Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 2

message: As is generally the practice for Wiki discussion pages that grow to beyond 25 discussion threads, I have now archived the first 25 discussion threads of this talk page, which can still be accessed via the link at the top of this page.  Thanks...
-Scott P. 16:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving note... 

message: ::Come to think of it, I just reread what I wrote on the main article. The thing is, this very topic most likely deserves an entire page of its own. I think this is a terribly complicated and intellectual topic to try to sum up in three paragraphs. And, frankly, I don't think I did it very well in those three paragraphs. Ken might not agree perfectly with my word choice. I don't know if he would phrase it exactly the way I did. But then I am not Ken. I can only put it in the words I understand. But I do know that I spoke to him directly about this. I asked him explicitly if he believes the Course is "literally" channeled from Jesus. And he said, "Well, no." And he has written so many times. And the Course says so. The Course is not about séance-type things where dead people communicate with the living. 
::I once wrote Kenneth a letter where I said, "This might sound weird, but I feel very close to Helen." Kenneth wrote back and said, "That doesn't sound weird at all. I am delighted by it, as is Helen." I later asked Kenneth what he meant by this. He said, "It's a symbol." The only "Helen" I know is the Helen in my mind, and Ken was giving me a symbol by which to learn that it is okay that I am fond of the Helen that I know in my own mind. 
::This is perhaps a linguistic aspect of the Course that is overlooked by many students. As Kenneth has stated many times, when Helen was done "scribing" the Course, she said, "Finally, there is something for the intellectual!" Kenneth has also stated that Helen said that due to the non-dual metaphysics of the Course, its radical perspective on forgiveness, and the symbolic role of Jesus, the Course was suited for about 11 people. In other words, most who read the Course will not "get" all aspects to it. -- Andrew Parodi 10:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Come to think of it

message: I think there is a huge misunderstanding here. I have never used the word "hoax." It appears to me that you and some others who have discussed this with me, seem to think I am attempting to expose the Course, and now Catholicism, as a hoax. If you understand what I am talking about with regard to symbols, then you understand that there is no intention to "expose a hoax" on my part. 
Is math a hoax to use "5" all the while there are no "5" characters out there in our physical world? I could stand here and go, "Well, you know, math is all a lie, a hoax, because there really are no 5's. They've lied to you." Or I can say, "The human mind cannot comprehend the principles expressed in math without use of those symbols, such as the symbol '5'." 
This is all I'm saying about the Course and Catholicism. 
If, as I believe, there was never literally a man who lived and was known as Jesus (and I'm not passionate about this topic one way or another, actually), then what I am saying is that even for the Catholic Church, Jesus is ultimately just a symbol. If the Catholic Church can be seen as "math," then Jesus is their "5". Do you get what I mean? The symbol of "Jesus" stands for something that is very real, though the symbol itself might not have actually existed in concrete, physical reality. 
The "Jesus" in Catholicism (and I'm a former Catholic) often stood for persecution, suffering, agony, pain, and there is little argument from most that Catholicism brought exactly this to the world in many ways. Look at the Inquisition, and all the other horrible things the church did. And, for them, they did it in the name of "Jesus." For them, Jesus symbolizes the need to do all these things. The things they did in the name of the symbol are very real; though the symbol might not have actually existed in concrete, physical reality on this planet. 
What this is addressing is the power of the mind, and the power of belief. This is what the Course is getting at. The human mind is very powerful, the power of belief is very powerful. 
I don't recall anything in the Course that says that Jesus Christ literally existed in the flesh. Whether he did or didn't is not important to the application of what the Course says. This is why some non-Christians use the Course. The Course using Jesus as a symbol. 
I don't know if we should continue with this discussion, because this is most likely an aspect of the Course that the individual student has to take on for himself and learn in his own way and in his own time. It might appear that I am trying to "force" this on others. That was never my intention. I simply wanted to add this symbolic/linguistic aspect to the page. I thought it deserved to be there because it is very important to the Course. But I can see that you, and many other Course students, and certainly Christians, have a lot invested in believing that Jesus Christ literally existed. I don't have any intention of disproving this. I'm completely neutral on this topic. -- Andrew Parodi 02:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Exposing a hoax"

message: Looking at the main page of this site, I see that the featured article of the day is somewhat in line with what we're talking about here: Omnipotence paradox. Certainly, it's not exactly the same. But it seems to address the issues of symbolism and logic in religion. 
This made me think that maybe a page about this topic, whether Jesus is the literal source of A Course In Miracles or not, might be beneficial. And why can't I start it? So, here we go: Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles". So, I'll start the article, and if anyone else can come up with a better title, then they can change it, of course. But I think this topic deserves its own page. -- Andrew Parodi 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus Christ as source of A Course In Miracles

message: I just made some changes to a section that someone just added, comparing Sufism and ACIM, trying to clarify what seem to me to be the similarities between the two teachings.  I hope nobody minds that I rephrased it so that it doesn't appear as if ACIM teaches that God created the material world.  I also elaborated a bit on the other points made.  Any comments or questions?
-Scott P. 14:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaking on new section comparing Sufism and ACIM... 

message: Recently I removed a certain disclaimer about Schucman's position on the role of Jesus in the authorship of ACIM.  This disclaimer stated in the intro that "Schucman  never claimed this herself (this being that ACIM was written in the voice of the person of Jesus)".  I removed this assertion from the intro because, to the best of my understanding,  Schucman's position on this question was not so clear cut as this disclaimer seemed to imply.  I have read or seen several accounts of Schucman sitting aside in a room, silently condoning the assertions of Wapnick or Thetford that ACIM 'was written by Jesus'.  Never have I seen any denials by Schucman that ACIM was written by Jesus.  
Admittedly, I have never read any place where Schucman herself publicly stated this point blank, however it seems to me that the only reason that Schucman may never have publicly stated this may have been only for 'political' purposes.  By this I mean that it would seem to me that her own personal credibility as the scribe of ACIM would have in some way been better preserved or enhanced when she would only allow Ken or Bill to publicly make this somewhat awkward claim for her, rather than boldly making this claim in a public way for herself.  Upon reading the Urtext, for me it becomes an inescapable conclusion that Schucman had to have believed that ACIM was as Thetford and Wapnick had stated, written by Jesus. This question of Schucman's personal position on this issue is already more fully addressed in the article: Jesus Christ as source of "A Course In Miracles", and to me this question seems to be a topic that is a bit too complex and nuanced to attempt to introduce in the introduction of the article, especially when introduced without any accompanying explanation as it was.
-Scott P. 12:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schucman's position about Jesus' authorship of ACIM 

message: Ste4k has recently submitted deletion nominations for all of the following A Course in Miracles-related articles: Attitudinal healing, Helen Schucman, William Thetford, Foundation for Inner Peace, Foundation for A Course In Miracles, Community Miracles Center, Gary Renard, Kenneth Wapnick. And in the article Authorship of A Course in Miracles,  Ste4k will not accept ANY websites as “verifiable” websites with regard to ACIM, including http://www.acim.org/ and http://www.facim.org/, both of which are the official websites of California-based non-profit organizations. This editor's deletion attempts are merely personal bias masquerading as adherence to Wikipedia policy. -- Andrew Parodi 08:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He also attempted to delete the ACIM section on the forgiveness page.  Please note that good intended edits are welcome.  speet 12:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These comments are both against good faith and harrassment. I'll say no more and be bringing this matter up to mediation. In the meantime I'd suggest that you find some credible sources for this book. Ste4k 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ste4k's anti-ACIM agenda