Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:28, 24 June 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-04-27. The result of the discussion was keep (and possibly merge).

Page Creation

So, I started the page. This is probably going to get heated, some people accusing me of saying the Course is a "hoax" and all that. But I think this is an issue worthy of a page on Misplaced Pages because this is an important aspect of the Course. This might be interesting and beneficial.

-- Andrew Parodi 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be merged with the ACIM article or deleted

It's an issue worthy of a section of the A Course In Miracles page. It definitely isn't worth a separate article. If, as you suggest, Jesus was a source, then it deserves to be part of that article. If He wasn't, then it doesn't deserve to be anywhere. Either way, it doesn't need a separate page.

-Grutness...wha? 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's completely just an opinion on your part. Another member and I have been discussing this on the main A Course In Miracles page. We both agreed that this deserves its own page as the topic is too expansive to maintain within the already lengthy main ACIM page. Have you taken a look at the other aspects of ACIM that have pages of their own? This certainly deserves its own page as well. And I might add that this page is not about whether I say the Course is channeled/scribed from Jesus literally. It is intended as the beginnings of an article about what is actually said in the Course and the different perspectives among "students" and "teachers" of the Course. Whether I myself believe one way or another has no bearing on this topic or the page itself.

--Andrew Parodi 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The existing ACIM main article is already quite long, and is intended more to be a summary of ACIM (believe it or not). This topic is clearly a more in depth treatment of one aspect of the philosophy of ACIM than the main article, and may require its own separate long article in order to treat this subject properly. My sense is, why not give this article a couple of weeks to settle and develop before making any clear determination about where it belongs (or doesn't belong)?

-Scott P. 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The ACIM page is quite large, and this issue is quite large. Sethie 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Merge" notice

I removed the "merge" notice. So far, it is three to one that this should remain its own article. If someone thinks I should give it more time, then please replace the "merge" notice. -- Andrew Parodi 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Exposing a hoax"

(Copied and pasted from discussion on main ACIM page.)

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)

I thought I might add something else. The book I mention above, "Mathematics: The Science of Patterns" , compares the notation of math to the notation of music. And then it says that one thing we need to realize is that just as the notes on a music score are not music, the notation (the "5", "1", "+") in math is not math itself. Those symbols represent math. Math does not depend on the symbols. The human mind depends upon the symbols in order to understand the properties and principles of math. I think this is the same case with Jesus in "A Course In Miracles." -- Andrew Parodi 08:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Added new section

I added a new section called "Jesus Christ as literal source of "A Course In Miracles," and then I included a request that this section be expanded. Perhaps what can happen, then, is that the two perspectives -- the literal perspective, the symbolic perspective -- can be juxtaposed, compared, and contrasted. This might be an interesting way to set the page up for growth. -- Andrew Parodi 14:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Expanded section about the 'literalists regarding the scribing of ACIM'

In the section about the 'literalists regarding the scribing of ACIM', I have attempted to rewrite this section to more accurately represent the views of what seem to me to be a majority of ACIM students. I know of no teachers of ACIM who have taught that 'the disembodied spirit of Jesus channeled himself through Schucman', but I do know of many who believe that Schucman did literally hear an inner voice, which was in fact the voice of the aspect of God which is known by many as (or believed by many to be) Jesus Christ, or as the Son of God, etc.. Perhaps this article pivots about the various ways that one might interpret the word, 'literal'.

Thus the rewrite.

-Scott P. 16:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I used the term "disembodied spirit of Jesus" as a way of describing this perspective to the non-ACIM student.

For analogy, let's look at it from the perspective of mainstream Christianity, which is something more understandable to mainstream society (because most of mainstream US society have a background in mainstream Christianity). In mainstream Christianity, you have a dogma that says that when you die, your spirit lives on and either goes to Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory (if you are Catholic).

You then have cases of people who believe that you can communicate with people who are "on the other side," or who are in Heaven, or Hell, or wherever.

I believe the mainstream view is that Jesus Christ ascended into Heaven.

From this perspective, I think that when most people hear that the Course is "channeled" from Jesus, they think that this means that Helen Schucman contacted Jesus Christ while he sits up in Heaven.

I don't think the term "disembodied" is used anywhere in the Course, or by any Course "teachers." I used that term to try to make more concrete the idea that many ACIM students have: that the Course is the result of communication between Helen Schucman and Jesus Christ's spirit, that is, a "disembodied" spirit - a spirit not in a body. (In mainstream Christianity, I believe we are taught that the spirit inhabits the body. The Course teaches differently, saying that the spirit does not inhabit the body because the body isn't real. But, again, I wrote this passage with the intention of making it understandable to a more mainstream audience.)

In regard to Helen having "heard a voice," I think that this statement needs to be qualified by what I recall her saying, which was that the voice "made no sound." In other words, again, this idea that she "heard a voice" is symbolic.

We all know what it is to hear a voice. Maybe, for example, you hear a funny line in a movie, and later on that day that line pops into your head, and you feel as though that soundbite is recorded and it plays again, and you thus "hear a voice" in your head.

The take I've always gotten on it is that Helen Schucman never meant that this is what happened to her. Like Ken said in Absence from Felicity, Helen didn't have Jesus standing in her head with a microphone.

I think the paragraph is hard to understand at this point. I think this is because it is rewritten to focus on Course students and not the general public. I think it's pretty obvious what I meant when I said "literal." -- Andrew Parodi 00:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly a very difficult topic to cover, there are so many shades of meaning, and of intended meaning. I think it's fair to assume that Helen probably intended her audience to believe that the voice she heard (without making any sound) was somehow connected with the Jesus that her audience was at least somewhat familiar with. Otherwise, I would have thought that she would have said something to the effect that the Jesus she heard was a different Jesus. I also agree with Ken when he explains that later on Helen probably realized that it was a somewhat different Jesus.

I can see now why Ken would say that initially, Helen's honest experience was legitimately that she was being dictated to by an inner voice. I can also now see why Ken would say that later on Helen probably realized that her first experience of this was probably not as real as she had at first believed it to be (as are all things in the material world).

Thanks for pointing out how the content of ACIM's teachings stands on its own, regardless of which ever form or mechanism of communication that it may have come through (or not come through).

-Scott P. 04:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't know if I'm the one who points out that the content of the Course can stand on its own. I think the Course, and Ken, did that first.

Unfortunately, I don't have any references handy right now, but I recall reading Ken said that Helen never literally meant that it was the historical Jesus Christ or that it came as the result of any type of literal "communication" with his spirit. I think Ken has said that Helen was always clear that it was symbolic.

Have you read Absence from Felicity? There is a story in there about Ken and Helen praying, and an eyelash falls on Helen's cheek. Helen tells Ken, "Jesus will get it for me." She goes on to say that Jesus always removed her eyelashes when they fell into Helen's eye. Helen explains that this happened all the time, but not to worry because "Jesus" always removed the eyelash for her. Ken describes that they continued to pray, and eventually the eyelash was removed and was sitting on her cheek. He also explains that though Helen said "Jesus" removed it, she more than understood that this was symbolic talk - not "literal." The historical Jesus, who supposedly died more than 2000 years ago, did not literally manifest himself in Helen's presence to remove the eyelash. Nor did anyone. Helen simply continued to pray, and closed her eyes, and eventually the eyelash moved.

I think Ken has made it pretty clear, and in fact that is the point of this portion of the book, that though Helen said the Course came from "Jesus," she was well aware that it was symbolism. I don't think Helen ever mistook that she was receiving something from someone who was "beyond the grave," the historical Jesus Christ, or anyone but her own inner memory of the "Holy Spirit" (another symbol).

As to how to combine this into an article, it's difficult. I don't think there are any written statements directly from Helen about how she viewed the channeling/scribing of the Course. So, we have to rely on Ken's views of it, as he is the closest link to her with regard to the Course (perhaps with regard to anything at this point). I know this "Ken said" thing irritates some people. But there is no rewriting Course history. If people can't deal with the fact that he was very, very close to Helen and that he is the closest link we have to her, and therefore it's logical he knew more about her than anyone else, then that's their problem. -- Andrew Parodi 08:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops. What I should've said there is that I don't think there are any statements by Helen about this symbolic and linguistic aspect of the Course. I think there are plenty of statements by Helen saying that Jesus is the source of ACIM. But I think it was left up to Ken to clarify that Helen was completely aware that it was only symbolically from Jesus. Remember, once the Course was made available to the world, Helen largely distanced herself from it. She wasn't hanging around to tell people about the importance of symbolism in the Course. That was left up to Ken.

Of course, the irony in all of this is (I know I shouldn't say it, but I'm going to), this aspect of the Course is what ultimately voids that whole copyright "which version is the REAL version of the Course?" argument. Because Jesus is only symbolically the source of the Course, that is, symbolically the "content" of the Course, the "form" of the Course is subject to the revisions of any book. I never understood why people didn't realize this. I suppose because they thought that the historical Jesus Christ stood in Helen's head with a microphone and dictated -- in English -- the three books of the Course. As you have seen, trying to explain otherwise can get very heated. -- Andrew Parodi 08:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus as "literal" source of the Course

I hope you won't mind, but I just hacked out a lot of that paragraph. If you want, of course, put it back in. It's not like I run this place. I'm a relative newbie here.

My intention with that section was to give a place for discussion of the people and perspectives that hold that the Course was the result of Helen's communication with the historical Jesus Christ; the result of Jesus "standing in her head with a microphone and dictating the Course."

About the term "literal" and there being some confusion about that word, I don't know if referece to confusion about that word belongs on the main page, because it is mostly my word. That was the way I phrased the question when I asked Ken about it. I don't think the word "literal" is used anywhere in any ACIM literature, or in any of Ken's works.

I have explained many times what I mean when I say "literal."

Take JZ Knight, for example. I think we can say with full accuracy that she presents that her "channeling" of "Ramtha" is quite "literal." I think that she teaches that there was a man who lived 30,000 years ago in Atlantis. That is, "Ramtha," she says, lived and died in Atlantis. His spirit lives on, she says. And his spirit allegedly enters her body and talks through her. In other words, JZ Knight claims that she "literally" channels Ramtha.

I think the case with Ramtha is a good illustration of what we could refer to as "literal channeling." So, if there is some confusion about what I meant by "literal channeling," I think it can be cleared up with reference to what JZ Knight claims happens with Ramtha. But what Helen Schucman experienced in the channeling, or "scribing," of the Course was not -- as per the description of Kenneth Wapnick -- akin to the type of thing that JZ Knight claims she experiences with Ramtha. Knight claims a "literal" channeling of "Ramtha." Helen Schucman claimed a "symbolic" scribing from "Jesus." -- Andrew Parodi 08:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The need for published citations...

I am not doubting that Wapnick may have once said "thus and so" about Schucman. But unless Wapnick might have also written and published such a statement, and unless someone who would report on such sayings in Wiki can also cite in their account where others might be able to find these citations to verify them for themselves, then unfortunately it is not in accordance with Wiki policy to report on such unpublished research (or what Wiki refers to as original research). Thanks for your patience with this, and perhaps one day somebody will publish a book of Wapnick's unpublished sayings, so we could then write about them in places like Wiki.

-Scott P. 21:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ken has written this in just about every FACIM publication, from the most basic "The Most Commonly Asked Questions about ACIM" to the most sophisticated book of his "Love Does Not Condemn." I'm a bit surprised and baffled by the fact that this is surprising to anyone. But working on this page has been beneficial for me because it has made me realize why Ken doesn't make this an important point in his teachings. I've realized this is something people are meant to discover in their own time. Of course, if the people who sued Ken and FACIM had any understanding of the symbolism of Jesus, had any understanding of what I've been trying to explain all along, then we could've all been spared that nightmare court case. But such is the world.

Anyway, I think I've really said all I have to say on this issue. I've basically laid the foundation for this article, and people can build on it or do what they will with it. As I've said many times, this really isn't that big of a deal to me. I honestly don't find it that interesting to debate about this topic. It's pretty cut and dry. People can either accept this aspect of the Course, or they can reject it. I'm baffled that this is a point of controversy for anyone. But then I suppose this is because so many who read the Course come from Christian backgrounds where everything is literal. It reminds me of something Joseph Campbell once said, that sometimes it was easier for him to teach about mythology in Asia because in Asia people are generally more accustomed to the symbolism and to taking things more metaphorically. In the west, things are so much more literal, particularly in the US. (This is actually something I read about Anais Nin. One reason her symbolist/surrealistic writing did not find a big audience in the US is because from the very beginning, the US has been a very "realist" country.)

Anyway, do what you will with this page. I think must retire from it. Not out of frustration or anger or anything like that, but out of a sense that I really have nothing left to offer this page. I have already quoted directly from Ken and FACIM and given links to back up those quotes. My next suggestion is to just juxtapose the different perspectives, and then perhaps weaving into the article how it all came to a head with the copyright controversy. I think that might be interesting. But, to be completely frank, I myself just am not interested in anymore debate about this or any controversy over it. Take care. -- Andrew Parodi 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

While it may be due to the admittedly limited amount of reading I've done of Ken's writings, still I haven't seen it in print anywhere that Ken said that ACIM was the result of a communication between Helen's ego self and another more compassionate aspect of her mind. I would certainly appreciate any reference to any quote of Ken's to that effect. I noted that Ken avoided answering the question about what the link might be between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of ACIM. Perhaps he did this because he simply sees this as an inherently divisive questions. Who knows?

Scott P. 03:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Ken has said this so many times that I almost don't know where to begin to say where it's at. Pick up any of his books, and it's right there. Go to the FACIM website and search the Q/A section and it's all over.

I don't think this is a divisive question at all. I think it is a very sophisticated question that, quite frankly, few Course students are equipped to deal with. The Course is highly sophisticated, and few people really understand the extent of its sophistication. So, when you talk to them about this aspect of the Course, they aren't prepared for it and so they fall all over themselves. Ken most likely gets tired of dealing with this; he can usually spot a conflict from a mile away, and he sees that ultimately it doesn't matter much any way, so why bother? It's not that the question/issue itself is divisive, but that people get so pissed off about it, so defensive, that it gets frustrating.

More than likely, the reason he doesn't stress this point is because he most likely thinks it's something the student is meant to figure out and sort out on his own. It's like a therapist who will usually lead a client to his/her own realizations, rather than smacking them in the face with them. -- Andrew Parodi 15:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've just finished rereading the entire section from "Absence..." about Helen's eyelash incident (p 478 - 480) and also skimmed some other parts of this book to try to see what Ken is teaching on this, and how it relates to what you have said here that Ken is teaching. I think you and Ken are both right that this type of stuff is best when sorted through and realized on an individual basis, in a person's own good time, rather than being set down in black and white as some sort of a formula which could potentially be used to unintentionally smack people in the face with. While Ken never uses the words merely or only to describe this aspect of how Helen received ACIM, he certainly does write that such a type of communication was at least one aspect or perspective of how the ACIM text might have come to be.

I don't think that Ken would be inclined to try to correct others who might have a different perspective on this subject, so long as their different perspective might not become obstacles to their learning the main premise of ACIM, namely its main premise on forgiveness.

