of the followership. Your version simply jumbles the first three and removes the fourth.  -SV|t 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point by point breakdown of intro problems 

message: Dear Steve,
          Since my last edit, I came across your point by point breakdown re the ACIM intro, and here is my point by point reply:
1. A Course In Miracles (or "ACIM") is a book on spiritual principles,
* First thing - What is it? ~ A book by someone about something, read by someone, who draws x conclusions and bases x associations and concepts on it. -SV
I believe that all of these topics are finally now covered in the intro.
2. alleged to have been written by none other than the person of Jesus Christ,
* The wording "none other than..." is improper for an NPOV article. Because this sentence is speculative, (and particular to a POV interpretation) it can be dealt with later - deal with what it (the book) is first. Save claims and speculation for POV section or explicitly cite them as claims by x. -SV
I have removed this phrase.
''
3. via a certain type of channeling process known as inner dictation in which Helen Schucman describes herself as having been the "scribe".
* Same as 1 - but at least this is clearer. -SV
Inserted word: claim to refer more neutrally to this process. 
''
4. The official copyright claim for the book lists Helen Schucman and "Anonymous" as the authors. Presumably, here the listing of Anonymous as an author is a veiled reference to Schucman's belief or claim that Jesus Christ was the true author.
* This is highly speculative, and more its speculative about a rather unconventional or difficult to rationalise claim. It needs to be determined then, if she actually claimed the work to be "ghostwritten by Gee-zuss" or if its only the claim of its practicioners. -SV
All of these assertions can be documented by ample already published source material.  If you would like, I would be happy to provide appropriate footnoting for this.
''
5. The book was written in the style of a textbook, and contains various teachings and exercises covering the topics of forgiveness, brotherhood, and the nature of love.
* This (my wording) seems clear, but works only as an intro to the contents of the book - a secondary paragraph. -SV
This is included in the intro as I feel that a good intro needs to briefly touch on the type of contents to be found in the book.
''
6. Schucman describes having "received" the material between 1965 and 1978, and to have transcribed it with the assistance of Bill Thetford.
* This seems to contradict 3 - please distinguish her claims from the claims of her followers. -SV
Please elaborate.  I cannot see the contradiction.  BTW, Schucman never had any personal “followers”, only people who followed the teachings of ACIM who never ascribed any particular spiritual authority to her, other than having once “channeled” ACIM
''
7. The title of the book was derived from the book's core premise that love is a miracle, and it surpasses all others in value. -SV
* This seems like a claim, its not necessary to attribute it perhaps, but consider "title of the book is claimed to refer to love— as a miracle above all other miracles."-SV
The actual text includes numerous assertions that this is its core premise.  Why not allow its core premise to be laid out in the article intro?
''
8. The 365 practical exercises it contains were designed to be performed daily over the course of a year, and contain various meditations, prayers and mental exercises intended to provide practical illustrations and applications for the advancement of spiritual wisdom through forgiveness and love.
* The combination of "practical" and "spiritual" is almost oxymoronic, or otherwise expressive of a particular POV which advocates a spiritual view. The problem with allowing for one such POV, it means that all variations of such POV must also be considered. Its not POV to represent POV as claims - it is POV to use language which implicitly accepts a POV premise. -SV
It seems to me that your assertion here that spirituality is inherently impractical is an oxymoron, and may represent a certain POV.  Considering the fact that all of the exercises and teachings are meant to involve real-life situations, and not merely theories, is it not POV to insist that such is inherently impractical, and therefore to imply that the fundamental premise of the book must be inherently flawed, as you seem to be insisting?
''
9. The general teaching sections of the book consistently aim at enabling students to gain a conceptual framework (...) by which to apply the 365 daily lessons.
* Remove my "metaphoric language" - overdone -SV
I thought you were the one who inserted this.  I agree and have removed it.
''
* IMHO my version was superior in that it seperated logically the general concept introduction, the claims of authorship, the contents, and the nature of the followership. Your version simply jumbles the first three and removes the fourth. -SV|t 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to point by point breakdown of ACIM intro 

message: According to the article there are three editions (the Urtext edition, the Hugh Lynn Cayce edition and the Criswell edition) plus the printed edition. What are the differences between these editions? And what is the the history? Thanks! --Pym98 09:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between editions 

