Volu
Quote:


So according to this logic the immortal soul of Hitler looked down on the earth and said, you know what I will incarnate and become the worst mass murderer that planet has ever seen

And god stood back and said OK Oh man Oh man My head hurts

Alan

Hi Rondele

Quote:


I agree absolutely with Rondeles sensible comments

The Jesus of ACIM is not the real Jesus , but a "challeled demon of deception".

Once one believes sin, another words for depravity is not real, then lets us eat drink do what we like to who we like when we like, we cant really hurt anyone, it is just an illusion and will soon go away

Go and tell holocaust victims that sin is an illusion, wake up and smell the coffee folks depravity is as real as the steal weapons it uses , to murder, rape, pillage, destroy, corrupt

People who think that sin is an illusion are in for a rude awaking a huge shock when they die and see in the life review every despicable act they have ever done played off for them, And the life review does not just end with their fowl acts, they have to stand there in shame and see and feel all the pain, sorow, loss, fear, terror that they have caused all the way down the huge web of their accountability

Can Hitler just say to God sorry god, let me go back and try again?



Alan

Both Helen Schucman and William Thetford acknowledged that the course uses Shakespeare like prose. I don't understand why the spirit of Jesus would speak in such a way.

Let's see:

-Helen became a Catholic for a while because she figured God would be like Santa Claus.

-She found out that he wasn't, and became disillusioned.

-She decided that science has the answers, and developed a strong hate for spirituality.

-Yet, Christ supposedly chose her to speak for him.

-She was very unwillinging to do so, yet she did so, because the spirit she received words from forced itself upon her, and because William Thetford talked her into continuing to do so. Even if Christ would choose to channel a very lengthy, repetitive and affirmation oriented course, one would think that Christ would choose a much more willing subject.

-Her life ended with her being in a rageful depressive state where she used coarse language and referred to the course as that G-- dam course.

Yeah, it all adds up to actual divine inspiration. Not!

You know what it comes down to? People just don't want to believe that unfriendly influences have gotten to the new age super market. Outwardly they'll say that unfriendly influences exist, but on the inside they're afraid to truly admit it. Instead, they come up with apologetics for sources that aren't worth defending.

<<You know what it comes down to? People just don't want to believe that unfriendly influences have gotten to the new age super market. Outwardly they'll say that unfriendly influences exist, but on the inside they're afraid to truly admit it. Instead, they come up with apologetics for sources that aren't worth defending.>>

Albert- yes, that's true but the real question we need to ask is what is ACIM's real agenda?  

If I really accepted the crux of ACIM, I would toss the whole concept of accountability for my actions right out the window.  I would figure that anything I did, or intend to do, is merely illusionary and therefore of no consequence.  And if anyone had a problem with me or my actions, it's their problem not mine.  They just need to realize that what they see and hear and feel is an illusion and not real.

And thinking it through to its logical conclusion, the biblical injunctions against sin and wrongdoing can be ignored and also tossed out the window.  Jesus really didn't know what He was talking about.

The whole thrust of ACIM is to undermine Jesus and His teachings.  In fact, in one of the lessons in the back of the book, the entity that is passing himself off as Jesus makes a mistake and refers to Jesus in the third person!  Something he would never do if in fact he was Jesus.  He would have said "me" or "I".  

A little slip of the forked tongue.

Rondelle:

Regarding the agenda, I've written about this before in a more extensive way, but I'll summarize:

-To create a block between people and what Christ would truly reveal.

-To get people to assert what is supposedly true through a bunch of affirmations, rather than actually finding out what is true. True knowledge doesn't come to be by making a bunch of affirmations.

-To get people to become indifferent to the suffering in this World, by getting them to believe that it is nothing but an illusion.

-To get people to spend a lot of time reading words that basically say the same thing over and over again, and to spend a lot of time making affirmations, rather than taking the time to look at themselves and find what limiting thought patterns need to be taken care of. The course doesn't address how to deal with specific issues. Instead, it says that the only issue that matters is that the so called separation be brought to and end.

-To get them to believe in an ego like entity so profusely, that they end up creating such an entity within themselves.