-Scott P. 16:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, by the way, why Ken doesn't emphasize this point. It is only my guess that he doesn't emphasize it because it is one of the more difficult aspects of the Course, and he may perceive that it is something better left to the individual to work through in his own time. That is only my guess about why he doesn't emphasize it. I don't know for sure if this is the reason.

But the thing is, once the student is ready to tackle this aspect of the Course, it is available by reading Ken's work. So, he doesn't try to hide or deny this aspect at all.

As to smacking someone in the face with this, I don't know what to make of that. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this perspective, it is the perspective that Ken teaches -- and Ken is without a doubt the most influential living figure regarding ACIM. I don't think anyone would argue that point. So, in my opinion, it is more than "encyclopedic" to mention his perspective on this in an article about ACIM. And, as with Ken's work on the subject, this article is available to those who want to read it when they are ready. There's really no way to smack anyone in the face with any of this. It's just an article.

I don't think Ken would correct others either. I think he states what he believes on this topic, all the while admitting that he believes that what he teaches on this topic is the "correct" way to teach the Course. He has simply said that. He has explicitly said that he doesn't think he is teaching "a perspective" on the Course, but is actually teaching what the Course actually says.

Anyway, my point in all of this has not been to question your own personal relationship with the Course. Who am I to do that? And, by the way, I never suggested you don't have the right to disagree with Ken Wapnick. My only intention of any of this was to present this perspective on the Course, and then do what you said must be done when presenting an article on Misplaced Pages -- back up your article with evidence. That's why I linked to Ken's books. -- Andrew Parodi 00:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: Oh, I just re-read my previous message to you. I had forgotten that I'd used the term "smack in the face." I now get what you meant; you were merely rephrasing what I had said. -- Andrew Parodi 00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The 'correct' teaching of ACIM....

In Ken's answer to question #97, he has written that, The love that Jesus represents takes whatever form can be most helpful to us, caught in believing in a dream of our own making that we’ve forgotten we have made. There really is no more definite answer as to why the message comes in whatever form it does. By this, I think it might be a reasonable interpretation of Ken's teaching on this that if one person perceives God's love via the form of a historical Jesus, then for that person this would be correct at that time (just as it was correct for Helen during one limited time of her life.) If for another person at perhaps a different time God's love is seen most clearly via a non-corporeal Christ-mind, then for that person this would be correct too. The key is seeing God's love, which makes which ever form (or wrapping paper) it might come in correct. It seems to me that it's the content (God's love) that validates the form (or the wrapping paper), not the other way around. I don't hear Ken saying that Helen was incorrect, or mistaken in her earliest understandings of what Jesus meant for her. I only hear him saying that she later learned that Jesus was not limited by these earlier limited forms by which she was first able to recognize him, no?

-Scott P. 04:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As with the earlier discussion where you and another were saying that I was claiming the Course was a hoax, I am a bit confused about this idea of "correct" and "incorrect." I don't know where this idea of correct/incorrect came from. I have strived all along to use terms like "literal."

In the section I quoted from Ken's book about the rising and the setting of the sun, the word "correct" is nowhere to be found. Ken says that it is the "experience" of the person living on earth that the sun rises and sets. But the literal scientific truth is that the sun does not rise or set at all. We revolve around the sun. But it isn't really a lie, it isn't really "incorrect," for anyone on this planet to say the earth rises and sets. Tell anyone in this world that you experience the sun as rising and setting, and they most likely will accept your claim as truthful.

Ken's phrase "The love that Jesus represents takes whatever form can be most helpful to us" is symbolic. As he mentions several times, in just about all of his books, "Jesus" in the Course does nothing. He often compares Jesus to a lighthouse that lets off a light that guides us "home." So, when he says that Jesus takes "whatever form can be most helpful," he's not referring to something akin to Zeus in Greek mythology who changes from a fish to an eagle, or whatever else Zeus was believed to change to. Ken is saying we perceive Jesus in whatever form is most helpful for us. This is why, from the perspective of the Course, there would be no controversy for a black church to have a statue of a black Jesus, an Asian church to have a statue of an Asian Jesus, etc.

I once told Ken that the typical depiction of "Jesus" does me no good. I told him that whenever I wanted a symbol that represented something very comforting to me, my mind always flooded with images of African savannahs and tribal life. I told him that I was concerned because I thought this was a bit odd. Ken wrote back and said that it was just fine and that "Jesus likes to wear African symbols." So, there is no correct or incorrect about it. (As to why "Jesus wears African symbols" for me, that's a whole other article on its own. My point here being that there is no dictatorial aspect to this. Whatever symbol one finds comforting, is fine. But it might be important at some point realize that a symbol is only a symbol. That's been my point in all of this.) -- Andrew Parodi 13:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps in some previous existence, you could have once lived on, and communed with the African savannah and with the others who shared your existence with you there. Perhaps in this existence, you could have felt your peaceful existence was somehow disturbed or threatened by others who came bearing the banner of traditional Christianity. This certainly wouldn't have been the first time that Christian missionaries brought social convulsion to a society. Who knows? Whatever the case, these symbols of Africa worked for you and the traditional Jesus didn't. What a beautiful explanation you have given of how a symbol can be a conduit for comfort and love. I thank you for that.

-Scott P. 15:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. But it appears to me that I did it yet again. I had actually referenced "correct" with regard to ACIM, in my previous message. But I meant it in a different way. I didn't mean to say that Ken said there are "correct" symbols, but that Ken says it is "correct" that Jesus in ACIM is only a symbol -- and, yes, anyone is free to use whatever symbol they like. As I'm sure you realize, so much in all of these religious battles that have raged for centuries are really only to do with symbols.

About my need for African symbols, yes, I talked to Ken for a bit about that, the possibility that I was African in a past life. In fact, I strongly believed that at one point. I had some difficulty with the section of the Manual that says that ultimately reincarnation doesn't exist, that it is merely a concept -- and we need to ask ourselves if the concept is helpful or harmful. As the passage says, at best the concept of reincarnation can lead to a sense of life as continual and unlimited and not truly subject to death; at worst it can lead to people feeling obsessed with the past and not fully present in the future.

At the point when I asked Ken about this, I was adamant that I had been African in a past life. Ken eventually just sort of gave up on the issue with me, and just said, "If the concept of reincarnation is helpful for you, then Jesus doesn't mind."

It took me a few years to realize that more than likely I am comforted by African symbols because my mother was studying about Africa during what was perhaps the most stable portion of my early childhood. She was attending anthropology classes at De Anza College in the Bay Area when I was very, very young, and one of my earliest words was my attempt to say "Africa." I pronounced it "Ack-ick-uh." But ever since that point, Africa has been very important to me. When I visit the Bay Area, I usually spend hours hanging out at the Rosicrucian Egyptian Museum. -- Andrew Parodi 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Orders of reality

I just reread the section of ACIM about reincarnation, and ACIM is just like Ken in this. Both seem to provide what some could initially see as contradictory statements on this. In this section, ACIM starts by saying that ultimately reincarnation is unreal. It then says that it takes no definite stand on reincarnation. Other parts of ACIM make it almost an inescapable conclusion that reincarnation must be real, based on the way that they treat our existence, learning and time.

Likewise Ken seems to do the same. In his book "Absence..." he at times refers to the likelihood of certain past lives for Helen. Then he turns around and says that ultimately reincarnation is unreal. Clearly these teachings might seem to be self-contradictory on the outset to anyone who might be trying to decipher their meaning.

My take on all of this is that for however so long as I have this body, I will tend to see other bodies, history, etc. as real, and that this tendency is OK, so long as it does not impede my learning. It is merely a tendency that is a reflection of my belief that I am a body, just as the fact that I have this body is also a reflection of that same belief.

ACIM teaches: Child of God, you were created to create the good, the beautiful and the holy. Do not forget this. The Love of God, for a little while, must still be expressed through one body to another, because vision is still so dim. You can use your body best to help you enlarge your perception so you can achieve real vision, of which the physical eye is incapable. Learning to do this is the body's only true usefulness.

To me this means that the physical world of bodies, which may or may not include reincarnation, and which may or may not include a historical Jesus, is best seen as a place where I am challenged to perceive and express God's Love in every circumstance, with each person, animal, plant and thing that I encounter. Once I have learned that It exists equally and fully in all things, then the need for images, symbols and forms becomes irrelevent.

-Scott P. 17:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you understand the Course pretty well. And it is true what you say, that the Course and Ken seem to contradict themselves. Ken has referred to the Course this way: "consistent content; inconsistent form." His favorite example of this is where the Course says that God is beyond the concepts of the mind and of having a body, and then it describes God as crying, implying that God has tear ducts. If you take that statement literally then you won't realize that it is symbolic.

I think the section on reincarnation is very similar. On one hand it says "in no real sense can it be true," and then it says that it takes no definitive stance on the subject. Um, but isn't saying it can't be true in a real sense itself a definitive stance?

I think that what it means is that the whole concept of reincarnation isn't important with regard to ACIM. Someone who believes in reincarnation can be helped by ACIM just as someone who doesn't believe in reincarnation. Where you stand on the issue of reincarnation doesn't really matter with regard to how ACIM will benefit you, because the concept of reincarnation isn't important to ACIM. I think that's what it means by it not taking a "definitive stand" on it. It isn't "A Course In Reincarnation". It is "A Course In Miracles", a course in changing your perspective on things, and maybe one thing that you can change your perspective on is reincarnation. Get what I mean? The "miracle" (change in perspective) is available to those who believe in reincarnation and those who don't.

The same could probably be said of the whole "Jesus as a symbol debate." Just as one who believes in reincarnation can be helped by ACIM the same as one who doesn't, one who believes the Course is "literally" the result of paranormal channeling will be helped just as much as someone who believes the Course is only "symbolically" channeled from Jesus. It ultimately doesn't matter in most regards, and this is probably why Ken doesn't make a big issue of it. This very issue can actually be a big distraction from the underlying message of the Course anyway.

About reincarnation, I think that ultimately the Course is saying that reincarnation, just like everything in our physical universe and in the mind, is only a concept. At the ultimate level, our individual identities are only concepts. So, the question is, "Is the concept helpful?" In other words, it's not too beneficial to get all wrapped up on the debate about whether it "literally" happens, because it's only a concept -- and what is important is if it is a helpful concept. -- Andrew Parodi 18:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you my friend. -Scott P. 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

New paragraph in great need of copyediting

I have removed the below paragraph from the main article because it appears to me to be in great need of copyediting and in great need of a more NPOV tone. If anyone can edit this to something fitting the main article, please do so and then replace it:

The world of names and forms is entirely symbolic. So the term refering to the source or cause of A Course In Miracles having been the symbolic Jesus Christ is no less the author than Einstein being the author and symbolic of which is source or cause of that theory of relativity. While the symbolic name Jesus Christ is has never been any actual person but symbolical according to Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's book titled Laughing Jesus which must define the historical name profoundly. Although Yeshua Ben Joseph being the cause as source of the mythical Jesus while verifiably exposing the symbolic Jesus Christ who was and is this Yeshua Ben Joseph own position of authority having become the messiah. Messiah through greek terminology is Christos. Christos in Greek meaning messanger as several were termed as such during the times they lived some 2000 years ago, while too many feel Christ is a real person having been called the messanger in greek term being Christos which is a title more than man. But through the Course In Miricles with this Holy Spirit it does not matter whether or not one used Jesus or another holistic name which all mean the same in the eyes of the beholder. While this course also states each and every person is another christ for never having become seperated out of God's kingdom nor seperated of God. Many like this idea not having become seperated from God that makes this course attractive to say the least. While this course states there is "only one thing" that must be corrected which is this union with God having never become seperated always this way, while always having been this way according to this course. If one things comes into purpose from this course it is that nothing should be taken seriously except for this illusion that mankinds separate from God. This course also states that one need not use Jesus as intermediary while claiming the use of this Holy Spirit as such is justifiable. Which is attractive to those who have not a holistic savior or earthly savior, or amoungst them who have no intermediaries at all for choosing to feel the "oneness" or perhaps that "atonement" thing with God. Although claiming atonements makes that illusion of seperation seem real which it never was according to this course in miracles.

-- Andrew Parodi 04:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD discussion

This article has been proposed for deletion (AfD). To view or vote on the discussion at the AfD page, please see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Jesus_Christ_as_source_of_"A_Course_In_Miracles". To discuss or propose various merge options, please comment below:

Proposed single paragraph merge proposal, and rationale

After reviewing this article, after noting the level of editorial interest it has drawn over the last several months, and after reviewing the comments in the AfD section, here are my comments and suggestions for this article:

1. There appear to to me be several very loosely interpolated assertions in this article about the exact position of Wapnick on the question at hand regarding whether or not the historical Jesus was the source of ACIM.
2. What is documented/ documentable, without interpolation on this question (in so far as I can ascertain), is that Wapnick posits that "ACIM teaches an entirely different perspective on reality in contrast with the most commonly accepted perspective on the fundamental nature of reality". From this it follows that any debate on the "reality of a historical Jesus who supposedly dictated ACIM to Schucman" cannot be easily discussed in the context of this article, while using the most commonly accepted suppositions about the fundamental nature of reality which are most commonly assumed within any traditional debate.
3. Thus this entire article seems to me to become a rather circular debate, especially without being able to first define whatever the different perspective on reality might be that is taught by ACIM, as posited by Wapnick.
4. It appears to me that the greatest number of suggestions in the vFD discussion are suggesting that this article might be best to merge into the main ACIM article.
5. I tend to agree with this seeming majority of the suggestions, and as such, I would like to propose that something like the following summary of the article might be merged into the ACIM article:

==ACIM's radical teaching on the unified nature of reality==

ACIM teaches that the fundamental nature of reality itself is in fact quite different from the evidence that the five senses might lead an observer to believe. Ultimately ACIM teaches that reality is in fact whole, united, indivisible and without pain, sorrow or lack of any kind. Further it teaches that the ultimate reality is nothing more than (or less than) boundless love. Clearly this perspective on reality is at odds with the evidence of the five senses. From this very radical premise as taught by ACIM on the fundamental nature of reality, numerous questions might arise. Amongst these questions are questions about the very nature of Jesus, religion, God and the universe itself. Such questions as these have been the subjects of debate amongst ACIM students.

Mixing of definitions in the article

Andrew,

I've never read any material where any ACIM students claim that they believe that ACIM was transmitted roughly in the tradition of spiritualism, wherein a living person communicates with the disembodied spirit of a deceased individual. My sense is that when pressed, the typical ACIM student would most probably explain that ACIM was transmitted "in a unique manner, not truly akin to spiritism, and that whatever state of embodiment or disembodiment that Jesus may actually abide in is not clearly known, and that the exact status of Jesus' body is not generally regarded as a central question or concern amongst ACIM students." In your supporting citation for the lead paragraph, there is no mention of the word spiritism, or of whatever state of embodiment Jesus might or might not supposedly exist in. Your claim here seems to me to be in great need of much better citation.

Also, nowhere have I seen any claims anywhere that Wapnick has made that a man named Jesus, commonly regarded as the founder of the Christian faith, never existed in the sense that we usually associate with the word exist. In this article you seem to me to be mixing different meanings of the phrase "to exist", as Wapnick would define this phrase. On one certain level, I think it is safe to assume that Wapnick would agree that a man named Jesus did exist, exactly in the same sense that you and I now exist. In fact he has written that "to say without qualification that the voice she (Schucman) heard was the voice of the historical Jesus is to distort and severely dilute the profound and radical message of A Course in Miracles."