message: Why is ACIM in the "New Religions" category, when it says on the first page "This is not intended as the basis of a new cult"?
:It is regarded by many people and religious scholars as a new religious movement. Can you seriously deny that it is not religious when the text claims to channel Jesus? However, I have to admit that there is a difference between the ACIM networks and grass roots groups, compared with hierarchical organizations with an extensive doctrine or centered around a charismatic leader, such as Hare Krishna and the Unification Church, respectively. There are several other movements in Wikipedia classified as new religious movements that explicitly assert that they are not religious or assert that they did not want to found a new faith or religion, Transcendental Meditation and Sathya Sai Baba respectively. Andries 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Religions Category

message: Hanegraaff praised in his Dutch article about channeling ACIM's flawless internal consistency. I suggest you read his English book. Andries 22:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: W.J. Hanegraaff has written 7 books in English.  Which one do you recommend?  Scott P. 05:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, for taking so long to reply, but to be honest I do not know for sure. I think that Wouter J. Hanegraaff's book "New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought" (Leiden Brill, 1996) deals with channeling and ACIM. Andries 15:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking for positive reviews: then read Wouter Hanegraaff

message: All the New Age types praise ACIM, but I found it very dark and world-hating, to the point where going deeply into it nearly caused a nervous breakdown.
Basically, all the universe is eventually subsumed in Christ, and destroyed. In fact, it's as if it never even existed - all the love, beauty and magic is hatefully trashed. Then God and Christ just sit there forever, enjoying each other's company and nothing else ever happens. I found it truly world-hating. I guess you had to have been raised a Catholic and sat in too many body-hating, suffocating churches to not be too thrilled about being subsumed in Holy Christ and bored for the rest of eternity while Christ and God play pat-a-cake or whatever. I found it even more extreme than Advaita, which subsumes everything in One, but doesn't say it will be forgotten to the extent that it never existed. Somehow, that bothers me. It seems to take a real hatred for the world to wish it never even happened and will never even be remembered, or at least learned from. And it's pretty boring that nothing happens for the rest of eternity.
Also, you're supposed to get so detached that nothing really matters, and you're just "doing your duty" and going through the motions, like a spiritual zombie.  Yes, I know detachment is a wonderful thing, but only if it comes to you as a gift of grace or enlightenment. ACIM uses psychoanalytic techniques to hypnotize the Mind into thinking everything is unreal, but true spiritual awakening can only come through the Spirit, not the mind. Thinking you can force it with a mental course is to court zombiehood, IMHO.
About the only persons who criticize ACIM are dyed-in-the-wool Xtians, but I am amazed no other people have mentioned it seems to have a dark side, and is not beneficial for all who study it. I can't be the only one out there. I've gone deeply into all sorts of spiritual stuff but this is the first one that really wounded me. I was caught by surprise at the world-hating aspect of it. "Going through the motions" until Christ comes is not, in my view, the truly spiritual life, rich in both body and soul, and striving to better the world and help and love others while living wholly yourself, in body, mind, And spirit.
For some reason, I never see criticism of ACIM except from the Xtian fundamentalist perspective. It would be helpful to hear if any others have had problems with its deeper philosophy, which really has nothing to do with miracles, and everything to do with denying the world entire. Maybe I am the only one who sees this, but if there are others out there, I hope you speak up.
Jim Mooney, seren37 at Yahoo.com
:Jim,
:Truly ACIM does deny the reality of what most would call reality.  That, in and of itself, could certainly seem to be quite bewildering, perhaps even wounding.  It seems to me that ACIM can only make any kind of sense at all if one focuses on what it teaches is reality, not what it teaches is illusion.  Reality namely being love.  Such a focus seems to me to be quite a proactive and positive stance, not a stance of zombie like hatred.  To constantly actively seek out, and work to recognize, the presence of love in every circumstance and situation, as ACIM teaches one to do,  seems to me to be a form of affirmation, not a form of denial.  But certainly without taking this focus into account, it would seem to be a course in madness.  
:Scott P. 07:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: <b>A Course in Madness?</b>