-To make it seem as if God has nothing to do with this World by claiming that he didn't create it, and everything we experience is nothing but a meaningless illusion. My feeling is that anytime we share love with another person, while in this World, God's love and therefore reality, is abundant.

-By making it seem as if spiritual growth is an all or nothing matter. Either you're attoned, or your not.

-By not addressing issues that need to be addressed.

-By entrapping people who could've made a difference in this World within a limiting belief system that due to its assertive nature seems to be positive, but in fact curtails a person's growth.  It is hard to see how a false approach to spiritual growth is limiting you, when you are entrapped within it.

Consider what the course says about the 365 days of affirmation lessons it provides:

"Remember only this: you need not believe the ideas, you need not accept them, and you need not even welcome them.  Some of them you may actively resist.  None of this will matter, or decrease their efficacy. But do not allow yourself to make exceptions in applying the ideas the workbook contains, and whatever your reactions to the ideas may be, use them. Nothing more than that is required."

It seems to me that if something doesn't sound right, we should be free to not engage in it. Yet, the course doesn't want to provide us with that freedom. It pretends that it does by stating that you don't have to believe the lessons as you read them, but then it takes away your freedom by stating that you have to do the lessons.  Sounds like doubletalk to me.  The course also says, "This is a course in miracles. It is a required course.  Only the time you take it is voluntary."

I agree with you Rondelle in that if Christ spoke, he'd be more forthright about it. The quote I provided also sounds like a bunch of doubletalk.




rondele wrote on Apr 7^th, 2009 at 1:16pm:

Alan:

I agree with you. I believe that the premise that people take on really difficult incarnations because their souls need to learn lessons, is taken to an excessive extreme.

For example, I figure that a lot of children are forced into prostitution not because their souls need such lessons, but because unethical people will take advantage of such children.

Some people like to believe that the changes are going to happen in 2012 and everything is going to change for the better. If as ACIM contends the suffering we see in this World isn't real because this World isn't real, or if as some sources contend souls take on difficult incarnations because these are the lessons their souls need, then why in tarnation do the changes need to occur? It seems to me that some contradictory thinking is in play. A person needs to be willing to question what he or she reads, in order to see why such discrepencies exit. It is hard to be willing to question, if a person believes it is unhip and unloving to do so.

People are hungry for knowledge. Because of this, there are occasions where they get overly excited about what they read, and aren't wiling to question what they read. To get them to question what they read, can be like trying to take a toy away from a child. Certainly some of the sources that seek to mislead, know about this factor.  Perhaps it is best to have a little knowledge that is based upon truth, rather than a lot of knowledge, if you can all it that, that is based upon false principles.


Alan McDougall wrote on Apr 7^th, 2009 at 10:58am:

recoverer wrote on Apr 7^th, 2009 at 2:05pm:


Hi Recoverer,
Yes they do have a lot in common, but it may be the differences that are important. Obviously this could descend into mere semantic argument, but I would -for discussion obviously- define in this case shame as a negative feeling about what and who you are, and remorse and regret about your actions. Guilt is a sword of Damocles (like sin) that's held over the heads of far too many people as an instrument of control and as such I believe that it can stunt personal and spiritual growth.
But looking at your other post, why do you think that the idea of a difficult incarnation is taken to an excessive extreme? I'm not making excuses or trying to minimise or belittle anyone's suffering; all I'm saying is that we don't know what pre life tests and lessons we all agreed to before we came here. Reputedly, some folks even volunteer for tough assignments before their next incarnation! (I've thought several times in this life that I must have been crazy to agree to some of the stuff I've been through -oh, well...)

Regarding 2012, there's much information about change for us on a multi dimensional level; I would guess that they'll make all our petty wars and nonsense on this planet finally irrelevant. Barbara Hand Clow states that this planet has been in a 'galactic quarantine' for many thousands of years, and it's time that we got back with the reest of our family.
I don't know if she's right, but it doesn't FEEL wrong to me, so I guess all we can do is wait and see and look out for the signs if we want to and ignore them if it doesn't suit our current beliefs. ACIM has never appealed to me so I just leave it and move on, but that's my own decision. Anyone else will have to make a similar one based on the evidence they can find and their own feelings.

.....All of which, naturally, you are perfectly at liberty to disagree with 

Best wishes,

David.