From this statement by Wapnick I take it that all we need do is to merely qualify our assertion that "ACIM was written by Jesus", by simply stating that "many ACIM students believe that the Jesus of ACIM was a man, but that the recorded Biblical and historical accounts of Jesus' teachings may differ somewhat from ACIM's account of Jesus' teachings."

On another deeper level I think Wapnick might explain that none of us actually now exist or ever really have existed. To mix these two different definitions of the phrase "to exist" in the article, without first fully clarifying the contexts of the differing definitions, seems to me to be somewhat confusing.

True, Wapnick did once testify during the copyright controversy that the man Jesus was an illusion, however he also stated in that same testimony that all physical perceptions are illusory or dream based. So it seems to me that to repeat Wapnick's statement (and ACIM's statement) that the man Jesus was an illusion, without also contextualizing this by also explaining that this is meant only in the sense that all physical sensations are illusory, is perhaps a bit confusing for a typical reader, no?

-Scott P. 17:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott: I'm just out the door and only have a few minutes to reply. So, this has to be brief. In my personal conversations with Ken, he has told me that he does indeed believe that Jesus Christ existed, but that he believes that most likely he didn't go by that name. Ken has, however, told me that he does not believe that Jesus Christ is the literal source of the Course. He has published this in his books and on the website, both of which I link to.

With regard to the reference of Spiritualism, no, I have never read it stated EXACTLY as I state it in this article. But look at the basis of Spiritualism, and then look at how most Course students believe about ACIM, you will see what I mean. The basis of Spiritualism is communication with a dead person. Jesus Christ is believed to have died over 2000 years ago. If the Course is literally channeled from Jesus, as many Course students say, then what you have is a living person (Helen Schucman) communicating with a dead person (Jesus Christ). Hence my description of this being "roughly in the tradition of Spiritualism."

The difficulty with this article is that the topic itself is controversial amoung Course students, and therefore simply discussing the topic gets into splicing of hairs. Then, there is very little written about it, because it is a very high level concept, only "advanced" students of ACIM face this issue. Lastly, to outsiders, the WHOLE DAMNED ISSUE of ACIM and channeling looks like "nuttery" and therefore it is hard to make an encyclopedia article about it. There IS an article to be made, here, but it's going to be very difficult because this article has resistence from just about every angle: within the Course community, between different factions of the Course community, and from within people unfamiliar with the Course. Anyway, gotta go. Andrew Parodi 00:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Hi Scott: I'm back from my errand. I thought I'd mention why I inserted the reference "roughly in the tradition of Spiritualism." In short, I inserted that in an attempt to clarify the meaning for others who are not familiar with the entire concept.

This whole concept and discussion is difficult for many of us who study the Course, but can you imagine how strange and nonsensical it must appear to people who don't know anything about the Course? As you saw, some on the other page suggested that this article was in reality a hoax or a spoof.

However, most people have a concept of what Spiritualism is, and so I figured that inserting that reference and comparison would be helpful.

I didn't mean that there are students of ACIM who believe that Helen Schucman sat down in front of a crystal ball, or that she joined with others who held hands around a table, and then the spirit of Jesus Christ entered the room. All I meant was this:

• At base, the whole concept of Spiritualism is based on communicating with, and receiving messages from, a dead person.

• At base, some Course students believe that Helen Schucman received messages from a dead person, in this case Jesus Christ.

I know it may be difficult, perhaps even offensive, for some people to think of Jesus in terms of "a dead person." But technically, that's what he is. Go read the page Jesus Christ and see that it says he is believed to have died about 2000 years ago. Therefore, anyone who claims to communicate with or receive messages from him is someone who is claiming to communicate with a dead person.

I think the main problem here is that the only times this issue has been addressed, it has been addressed for people within the Course community, and therefore Ken puts it in Course terms. But how do you justify and explain this all to someone outside of the Course community (which would be the style a Misplaced Pages article would want to adhere to)? Well, that's nearly impossible. Attempting to do so gets one slapped with accusations of "Original Research" or, worse, "Hoax." Andrew Parodi 01:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the single point that you may not be representing as clearly as it could be here, would be the question of: whether or not most ACIM students regard Jesus as a "dead person". Personally I have never heard or read where any ACIM students view Jesus as a "dead person".

Most probably this reflects the most common Christian background of ACIM students, coming mostly from a traditional Christian background, and also the teaching of ACIM. Both of these teachings posit that after Jesus died, he was then resurrected, whatever that may mean, and that as such, in neither teaching would it be accurate to refer to Jesus as currently a "dead person", whatever that may mean. Unless you can find at least one published reference, stating that most ACIM students view Jesus as a "dead person", I think that this assertion here may not be accurate.

It seems to me that it would be more accurate to report that "most ACIM students hold that the text was received by Schucman from Jesus Christ, roughly in the tradition of channelling." (Whatever channelling may mean?) To assert or imply that most ACIM students view Jesus as "dead" does seem to me to be a somewhat inaccurate representation of the most common beliefs of ACIM students, and also to be a misrepresentation of the most common beliefs held by those who consider themselves to be Christians as well, don't you think?

Please note, the consensus for this article seems to be consolidating around a merge. I personally feel that we really need to start thinking along those lines, and that we need to try to summarize it in a single paragraph, before we wake up one day and find this article as having been deleted. Thanks, -Scott P. 14:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Scott:

I suppose there are two issues here: the issue of the "historical" Jesus Christ, and issues of faith.

I recall in Catholic school being told over and over that "Jesus died for (my) sins." Jesus's death is explicit in Christianity. I'm sure we all remember Mel Gibson's movie Passion of the Christ, which, I am told, consisted of about two hours of watching Jesus be beat to death. I believe that most Christians, be they Catholic or Protestant, do believe that Jesus Christ died - just as everyone else in this world dies.

From an historical perspective, neutral non-Christian researchers also view that Jesus lived and then died.

So, combining these two views, the "believer" and the neutral "historical researcher," we come to the consensus that Jesus Christ did indeed die. In fact, his death is supposedly the mark of the beginning of our calendar.

Whether Jesus Christ rose from the dead, that is a matter of faith - faith that not everyone shares.

The challenge here is simply the attempt to explain to the non-ACIM student what the people on the Endeavor Academy/Circle of Atonement side believe. They believe that Jesus, though not in a body at the time (during the 1960s), delivered ACIM to Helen Schucman. I know you have an aversion to the term, but from a purely literal perspective this is basically the basis of Spiritualism. It is communication with a spirit not in a body; it is communication with the spirit of a person who has died. It is communication with a dead person.

How do you explain this in NPOV terms to someone who doesn't read ACIM? So far, the best I can come up with is to correlate the "literalist" views of Endeavor Academy/Circle of Atonement with the basis of Spiritualism.

Yes, it looks like "merge" is the consensus. So, yes, we had better get this worked out. And, boy, once it gets on the main page, wait for all hell to break loose. My prediction is that once back on the main page it will, once again, be edited out of existence. -- Andrew Parodi 04:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Another Spiritualism parallel: Hi Scott:

It just occurred to me that even within the view you suggest, there is another Spiritualism parallel.

Let's just take what you say as fact. Let's say that Jesus Christ did indeed die, but then rose again from the dead. So, in this view, we would have Helen Schucman communicating with a person who was alive, right? In essence, we would have two living people communicating.

The question is, then, why doesn't the historical Jesus communicate in this same way with everyone? Why isn't everyone writing down books like ACIM?

Groups like Endeavor Academy, Circle of Atonement, those I refer to as the "literalists," answer this by suggesting (sometimes saying outright) that there was something very special about Helen Schucman.

But since when do you need to be a special person in order to communicate with another living person?

If Jesus Christ is alive, why is it that only some people can communiate with him?

If Jesus Christ is indeed alive, then he is "alive" in a very different way from the rest of us.

In Spiritualism, you have a medium. The medium has special powers and can communicate with those that others can't communicate with. This is basically what the "literalists" say about Helen: she was special and could communicate with Jesus in a way that the rest of us cannot.

All this aside, my personal opinion is very dry and linear. If indeed there was a historical man named "Jesus Christ," he, just like everyone, died. The most succinct way to say it is that some believe Helen communicated with a person who died around the year "0". Whether he rose again or not is an issue of faith. Andrew Parodi 04:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Phony Speculation on Helen's Interior States.

Please discuss any major changes to the page on the Talk Page first, okay? I have reverted the changes you made. Helen Schucman never described that Course as consisting of the exact words she wrote down. In fact, she didn't even write down "exact words." She took the material down in short hand. -- Andrew Parodi 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

First Andrew, I reject the notion anyone but Helen Schucman could be privy to her interior states. As such Helen Schucman's own testimony and description of her inner state during the time of scribing the Course material should suffice without adding unnecessary, agenda-driven speculation.

I know for many years, Helen's interior state during the time of scribing, was almost universally described as a "type of inner dictation," of an inner voice who identified himself as the historical Jesus. No further speculation on her inner state was given or apparently needed. Her own words and testimony sufficed. So if you wish to speculate on Helen's inner state as channeling or spiritualism with disembodied spirits then describe this as speculation and furthermore, give the reasons for speculation. If you wish to describe her inner state during the scribing then use her own words and testimony, not someone else's words and speculations on her inner state.

It seems to me the phrase "a type of inner dictation," or "inner dictation," would be sufficient to explain how Endeavor and Circle of Atonement view Helen's scribing process without adding unnecessary, discrediting speculation. Unless of course, this article is agenda-driven and you are writing with less than a NPOV.

As to your point for reverting my editing, one would assume that if Helen described her scribing as "inner dictation," then that dictation came in the form of exact words from the inner voice she described, for what else could demand her taking down short hand notes? What else but exact words would later demand correction of dictation errors from the voice? If you are somehow claiming that Schucman did not in fact, "hear," an inner voice, then you a speculating on Helen's mental state against her own testimony. And clearly, if in fact, Helen "heard," an inner voice by HER own testimony, then one must assume that voice spoke in exact words. What would this voice do? Speak in inexact words?

Moreover, if you are claiming somehow she did not "hear," exact words, then I'd like you to show evidence how you know this, and how this is not simply speculation on another's interior mental state. In addition, if you are claiming Helen felt emotions or inspiration which her mind somehow turned into the "illusion" of hearing an inner voice and "exact words," then again, tell me how you know this? At any rate, these speculative claims clearly oppose Helen's own testimony that she is NOT the author of the Course material.

Finally, explain why nuancing, speculating and making suspect the scribing process of A Course in Miracles in NOT an agenda driven to discredit and make suspect the truths and teachings of the Course material, the scribe of this material and the first-person author of the material?

Its stands to reason that if one of the original editors and the foremost course commentator in the world --Ken Wapnick --does not trust the source of the Course material to honestly reveal its own identity then everything in the Course material must be suspect. In other words, and clearly, if the source could easily write as and reveal itself as "universal inspiration," rather than as the historical Jesus, then the source lied. And no amount of appeal to speaking in the language of symbols and myths will mitigate this lie. If the source lied about its identity as the historical Jesus, then logically, the source of the material is impeached as capable of telling untruths, and The Course material itself must be suspect.

As such and clearly, the advantage of not unnecessarily speculating on scribing, or recklessly attempting to meta-comment and impeach the first-person author of ACIM, is that the Course material advoids prima facie suspicion. As such this unnecessary impeachment of the author of A Course in Miracles only serves Ken Wapnick and clearly does not serve The Course material.

Jl2200 10:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no agenda with this page other than to present a page juxtaposing both sides of the issue, which is done by quoting from many people who have commented on the matter. And before you accuse me of presenting "phony speculation" about Helen's inner state (which I haven't done), perhaps you should reread your above statement:

"As to your point for reverting my editing, one would assume that if Helen described her scribing as "inner dictation," then that dictation came in the form of exact words from the inner voice she described, for what else could demand her taking down short hand notes?"

You are attempting to interpret Helen's inner state here.

~ Well, Andrew --actually I am not interpreting H's inner state. The thesis statement of this paragraph and section is that some Course students believe in a literal communication between Jesus Christ and Helen Schucman. As such I am editing for clarity what these students "believe" about H's mental state during scribing. Which is much more accurate than your distorted paraphrase about what these students actually believe and how these student (your example is Endeavor and COA) would phrase these beliefs.

~As such your rejections of these edits on the grounds on the grounds what these students believe is not logically plausible because of nuances of what the process of inner dictation and shorthand implies is dumb. What you believe as a writer does not address what course students, who hold a position of literal communication, believe.

~I suggest if the purpose of this paragraph is to articulate what some course students believe about literal communication, then this is best served by supplying a quote, not a footnote --of someone advocating this position such as Robert Perry or Greg Mackie. Inserting your own confusing speculations about what this literal position means is NOT a NPOV. Phrasing your speculation in way which discredits what is essentially a position of religious faith and trust in the literal words of A Course in Miracles is NOT a NPOV. Unnecessarily paraphrasing what is readily available as a quote is not a NPOV. Clearly if you don't understand the claims and the arguments of people articulating a literal position, then you shouldn't be exhibiting your confusion in this article.

~ As such --the content of this paragraph should accurately reflect and articulate what literalist course students believe. This has nothing to do with Helen's mental state per se, rather what literals believe about Helen's mental state. And that belief can be most accurately demonstrated and articulated by quotes, not footnotes.

My statement that Helen took down the Course in shorthand is not an interpretation of her inner state, but merely a description of fact. Unless her inner voice "spoke" to her in shorthand (something she has never said, and that I have never heard of happening), then we can safely say that she didn't take down the "exact words" she heard.

~Well Andrew, if you like to play with nuances about short hand, when your paragraph used the phrase "exact words," I can certainly accommodate you in seeking accuracy of written communication.

The request that major changes be discussed is standard Misplaced Pages practice and has nothing to do with my perspective one way or another. Your insertions were POV because Helen never said that the words she took down were "exactly" what she "heard." If you find me a statement by Helen that says that, then I won't contest you changing the page. -- Andrew Parodi 12:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, Andrew better than finding a quote I can write with a qualifier. I'm more than willing to present the literalistic position in as few words possible without unnecessary polemic speculation. Jl2200 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

See comments below. -- Andrew Parodi 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

About my latest revert of edits

JI2200 recently inserted this paragraph:

This perspective holds that the communication between Helen Schucman and Jesus Christ is best described by Schucman's own description of her scribing of the material later know as A Course in Miracles, such as her description of "inner dictation," and "hearing an inner voice," which told her, "This is A Course in Miracles, please take notes." This perception would argue that Schucman's inner state during what she described as "scribing," is by nature and principle not subject to outside analysis , rather her description of her scribing is primary and her own testimony assumed as truthful as a condition of accepting the truthfulness of the first-person author of A Course in Miracles. Moreover, this position would largely agree that the literal communication between Helen Schucman and the historical Jesus is an act of faith, though not necessarily an act of religious faith. This is because the term, "religious," is itself often a matter of controversy among course students.

I have reverted the paragraph back to the way it was for the following reasons.

1. There are no outside sources to back up this paragraph.

2. The paragraph is very POV. (Example: It is point-of-view to say that religion is often a matter of controversy.)

The challenge with this entire article is.... we are attempting to discuss and describe a very high level aspect of A Course In Miracles, but to do so on a page not geared toward people who know a lot about the Course. It is my opinion, and I think that this is standard Misplaced Pages practice, that this page should be accessible to someone with little to no knowledge of A Course In Miracles. The obvious problem this presents us is that the concept itself is very hard for anyone not familiar with A Course In Miracles to understand.

My description of the "literalist" viewpoint is not POV. I have no intention of forcing anyone to perceive literalists in any particular way. My only intention is to create a way for someone unfamiliar with the whole concept to understand what we are talking about, what the "literalists" are talking about.

I have a feeling that you most likely will not like what I have done, and I fear that this will turn into an "edit war." I don't want that to happen, and so I am thinking that perhaps we need some outside source to come in and moderate. The problem with that, obviously, is that hardly anyone outside of Course circles really "gets" what this discussion is about. The other problem is that anyone inside Course circles is too close to this topic to discuss it neutrally. -- Andrew Parodi 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

My latest revert

Please stop inserting that paragraph into the article. You are presenting your own view and interpretation without backup evidence. Further, the paragraph contains spelling and punctuation errors. You can't just speak for yourself on this.

Both the "literalists" and the "symbolics" say that they agree with what Helen did/said/experienced. You can't really interject something like, "We believe that our view is best described by what Helen experienced...." because neither side really knows what Helen experienced. We are not Helen. What exactly Helen experienced is what the whole debate is about; or at least it's a huge part of it.

I really think we need some outside opinion here, because the Misplaced Pages guideline is that a revert made three times is the limit per day. So, this is the limit per day. Anything more constitutes an edit war. At the very least, could the paragraph contain correct spelling and punctuation and refrain from attempts to use Helen Schucman herself as leverage?

This article isn't so much about what Helen Schucman thought, but what we (those left here reading the Course after Helen's death) are saying. -- Andrew Parodi 08:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Analyzing what's wrong with the paragraph

Here's the paragraph in question, again:

This perspective holds that the communication between Helen Schucman and Jesus Christ is best described by Schucman's own description of her scribing of the material later know sic as A Course in Miracles, such as her description of "inner dictation," and "hearing an inner voice," which told her, "This is A Course in Miracles, please take notes." This perception would argue that Schucman's inner state during what she described as "scribing," is by nature and principle not subject to outside analysis , rather her description of her scribing is primary and her own testimony assumed as truthful as a condition of accepting the truthfulness of the first-person author of A Course in Miracles. Moreover, this position would largely agree that the literal communication between Helen Schucman and the historical Jesus is an act of faith.

1. I think it is POV to say "this perspective is best described by.... Who has said it is best described that way?

2. I don't mean to sound offensive, but the way the first sentence is written, it is almost impossible to understand. It's incredibly vague. Someone familiar with ACIM would have trouble understanding it. Someone unfamiliar with ACIM would be completely lost.

3. Who has ever said it is not subject to "outside analysis"?

4. Again, this sentence is almost impossible to understand: "rather her description of her scribing is primary and her own testimony assumed as truthful as a condition of accepting the truthfulness of the first-person author of A Course in Miracles." In fact, I have no idea what it means.

5. And, yet again, what does this sentence mean? "Moreover, this position would largely agree that the literal communication between Helen Schucman and the historical Jesus is an act of faith." That is just a sentence without meaning. What constitutes an act of faith? Who ever used the term "act of faith" to describe what Helen did? To my understanding, the only way it has ever been termed has been "scribing" or "channeling." I've never heard the term "act of faith."

Please stop inserting this paragraph into the article. It simply makes no sense. -- Andrew Parodi 08:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

___________

1. I think it is POV to say "this perspective is best described by.... Who has said it is best described that way?

Andrew, one is describing a perceptive, an argument and a point of view. It incumbent to give to give the best paraphrase of the general arguments and beliefs of a wide variety of literalist.

If I am committing some error here then you are doing exactly the same here in equating Helen's scribing to communicating with the dead.

You are being unreasonable allowing yourself to paraphrase this position with out documentation, while demanding I cannot paraphrase this position without documentation.

But no one but you has ever described it that way. That's pov.

Regarding my statement about "communication with a dead person", go read the article about Jesus Christ and see that it says that Jesus Christ died. If Helen Schucman literally communicated with Jesus Christ, then she communicated with "a dead person". There is plenty documentation to back up the assertion that Jesus Christ died. In fact, isn't that the most common saying you hear in Christianity, that "Jesus died for your sins"? -- Andrew Parodi 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

2. I don't mean to sound offensive, but the way the first sentence is written, it is almost impossible to understand. It's incredibly vague. Someone familiar with ACIM would have trouble understanding it. Someone unfamiliar with ACIM would be completely lost.

I don't mean to sound offensive but the sentence is clear and if you can't understand the rhetoric of high level philosophy, then just perhaps you shouldn't be dealing with complicated philosophical concepts.

I can certainly understand high level philosophy. I can also spot bad writing when I see it. I think the entire paragraph is badly written, including run-on sentences, a spelling error, and bad punctuation. -- Andrew Parodi 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Who has ever said it is not subject to "outside analysis"?

Let's see. People who have faith. And this is essentially a faith based position.

Moreover, this is a position. It not that some people don't dispute the position. And it not that some people such as Wapnick will not attempt to analysis Helen's interior mental state. Rather its that the literalist position does not accept analysis of H's interior states.

But I have never heard a "literalist" say that Helen's scribing cannot be subjected to "outside analysis." You are the first to say that, and even YOU are contradicting this claim by continuing to debate this topic with me. -- Andrew Parodi 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

4. Again, this sentence is almost impossible to understand: "rather her description of her scribing is primary and her own testimony assumed as truthful as a condition of accepting the truthfulness of the first-person author of A Course in Miracles." In fact, I have no idea what it means.

Well, Andrew if you can't understand this sentence, I suggest its because you have little formal training in philosophy. Which would make you similar in this respect to Ken Wapnick.

On one level, yes, I can understand what you are saying. What I can't understand is why you would say it this way. I can't understand why you would write such a terribly written sentence. Wouldn't you want your sentence to be succinct and crisp, as it is being inserted into an encyclopedic article that strives for such a tone?

All you are basically saying is that the "literalists" believe they are the ones who are correct in this topic and that they reference Helen's experience as evidence that they are correct. If you are going to say that, then say that. Bogging it down in this sort of circular and poetic prose only makes it incredibly vague and frankly uninteresting. And how many times can you use the word "truthful" in one run-on sentence? -- Andrew Parodi 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

5. And, yet again, what does this sentence mean? "Moreover, this position would largely agree that the literal communication between Helen Schucman and the historical Jesus is an act of faith." That is just a sentence without meaning. What constitutes an act of faith? Who ever used the term "act of faith" to describe what Helen did? To my understanding, the only way it has ever been termed has been "scribing" or "channeling." I've never heard the term "act of faith."

Who ever heard of scribing being described as communication with the dead? This is pure Wapnick anti-Christian, anti-historical Jesus BS.

For clarity, i'll add belief into this sentence. The act of faith, is NOT a description of Helen's scribing. Rather the acceptance of Helen's description of her scribing as literal communication with the historical Jesus is an act of faith, or taken on faith by literalists.

When someone says I "believe" the historical Jesus is the author of ACIM, this is a essentially a position of faith. It is not a position base on reasoned argument from premises. Rather a simple statement of faith or what is believed. The same reasoning holds when a Christian says I believe Jesus rose from the dead. This is faith or an act of faith. What exactly don't you understand by the term, "faith,"?

For clarification, Wapnick has never referred to Helen as communicating with "a dead person"; nothing I have ever read indicates that Wapnick is anti-Christian (I recall that prior to him finding ACIM, he studied to become a monk; read his Misplaced Pages page), and I have never seen any anti-historical stance in his position. But if that's your opinion, so be it.

The problem with your entries and attitude is that this is an encyclopedic article that strives for a base of reasoned argument. This isn't a place for you to insert your confessions of faith.

I have already clarified that my assertion that Jesus Christ died is verified in many places and is in fact central to Christianity. But you have no backup evidence that Helen's channeling is described as an "act of faith". If you ever find anyone of note who has said that, then please insert that description but link to their quote. And state something like, "So-n-so has described the scribing as an act of faith."

In this paragraph, all you are basically saying, "We on the 'literalist' side are correct." And then you are trying to disguise your stance with poetic and rhetorical prose, which is precisely why the sentence is so badly written. -- Andrew Parodi 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the edit war

I think we officially have an "edit war" going on here now. I am going to request that someone else come in here and try to moderate the situation.

I continue to revert (i.e., remove) the paragraph you insert, because I don't think it's appropriate for an "encyclopedic" article. To be honest, I think it is "poetic" in a way, but that is not what Misplaced Pages strives for. The encyclopedic tone is much more dry and linear.

The paragraph you inserted can basically be boiled down to this: Helen Schucman literally heard the voice of Jesus Christ. You simply say that in a very round about way and with a very run-on sentence.

Also, please keep this in mind: the page you are editing, was proposed for deletion. It was only after a great deal of work, turning it into the page that it is now, that a consensus came to NOT delete this page. In other words, the page you are trying to change has already met with the "approval" of people who are neutral on this topic. That doesn't mean that the article can't grow, however.

It's obvious that you have an issue with:

2. Ken Wapnick and FACIM's perspective.

If you would like a different term than "akin to a seance," could we try to work together to come up with an alternative? Again, we have to find a way to make this understandable to someone who doesn't read ACIM. This isn't a page specifically for ACIM students. It's a page for everybody.

And with that, I think I am going to go ask someone else to come in here and settle this. I hate to go round and round and round. I don't really have the energy for this anymore. This page has been nothing but a headache. -- Andrew Parodi 04:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

_______________________

I think we officially have an "edit war" going on here now. I am going to request that someone else come in here and try to moderate the situation.

I continue to revert (i.e., remove) the paragraph you insert, because I don't think it's appropriate for an "encyclopedic" article. To be honest, I think it is "poetic" in a way, but that is not what Misplaced Pages strives for. The encyclopedic tone is much more dry and linear.

~Well, Andrew since the paragraph in question purports to be an ACCURATE and UNBIASED synopsis or paraphrase of a wide variety of course students who believe in the literal communication of Helen with the historical Jesus, then its incumbent on the writer of this paragraph to give the best, most reasoned articulation of this overall position. (Much as you choose to do for the Wapnick position as symbol.)

~How exactly does it serve a reader who wishes to understand what literalists believe, to read your paragraph? Your paragraph attempts to discredit the literalist position by unnecessarily speculating on the mechanics of the scribing, (Seance,clairvoyance,) when the literalist position hold no such speculation of Helen's interior state is sound or warranted, by its faith-based position.

The paragraph you inserted can basically be boiled down to this: Helen Schucman literally heard the voice of Jesus Christ. You simply say that in a very round about way and with a very run-on sentence.

~So what? That is what literalist believe. And they believe this on faith. Simple. I'm perfectly willing to limit articulation of the literalist position, if you are willing to limit articulation of the Wapnick symbolic position.

~On the other hand, I think it inappropriate for an unbiased article to present one side of this issue unfavorably, and give an unfair amount of time and space and favorable argument to the other position.

Also, please keep this in mind: the page you are editing, was proposed for deletion. It was only after a great deal of work, turning it into the page that it is now, that a consensus came to NOT delete this page. In other words, the page you are trying to change has already met with the "approval" of people who are neutral on this topic. That doesn't mean that the article can't grow, however.

~Yeah, right.

It's obvious that you have an issue with:

1. The term "akin to a seance." Others have had issue with that term as well.

~That's because "akin to seance," is an unnecessarily discrediting phrase. It also denotes inappropriate speculation and confusion, which can be simplified and clarified by simply using H's own words to describe what happened, without unnecessary speculation. Moreover the term is inaccurate. Hearing and inner voice and taking down short hand notes of what this inner voice says is more "akin," to what is described in metaphysical literature as automatic writing, no a seance. A seance involves the channel speaking the words of a spirit to an immediate audience. There is no evidence that Helen when she scribed spoke the words of her inner voice to an immediate audience, though this might have happened on occasion. As such seance is not an appropriate term to use to describe her scribing. Rather H's own words are the most appropriate description.

2. Ken Wapnick and FACIM's perspective.

~Really? I think you have an issue with course interpretations which differ from Wapnick's interpretation. And your biased viewpoint is clearly shown in this article heavily weighed in favor of the Wapnick position, when it purports to be a fair and unbiased comparison of positions.

If you would like a different term than "akin to a seance," could we try to work together to come up with an alternative? Again, we have to find a way to make this understandable to someone who doesn't read ACIM. This isn't a page specifically for ACIM students. It's a page for everybody.

~Too funny. How would someone unfamiliar with ACIM, not understand H's own description of hearing an inner voice which dictated the Course material? Sounds simple enough, unless you wish to impose your own confusion, speculation and biases on her simple and basic description.

And with that, I think I am going to go ask someone else to come in here and settle this. I hate to go round and round and round. I don't really have the energy for this anymore. This page has been nothing but a headache. -- Andrew Parodi 04:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

~Well, then don't attempt to published biased articles favoring a Wapnick interpretation, when your supposed purpose is to write an unbiased articles. Anyone can see by the number of Wapnick quotes that your article is heavily polemic in favor of Wapnick.

Jl2200 21:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is hardly "polemical." And it is not biased in Ken Wapnick's favor.

A little history of the article:

This article was proposed for deletion a while back. (The deletion discussion is above.) It was proposed for deletion for two main reasons:

1. People thought this was not a real topic. (One person even suggested that this whole page was a joke or a spoof.)

2. People thought it was "original research" on my part. That is, they accused me of not having sources and not providing enough access to those sources, and not presenting the sources.

So, during those days when it was being debated whether this article should be deleted, I was struggling to find outside sources that would verify that this is a real issue. Therefore, every outside source that I could find, I included in the article. During the course of the deletion debate, the article changed forms dramatically. I rearranged the article, added as many quotes as I could find, and I included the picture of the Ken Wapnick product that discusses this issue. The page that was nominated for deletion and the page that you see now, are very different.

During that deletion debate that created the page you see now, my only intention was to include as much information as I could find that would verify that this is a real topic, regardless of which "side" I was quoting from at the time. I didn't even think in those terms, quite frankly. The very fact that the issue exists was what I needed to verify in order to save this page from deletion.

Therefore, if it seems that there are more quotes by Ken Wapnick on the page than anyone else (I haven't done a count, quite frankly), that isn't a result of a bias on my part, but an inevitable result of the fact that he is the main person who addresses this issue. That is also why there is a picture of his product on the front page. To my knowledge, no one else has published a product on this topic, and I could find no picture of said product. If you can find one by someone else, please include. (And please note, the article quotes from those who oppose Wapnick's viewpoint, mentions that he and FACIM are largely the only teachers who teach that "symbolic" viewpoint, and the article opens with a quote by someone other than Wapnick.)

My suggestion is that nothing by Ken Wapnick be deleted, but that if you find other products or quotes by others please add them to the page. We need as much verifiable evidence on this page as possible that makes it evident that this is a real topic.

Thank you. -- Andrew Parodi 22:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is hardly "polemical." And it is not biased in Ken Wapnick's favor.

It is most certainly biased in Wapnick's favor.

A little history of the article:

This article was proposed for deletion a while back. (The deletion discussion is above.) It was proposed for deletion for two main reasons:

1. People thought this was not a real topic. (One person even suggested that this whole page was a joke or a spoof.)

2. People thought it was "original research" on my part. That is, they accused me of not having sources and not providing enough access to those sources, and not presenting the sources.

What I find is an extremely sloppy article whose only purpose as a topic is to advance Wapnick's take on the subject. Moreover, what you call a controversy is largely an intellectual debate between a few Course commentators. There is no evidence this is controversial for the assumed large numbers of course students. In fact there is no evidence how controvery is a significant catagory in a community without central organization or doctrine, where everyone is free to believe or not believe what they choose.

In addition, you almost entirely miss the legal context where Course authorship supporting copright was indeed controversial. If you missed the copyright legal battles because you were still in high school, you might research that part of this controversy.

Jl2200 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If this isn't a controversial topic, then why are we having an edit war over it? If it isn't a controversial topic, then why does discussion of it always get heated? If it isn't a controversial topic, then why did it result in a multi-million-dollar lawsuit that caused a great divide within the Course community?

I am the first to admit that the article is currently far from being the best on Misplaced Pages, and far from being its full potential. That's because it is a stub.

You can continue to accuse it of being an attempt to advance Wapnick's perspective all you want. That isn't the case.

If you think that the article is sloppy, why not do what you can to improve it? Your recent edits only confused the matter. What you recently added suggested that both the "literalists" and the "symbolics" believe that Jesus is the literal source of the Course. That is not accurate.

I am going to talk to the other editor of this page to see if he can block you from editing this page any further. This page certainly needs work, but it does not need continued vandalism. And I don't need these continued bizarre accusations. -- Andrew Parodi 21:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________

Well actually Andrew, the symbolics believe Jesus is the literal source of The Course. With the exception that they believe Jesus is a symbol not a person. Hence all your discrediting garbage posted about Helen's scribing is also believed by the symbolics, with the exception again, that Jesus is a symbol not a person.

What I'd say, Andrew is you are hardly neutral. But wish to unfairly discredit a position of faith. Despite all this pseudo-intellectualism, the positions are not hard to understand. One is a simple position of faith and the other an appeal to symbolism over personage. With the irony that the symbolic position is still a position of faith.

Why? Because the faith is simply transferred from the person of Jesus, to faith in "universal inspiration." Which is why I suspect you reject the introduction of faith into this article. Any real discussion of these two positions would reveal that Wapnick's position is also a position of faith, rather than a sophisticated trans-psychological position.

After all, skeptics of ACIM would see no more reason to believe the Course information came directly from Jesus, than believe it somehow came from a ghost-like, abstract, spectral "universal inspiration."

I'd say lets get a neutral third party into this discussion.

Jl2200 22:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You are the non-neutral one because you will not even acknowledge the point of view held by those who hold the "symbolic" view of Jesus as source. For those of us who hold that Jesus is the "symoblic" source of the Course, "Jesus" is a word and symbol for a universal form of love that cannot be defined or held to any material form. Therefore, no, we do not LITERALLY believe that Jesus Christ is the literal source of ACIM. That is why we are not referred to as being on the "literal" side of the interpretation.

Further, those of us on the "symbolic" side are more aligned with Buddhism, Christian Science, and Vedanta Hinduism, which teaches that individual identity is ultimately itself an illusion. Therefore, the very issue of Jesus having been an actual person is not a very big issue for us, because we view that the Course is teaching us that we ourselves are not even ultimately real.

You simply have no understanding of the "symbolic" viewpoint, and by your attempts to distort (with your editing) our position, and by your request that the entire page be deleted, you demonstrate no desire to understand our viewpoint. -- Andrew Parodi 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

_________________

You are the non-neutral one because you will not even acknowledge the point of view held by those who hold the "symbolic" view of Jesus as source.

• • • Andrew, I'm more than willing to allow you explain the symbolic pov however you wish. I'm have no investment in that viewpoint. The only point in placing your paragraph on the literalist in your paragraph on the symbolists is to demonstrate how discrediting is your pov and word choices. Moreover the symbolists only have a different interpretation of events. Its not as though the symbolists contend that Helen didn't believe she talked to a "dead Jesus," only that they don't believe she did. Its unfair to discredit the literalist point of view by a writing a discrediting and an inaccurate articulation of their postion. Especially when you can find no source describing the scribing as "akin to a seance."

• • • • Moreover, the symbolic position is just as much a faith-based position, as the literalists. And this should be recognized. The difference is one has faith in the historical Jesus, while the symbolists wish to hide their faith in "universal inspiration," by a pseudo-intellectual, trans-personal arguement. The deceit here is you wish to ridicule the literalists for their faith in the historical Jesus as bizarre and unscientific, while hiding that the symbolists have "faith" in a completely unscientific "universal form of love." In the end what is being unfairly ridiculed is a belief in Jesus, in favor of a belief in abstraction.

This article should get out of the business of unfairly, inaccurately and prejudicially describing the literalists viewpoint. Its a faith based position that holds Helen heard an inner voice claiming to be the historical Jesus who dictated the ACIM material. You can't be digressing into phrases like talking to a dead Jesus without becoming partisan and prejudicial.

Just as I can't comment that Wapnick most likely rejects the historical Jesus as author because it bolstered his legal case for copyright.

Jl2200 05:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Here I Come to Save the Day!

OK, I'm here to offer my services as an arbitrator. I'm an entirely neutral third party with no vested interest whatsoever in this particular topic (I got here via the Random article link, above left), but a high motivation to sort out religion wars. AP and Jl, if you'll agree to let me arbitrate for a day or two, we'll see if we can't make you both happy. Wanna try? --The Editrix 21:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I mentioned on our respective Talk Pages, I would be very happy for someone else to come in here and help sort this out. This is getting exhausting.

Obviously, the main complaint here is the edit I made wherein I refer to the "literalists" as believing that Helen Schucman communicated with "a dead person" from whom she received A Course In Miracles. In this, I have been accused of being "point of view" in my edits. In my own defense, I say that this edit is NOT "point of view" because both theologians and historians agree that Jesus Christ lived and died. Here is the passage from the Misplaced Pages article on Jesus Christ:

"According to all four Gospels, Jesus died (emphasis mine, AP) before late afternoon, and the wealthy Judean Joseph of Arimathea, according to Mark (Mark 15:42–46) and Luke (Luke 23:50–56) a member of the Sanhedrin, received Pilate's permission to take possession of Jesus' body, placing it in a tomb. According to John, Joseph was joined in burying Jesus by Nicodemus, who appears in other parts of John's gospel (John 19:38–42). The three Synoptic Gospels tell of an earthquake and of the darkening of the sky from twelve until three that afternoon."

So, from an entirely linear and rational point of view, anyone who claims to communicate with or channel something from Jesus Christ is in essence claiming to communicate with a dead person. It says it right there. He died.

Both Scott and this other editor have taken exception my presentation of this aspect of ACIM, claiming that Jesus Christ was resurrected. I counter that such a position is a position of faith, not shared by all. There are historians who believe that Jesus Christ lived and died, but not that he resurrected. The only thing that both historians and theologians agree on is that Jesus Christ lived and died. The resurrection part is for the "believer" only. And I don't see why the believer's assertion that Jesus had a resurrection should negate my right to include the fact that he did die.

What I have been thinking is that perhaps instead of removing my contribution about the literalists believing that Helen Schucman communicated with a dead person, perhaps we could add to that description by saying something like, "Most literalists come from a mainstream Christian background and therefore also hold to the belief that after his death, Jesus Christ was resurrected. They therefore believe that it was after his resurrection that he communicated with Helen Schucman." -- Andrew Parodi 22:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

___________

Hi,

Now why would Andrew be arguing so strongly to write Jesus is dead? This does not reflect the position of the literalists. Nor was Jesus' status as living or dead an issue commented on by the scribe, Helen. Instead she offered simply statements of what occurred during her scribing. An inner voice which dictated the Course material.

Furthermore, it seems to me anyone can write in loaded terms which can discredit any position. For example, what does it serve to describe Catholic communion as a "cracker cult," rather than a belief that the mass turns the communal wafer into the real flesh of Jesus? Clearly, one description is discrediting and the other an accurate statement and accurate articulation of belief.

As such Andrew is arguing for the right to write his discrediting take on Helen's scribing --seances, talking with the dead, etc. In other words, arguing for his right to describe the literals' position as a "cracker cult." Its not surprising his digression into the metaphysics of Jesus'death, would be similar to arguing, "But the communion wafer IS a cracker!"

My take on this is either delete this article or present the opposing positions fairly. Presently the article is heavily slanted to the Wapnick point of view. One sees this by the unfair articulation of the literalist position, and the top heavy use of quotes from the symbolic position.

The problem here as I see it is Andrew wishes to use this article polemically. That is unfairly make the case for Wapnick, while denying others the right to present the case for the literalists.

As I see it, delete the article, or present a balanced view of the two positions, or structure the articles so both sides of this issue can present their views and rebuttals of the other position. If Misplaced Pages is Not a place for metaphysical arguments then advise Andrew of that fact. I get it.

Jl2200 23:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Whether Jesus died or not is not contingent upon my "argument" one way or another. It is established fact as per the commentary of centuries of theologians and scholars.

2. Do "literalists" not believe that Jesus died? If so, then they believe something very different from what is taught in mainstream Christianity. Please explain how it is that "literalists" do not believe that Jesus died.

3. I never said that Jesus' status as living or dead was a concern for Helen Schucman.

4. I have never used the term "fire cracker cult" to refer to anyone. The page's history is available to anyone who wants to search it.

5. I am not discrediting Helen's experience or anyone else's. There is no indication in anything I've written that I discredit seances or anything of the like (though I suspicion that you do, or else you wouldn't have such strong aversion to my reference of such things).

6. You do not have the right to single-handedly advise which articles are kept and which are deleted. If you look at the top of the page, you will see that this article was already proposed for deletion, and the consensus was to keep the article.

7. The problem is not that I am writing a "polemical," but that you do not like the topic and want it deleted. I'm sorry, but that's not the way Misplaced Pages works. A consensus to keep this article has already been made.

8. You are the one who keeps arguing here. I have no interest in arguing. I am interested in improving the article, and I wish you would take your own advise and do exactly that. Instead, you seem bent on accusing me of any number of unusual things and distorting what I have contributed. And you seem bent on continually repeating yourself. I have already addressed almost everything you've said.

-- Andrew Parodi 00:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

______________

 1. Whether Jesus died or not is not contingent upon my "argument" one way or another. It is established fact as per the commentary of centuries of theologians and scholars.

Too funny. That Jesus died is not an established fact. How can it be an established fact, when the entire issue resolves over whether death as we commonly understand death, is mis-understood? Moreover, theologians and scholars don't establish facts regarding wide ranging religious beliefs. Theologians establish doctrine. Academic scholars generally exempt themselves from commenting on whether a religious belief is a fact, or true or false, in the same sense that George W. Bush is president of the United States. You confuse the empirical fact that men die, with the religious belief that death is impossible.

Your viewpoint is inappropriate for evaluating religious beliefs. All you can say is this religious belief is not consistent with known empirical facts. Not that the relgious belief must be false because it is not consistent with empirical facts. In other word, you can give an opinion, but an opinion is not a refutation of faith.

Moreover, your opinion could in principle be proven wrong, if Jesus returned and said, "You guys, got it wrong."

   2. Do "literalists" not believe that Jesus died? If so, then they believe something very different from what is taught in mainstream Christianity. Please explain how it is that "literalists" do not believe that Jesus died.

Some course students who take the course literally understand there is no such thing as death. So yes, in this sense they believe Jesus never died, but continues to live.

   3. I never said that Jesus' status as living or dead was a concern for Helen Schucman.

So why comment on Jesus's life status? This is your opinion.

   4. I have never used the term "fire cracker cult" to refer to anyone. The page's history is available to anyone who wants to search it.

"Cracker cult," was used as an analogy and an example of discrediting words. Not a literal representation of what you had written.

   5. I am not discrediting Helen's experience or anyone else's. There is no indication in anything I've written that I discredit seances or anything of the like (though I suspicions that you do, or else you wouldn't have such strong aversion to my reference of such things).

Well this is disengenious. If you have no opinion on seances and speaking with the dead, its unlikely you would be arguing for the right use the term "dead" in relation to Jesus. Clearly the entire issue over whether Jesus is dead or alive is to be able to say, "Jesus is dead." Which is clearly discrediting.

   6. You do not have the right to single-handedly advise which articles are kept and which are deleted. If you look at the top of the page, you will see that this article was already propose for deletion, and the consensus was to keep the article.

Well, Andrew --add my opinion to those who think it should be deleted.

   7. The problem is not that I am writing a "polemical," but that you do not like the topic and want it deleted. I'm sorry, but that's not the way Misplaced Pages works. A consensus to keep this article has already been made.

The problem is the article is polemical in favor of Wapnick. Moreover, I am very, very familiar with the topic. I've often debated the topic with Wapnick associates such a Joe Jesseph. I also web mastered attorney Tom Whimore's ACIM copyright controversy site, which makes me conversant and informed in much of the legal aspects of this issue.

   8. You are the one who keeps arguing here. I have no interest in arguing. I am interested in improving the article, and I wish you would take your own advise and do exactly that. Instead, you seem bent on accusing me of any number of unusual things and distorting what I have contributed. And you seem bent on continually repeating yourself. I have already addressed almost everything you've said. 

I suggest you get off your high horse and get real. The article needs balance and honesty. Or it needs to be deleted.

Jl2200 00:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't run Misplaced Pages. The decision of whether this article is deleted or not is not yours to make. I've addressed all your concerns. I have nothing left to say to you. -- Andrew Parodi 01:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Working to arbitrate

OK folks, let's make nice for 48 hours while we try to work this out.

A few ground rules, if you will:

1. Deep breath, clean slate, ignore all previous insults from the other party.

2. Let's try to sort out just ONE point at a time. Each point, and response, is no longer than four sentences.

3. Believe in the concept of WikiInevitability. There are no emergencies here. Everything WILL eventually get sorted out to everyone's satisfaction.

4. AP, inasmuch as you are the original author, I'm going to make an arbitrary decision that we start by having you make your first, and MOST SALIENT argument. What ONE point most needs to be cleared up?

5. Jl, when AP finishes making his ONE point, will you respond in no more than four sentences?

6. When you've both addressed AP's ONE point, we'll try to sort it out, then let Jl make the next point.

Game?

Let's go! The Editrix 04:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the arbitration. Assuming that you mean we should refrain from making edits to the main page for 48 hours (and not that you mean refrain from making edits to the talk page for 48 hours), Andrew Parodi 05:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Thanks. The Editrix 06:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll make my four-sentence point:

• There is a distinction between Jesus Christ the historical person, and the Jesus Christ of Christian faith. Both Christians and non-Christians agree that the historical Jesus Christ existed, while only Christians believe he was the Son of God who rose from the dead after his crucifixion. Because this article appears on an encyclopedia geared toward both Christian and non-Christian readers, when I refer to "Jesus Christ" I refer specifically to the life and death of the historical person. Therefore, it is completely rational to say that those who believe that Helen Schucman channeled A Course In Miracles from the historical person are believing that Helen Schucman channeled it from "a dead person" or "a person who died". -- Andrew Parodi 05:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • First this paragraph purports to explain the position of so-called literalist course student, not Christians, and course student who literally interpret A Course in Miracles often do not believe in death, nor necessarily consider themselves Christians.

Hence characterizing the scribing of ACIM, as communication with a "dead person" is not an accurate account or articulation of the literalist position because the literalist would not and have not articulated Helen Schucman's scribing in terms of a communication with a "dead person," but rather this phrase represents an inaccurate and purposefully discrediting and confusing paraphrase of the literalist position.

If the purpose of this paragraph is to explain the beliefs of the literalists, then it seems me that it is incumbent on the writer to give the most accurate and well articulated paraphrase of a wide variety of course literalists, including course student such as myself who have spent years discussing such issue on a public newsgroup with achieves which can reference these discussions.

As such course literalists, who are not necessarily Christian, nor share all Christians beliefs, nor necessarily consider themselves Christians should not be artificially burdened with the argued Christian belief that Jesus died, and that the scribing of the ACIM was therefore "communication with the dead," nor should a position of faith be dishonestly articulated in terms of historical facts.

Jl2200 06:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jl. Give me a few minutes while I try to absorb these two points. Thanks! The Editrix 06:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Question 1

Question: OK, so Jl, are you saying a Literalist a). wouldn't believe in Death, period, or b). wouldn't believe in the death of Jesus Christ, in particular, or c). neither position accurately describes the Literalist world view. If c.), could you explain in one sentence how a Literalist understands the concept of Death? The Editrix 06:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • (A) Likely, not to belive in death, period.
  • Course students generally believe the phenomenal world is illusionary -- a dream, thus what is commonly called death is also illusionary. --Unsigned comment posted by User:Jl2200 01:30, 21 June 2006

Question 1a

Got it. How, then, would a Literalist describe the phenomenon we traditionally describe as "death"? IOW, would a Literalist participate in a funeral? Acknowledge that there is a changed state when a body ceases to be animated? If, in fact, there was a historical Jesus, what (in the Literalist world view) is his current state, and how -- if at all -- is his current state different from his state 2000ish years ago, when he was walking about in Judea? The Editrix 13:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Because of the highly personal nature of course study, which for many course students/readers amounts to self-study in isolation, it becomes more difficult to speak of specific beliefs. --Unsigned comment by Jl2200 12:14, 21 June 2006

OK, I can work with that premise. The Editrix 21:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, course students see the phenomenal world, in fact anything perceived as part of part of the "dream of separation," being dreamed by the sleeping Son of God, with the idea of awakening from this dream by healing the mind through Atonement, miracles and guidance of the Holy Spirit.--Unsigned comment by Jl2200 12:14, 21 June 2006

Sorry, that's gibberish to me. (And I went to law school, so I'm usually pretty facile at deciphering complex documents.) This terminology won't work in an encyclopedia because it's too jargon-laden, and doesn't hold any meaning to someone not involved in the movement. --The Editrix 21:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • The terminology is not meant to go in an encyclopedia. It is meant to answer your question what course students belive using the terminology of their belief. Its not gibberish if you understand the terms. On the other hand, because you obviously don't understand the terms, phrasing it as such was inappropriate. However you should not mistake me for an idealogue.

Jl2200 07:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Practically speaking, most course students fully participate in the dream world without contradiction, and without regressing to a mystical isolation, seeing the world as a school presenting opportunities to to heal the mind and eventually give up the dream/perception for knowledge and heaven. --Unsigned comment by Jl2200 12:14, 21 June 2006

Again, gibberish to me. Let me try to paraphrase using standard English terminology without the jargon. "Practically speaking, while most Course students embrace the philosophical concept of life as a 'dream world,' they continue to fully participate in the physical world, under the premise (doctrine?) that this participation presents educational and healing opportunities." Would that accurately convey your meaning? --The Editrix 21:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As such course students and so called literalists cs, would likely participate in a funeral, in fact might even participate and join traditional Christian churches, or Buddhist temples, and would have various explanations for death and the present condition of Jesus.

Now that's straightforward, no-jargon English. I'm sensing that perhaps AP's main objection isn't so much that you're proselytizing as it is that you have a tendency to lapse into ACIM jargon. --The Editrix 21:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Well, that's not the case. Actually I rarely write in ACIM jargon. And certainly did not in the edits offered on this page. Andrew's complaint was his paragraph about communicating with the dead, was rejected. Then I posted a paragraph describing the literalist position in standard philosophic rhetorical style. Andrew reject this edit. He also rejected an edit breaking up the philosophic rhetoric into easily understood declarative sentences. And also rejected the idea that the paragraph should be a simple rendition of Helen's own explanation of her scribing. I got the impression that he was upset that any case at all should be made for the literalist position.

Moreover, Andrew has filled this article with quotes with ACIM jargon, supporting the symbolist position. In addition, I'm surprised you don't seem to recognize Andrew use of pseudo-philosophical jargon, such as words being "symbols of symbols," which is cover and gloss for a linguistic argument which is never made, and clearly beyond the intellectual capabilities of people unversed in high level linguistic philosophy. In other words, the symbolists claim an argument which they never deliver or make.

Question 2

Question: AP, I'm unclear on the necessity of pointing out that Jesus died. It seems self-evident (IOW, it seems to be universally held that Jesus did, in fact, die.), so I think perhaps I'm not yet grasping your point. By definition, any communication with a person known to be deceased is communication with the dead, yes? Is there any particular way in which HS's claims of redaction of spiritual communication differ from the claims of, say Muhammad or Joseph Smith or Moses? The Editrix 07:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(I'm not sure if we're still limiting responses to four sentences.)

• From the "symbolics" point of view, there is indeed a HUGE difference between Helen Schucman's experience and that of Moses, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith. All of these men, known as "prophets" to their followers, claim to have contacted the spirits of people who had died, or to have contacted spirits not in bodies; that is, spirits with very definite personalities. From the perspective of those of us we have termed the "symbolics," Helen Schucman never claimed such a thing. From the "symbolics" perspective, the Course is the result of the combining of Helen's lifelong love of iampic pentameter (she loved Shakespeare, and much of the Course is written in blank verse), her lifelong interest in the Bible, and her career in psychology. From our perspective (and Kenneth Wapnick has claimed it was also Helen's perspective), she never meant literally that she heard the voice of another person, let alone that of the historical Jesus Christ. "Jesus" was just a symbol for the inner inspiration she felt as the Course came out of her. Many people have described the process of writing things down and not knowing "where" they come from, feeling that the inner inspiration came from somewhere "beyond" themselves; I've heard rock stars describe their song writing this way. From the "symbolics" perspective, that's what Helen felt, an inner inspiration beyond what she could describe; she simply chose the name "Jesus" as a name for that inner inspiration.

• I have articulated several times why I mention that the historical Jesus Christ died, and my point has been ignored repeatedly. I, who began this article against great resistance, was merely attempting to make this very complicated, circular, and difficult topic a little more linear and relatable to someone completely unfamiliar with the topic. Most people have no idea what A Course In Miracles is, but most people do know what seances and talking to the dead is about. They have a concept of that. That the historical Jesus Christ died is an established fact by many. If Helen talked to him, she was talking to a dead person. Talking to a dead person is akin to a seance. The only reason I put that in was so that someone unfamiliar with the "literalist" point of view would have a grounds for understanding them, though not necessarily grounds for experiencing their point of view. Certainly the Literalists themselves wouldn't term it that way, because it's perhaps too explicit for them, but I didn't think that Misplaced Pages articles were written with the intention of satisfying the subject of the article but with the intention of satisfying and educating the lay reader. -- Andrew Parodi 23:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Question 3

Question: Jl, if Jesus is the purported source of ACIM, how are its adherants not Christian? (I don't care what other Christians claim; I'm asking only about self definition.) I'm curious about whether it's correct to state that ACIM adherents don't self-define as Christian. --The Editrix 07:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Many course students don't define themselves as Christians because they see course teachings in opposition to the many of the teachings of traditional Christianity such as Jesus being the only Son of God, and traditional doctrines such as the belief in hell, and salvation coming from the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross.
  • Moreover this is obviously correct because the so-called Wapnick symbolists consider "Christianity mutually exclusive to Course teachings," in other words, Andrew would have to agree that Ken Wapnick, perhaps the most noted teacher of ACIM, does not consider himself a Christian.
  • On the other hand, there are many course students who consider themselves Christians, or a type of Christian, because they see the doctrinal difference between traditional Christianity and ACIM as trivial. In other words, course students are not necessarily Christians, and even if they consider themselves Christians don't necessarily subscribe to all beliefs generally associated with Christian belief. And that would included the belief that Jesus died, or anyone in fact, dies. --Unsigned comment posted by User:Jl2200 01:30, 21 June 2006

Question 3a

Okey dokey. How would a Course Student categorize him/herself in the schemata of world religions? The term New Religious Movement would, of course, apply from an anthropological viewpoint. Would a Literalist agree with this categorization? Would a Literalist self-define ACIM as an Abrahamic religion? I'm looking for one-sentence input from both of you. The Editrix 13:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Many course students make the distinction between "spiritual," and "religion and religious," and thus would not consider ACIM a religion, or themselves religious, per the ACIM teaching that a "universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is possible and necessary." Jl2200 21:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally, a point we agree on. -- Andrew Parodi 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Practically speaking, is ACIM registered with the IRS as a religion? Is there a central organization that qualifies as tax exempt? Or is it merely a philosophical undertaking, with no particular organizational status? --The Editrix 22:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe ACIM is registered as a religion, though Foundation for A Course In Miracles, Endeavor Academy, and other teaching institutions, are indeed non-profit organizations. As ACIM is primarily a book, if there were any central organization it would most likely be the publisher itself; and as a result of the law suit, the book is now in the public domain. There is no one centralized and "official" teaching organization, though I believe it could be said that the "symbolists" largely congregate around the teachings of FACIM, and the "literalists" around the other organizations I mentioned above. -- Andrew Parodi 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

No, ACIM is NOT registered with the IRS as a religion. The "central organization," which now publishes and holds some of the copyrights is likely registered as a tax exempt charity On the other hands there are a few religious organizations such as Endeavor Academy which most likely are registered with the IRS as a religion whose main teaching is their particular interpretation of A Course in Miracles.

As such one could consider course study as largely a philosophical undertaking or metaphysical orientation, because there is clearly no organizational structure which asserts or has the authority to assert doctrine or interpretation of The Course material. Jl2200 23:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Got it. Could you both go look at the new Category:A Course in Miracles and make any adjustments there that you believe need to be made? Thanks! --The Editrix 23:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Question 3b

Jl, this one's for you. From the Literalist viewpoint, how is it significant that Jesus, rather than "some guy", is the source of ACIM? In other words, if Jesus isn't a particularly compelling religious figure, what was HS's purpose in noting him as a source? Or do I misunderstand your position in this regard? --The Editrix 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the historical Jesus as source and author of the Course material was apparently important to HS, and those people involved in the initial publication and promotion of the ACIM material, because ACIM was initially promoted as the words of the historical Jesus, and for many years this was the generally accepted premise as regards to the authorship and origins of the material

Moreover, the original mythos/cover story that the historical Jesus was author and HS, the mere scribe sold an otherwise obcure book, generated much interest and began both a study group movement and a secondary market for Course commentary, which clearly would NOT have occurred if the author had be promoted as a "Jesus" different from the historical and biblical Jesus.

Jesus's authorship is significant for many because it is written in first-person by an author claiming to be the historical Jesus, and hence impeachment of the apparent author, as somehow NOT the historical Jesus makes all the Course material suspect.

Also significant is that the impeachment of Jesus as author creates an authority vacuum, where a Course teacher and commentator such as Ken Wapnick aspires to become the finial and infallible interpretor of what the Course material actually says and means, as the apparent first person author is meta-commented out as a symbol and metaphor.

In other words, much of this controversy over authorship is political assertions of power and attempts to create standard doctrines and standard interpretation of the Course material on an otherwise free-wheeling, free-thinking course community which philosophically rejected standardized doctrine and a standard interpretation. --Unsigned message from JL, 21 June 2006, some time. (If you'll sign your comments with four tildes (~) it'll be easier to follow along. -- T.E.)

Question 4

For both of you: Is this a correct understanding of the controversy:

• 1. Literalists hold that it was the historical Jesus Christ who revealed the Course to HS.
• 2. Symbologists (Symbolists?) hold that revelation from the historical Jesus Christ was merely a metaphor for the mechanism by which the Course was revealed and that Jesus as a source could as easily have been any other person, or no person at all.

If I'm wrong, will you each explain (in no more than two sentences) what, specifically, I'm misinterpreting? Thanks! --The Editrix 22:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes to all, but symbolists would not subscribe to the belief that the source of the Course material could in any way be written by another person, because symbolists believe personage is an illusion, or sometimes a symbol.

Rather, symbolists are steadfast in believing the source is what they call "divine inspiration," or some similar abstraction for "divine love," which manifested in HS's mind as the symbol and personage of the historical Jesus.

Jl2200 23:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a grasp of the "literalist" point of view, though only partly the "Symbolist" point of view:

You wrote: "Symbologists (Symbolists?) hold that revelation from the historical Jesus Christ was merely a metaphor for the mechanism by which the Course was revealed and that Jesus as a source could as easily have been any other person, or no person at all."

I suppose a point that you didn't grasp, likely because I didn't emphasize it, is that the choice of the name "Jesus" was important for Helen because she had always been interested in Christianity and Catholicism in particular. Further, it is the "Symbolist" point of view that a great deal of damage has been done in the name of "Jesus" (the crusades, anti-semitic behavior, etc.) for two thousand years. There is a place in the Course that explains that "words are but symbols of symbols". For the Symbolists, it is understood that part of our healing is related to understanding that the very word "Jesus" is only a word and therefore only a symbol, though it is a word and symbol that we have given great meaning to -- likely more meaning than any other word and symbol in our Western world.

In other words, "Jesus" could not "as easily have been any other person, or no person at all" because "Jesus" in the Course is a symbol, and "Jesus" is the most powerful symbol in the Western world. -- Andrew Parodi 23:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Question 4a

It is clear to me that the two of you are not actually very far apart in your understanding. Where you're misstepping, it seems, is in the following:

1. Jl, two points:

• When you're not using ACIM jargon, you're quite well spoken.
• I think you're very able to explicate the Literalist take on ACIM from a fairly neutral POV. The only problem arises when you attempt to discuss the Symbolist POV.

• • • • Well, you shouldn't be asking about specific course beliefs if you didn't expect jargon. I assure you I don't have to talk about Course concepts in terms of jargon, and am more than capable of addressing you at at any level of language and intellect you choose.

Moreover, as a degreed philosopher and student of the Course material for over 20 year, its likely I understand the positions in question better than anyone here, and if I was inclined, create a better philosophical position for the symbolists than the pseudo-intellectual baloney advanced by Ken Wapnick.

In addition, its never been my intent to insert Course jargon into this article. On the contrary, its been to remove the Course jargon, exemplified by all the course-jargon filled Wapnick quotes which Andrew has inserted to weigh this article unfairly for the Wapnick-symbolists position. My perfered contention has been to describe Helen's scribing simply, in her own words, and belief in her testimony as a simple act of faith. Or alternatively articulate this position in appropriate philosophical language.

I'm more than willing to let Andrew write his paragraph and let me write mine. I look forward to the new section on criticism. 02:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

2. AP, two points:

• You, too, are an excellent writer (and I don't say these things lightly. I'm a professional editor, and I'm notoriously tough) and seem quite capable of explicating the Symbolist POV without jargon, and from a position that I, as an outsider, see as neutral.
• When you step into the Literalist camp, though, you seem to stumble, just as Jl does in the Symbolist camp.

Thank you for the compliments on my writing. That means a lot to me.

As I began in the Literalist camp, I think I understand their perspective very well. I understand the whole concept of "living on after death," that the spirit lives on after death, and that they believe that Helen received the Course from the spirit of Jesus Christ. However, from a linear perspective, Jesus Christ is an historical figure who has died. Therefore, my description is accurate, though it is not one they would like to read. In other words, I understand their position, though I don't use terms most of them would like.

The reason I didn't use terms most of them would like is because I didn't have them in mind when I was writing this article. As you have noted, Jl has a tendency to write in Course terminology and Course jargon which, in your description, comes out as "jibberish" to the average reader with no familiarity with the Course. At the point that I included that description ("akin to a seance," "communication with a dead person," "spiritualism"), many people who are not students of ACIM were debating whether this article should be deleted or not. Some of them had accused this page of being a spoof, a joke, and an "idiosyncratic non-issue." In response, I felt I had to ground this page in as blunt and non-ACIM aligned jargon as possible. If I were to write this page with Course terminology, then I feared it would be deleted as "idiosyncratic non-issue." I had to make it relatable and understandable to the person who is not an ACIM student. I succeeded. The page is still here. (And I might add, most people who are not ACIM students would have no trouble with the way I have described the Literalist point of view.)

I stand by my position that from a linear and historical perspective (the perspective that I think is most appropriate for an encyclopedia) it is quite accurate to say that anyone who received a message from a person who is alleged to have died over 2000 years ago is someone who has "communicated with a dead person". But I certainly understand why the Literalist would not like such terms. But the Literalists weren't my audience when I wrote that, and keeping that in mind is what saved this page from deletion. -- Andrew Parodi 08:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

My proposal for resolving this edit war:

For two weeks (ie, until sometime after the Fourth of July), both of you agree to work ONLY on your own sections of this article, without commenting on -- OR MAKING REFERENCE TO -- the other camp's point of view. Clean up the article, attempt to be sensitive to potential insults, make no veiled references.

In the meantime, we'll keep a tag at the top of the page requesting that all editors clear their changes through the two of you on the Talk page during this time period. You each respond ONLY to edit changes that apply to your section. If a debate erupts, try to sort it out in a BRIEF exchange on the talk page, without reverting any edits.

After July 4th, we'll see how the page looks and probably remove the tag. I predict that your mutual good will can triumph, and that the article will clearly explain your various positions, from what will appear, to readers, to be a NPOV.

Also, after July 4th, if you'd like, we'll include a subhead under each of the two camps called Criticism, where you'll each address what you see as weaknesses in one another's positions. These two Criticism sections will, of course, be factual and clean. But we'll work that issue after the 4th.

Is this a workable solution? --The Editrix 00:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good solution. The only thing is that, from my side, I wasn't really "working" on this article when Jl came along. As I mentioned, I was a bit shell shocked from all the controversy from all sides regarding this article and as a result I was not working on it at all. I was simply keeping an eye on it to make sure people didn't ruin whatever progress has been made on it. I had actually been hoping someone else would come along and improve the article. I feel like perhaps my main contribution to this article was simply getting it starting and saving its ass when people tried to delete it. -- Andrew Parodi 09:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Workable, yes. Jl2200 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Question 4b

If there was a historical Jesus, and this person once walked on a physical earth, and then ceased to walk on the physical earth, I am curious about how a Course student might explain that person's current status.

AP, would a Symbologist agree that the historical Jesus exists today as an individual entity? Would you describe that individual as a spirit?

It's hard to generalize. I don't know all Symbolists/Symbologists. But largely, the Symbolists are highly intellectual and analytical people, many of them with backgrounds in psychology, many of them with PhDs and other advanced degrees. That is, they are largely very rational people who understand that in this world we are born and die.

On the Symbolist side, saying that Jesus exists as a personal identity today is the same as saying that personal identity is retained after physical death, which is something I believe most Symbolists would not agree with. In fact, I think it could be said that most symbolists do not believe that we have a personal identity while alive, but that our belief in our personal identity (in Course jargon, our "specialness") is an illusion and ultimately a great cause of our suffering.

I can't speak for all Symbolists, but I would venture to say that most of us do not believe that a personal identity is retained after death (or even maintained during life). In fact, from a deeper perspective, Symbolists would say that the belief in a personal identity is ultimately a belief in death itself. Therefore, I'd say, no, most of us do not believe that the historical Jesus Christ exists today as an individual identity in spirit. In fact, it is possible to study the Course and not even believe that the historical Jesus Christ ever literally existed. I myself do not believe the historical Jesus Christ ever existed, as I don't consider that such a belief is even that important to my study of ACIM. -- Andrew Parodi 23:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jl, same questions about a Literalist.

• • • • • Well the short answer in so-called literals often don't explain the status of the historical Jesus as author of ACIM. Rather Jesus' status as a living being is simply accepted as the logical pre-condition for believing the claims of the apparent first-person author and thus reading the Course material itself, without prima fascie suspicion.

After all A Course in Miracles as a book does exist, and its considered a spiritual masterpiece by many, and so very sophisticated on so many levels and so many subjects that its very, very unlikely to have been written by a "human being." In other word, this claim is a textual challenge backed by known intellectual and academic criteria of judgment. In short, show a comparable work anywhere by any author. Strangely and ironically, it is very hard if not impossible to offer a comparable work.

As such the book, itself, is fantastic and largely unexplainable by conventional explanations. For many course student it seems right to accept the claims of authorship by the historical Jesus, though fantastic, because the work itself is so fantastic and unexplainable. Moreover note, that symbolist's belief that the origins of the book came from "universal inspiration," is no less a fantastic belief, though this fantastic belief is often obscured by "sophisticated," trans-personal arguments.

Jl2200 00:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Question 5

You have numerous points of agreement.

• 1. That ACIM is a form of spirituality, but not a religion.
• 2. That death does not exist as a phenomenon.
• 3. That HS did, in fact, produce ACIM.
• 4. That there are two schools of thought about how that work came about.
• 5. That Literalists and Symbolists are terms that accurately describe those two schools.
• 6. That you can't speak for ALL the people in your own school, but that you can make general observations about how MOST people in your school probably view an issue.

If you'll both attempt to continue describing, in the very literate terms you've used in this discussion, your understanding of those two schools, you'll have an encyclopedic page worth visiting.

Yes? --The Editrix 00:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • 5. That Literalists and Symbolists are terms that accurately describe those two schools.

These are terms coined for this article. I've never seen them used in course discussion. In the common course parlance of course internet news and discussion groups, the symbolists are called "Wapnickians," because their take on ACIM is for the most part, unique to the teaching of Ken Wapnick.

If we were overly concerned with the accuracy and honesty of labels these two camps would be better described as Christian Course Students vs. Anti-Christian Course Students. Not Anti-Christian as in non-Christian, but Anti-Christian as in actively attempting to eliminate or deny every trace of Christianity from A Course in Miracles.

But since we are gentlemen and a lady here, we don't write such things however true.

Jl2200 03:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • 6. That you can't speak for ALL the people in your own school, but that you can make general observations about how MOST people in your school probably view an issue.

Actually I have very little confidence, Andrew can speak for the symbolists. He should re-check Wapnick's claims to KNOW that Helen never meant literally she heard the inner voice claiming to be Jesus, because this becomes very close to admitting that both Wapnick and Schucman perpetuated a fraud promoting A Course in Miracles in its early years as the work of the historical Jesus.

In other words, if they both knew this was not the literal voice of Jesus, moreover she didn't even hear a voice, then clearly A Course in Miracles shouldn't have been promoted as work of the historical Jesus, or a disclaimer to this effect should have been put in the early editions.

Wapnick certainly does not wish to be seen perpetuating a fraud, so I suggest Andrew is over-stating his case, most likely out of ignorance. He should therefore check Wapnick's exact claims in this regard.

I actually know Kenneth Wapnick personally and have spoken with him personally on this issue. I believe I understand his perspective on this issue as well as can be understood by anyone who is not Kenneth Wapnick himself. I spoke with Ken the day the announcement was made that the copyright had been overturned.

• • • • Really? Well I suggest you have all your documents for ken quotes in line. Because I won't allow you to paraphrase his position and claims about Helen's scribing without documentation. As far as I can see from Wapnick's writings he never contended that Helen did not believe she actually heard an inner voice and that inner voice claimed to be the historical Jesus. Rather its Wapnick's opinion that there is an alternative explanation for what Helen believed.

Jl2200 11:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Response: Your tone is condescending and presumptuous (you won't "allow" me; that's a good one). I think it is best that we not speak directly to one another anymore but only via the arbitrator. You are an unbearable person to correspond with. I have attempted over and over to conduct myself in a civil manner with you, but you apparently do not want that. Ken has never made the topic of this article a major point because ultimately it isn't of much importance. And can you blame him for NOT making it a major point when it opens one up to being attacked in such a vicious manner? I absolutely hate the way your are treating me. It's bizarre, especially coming from someone who claims they take seriously a book whose central teaching is the importance of forgiveness. And my name is not "young man." It is Andrew. I'm 30, which is darned near middle aged! And I generally do not keep notes on my personal conversations with Kenneth Wapnick. With regard to Course theory, there is nothing that he and I discuss in our private conversations that isn't already published on his website or in his books. If you want documentation on his position, visit: http://www.facim.org/ And the "inner voice" that Helen "heard" has been described as "a voice that made no sound". In other words, yet again, it is a SYMBOL. -- Andrew Parodi 11:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Try this argument on for size.

dic-ta-tion (n) 1a. The act or process of dictating material to another for transcription.

American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed.

~ The common accepted American English meaning of the word "dictation" necessarily implies two people. Normal usage (see the definition for "dictate") generally involves audibly spoken words between two people.

~ Helen deviate from normal usage by specifying that the voice was soundless, but in that respect only. Using the word "dictation," even as qualified, still necessarily conveys the idea of "another person," as in "he soundlessly dictated the words to me using sign language," for example.

~ Anyone wishing to deviate from the standard American English meaning of the word "dictate" has the burden of persuasion. The fact that the communication was soundless doesn't get the job done.

Jl2200 14:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Perhaps later we can discuss the fact that Gary Renard once told me that the "visitations" he received from the Ascended Masters in The Disappearance of the Universe were also symbolic. That is, he didn't mean that it literally happened. -- Andrew Parodi 12:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Well, then document what you claim. If you contend Wapnick believes death is real then you should be able to show a Wapnick quote supporting that claim. I can show where the Course says, "death is not real," so why don't you show a Wapnick quote supporting your claims? If you wish to be treated with respect, then don't treat me with disrespect. Rejecting my edits, with reasons which indicated you never got out of high school is not mutual respect. Its arrogance. You don't own this topic and you don't own Misplaced PagesJl2200 13:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Response regarding Ken's views on death, etc.: I can't think of a more arrogant statement than to say that my writing is indicative of a lack of education. (It's all well and good that you have a degree in philosophy. The only problem you haven't grasped is that the philosophy of A Course In Miracles is radically different from anything previously known to man. They don't teach ACIM in college.) Note that a person (the arbitrator) who claims to have a degree in law has told me that I am a good writer. I've also received compliments from arguably the most lauded linguist in the world, Noam Chomsky. But we'll set that aside for now....

With regard to the Course's statements on death and Ken's statements on death: indeed, the Course says "there is no death." The Course also says, "There is no world!" And yet here you and I sit arguing in a world of form, on the Internet, all the while dealing with life in this world. Statements like "there is no death" and "there is no world!" are symbolic, not literal. In fact, the day that I called Ken to talk to him about my stepfather's death, I asked him how I would ever deal with life in this world after his (Ken's) death. Ken told me that I don't have to worry about that for quite some time.

It is not my job to provide you with "documentation" that verifies that statements like "there is no death" and "there is no world" are symbolic, but your job to find it yourself. Remember, A Course In Miracles is a self-study course. If you have read anything that Ken has published, you will find it there. Start with The Most Commonly Asked Questions about A Course In Miracles, which is available in any number of places, from Amazon.com to Ken's own site. -- Andrew Parodi 18:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Your idea that the "mythos" of the Course has been rewritten is not correct. You have simply been introduced to a perspective you hadn't had before. Someone aligned with the Symbolist perspective can very honestly say "the Course comes from Jesus Christ" all the while knowing that the phrase itself is only symbolic. (I can tell someone "I love you from the bottom of my heart", and it is understood that I am not making a comment on the flow of blood through the organ in my chest. It can also be understood that when I say such a thing I am on one hand telling the truth, and yet on the other hand using a metaphor or symbol; one does not negate the other or render the other a lie.) That is all Ken has ever meant. The idea that the "mythos" has been rewritten in an attempt to protect the copyright of the Course is incorrect, made evident by the fact that the copyright controversy has been settled and is no longer an issue (and, by the way, FACIM lost the copyright).

• • • • Well, young man there's plenty of advertising material, newsletters, videos, books and other promotional material from that era making the claim by Wapnick, Skutch, Thetford, Schucman and others that the ACIM was the work of the historical Jesus and Helen was the mere scribe. There was never a mention of a symbolic Jesus. It stands to reason. The historical Jesus sells books. A symbolic Jesus, doesn't sell books. Instead a symbolic Jesus makes it too easy to dismiss ACIM as a fraud and stunt to make money. A symbolic, "other Jesus" has no authority or attraction. It is not compelling.

As far as I know Wapnick never made this counter claim for another Jesus until late into the eighties, in his book, "Absence from Felicity." ACIM was published in June, 1976. If you can show me an earlier articulation of this position, then show it.

Moreover, if Wapnick believed in a symbolic Jesus and promoted the author as the historical Jesus without clarification, then Wapnick is guilty of fraud, not poetry. It makes more sense for Wapnick to say his position simply changed over time. Which if I remember, is his claim. And if you notice, is also my claim. Jl2200 11:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ken was happy that the whole thing was over. He told me so. It ate up years of his life when he could've been doing much more productive things with his time. -- Andrew Parodi 08:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

All of this "new perspective" is certainly counter to the original mythos/cover story originally used to promote ACIM, by Ken Wapnick and friends. Wapnick's mythos/cover story didn't just change a little, it changed 180 degrees. I suspect Andrew is much too young a course student to realize anything changed at all.

Jl2200 06:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

TheEditrix: Thank you for your continued attention to this. This discussion was quite literally hell until you came along.

The only point you have incorrect is point 2. Death most certainly does exist as a phenomenon. That goes without saying. We've all known people who die. Again, interpretations fall well within the Literalist and Symbolist perspective. The Literalists take it quite literally when the Course says "there is no death". My undersatnding is that what the Literalists interpret is that the Course is saying that after physical death the spirit of the individual lives on in another form. The Symbolist perspective is, in my opinion, far more metaphysical, holding that the body does indeed live and then die, and that no personal identity is retained after death.

The reason the Symbolist perspective holds that no personal identity is retained after death, is because the Symbolist perspective holds that personal identity is itself an illusion. For example, I will one day die. That is, my body will stop "working". But I don't believe that this means that my spirit will live on in heaven, or wherever else, after I die.

On a deeper level, the Symbolist perspective is that personal identity is not only not retained after death, but never existed during life. It is akin the Buddhist saying of "a leaf is made up of non-leaf parts". During life (that is, during the phase before our bodies expire and cease to be animated), what we believe to be our personal identities is actually something made up of many different things, most of which we ourselves did not create.

So, to try to wrap this up succinctly, the only point you have interpreted incorrectly is point 2. The Symbolists do indeed believe that a physical death takes place in this world. -- Andrew Parodi 08:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • • 2. That death does not exist as a phenomenon.

Actually Andrew is mis-stating Wapnick/symbolist position on death. Wapnick's interpretation of ACIM is reductionist. This means for Wapnick the only thing real is God or perhaps God and Son. (Wapnick considers Father and Son one being.) This is the whole point of arguing symbols point to a higher abstract reality, while arguing the symbols themselves are not reality.

As such, for Wapnick the entire phenomenal world is illusion or NOT real. Wapnick would argue God is not aware of the phenomenal world and not part or in the phenomenal world. As part of the phenomenal world, the body then is not real. It is part of the overall illusion and the body's apparent death is also not real but part of the illusion. Hence it a big mis-understanding of Wapnick interpretation to contend the body is real and dies, but personal identity is illusionary. Wapnick would say both are illusionary.

In fact this contention doesn't even scan. The body is the only thing real in human existence????

Andrew apparently misses that ACIM metaphysics is radical Idealism where everything is mind, and mind is equated to God. Moreover that both Wapnick/symbolists, and most course students subscribe to this metaphysics. In Idealism, matter doesn't exist but at best is a manifestation of mind. As such the body associated with matter is not real, and has only apparent reality as a component of the illusion.

Andrew also misunderstands the position of Course literalist who he mistakes for traditional Christians. While traditional Christians indeed believe they have a real body and personality which survives death, few Christians are Idealists or believe everything is mind. On the contrary --Christians believe in materiality and the material world and generally think of the material world, mind and spirit as somehow co-existing, interpenetrating realities. On the other hand, Course Idealists would believe that mind is the only reality, identity with this mind the highest form of and only true identity, and thus bodily death and personal (ego) identity surviving death is illusionary. What survives apparent death and the illusion is identity with eternal mind.

The difference between Wapnick and literalists would be for Wapnick that identity with mind is God, and for the literalists, that identity with mind is God's creation or The Son of God.

Jl2200 10:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are having what Ken would term "level confusion."

Andrew. In philosophy level confusion is the confusion of discourse and laws of one level of reality with another. A simple example would be confusing quantum physics with Newtonian physics. In A Course in Miracles it doesn't mean confusing one level of reality with another because reality is absolute. There is reality and illusion. There aren't levels of reality, except perhaps in a metaphorical sense. The level of form is still illusion. The level of form might be "real enough," but its not real in the sense the Course defines real, which is eternal.Jl2200 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In FACIM terminology, to say "level confusion" is to say that one is having difficulty understanding the differences between what FACIM terms "Level One" and "Level Two" . This is precisely what you are doing. On "Level One" there is no death, because Level One is the level on which there is no physical universe, no personal identity, no object/subject (the level you describe as being the only reality). Level Two is the physical world where we live and experience a personal identity and death. If you mix up these two levels then you will not have a good understanding of what A Course In Miracles is actually saying. It's all well and good that "level confusion" means this or that in traditional philosophy. ACIM is not traditional philosophy. -- Andrew Parodi 19:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Too funny. Why should I concern myself with Wapnick coined terminology? I don't study Wapnick. I'm studying ACIM. The first person author, Jesus uses sufficent terms to explain what Wapnick calls Level 1 and Level 2. These terms are knowledge and perception. Perhaps you should learn these terms if you wish to claim you study The Course.

Actually Wapnick coined these terms so novice students were less likely to be confused. Someone who can read and think shouldn't have much problem with distinquishing knowledge and perception. The world of form and world of abstraction is an elementary distinction. There is nothing particularly unique about this distinction, other than the precise definitions and details. And certainly how one heals the mind to go from perception to knowledge.

20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The first time I met Ken in person, I said to him, "It's nice to meet you, but this is all an illusion. It's not real." He touched my hand, then tapped on the chair next to us, and said, "Yes it is. It's real."

Actually, Andrew I don't care what you learned from Ken Wapnick through oral teachings. You got it wrong. Wapnick doesn't claim the body is real. I suggest you get either another Wapnick/symbolist to check your claims, or document your claims with Wapnick articles and quotes. Or if you are a personal friend of Wapnick then run your claims of about his metaphysics by Ken, himself. The alternative is to make bogus claims, and I'll eat you for lunch. Jl2200 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Last response to you and last contribution to this page: First of all, thank you for being an exemplification of the main teaching of ACIM, which is forgiveness. The magnanimous manner with which you have conducted yourself with me certainly demonstrates that you are an advanced spiritual master with great understanding and compassion. And there is certainly nothing childish or juvenile about your use of internet slang ("ROTFLMAO"), as internet slang is the utmost of stylistic sophistication and precisely what one would expect from a prestigious and degreed man of philosophy.

Second of all, if you have no regard for my "oral teachings" as you term them or my in-person experiences, then why did you reference earlier that you know Joe Jesseph and have argued with him over these points? (My sympathies to Mr. Jesseph.) You obviously have a need to interject your own "personal" experiences with regard to these issues, so what is unreasonable about me doing the same? (I suppose stories that do not concern you are not of interest to you.)

And if you don't think I am giving an accurate portrayal of Ken's and FACIM's position on all of this (which alternately seems to be a point of great contention for you and then no importance at all for you, you can't quite make up your mind; but I'll set that aside), write to Ken and ask him. There is nothing special about me and my access to him. He is a very accessible man. Just about everyone who attends his workshops is given access to him. He is known to answer every letter that is sent to him, even the nasty ones from Endeavor Academy (some of which they have published on their website). Or better yet, read his books.

Oh, I forgot. Ken's and FACIM's perspective in all of this isn't important to you. You know the "real" Course because you communicate with Jesus and have a degree in philosophy. Well, then, what are you complaining about? Go enjoy Jesus and your degree and leave me alone. Or, read what Ken has written, ask Ken about, and see how I am giving an accurate portrayal of what he actually says. Is it possible that you are so bound up in your own views that you haven't taken a look to see how radically different they are from what the Course actually says? (Then again, probably not, as apparently you have all the answers, which makes me wonder why you are still here in a world of form and arguing with me via the Internet. Why aren't you ascended and sitting at the right hand of God?)

It's completely obvious what happened here. You came in here with your big ego about your degree in philosophy and looked at my superior writing and got threatened by it. Yes, I said it. I'm a better writer than you, and I understand the Course better than you. And, damned me, "young man" that I am, I am probably damned near half your age. You have a degree in philosophy, so what? Noam Chomsky has a doctorate, has received just about every honor imaginable under the sun, including Japan's equivalent to the Nobel Prize, and he himself has told me personally that degrees don't matter. What matters is thinking for oneself. Oh, sorry, I forgot. You're not interested in my in-person "oral lessons" from people. Well, let me tell you something: people are far more interested in my in-person encounters and lessons from Ken and Noam Chomsky than they are in my in-person encounters and lessons, err, arguments, with you. And with that, goodbye. (Off to find Mr. Jesseph to share war stories.) -- Andrew Parodi 21:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ken has always made it clear that when the Course says the world is illusory, it means that on a metaphysical level. On the level of form, the world is indeed very real. We still have to eat. We still have to find clothes. We still have to pay bills, etc.

Andrew, there is only a metaphysical level. That is the only level which is real. The level of form is by definition illusionary or unreal. I notice in your first explanation you did qualify your claim by with the phrase, "at the level of form." Jl2200 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I called Ken the day my stepfather died and talked to him about my stepfather's death. I called Ken and cried to him over the phone on 9-11. I said to him, "I know it isn't real so I shouldn't be sad." Ken corrected me and told me that on the level of form what happened that day was indeed very real and very tragic.

Ken and FACIM and the Symbolists do NOT say that death IN FORM is not real. When Symbolist/Wapnick/FACIM say that "death isn't real", we are speaking on a much more profound level than what you apparently have been able to grasp.

ROTFLMAO. Actually Wapnick is saying death in form is not real. Either that or he is confusing reality with illusion. You are as about as profound as a river a mile wide and 1/4 deep. Jl2200

Response: So the 2000+ people who died in New York on September 11, 2001 didn't really die? Are you prepared to tell that to their widows and widowers?

The very real phenomenon of death in this physical universe can be used as a teaching aid. The Course describes this world as a dream world which is actually a nightmare, a nightmare of unforgiveness from which we must wake up in order to find peace. I can't think of a better word than "nightmare" to describe the horrors of September 11th, and I can't think of a better term that "unforgiveness" to describe the cause of the attacks.

And please don't try to tell me what Ken means. I can ask Ken himself what he means. And he made it quite explicit on September 11th. He told me, "This is a cruel, vicious, ugly, hateful world." The Course itself says exactly that. The Course says this is a world "is the delusional system of those made mad by guilt," that it is a world that is made by the ego as an attack on God. For those willing to look below the surface of the Course, it actually has some very strong and unsettling statements about the world. In the Manual for Teachers it discusses that everything born into this world eventually dies, and that this is a difficult lesson for children to learn. -- Andrew Parodi 19:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Further, this description is entirely inaccurate: "The difference between Wapnick and literalists would be for Wapnick that identity with mind is God, and for the literalists, that identity with mind is God's creation or The Son of God." To be completely honest, I have no idea what you just wrote. I concur with our patient arbitrator on this one: what you wrote here sounds like gibberish to me. It is laden with ACIM jargon that is incomprehensible even to me, and I've been reading the Course for a decade. -- Andrew Parodi 11:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Andrew if you can't understand what I wrote then I'd have to ask what is your experience with philosophy? Reading A Course in Miracles and talking to Ken Wapnick does not make you a philosopher or necessarily allow you to understand course metaphysics. Why not ask Wapnick if he teaches ultimate identity with God? I'd be more than interested in what he has to say, because I don't really think Wapnick understands what the hell is is teaching.

Moreover, why NOT read the Course and form your own opinions about what the book says instead of having to have the book interpreted for you? Most likely because you haven't a clue to what it says on your own. Jl2200 12:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand what you wrote because it is badly written. It is jargon laden and badly organized. And I would venture that I have a better understanding of metaphysics than most people. I'm an INFJ, which is the personality type most likely to understand metaphysics. It is most likely my inborn understanding of metaphysics that led me to A Course In Miracles at the ripe old age of 21, nearly two decades earlier than most people.

You can't understand what I have written because you don't recognize how philosopy is articulated. For the same reason, most likely you can't understand detailed legal documents.

First you say I'm misquoting Ken. Then when I counter your argument, you're off on another argument that I shouldn't be quoting him at all. Which is it? You know what, I don't care anymore. I'm signing off of this article. This is a headache I don't need anymore. -- Andrew Parodi 18:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Andrew you are not offering counter arguments, you are regurgitating Wapnick. Why is that? Because what you say has deniablity. Wapnick can always say you don't know what the hell you are talking about. That's also why Wapnick doesn't debate other Course scholars. Recognize in this article you are representing your teacher and your teacher's metaphysics. We'll soon see if you up to the task.

Jl2200 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new article

This article seems to conflate two semi-related topics: Legal Controversy and Doctrine of Jesus as a Source.

Would y'all be interested in making the Legal controversy over copyright a separate article, linked of course from this one, freeing up this page to address strictly the doctrinal aspects of Jesus as a source? --The Editrix 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. The reason I tied in the legal battle with this issue was to tie the whole article and concept to something very "real" and "tangible". As I have mentioned, I had people saying that this article was not about an important issue. My response was, "How could this not be an important issue when it is the very underpinning of a multi-million-dollar lawsuit?" Apparently, my argument in that regard worked. The article is still here. -- Andrew Parodi 09:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Yes, fine with me. Jl2200 02:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Signing off of article

My thanks to the arbitrator. You really helped make this a little more bearable. I have decided, however, that this article is a headache I can no longer bear. This article has been a headache from the very beginning. I introduced it as a mere paragraph in the main ACIM article, where it was debated and edited and eventually deleted altogether. I then took the advice of a fellow editor of the main page and created a page for the topic (this page), only to be met with the suggestion that this article be merged back into the main ACIM article. Soon, after it was decided that it could remain its own article, I was arguing with another editor. Then it was nominated for deletion, and I was arguing to save the article. Then it was decided that the article would remain ... only to have to argue yet again with someone else. I don't need this anymore.

I mentioned to Jl that the reason Ken doesn't make a big point of this aspect of ACIM is because ultimately it's not a big deal. The "literalists" and the "symbolists" will find the peace that ACIM describes. The Course itself says that a belief in Jesus isn't necessary. A lightbulb then went off in my head: "If this isn't an important issue, then why sit around and argue about it?"

It was never a terribly important issue to me, but merely one that I found very interesting and that I wanted to discuss and investigate because at base it is an issue to do with linguistics and symbolism, two things that fascinate me. But it's very difficult to discuss these things in such an atmosphere of continued controversy and hostility. Creating and attempting to maintain this article has really given me a new compassion for Ken.

And with that, I'm off. I hope that this article turns into something valuable at some point, but it will have to be someone else who sees to that. I can't deal with this anymore.

Sincerely,

Andrew Parodi 19:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyright controvery

There is a huge amount of material on the copyright issue, which is largely irrelevant. Unless I hear an objection in the next few days, I plan to split this off and created a separate article. Then the writing in this one can we worked on. Gene Ward Smith 06:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving the article

It was suggested on the deletion page that the article should be moved, and that it might be called Authorship of A Course in Miracles. If this is done, sections on Helen as conscious author, Helen and Bill as author, the CIA as author, demons or mischivious spirits as author, might be added as well. Gene Ward Smith 23:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Importance

Ste4k wrote: Can anyone tell me the importance of this article? Please leave a message here, and I will be happy to remove the tag that I applied. Thanks!

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics