A Course in Miracles

[Daniel]

While I know we've discussed A Course in Miracles, or CIM as it is known, in other discussions here, I haven't found a thread dedicated to it.

There was a time was I was studying the Course pretty much every day, and I'm thinking it may be time to get back to it. And I'm wondering if any of you have studied it, and what your experience has been.

What I'm thinking about is how the Course dovetails with the methods of nonviolence. It talks a lot about responding to attack with kindess, or rather, not attacking back, which seems to take a page right out of Gandhi and King.

[Jennifer5]

What is Course in Miracles? Sounds interesting, but I'm completely lost...

[BruceChris]

It says that all good things come from Love, and all bad things come from Fear. It says that we can never judge another, and should not not try to. It says that when we do, we need to learn to forgive them, when we have judged someone.

I might call it a sort of New Age Christianity, but with all of the baggage that most Christianity carries with it stripped away. It is 1150 pages long, and is written in a *poetic*, that is to say stilted language that I do not get much out of.

I don't think that it says anything about sex.

It could be seen as a detailed explanation of the Great Commandment.

It is explained in a primer, "A Return to Love", written bu Marriane Williamson, which I find infinitely more accessable. And, it is just over 200 pages. I highly recommend it.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Emproph]

...And I'm wondering if any of you have studied it, and what your experience has been.

What I'm thinking about is how the Course dovetails with the methods of nonviolence...

I used to go to the ACIM sharing group at St. John's in Milwaukee. I especially remember their laminated bookmark with a few pertinent quotes on it, including the Introduction:
This is a course in miracles. it is a required course. Only the timeyou take it is voluntary. Free will does not mean that you can establish the

curriculum. It means only that you can elect what you want to take at a

given time. The course does not aim at teaching the meaning of love, for

that is beyond what can be taught. It does aim, however, at removing the

blocks to the awareness of love's presence, which is your natural

inheritance. The opposite of love is fear, but what is all-encompassing can

have no opposite.

This course can therefore be summed up very simply in this way:Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.

Herein lies the peace of God.
For as many times as I read it, until recently I never understood what that part in bold meant. I now understand that it means that nothing bad can ever happen. But more importantly, I understand it specifically because I understand why and how nothing bad can ever happen.

So Daniel, would you like to start with that, or did you have something a bit more pragmatic in mind? :rofl:

[kara speltz]

It says that all good things come from Love, and all bad things come from Fear. It says that we can never judge another, and should not not try to. It says that when we do, we need to learn to forgive them, when we have judged someone.

I might call it a sort of New Age Christianity, but with all of the baggage that most Christianity carries with it stripped away. It is 1150 pages long, and is written in a *poetic*, that is to say stilted language that puts ME to sleep, rather than being exciting. I don't think that it says anything about sex.

It is could be seen as a fully fleshed out version of the Great Commandment.

It is explained in a primer, "A Return to Love", written bu Marriane Williamson, which I find infinitely more accessable. And, it is just over 200 pages. I highly recommend it.
Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

Dear Bruce: I absolutely agree with you concerning, "A Return to Love." It is one of the best books, I've read. And much more comprehenable than A Course is. For people interested in exploring ACIM, I suggest they start with "A Return to Love."

[Daniel]

I might call it a sort of New Age Christianity, but with all of the baggage that most Christianity carries with it stripped away. It is 1150 pages long, and is written in a *poetic*, that is to say stilted language that puts ME to sleep, rather than being exciting. I don't think that it says anything about sex.

You piqued my curiosity BruceChris. After a little googling, I found out that the Course is available online (c. 1968 urtext: http://courseinmiracles.com/) and that the original manuscript does contain references to sex . However, since these references apparently involved the lives of the two persons involved in the Course's 'creation', they were edited out for the 1972 version. So says the writer of the Wikpedia aricle I found...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Course_in_Miracles

The earliest known draft of the original manuscript reads more as a journal than as a study guide and contains material related to the personal lives of Schucman and Thetford (as in the authors' application of the abstract principles to concrete events in their lives) that was later edited out prior to the work's initial publication. Some of the material edited out appears to have been some extraneous theories about sex which may have been edited out in the hope of maintaining a greater focus on the primary aim of the material (forgiveness) in the published edition. One such section of the Urtext states that "...[a] miracle worker MUST understand (the proper use of sex)."[19]The earliest known draft of the work is commonly referred to as the "Urtext").

I downloaded the 1968 version of the text, and it's going to take some time to go through it- it's 610 pages long! Having been interested in this book for many years, I'm smiling at myself that, until now, I never thought to do a little more research on the Course. Voila! Here is it....free on the web. Amazing.

It is could be seen as a fully fleshed out version of the Great Commandment.

What a great way to put it BruceChris! I'm going to remember your line.

It is explained in a primer, "A Return to Love", written bu Marriane Williamson, which I find infinitely more accessable. And, it is just over 200 pages. I highly recommend it.

Willamson used to speak at Town Hall (NYC) on the Course every other week in the 1990's. I'd go and- let me tell you- it was a great place to meet a guy. Chock full of gay men.

I used to go to the ACIM sharing group at St. John's in Milwaukee. I especially remember their laminated bookmark with a few pertinent quotes on it, including the Introduction:

For as many times as I read it, until recently I never understood what that part in bold meant. I now understand that it means that nothing bad can ever happen. But more importantly, I understand it specifically because I understand why and how nothing bad can ever happen.

So Daniel, would you like to start with that, or did you have something a bit more pragmatic in mind? :rofl:

I don't know what I have in mind actually, other than simple kindess. My initial post was was initiated after reading some of my own posts: I see room for improvement in the nonviolent department. And to jump off from your quote from the Course, my thinking is that, if Nothing real can be threatened and Nothing unreal exists, then there really is no reason not to be kind. Kindness, you might say, is the Real Thing. :lol:

Sounds like a commercial! And God Knows....that product is ubiquitous.

How about we simply jump in and see where the stream takes us?

[Jennifer5]

It says that all good things come from Love, and all bad things come from Fear. It says that we can never judge another, and should not not try to. It says that when we do, we need to learn to forgive them, when we have judged someone.

I might call it a sort of New Age Christianity, but with all of the baggage that most Christianity carries with it stripped away. It is 1150 pages long, and is written in a *poetic*, that is to say stilted language that I do not get much out of.

I don't think that it says anything about sex.

It could be seen as a detailed explanation of the Great Commandment.

It is explained in a primer, "A Return to Love", written bu Marriane Williamson, which I find infinitely more accessable. And, it is just over 200 pages. I highly recommend it.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

Dear Bruce: I absolutely agree with you concerning, "A Return to Love." It is one of the best books, I've read. And much more comprehenable than A Course is. For people interested in exploring ACIM, I suggest they start with "A Return to Love."

Interesting. Sounds good, I won't be reading any of those because I don't really read voluntarily... and if I go you better keep the book really really small... I'm a slow reader and don't find reading a book enjoying... so I just come on here and get all the run-off.

:love:

[Emproph]

I might call it a sort of New Age Christianity, but with all of the baggage that most Christianity carries with it stripped away. It is 1150 pages long, and is written in a *poetic*, that is to say stilted language that I do not get much out of.

I can identify with that assessment. I would call it wordy and over explanative, at least the text portion. But I think that's by design - specifically in order to minimize the possibility of "misinterpreting" what's said (as opposed to the "last time" with the Bible..)

For those unfamiliar with it, it’s divided into three sections, each with a different format:

Text - written like a book.
Workbook for Students - 365 short lessons, one for each day of the year.
Manual for Teachers - answers some questions about Course subjects – almost like a reference section

Interesting. Sounds good, I won't be reading any of those because I don't really read voluntarily... and if I go you better keep the book really really small... I'm a slow reader and don't find reading a book enjoying... so I just come on here and get all the run-off.

Sounds like a plan. :tup: I hate reading too – unless it’s interesting. I’ve picked up more books since joining Soulforce than at any other time in my life.

Mostly for informational purposes, so I only buy things that I’m REALLY interested in. So that solves the borington problem. But the biggest thing that’s helped me is that I only read the parts I like. I rarely start a book from the beginning. I go right to the table of contents, pick out what most interests me, and start there. If that works, then I might decide to go back and start from the beginning. I wouldn’t recommend it for novels necessarily, but usually I only read the chapters I’m most interested in. The limited information gleaned though, often if not usually makes it worth having gotten the book.

Point being, it sets me free from that trapped feeling of “having” to read the whole thing – like with those stupid book reports from school daze :sleep:. It took me a long time to get over the idea that I had to read the whole thing. It’s like a fancy meal, if you don’t like something, don’t eat it. If you like something keep eating it.

I’m a slow reader too, I’m just saying don’t let that stop you from absorbing information if you're interested in something. :)

[Daniel]

http://www.circleofa.org/articles/HelenAndBill.php

She and Bill felt drawn together, both personally and professionally, and worked hard to build up the Psychology Department, yet their own relationship was full of friction and strain. They were just too different. Helen was intense, anxious, and assertive, while Bill was soft-spoken and somewhat aloof and withdrawn. While Helen could be sharp-tongued and abrasive, Bill, in the face of conflict, would become unresponsive, only to get openly angry later on. Add to this the fact that Helen, who was married, was attracted to Bill, who was homosexual, and you get a very complicated situation. Helen wrote:

The relationship between Bill and myself deteriorated steadily….We began to get much less work done, while experiencing greater and greater fatigue….It became more and more evident that the best thing for me to do was to leave. However, Bill and I seemed trapped in a relationship which, although we hated it in many ways, could not be escaped.[8]
Helen and Bill found themselves surrounded by ever-widening circles of interpersonal conflict, first conflict with each other, then with others in their department, then with other departments, and finally with other medical centers. They seemed to be standing on a battlefield that had no boundary.

This brings us to the moment which changed everything. The two of them had become involved with a research project at Cornell University Medical Center, which required of them an hour-long meeting each week, a meeting which, as Ken Wapnick put it, "grew to epitomize all that was wrong in their personal and professional lives."[9] The meetings at Cornell were filled with the same intense aggression and anger that pervaded the rest of their lives. Each week they dreaded going.

One afternoon in June of 1965, on their way to one of these meetings, they stopped by at Bill's apartment. There, Bill delivered, with great difficulty and embarrassment, and after several aborted tries, a preplanned and very earnest speech.

He had been thinking things over and had concluded we were using the wrong approach. "There must," he said, "be another way." Our attitudes had become so negative that we could not work anything out. He had therefore decided to try to look at things differently.

Bill proposed, quite specifically, to try out this new approach that day at the research meeting. He was not going to get angry and was determined not to attack. He was going to look for a constructive side in what people there said and did, and was not going to focus on mistakes and point up errors. He was going to cooperate rather than compete….When it was over he waited for my response in obvious discomfort. Whatever reaction he may have expected, it was certainly not the one he got. I jumped up, told Bill with genuine conviction that he was perfectly right, and said I would join in the new approach with him.

and


Helen and Bill had no idea what they had set in motion that afternoon. However, even at the time, they realized that their lives had set off in a new direction. Two streams of effects seemed to flow out from this event. First, of course, Helen began having a series of spontaneous visions, dreams, and psychic experiences, which culminated, four months later, in a voice in her head saying, "This is a course in miracles. Please take notes." What is less well-known is that, as a result of this joining, Helen and Bill instituted major changes in their personal and professional lives. First, they slowly turned the department around:

The facts are simple. The whole climate of the department gradually changed for the better. Bill worked particularly hard on this, determined to turn hostilities into friendships by perceiving the relationships differently….Tensions lessened and antagonisms dropped away. The wrong people left, though on friendly terms, and the right ones came along almost immediately….In time the department became smooth-functioning, relaxed, and efficient.

Second, they undertook a conscious reform of their personal relationships. Helen resurrected earlier friendships that for various reasons had broken up. And Bill, too, devoted much energy to straightening out his relationships. As most of us know, their efforts at healing their own relationship were largely unsuccessful, yet that shouldn't eclipse all of the interpersonal healing that did come out of their attempts to live a better way.

When two or more are gathered in my name.....

[Daniel]

For those unfamiliar with it, it’s divided into three sections, each with a different format:

Text - written like a book.
Workbook for Students - 365 short lessons, one for each day of the year.
Manual for Teachers - answers some questions about Course subjects – almost like a reference section.

There are two other ACIM related books that are interesting, which can be found bound in one volume. Both are short in length.

1) The Song of Prayer, which concerns prayer, forgiveness and healing.

2) Psychotherapy: Purpose, Process and Practice. While I'm no therapist, I think I've read this book maybe 5 or 6 times. Anyone teaching is likely to glean something helpful from it.

But the biggest thing that’s helped me is that I only read the parts I like. I rarely start a book from the beginning. I go right to the table of contents, pick out what most interests me, and start there. If that works, then I might decide to go back and start from the beginning.


I think the Course says somewhere that where one starts isn't really an issue, but rather, that you start anywhere, or simply start. And I've always remembered another injunction from the Course which states that one doesn't have to believe it- It's enough to simply do it. Which helps me tremendously. I think of it as mind training. After all, my Buddha brain isn't so keen on the existence of the Big Guy. And somehow, I'm not sure that this matters either.

[Daniel]

I've been readng the urtext version of A Course in Miracles, and for those who don't know, urtext simply refers to the unedited version. What caught me attention as I started reading it? The 49 references to sex, which includes the 5 instances where the word homosexuality appears. These references are sprinkles throughout the first 80 pages- the last reference is on page 116. Hardly any of these references appear in the final version. Why were they excluded from the public?

Various reasons came to mind. The main one, perhaps, was that Bill Thetford, the first editor of the text, was gay, and it was 1968. Another reason may be the nature of the references themselves: they appear to be meant for the Scribes of the Course, notwithstanding one key reference which notes that the area of sex is one in which miracles workers need understanding.

Here are the bulk of the references in the order in which they appear. I'll get back later to address them in a more complete fashion.

But for now, my sense is that context is everything. One gets a better sense of the language of the Course in this way. It's use of various terms like Atonement, Creation and Revelation can be hard to grasp at first. As well, a knowledge of psychoanalytic theory is a big help.

I think it is helpful to keep in mind that the the voice of the Course is primarily concerned with one thing- the nature of perception. Keeping this in mind may one's fear as far as the references to homosexuality is concerned. One gets the sense that the voice of Course considers the body a perceptual tool, and is neutral in its intrinsic worth.

Revelations induce complete but temporary suspension of doubt & fear. They represent the original form of communication between God and His Souls, before the intrusion of fire and ice made this impossible. It should be noted that they involve an extremely personal sense of closeness to Creation, which man tries to find in sexual relationships. This confusion is responsible for the depression and fear which are often associated with sex.

Sex is often associated with lack of love, but Revelation is PURELY a love experience. Physical closeness CANNOT achieve this. As was said before, the subconscious impulses properly induce Miracles, which ARE interpersonal, and result in closeness to others. This can be misunderstood by a personally willful consciousness as an impulse toward sexual gratification.

~

Sex & miracles are both WAYS OF RELATING. The nature of any interpersonal relationship is limited or defined by what you want it to TO DO which is WHY you want it in the first place. Relating is a way of achieving an outcome.

Indiscriminate sexual impulses resemble indiscrimate miracle impulses in that both result in body image misperceptions. The first is an expression of an indiscriminate attempt to reach communion thru the body. This involves not only the improper self identification, but also disrespect for the individuality of others. Self-control is NOT the whole answer to this problem, though I am by no means discouraging its use. It must be understood, however, that the underlying mechanism must be uprooted (a word you both should understand well enough by now not to regard it as frightening).

~

Intellect may be a “displacement upward”, but sex can be a “displacement outward.” How can man “come close” to others thru the parts of him which are really invisible? The word “invisible” means “cannot be seen or perceived.” What cannot be perceived is hardly the right means for improving perception. The confusion of miracle impulse with sexual impulse is a major source of perceptual distortion, because it INDUCES rather than straightening out the basic level-confusion which underlies all those who seek happiness with the instruments of the world. A desert is a desert is a desert.

~

I want to finish the instructions about sex, because this is an area the miracle worker MUST understand. Inappropriate sex drives (or misdirected miracle-impulses) result in guilt if expressed, and depression if denied. We said before that ALL real pleasure comes from doing God’s will. Whenever it is NOT done an experience of lack results. This is because NOT doing the will of God IS a lack of self.

~

The pleasure which is derived from sex AS SUCH is reliable only because it stems from an error which men shared. AWARENESS of the error produces the guilt. DENIAL of the error results in projection. CORRECTION of the error brings release.

The only VALID use of sex is procreation. It is NOT truly pleasureable in itself. “Lead us not into Temptation” means “Do not let us deceive ourselves into believing that we can relate in peace to God or our brothers with ANYTHING external.”

The “sin of onan” was called a “sin” because it involved a related type of self-delusion; namely, that pleasure WITHOUT relating can exist.

To repeat an earlier instruction, the concept of either the self or another as a “sexOBJECT” epitomizes this strange reversal. As B. put it, and very correctly, too, it IS objectionable, but only because it is invalid. Upside-down logic produces this kind of thinking.

Child of God, you were created to create the good, the beautiful, and the holy. Do not lose sight of this. You were right in telling B. to invite Me to enter anywhere temptation arises. I will change the situation from one of inappropriate sexual attraction to one of impersonal miracle-working. The concept of changing the channel for libidinal expression is Freud’s greatest contribution, except that he did not understand what “channel” really means.

~

Sexual fantasies are distortions of percetion by definition. They are a means of making false associations, and obtaining pleasure from them. Man can do this only because he IS creative. But although he can perceive false associations, he can never make them real except to himself. As was said before, man believes in what he creates. If he creates a miracle, he will be equally strong in his belief in that. The strength of his conviction will then sustain the belief of the miracle receiver.

NO fantasies, sexual or otherwise, are true. Fantasies become totally unnecessary as the Wholly satisfying nature of reality becomes apparent. The sex impulse IS a miracle impulse when it is in proper focus. One individual sees in another the right partner for “procreating the stock” (Wolff was not too far off here), and also for their joint establishment of a creative home. This does not involve fantasy at all. If I am asked to participate in the decision, the decision will be a Right one, too.

In a situation where you or another person, or both, experience inappropriate sex impulses, KNOW FIRST that this is an expression of fear. Your love toward each other is NOT perfect, and this is why the fear arose. Turn immediately to me by denying the power of the fear, and ask me to help you to replace it will (with) love. This shifts the sexual impulse immediately to the miracle-impulse, and places it at MY disposal.

Then acknowledge the true creative worth of both yourself AND the other one. This places strength where it belongs. Note that sexual fantasies are ALWAYS destructive (or depleting), in that they perceive another in an inappropriate creative role. Both people are perceived essentially as “objects” fulfilling THEIR OWN pleasure drives. This dehumanized view is the source of the DEPLETING use of sex. Freud’s description is purely NEGATIVE, i.e., as a release from the UNPLEASANT. He also observed that the tension from id impulses never completely abates.

What he should have said is that the shift from miracle-impulses to sexual impulses was debilitating in the first place, because of the level-confusion involved. This set up a state in which real release was impossible. Note also that Freud’s notion of sex was as a device for inducing RELAXATION, which he confused with PEACE.

Inappropriate sex relaxes only in the sense that it may induce physical sleep. The miracle, on the other hand, is an ENERGIZER. It always strengthens, and never depletes. It DOES induce peace, and by establishing tranquillity (not relaxation) it enables both giver and receiver to enter into a state of Grace. Here his miracle-mindedness, (not release from tension) is restored.

~

As was said before, homosexuality is inherently more risky (or error prone) than heterosexuality, but both can be undertaken on an equally false basis. The falseness of the basis is clear in the accompanying fantasies. Homosexuality ALWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both. Penetration DOES NOT involve magic, nor DOES ANY form of sexual behavior. It IS a magic belief to engage in ANY form of body image activity at all. You neither created yourselves, nor controlled your creation. By introducing levels into your own perception, you opened the way for body-image distortions.

The lack of love (or faulty need-orientation) which led to your particular person (not OBJECT) choices CAN BE corrected within the existent framework, and would HAVE to be in the larger interest of overall progress. The situation is questionable largely because of its inherent vulnerability to fantasy-gratification. Doing the best you can WITHIN this limitation is probably the best corrective measure at present. Any relationship you have undertaken for whatever reasons becomes a responsibility.

~

Fear of possession is a perverted expression of the fear of the irresistable attraction. (Aside. Yes, this DOES apply to homosexuality, among other errors, where the whole concept of possessing, or “entering” is a key fear. It is a symbolic statement of an inverted decision NOT to enter into, or possess, the Kingdom. In physical terms, which it emphasizes because of the inherent error of Soul avoidance, REAL physical creation is avoided, and fantasy gratification is substituted.)


~

The reinterpretation of defenses is essential to break open the INNER light. Since the Separation, man’s defenses have been used almost entirely to defend themselves AGAINST the Atonement, and thus maintain their Separation. They generally see this as a need to protect the body from external intrusion (or intruding), and this kind of misperception is largely responsible for the homosexual fallacy as your own pregnancy fears. The socalled “anal” behavior is a distorted attempt to “steal” the Atonement, and deny its worth by concealing it, and holding onto it with a bodily receptacle, which is regarded as particularly vicious. “Oral” fantasies are rather similar in purpose, except that they stem more from a sense of deprivation , and insatiable thirst which results. “Anal” fallacies are more of a refusal to give, while oral fantasies emphasize a distorted need to take. The main error in both is the belief that the body can be used as a means for attaining Atonement.

[dsdrane]

And to jump off from your quote from the Course, my thinking is that, if Nothing real can be threatened and Nothing unreal exists, then there really is no reason not to be kind.

...unless you're driving in South Florida.

Otherwise...indeed.

:rolleyes::cool:

[paul]

Okeedokee,
I've been avoiding this thread. But...I admit, I'm curious. For some reason this is taking me back a few years when I played with astral projection. ooweeeooo and instead, ended up in fundamental Christianity. Having more recently discovered I didn't take the best path (I kept running into the wall of my ssa), I'm a bit shy about this stuff. I do admit I have never stopped praying, but I have stopped defining the one I pray to.

[Daniel]

Okeedokee,
I've been avoiding this thread. But...I admit, I'm curious. For some reason this is taking me back a few years when I played with astral projection. ooweeeooo and instead, ended up in fundamental Christianity. Having more recently discovered I didn't take the best path (I kept running into the wall of my ssa), I'm a bit shy about this stuff. I do admit I have never stopped praying, but I have stopped defining the one I pray to.

I understand your concern. When I first encountered the Course, I was at once attracted to it while concerned about it's provenance. After all, those who assert that Jesus is talking to them usually find themselves in psychiatric wards! And the 'voice' of the Course is purported to be that of Jesus.

What does one do with it? For me, the answer is nothing. I came to the conclusion that believing or not believing who the author was made little difference in the content. For me that was the more important matter. Another thing was that the content of the Course echoes the teachings of Buddhism. I find this very curious. Same substance, different packaging?

My own perspective is that the Course speaks a universal language in a particular language- that being the the world of Christianity. One certainly get the sense that it seeks to reframe Christianity entirely. This is an esoteric outlook. The exoteric powers-that-be want to keep things exactly as they are.

[Daniel]

Ok. Here goes.

After reading the passages that refer to homosexuality, I came away with one thought.

What's the deal here?

As was said before, homosexuality is inherently more risky (or error prone) than heterosexuality, but both can be undertaken on an equally false basis. The falseness of the basis is clear in the accompanying fantasies. Homosexuality ALWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both.

Two things caught me attention, the first being the phrase "as we said before" and the second being the word "always".

In the first case, this reference appears on page 41 or the urtext. It is the first time the word homosexual is used (the word gay never appears). Of course, one might say that the voice of the Course is referring to material that is not contained in the urtext. However, this is impossible to know without actual evidence. That said, one gets the impression from the words "error prone" that heterosexuality, like homosexuality, is something the spirit puts on when it comes into the world of flesh. So is one better than the other? Is that the implication?

My second concern is the assertion that homosexuality always involves misperception. Does this mean that heterosexuality doesn't? Frankly, I'm not sure I like what I'm hearing here. Unless I am missing something, the voice of the Course doesn't tell the reader what the nature of the misperception is. This leaves the reader at a loss.

It's too bad that we don't have clarification regarding this matter from Bill Thetford himself. One wonders how he perceived himself and his sexuality. Was he happy? Did he have a relationship with anyone? Did anyone know the man well enough to enlighten us on the matter?

Sadly- I feel as though I am left with more questions than answers.

A hint of perspective might be found from this interview that Thetford gave in 1984.

http://www.miraclestudies.net/Bill2.html

NR: Could you give an example of the personal material you deleted?

THETFORD: Oh, there were questions like, “Is there anything that we should be doing that would increase our ability to meditate better?” There was also some commentary on psychological theories that got introduced as an intellectual digression at the beginning, which had nothing to do with the Course itself.

Psychological theories? The references to sex, homosexuality and Freud certainly fall under the auspices of an intellectual digression. However, the Course's own assertion of the 'miracle-workers' need to understand sexual matters seems to contradict this statement somewhat. Is Thetford fudging here? Was the material simply too volatile and personal for inclusion?

NR: Some of the people who begin studying the Course initially are disappointed that it doesn't deal specifically with some personal, vital questions, such as sex. Why doesn't it?

THETFORD: As you know, the Course's real focus is on mind-training. Its emphasis is on spiritual development rather than the reinforcement of our ego-body identification.

But there's nothing in the Course that prohibits sex. What it does say is that the body is a neutral vehicle for the communication of love. What I think the Course is trying to underscore is that physical union can never solve the problem of our sense of separation from God, it can only be a substitute for our attempted union with God. That's why physical gratification as a goal in a relationship is never lasting, never permanent in unifying individuals. And that's also true of many other physical and emotional drives we have that stem from the ego - things that we do to try to permanently unite us with others, which always result in failure.

Whether Thetford displayed the reticence of his generation regarding his sexuality in answering this question, or simply didn't want to draw undue attention to matters that would only confuse the reader, one thing is clear: sex matters. The Scribes weren't above asking about it as revealed in the urtext.

[paul]

Whether Thetford displayed the reticence of his generation regarding his sexuality in answering this question, or simply didn't want to draw undue attention to matters that would only confuse the reader, one thing is clear: sex matters. The Scribes weren't above asking about it as revealed in the urtext.


one thing is clear: sex matters.

Which kind of begs the question (for me), as regards CIM, why, and how does sex matter?

[scott snedeker]

Does anyone know of a retreat that focusses on A Course in Miracles. I would like to attend

[Daniel]

Does anyone know of a retreat that focusses on A Course in Miracles. I would like to attend

I found this.

http://theedgeretreat.com/acourseinmiracles.htm

Don't know the presenter..

However, this one may have something in the future?

http://www.circleofa.org/

And these follks might be of some help.

http://www.facim.org/maincenter.htm

[Daniel]

one thing is clear: sex matters.

Which kind of begs the question (for me), as regards CIM, why, and how does sex matter?

I've been thinking these same questions since I began reading the Course urtext.

As I mentioned in a previous post, there are 49 references to sex, most of them within the first 80 pages. I think the most salient points the Course makes are...

1) Within the Course's cosmology, sexual impulses- like miracle impulses- are subject to distortion, in that they can be indiscriminate (p 29, p 32)).

2) What the Course seems to be working towards is appropriate impulses- that is- impulses which are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (p 32) (It's interesting that the Course often discusses matters in negative language- 'not' this and 'not' that). And to be reductive about the matter, the Course seems to regard sex as a means to experience "physical creation"- that is- have a body (p 32, p 33)).

3) Sexual pleasure without "relating" is a form of self-delusion. This involves objectification (p 33).

4) Fantasies are distortions of perception. "The sex impulse IS a miracle impulse when it is in proper focus. " (p. 38).

5) One needs to learn how to shift an inappropriate sexual impulse into a miracle impulse (p. 38). One does this be realizing that the impulse is an expression of fear. One then asks to have it replaced with love (p. 38).

In sum, two things stand out to me. Sex, when it is 'appropriate', has an relational aspect, which is something more than object-fantasy fullfillment. It involves love.

On a practical level, I believe this means that one learns, through trial and error, to listen to that still small voice- ie. having a sense of peace and joy along with the attendant sexual thoughts that arise when relating to another person.

Love: It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing....

[Emproph]

Ok. Here goes.

After reading the passages that refer to homosexuality, I came away with one thought.

What's the deal here?
As was said before, homosexuality is inherently more risky (or error prone) than heterosexuality, but both can be undertaken on an equally false basis. The falseness of the basis is clear in the accompanying fantasies. Homosexuality ALWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both.

But then remember, he spoke of how they made bad "karmic" choices, and I believe this was said specifically in relation to their choice of partners.

Why would Jesus use the word karma if reincarnation were not true? I haven't read the urtext from the beginning, only the parts you suggested. Have you or anyone else read about reincarnation itself in the urtext?

It also mentioned that "past memories" are ok to remember as long as one is not blaming others for one's current circumstances. This too seems to me to be an allusion to reincarnation - as it would not apply to our remembering our present-life "past memories." Present life memories are automatic, and therefore could not be characterized as "it's ok to remember them..."

But it definitely WOULD apply to reincarnational ideology, so as to avoid the 'blame the oppressor/victim' mentality. -Meaning that one thinks that those who've done you wrong deserve to be harmed the same in return, or that victims (think poverty) deserve what happens to them because they were once oppressors.

As far as I see it, unconditional love in itself is miraculous. I think it's wrong to think of karma in the "they deserve it" terms for this reason. In that it depletes the motive to perform the needed miracle.

The published text mentions reincarnation only to explain that the belief in it should only be used only to unify, and not to divide on the basis of belief in it or nonbelief in it.

So back to our quote, especially this part:
Homosexuality ALWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both.

As I suggested here, but did not complete my thought:

I realize that many have absolutely no issue with this, but I would still ask, to what extent are some of us “unsure” of our gender distinction specifically because of past beliefs due to social expectation? And to what extent are we aware of the nuances of our own self censorship in this regard?What past beliefs would make someone unsure of their gender distinction? and what IS a gender distintion? Do you mean "identification?"

I didn't complete my thought, but my point was that (yes Zerbie) gender 'identification' would be opposite that of physicial gender -- even for most who consider themselves gay-and-cisgenger -- if society allowed and encouraged such expression.

For me there is no difference between gay/homosexual and the understanding of being a female with a male body -- usually termed 'transgendered.' (vice versa for lesbians)

The "choice" to be gay was made before I was born, just as we all "choose" the challenges of our body predicaments. But such an understanding makes much more sense in the context of:
Homosexuality ALWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both.

Simply speaking, and ergo; In a gay/homosexual relationship, you've got two females in male bodies who perceive themselves as fundamentally attracted to each other, (again, vice versa for lesbians).

I'm still trying to work this understanding out for myself. Obviously the love is not an illusion, but the dynamics of it's expression in such a context may be. This is what I think he may be talking about.

Keep in mind though, even from this perspective, perhaps it's heterosexual dogma that's engendered the need for homosexual LOVE to show just how screwed up and idolatrous the ideal of physical male/female love is.

Idolatrous in the sense that they now justify evil in the name of the physicality of male/female relationships -- no matter what the consequences. As opposed to justifying real-love relationships.

If you define God as Love itself, it's easy to see which idea of a relationship reflects God more. It's a principle that can be applied to many situations.

[paul]

So far, from what I have read, CIM doesn't seem to affirm homosexuality.

As was said before, homosexuality is inherently more risky (or error prone) than heterosexuality, but both can be undertaken on an equally false basis. The falseness of the basis is clear in the accompanying fantasies. Homosexuality ALWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both.

That seems rather straight forward to me. (pun intended)

[Emproph]

But in regard to this part:
What I'm thinking about is how the Course dovetails with the methods of nonviolence.
Joe has a post up here (http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?p=745):
In theory, this would just mean that we have to stop listening to what people are saying in words, and listen to what they are telling us they need.
Which links to this (http://cnvc.org/nvc.htm):
Nonviolent Communication (NVC) is sometimes referred to as compassionate communication. Its purpose is to strengthen our ability to inspire compassion from others and to respond compassionately to others and to ourselves. NVC guides us to reframe how we express ourselves and hear others by focusing our consciousness on what we are observing, feeling, needing, and requesting.
This article, not to mention Joe's thoughts, reminds me of "seeing one's brother as sinless," as the Course often suggests.

I'm terrible at applying it, but it's definitely how I would explain the ideal.

[Daniel]

But then remember, he spoke of how they made bad "karmic" choices, and I believe this was said specifically in relation to their choice of partners.


I see your point.

There are three references to karma in the urtext.

Tell B. he is right in providing you with the consistent strength you need to get, and he needs to offer. Your instability and his weakness have resulted from bad karmic choices, and your relationship NOW is crucial for the future. (p. 36)

“Vengeance is Mine sayeth the Lord” is strictly a karmic viewpoint. It is a real misperception of truth, by which man assigns his own evil past to God. The “evil conscience” from the past has nothing to do with God. He did not create it, and He does not maintain it. God does NOT believe in karmic retribution at all. His Divine mind does not create that way. HE does not hold the evil deeds of a man even against HIMSELF. It is likely, then, that He would hold against any man the evil that ANOTHER did?

Now. As to your question.

Why would Jesus use the word karma if reincarnation were not true? I haven't read the urtext from the beginning, only the parts you suggested. Have you or anyone else read about reincarnation itself in the urtext?

Why indeed?

There is one reference to reincarnation in the urtext.

Cayce and his devotion to me are in no way underestimated by the realization that he worked under very great strain, which is ALWAYS a sign that something is wrong. One of the difficulties inherent in trance states is that it is very difficult to overcome the split which the trance itself induces through the medium of communications made while in the trance state. Cayce’s whole approach put him in a real double-bind, from which he did not recover. When he spoke of a dream in which he saw his own rather immanent reincarnation, he was perfectly accurate. He was sufficiently attuned to real communication to make it easy to correct his errors, and free him to communicate without strain. (p. 77)

As an aside, I can see why the Scribes gave a copy of the Course to Cayce's son, Hugh. This material isn't in the later versions.

Emproph- from this quote above, one certainly does get the impression that the voice to the Course takes reincarnation for granted.

I didn't complete my thought, but my point was that (yes Zerbie) gender 'identification' would be opposite that of physicial gender -- even for most who consider themselves gay-and-cisgenger -- if society allowed and encouraged such expression.

For me there is no difference between gay/homosexual and the understanding of being a female with a male body -- usually termed 'transgendered.' (vice versa for lesbians)

The "choice" to be gay was made before I was born, just as we all "choose" the challenges of our body predicaments. But such an understanding makes much more sense in the context of:

Homosexuality ALWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both.

Simply speaking, and ergo; In a gay/homosexual relationship, you've got two females in male bodies who perceive themselves as fundamentally attracted to each other, (again, vice versa for lesbians).

I'm still trying to work this understanding out for myself. Obviously the love is not an illusion, but the dynamics of it's expression in such a context may be. This is what I think he may be talking about.

I hear you saying that gay men are female souls emeshed into male bodies. I guess that's one way to look at things, but my sense is that this says more about how we look at gender - and gender roles- than spirituality and matters of eternity. After all, who are we minus duality? And looking at the matter in terms of male and female is a very dualitic view. Can we do that and understand what we are talking about? That's my conumdrum.

Keep in mind though, even from this perspective, perhaps it's heterosexual dogma that's engendered the need for homosexual LOVE to show just how screwed up and idolatrous the ideal of physical male/female love is.

You make a very interesting point here. The difference in expression of love show up 'love' for what it is.

And going in another direction, and perhaps adding more confusion to my earlier thoughts, Plato comes to mind here. He had some interesting things to say about this souls and gender, that being the notion that there are three kinds of beings: male, female and androgynous. It's the latter that come into this world looking for the their opposite sex partner.

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art26882.asp

"When a person meets the half that is his very own, whatever his orientation, then something wonderful happens: the two are struck from their senses by love, by a sense of belonging to one another, and by desire, and they don't want to be separated from one another, not even for a minute."

"These are people who finish out their lives together and still cannot say what it is they want from one another. No one would think it is the intimacy of sex - that mere sex is the reason each lover takes so great and deep a joy in being with the other. It's obvious that the soul of every lover longs for something else; his soul cannot say what it is, but like an oracle it has a sense of what it wants, and like an oracle it hides behind a riddle."

Whatever we are, I think we are all looking for love. (Hopefully in all the right places.)

[Kirt]

Hello,

I found this thread through a Google search on Urtext and got to reading this discussion on homosexuality and ACIM and wanted to share a book which may help shed some light on this topic. The book Relationships as a Spiritual Journey by Robert Perry, is based on ACIM's teachings and discusses our "Special Relationships" which is all our relationships here in this world. As Kenneth Wapnick frequently points out ACIM addresses thoughts and not behavior. Based on this it really doesn't matter what your sexual preference is. What's worth noting though is that these special relationships are not REAL love, but conditional love masked as real, and whether your partner is male or female, the partner is misperceived as merely an object. This is the misperception the mind needs healed.

The book is a great eye-opener if you'd like to examine the ego's play on relationships. Here's a couple links if interested.

Author's Bookstore (http://www.circlepublishing.org/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CP&Product_Code=B109&Category_Code=Books)

Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Relationships-Spiritual-Journey-Robert-Perry/dp/1886602174/ref=sr_1_1/002-6667314-0400001?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187995485&sr=8-1)

Take care,
Kirt

[Zerbie]

I hear you saying that gay men are female souls emeshed into male bodies. I guess that's one way to look at things, but my sense is that this says more about how we look at gender - and gender roles- than spirituality and matters of eternity. After all, who are we minus duality? And looking at the matter in terms of male and female is a very dualitic view.


While I agree with everything Daniel says here, what I understand Emproph to be saying is that really, all gay men are lesbians and all lesbians are gay men. :p (Don't hurt me Patrick!:shield::lol:)

[Daniel]

While I agree with everything Daniel says here, what I understand Emproph to be saying is that really, all gay men are lesbians and all lesbians are gay men. :p (Don't hurt me Patrick!:shield::lol:)

But I wonder if I agree with myself! :rolleyes::lol: I'm not sure what I think about the Course statements about homosexuality. Though I do know that they deserve attention. And my sense is that, to understand them, one must not make the mistake or rationalizing them- or equally- taking them too seriously. After all, I am leery of looking to outside authorities for validation. ;) Isn't that what the Enlightenment was all about?

I've been spending some time learning about the history of the Course and find it intesting that it has been through a lenghly legal battle. And it pleases my researcher's mind to know that the resolution puts it in the public domain. I even read through the court testimony (I served on a legal case recently so this seemed par for the course .....now that's a pun!), which, to these eyes, speaks for itself.

http://www.miracles-course.org/legal/The_Truth_Judy_Skutch.txt

Of course one asks, "Do these things matter?" I would answer: "Yes....very much." Inquiring minds want to know. And having an inquiring mind, I am loath to accept others words about matters which I am equipped - through my god-given brain- to ponder myself.

Why I've come to is this: are the references to homosexuality a stumbling block for students of the Course? I think this a valid question. One which no amount of 'gloss' will suffice to cover over. At least not for me.

I found this thread through a Google search on Urtext and got to reading this discussion on homosexuality and ACIM and wanted to share a book which may help shed some light on this topic. The book Relationships as a Spiritual Journey by Robert Perry, is based on ACIM's teachings and discusses our "Special Relationships" which is all our relationships here in this world. As Kenneth Wapnick frequently points out ACIM addresses thoughts and not behavior. Based on this it really doesn't matter what your sexual preference is. What's worth noting though is that these special relationships are not REAL love, but conditional love masked as real, and whether your partner is male or female, the partner is misperceived as merely an object. This is the misperception the mind needs healed.

I'm afraid I'm being picky here, but I see a contradiction in the statement in bold above. The Course may indeed address one's thoughts, but as any behaviorist will tell you, behavior is embodied thought. We speak with our feet- as it were.

And to address the subsequent thought. The gender of one's partner may not be important as far as the Course is concerned, but this still doesn't answer my beef with the Course's statement about homosexuality.

Homosexuality ALWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both.

As I mentioned before, the statement - on the face of it- leads one to ask ....ok.....what about heterosexuality? To rephrase the statement, how does it sound like this?

Heterosexuality AWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both.

Doesn't ring try any more true than the previous statement, does it?

There may be a way around this- and I admit- it's a bit of intellectual fudging- being based on conjecture on my part. In my researching the history of the Course, I finally came upon a comment about Bill Thetford.

http://www.execulink.com/~dthomp75/2007/docs/Scholarly2.htm
In the past 7 years a great deal of early ACIM material which had previously been kept hidden has emerged, and very little in the way of “deep dark secrets” has emerged with it, save for the qualifications that need to be added to “virtually unchanged.” Yes, there have been some surprises, but other than the first thing learned from the first of the early manuscripts, that the editing had been far more extensive than the publishers had led readers to believe, there isn’t a great deal which strikes me as giving anyone a motive to keep the material secret. I can see why Dr. Kenneth Wapnick, whose account of the editing is shown to be not entirely correct by the first of the primary source materials to emerge, might have wished that material to not be published. Once it was published, and the fact of substantial editing and a high rate of errors in that editing became known, however, I am aware of nothing further that might explain the desire to keep the material secret. I have not been able to examine the whole of the original Notes but those who have also assure me that there is no such “deep dark secret.” The horse has left … there is no need to guard the barn door further, save perhaps for the “habit and culture of secrecy” that Helen and Bill developed before they even discovered the Course. Bill was gay and in the closet and Helen had been a member of the Communist party in her youth and had recently lived through the communist witch-hunts … both had secrets to keep on which their professional careers perhaps depended. Both were good at keeping secrets and making cover stories. The habit of covering and deceiving was developed by necessity but as with so many such unfortunate habits, it was extended into areas where it was not only not necessary, it was positively destructive. And that habit still plagues Helen’s work!

Humor me here...there's another tidbit you should know.

Further inquiry reveals there are at least two and possibly three still earlier versions of the Text portion of ACIM which are still being kept secret. We know that we don’t have either the original shorthand notebooks, called simply the Notes here, nor the original Thetford transcription of those notebooks, which is the version to which the name “Urtext” properly applies.

Keep in mind, the urtext that I have been reading makes a reference to homosexuality.

As was said before, homosexuality is inherently more risky (or error prone) than heterosexuality, but both can be undertaken on an equally false basis.

As I mentioned earlier, there is no prior reference to homosexuality before the one above which appears on page 41. This supports the view that the available manuscript is an edited version, and that there is at least one additional reference to homosexuality that was edited out.

Ok.....he's my conjecture.

What if one wrote the troubling statement thus:

Your (Bill Thetford's) homosexuality ALWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both.

This is what closed gay men do: they misperceive themselves and others and act accordingly.

After all, it is not unreasonable to assume that the references to homosexuality were in response to Bill Thetford's questions. This would make the statement very personal. (However, I have to say that I question my own conjecture. The sentence in question appears in a passage that is more impersonal than personal in tone. )

If I were Bill Thetford and in the closet, I can see why I'd want that taken out. And for the liberation of all GLBT souls, I can see why all prior material should be made available for scholarship.

Holding out on original sources is one heck of an ego manuever, don't you think?

[NathanATX]

http://www.circleofa.org/articles/HelenAndBill.php

And Bill, too, devoted much energy to straightening out his relationships.



:D :lol:

I'm actually going to check into this now... I've done landmark and this sounds like it's also about creating transformation...

www.landmarkeducation.com

[Kirt]

Daniel,

I can easily see Jesus saying "Heterosexuality AWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both." To me this version sounds just as logical. Maybe the only reason homosexuality was even brought up was to help Bill with a question or concern.

I very much agree with your statement that behavior is embodied thought. If the thought (misperception) is corrected, then the behavior will change. But the Course isn't concerned at all about changing the world just our beliefs about it. Perhaps in the future, maybe thousands of years from now we'll get to the point where there won't be heterosexual or homosexual encounters at all. Maybe instead of seeing "objects" we'll see the face of Christ in all our brothers (and sisters) and just laugh at any lingering sexual urges that may float across our mind. I believe this is the direction Robert Perry feels Jesus is leading us in this part of His teachings.

The ego probably loves all the attention you're placing on homosexuality and its place in ACIM. It keeps the veil pulled over your eyes and away from Truth. In fact it's probably hoping your inquiring mind will find something strong enough that you'll push the Course away and vow never to return. Can you blame it? The ego's survival depends wholly on that veil.

Take care,
Kirt

[Daniel]

The ego probably loves all the attention you're placing on homosexuality and its place in ACIM. It keeps the veil pulled over your eyes and away from Truth. In fact it's probably hoping your inquiring mind will find something strong enough that you'll push the Course away and vow never to return. Can you blame it? The ego's survival depends wholly on that veil.


Kirt- I understand that are making an effort to bring correction to what you consider to be my misperception, but the words above comes across as patronizing.

I'm not looking for a way in which to ditch the Course. And while I am no John Boswell (one of the first scholars to address homosexuality and the bible), I believe that the more we know about Course, it's context, content and milieu, the better we will be able to understand it and actualize its principles.

[Daniel]

:D :lol:

I'm actually going to check into this now... I've done landmark and this sounds like it's also about creating transformation...


Thanks Nathan. I had forgotten about the Landmark Forum- having known a few people who have taken it over the years- including my mother-in-law. I'm showing my age here, but I first heard of it when it was called EST, though I understand the methodology of the course has changed somewhat since then.

Suffice it to say, I think self-inquiry, or rather inquiry that is based on examing the process by which a person of an organization functions, is very much needed in these matters.

Socrates would be proud.

[Zerbie]

Daniel,


I very much agree with your statement that behavior is embodied thought. If the thought (misperception) is corrected, then the behavior will change. But the Course isn't concerned at all about changing the world just our beliefs about it. Perhaps in the future, maybe thousands of years from now we'll get to the point where there won't be heterosexual or homosexual encounters at all. Maybe instead of seeing "objects" we'll see the face of Christ in all our brothers (and sisters) and just laugh at any lingering sexual urges that may float across our mind.
,
Kirt

Where are babies going to come from then? Factories?

Why should it take thousands of years to stop thinking in dualistic terms? All you'd have to do is look with your eyes open to stop seeing your analysis of homosexualtiy/heterosexuality.

[Kirt]

Kirt- I understand that are making an effort to bring correction to what you consider to be my misperception, but the words above comes across as patronizing.

I'm not looking for a way in which to ditch the Course. And while I am no John Boswell (one of the first scholars to address homosexuality and the bible), I believe that the more we know about Course, it's context, content and milieu, the better we will be able to understand it and actualize its principles.

Sorry Daniel, I didn't mean to offend. The ego toys with me morning, noon and night so I'm definitely not trying to portray myself on some pedestal. I think my problem is that I'm a horrible written communicator. I kid you not I can say something face-to-face and not spark a reaction whatsoever then turn and email the same thing to someone and their response is pretty much "wtf?". I need to buy a video camera and only put my two cents in on message boards that support them. :lol:

And I'm with you on wanting to get as much information on ACIM as possible. If Wapnick ever released any of the hand written notes or any other material that is currently behind lock and key, I'd be all over it in a heartbeat. I've recently began reading a copy of the urtext and I'm amazed at what has been left out of latest printed copies of ACIM.

Over the past 10 or so years that I've been "studying" the Course I've wasted most of that time digesting other people's views instead of just focusing on the Course itself. Maybe with my post I was just giving advice to myself through communicating with you.

[Kirt]

Where are babies going to come from then? Factories?

Hi Zerbie,

You won't find this in the printed ACIM but in the Urtext Jesus says:

The only VALID use of sex is procreation.

and I'm not sure where I read this but the children provide opportunities for lessons to be learned which I believe is true. For example, I have three young children and the main lesson I've learned (which I never even considered before having children) is that there is absolutely NOTHING they could do, or say, that would cause me to love them any less, or any more for that matter, and this is the type of God that the Course teaches is real. Not the vengeful god that man created and portrays in the traditional Bible.

Why should it take thousands of years to stop thinking in dualistic terms?

The course says that time has been around since the separation and will be here until it's no longer needed. We haven't got it yet so I can see it taking thousands of years more. Even in ACIM Jesus says:

A miracle has thus the unique property of abolishing time by rendering the space of time it occupies unnecessary. There is NO relation between the time a miracle TAKES and the time it COVERS. It substitutes FOR learning that might have taken thousands of years. It does this by the underlying recognition of perfect equality and holiness between doer and receiver on which the miracle rests.

Besides, when you’re talking eternity, thousands of years is just a drop in the bucket. Also, I'm a man and I can tell you right now it'll take a good thousand years before I'm spiritually mature enough to look at some hottie and not respond like a dog in heat as I currently do. :lol:

All you'd have to do is look with your eyes open to stop seeing your analysis of homosexuality/heterosexuality.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your statement here. I was really trying to point out that I don't think there's a need for a homosexuality/heterosexuality analysis at all with A Course in Miracles.

Peace,
Kirt

[Zerbie]

I shouldn't try to have a conversation about Course in Miracles. All I know about it is what Daniel's mentioned here and the other comments made on this thread, and from what I gather I'm only seeing a few details debated out of context and I don't even know what the whole things is about yet.

My only point was that, while it COULD take a thousand years, it could also happen in an instant. Why are we looking at "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" instead of a soul, anyway? That only requires one instant.

[Daniel]

My only point was that, while it COULD take a thousand years, it could also happen in an instant. Why are we looking at "homosexuality" or "heterosexuality" instead of a soul, anyway? That only requires one instant.

Zerbie- you are a lot smarter than you think. The Course talks a lot about the 'Holy Instant'. :D

There are 303 references to it in fact. Here is the first one on page 305.

This lesson takes NO time. For what IS time, WITHOUT a past and future? It HAS taken time to misguide you so completely, but it takes no time at all to BE what you ARE. Begin to practice the Holy Spirit’s USE of time, as a teaching aid to happiness and peace. Take this very instant, NOW, and think of it as ALL THERE IS of time. Nothing can reach you here, out of the past, and it is here that you are COMPLETELY absolved, COMPLETELY free, and WHOLLY without condemnation. From this holy instant, wherein holiness is born, you will go forth in time without fear, and with no sense of change WITH time.

[Emproph]

I hear you [Emproph] saying that gay men are female souls emeshed into male bodies. I guess that's one way to look at things, but my sense is that this says more about how we look at gender - and gender roles- than spirituality and matters of eternity. After all, who are we minus duality? And looking at the matter in terms of male and female is a very dualitic view. While I agree with everything Daniel says here, what I understand Emproph to be saying is that really, all gay men are lesbians and all lesbians are gay men. :p (Don't hurt me Patrick!:shield::lol:)

Lol Zerbie ;). Technically yes. Based on my perception, and according to my understanding, If you’ve got two females with male bodies, that is a gay male relationship. If you have two males with female bodies, that is a lesbian relationship.

In a way it makes everything the right wing supremacist Christians say about homosexuality true. But in a reincarnational context – whereas a negatively charged spirit (female) is fused with a body meant to house a positively charged spirit (male) – it also definably proves the perversion of their approach to the so called “perversion” of homosexuality. – Making reparative, or “ex-gay” therapy to develop one’s “heterosexual potential,” the creation of the TRUE perversion of heterosexuality, which they erroneously perceive us to be.

It's complicated, but they interpret it the best way they know how. They just also happen to be WRONG WRONG WRONG.

We are each half of a soul. A split particle of the energy of God. One positive and one negative. In physical reality this is understood as male and female. Somewhere out there, there is the oppositely charged piece of us having their own experience, but we are always in perfect communication, just as an electron is with an atom. The magnetic inbetween part is what we call love.

Bisexuals may be in SUCH intimate communication with their other half, that the + or - charge itself may be being communicated to the other. Thus they are sexually attracted to both genders, or charges. That’s my theory anyway.

If you REALLY, REEELY want to get technical about it. Bisexuality is the key to understanding homosexuality which is the key to understanding heterosexuality.

It’s a perfect spiral.

I shouldn't try to have a conversation about Course in Miracles. All I know about it is what Daniel's mentioned here and the other comments made on this thread, and from what I gather I'm only seeing a few details debated out of context and I don't even know what the whole things is about yet.
I don’t think you should discount yourself as such. As Daniel mentioned, you are a lot smarter than you think. I think that the truth of the course is so apparent to you that it may seem confusing, only because it’s presented as something that needs to be taught. Where as you see it as common sense.

[Emproph]

Daniel,

I can easily see Jesus saying "Heterosexuality AWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both." To me this version sounds just as logical. Maybe the only reason homosexuality was even brought up was to help Bill with a question or concern.

[snip]

The ego probably loves all the attention you're placing on homosexuality and its place in ACIM. It keeps the veil pulled over your eyes and away from Truth. In fact it's probably hoping your inquiring mind will find something strong enough that you'll push the Course away and vow never to return. Can you blame it? The ego's survival depends wholly on that veil.Kirt- I understand that are making an effort to bring correction to what you consider to be my misperception, but the words above comes across as patronizing.

I'm not looking for a way in which to ditch the Course. And while I am no John Boswell (one of the first scholars to address homosexuality and the bible), I believe that the more we know about Course, it's context, content and milieu, the better we will be able to understand it and actualize its principles.

I can see how that point of Kirt's in bold would be patronizing to you Daniel. Fortunately I know you enough to understand to take to heart your sentiment that:
And my sense is that, to understand them, one must not make the mistake or rationalizing them- or equally- taking them too seriously.

That's about as non-ego as it gets as far as I'm concerned -- to see it from 'both' sides -- but I had the same thought as Kirk above, not about you, but about others, when you said this:
Emproph- from this quote above, one certainly does get the impression that the voice to the Course takes reincarnation for granted.

How many people just threw out their Course in Miracles book because of the potential reality of reincarnation that the Course may suggest?

If I didn't know you, I could easily see you struggling with this, or many other aspects of the course that were not published.

Which leads me to believe that there may be a less sinister motive for not publishing such text, in regard to:
If I were Bill Thetford and in the closet, I can see why I'd want that taken out. And for the liberation of all GLBT souls, I can see why all prior material should be made available for scholarship.

Holding out on original sources is one heck of an ego manuever, don't you think?

I think I see your point, but at the time it may have been even more destructive to the acceptance of the Course, and to the understanding of homosexuality for those taking the course. Perhaps this was part of the reasoning.

In any event, if God/Love is in control of all, then this thread is one step in the direction of its will to bring this information to light.

This is much the way I feel about it in a simplistic sense:
I can easily see Jesus saying "Heterosexuality AWAYS involves misperception of the self OR the partner, and generally both." To me this version sounds just as logical. Maybe the only reason homosexuality was even brought up was to help Bill with a question or concern.
To even feel the need to have a physical body ALWAYS involves misperception, because it always involves the idea of separateness.

And from the few parts I read in the urtext, which is probably also mentioned in the published text, physical reality and the perception of separateness, was designed for the sole purpose of unlearning it.

[Kirt]

While we're on the topic of learning more about the story behind A Course in Miracles, one book that is a "must read" is Absence from Felicity by Kenneth Wapnick. This book has 500 pages of phenomenal details about Helen (mainly), Bill, and Ken and the scribing of the Course with tons of behind-the-scene details. I've read a number of Wapnick's other books, and although I disagree with a number of his Course interpretations, this book was very hard for me to put down.
Daniel, if you haven't read this one, I think you'd really enjoy it.

Blessings to you all,
Kirt

[paul]

Lol Zerbie ;). Technically yes. Based on my perception, and according to my understanding, If you’ve got two females with male bodies, that is a gay male relationship. If you have two males with female bodies, that is a lesbian relationship.

In a way it makes everything the right wing supremacist Christians say about homosexuality true. But in a reincarnational context – whereas a negatively charged spirit (female) is fused with a body meant to house a positively charged spirit (male) – it also definably proves the perversion of their approach to the so called “perversion” of homosexuality. – Making reparative, or “ex-gay” therapy to develop one’s “heterosexual potential,” the creation of the TRUE perversion of heterosexuality, which they erroneously perceive us to be.

It's complicated, but they interpret it the best way they know how. They just also happen to be WRONG WRONG WRONG.

We are each half of a soul. A split particle of the energy of God. One positive and one negative. In physical reality this is understood as male and female. Somewhere out there, there is the oppositely charged piece of us having their own experience, but we are always in perfect communication, just as an electron is with an atom. The magnetic inbetween part is what we call love.

Bisexuals may be in SUCH intimate communication with their other half, that the + or - charge itself may be being communicated to the other. Thus they are sexually attracted to both genders, or charges. That’s my theory anyway.

If you REALLY, REEELY want to get technical about it. Bisexuality is the key to understanding homosexuality which is the key to understanding heterosexuality.

It’s a perfect spiral.


I don’t think you should discount yourself as such. As Daniel mentioned, you are a lot smarter than you think. I think that the truth of the course is so apparent to you that it may seem confusing, only because it’s presented as something that needs to be taught. Where as you see it as common sense.

Okay, I'm doing this on the fly...which is to say, not by 'knowledge' but perhaps by seeing.

I think Daniel was really seeing when he first proposed a purpose of CIM as a means to help establish a kind disposition, particularly towards those who are contrary. "Love your enemies..." I think I see him looking to bridge that gap between knowing and being...and I consider that a wow moment.

In a context of reincarnation/karma. A reason for choosing to come back as gay can be that it presents a powerful opportunity to establish/learn an attitude of love. It makes sense to put onself in difficult positions if the purpose of life on earth is to develop, evolve (is that word to loaded?). That's very funny, eh? Being gay is a 'choice'...sort of, one we made before birth, but it takes some progress to become conscious of it as such.

One of the coins of the gay realm is "the closet." Getting out of it is one challenge. Getting out of it and repairing from the damage is another. Turning a great negative into a great positive is the goal.

I'm wondering if a "female in a male body" is a little too black and white? I don't know. I am more familiar with the sacred scriptures of Judeo/Christianity than any other, it's where I have gotten most of my own enlightenment (I think "enlightenment", I could just be completely deluded :lol:). Course, we always have to get past the fundamental mindset that can occur with any sacred book. The temptation is always to make that scripture/tool "it" (idolatry) when it's really just a tool to get us 'there.':D Anyway: "...there is neither male nor female in Christ." If one considers "in Christ" means being one with the essence of life vs. an individual person, it takes on a different meaning (particularly in the bible). So, is this a truth? In the ultimate reality that we are going towards, there is neither male nor female? So, I'm considering: when in a state of understanding (pre-reincarnation), are the selections being made more detailed than "male in a female body, etc.," in order to accomplish a more detailed outcome. My primary sticking point with the "male in a female body, etc.," notion is that it seems to set up a certain impossible conundrum. It would seem to suggest that if I'm a female in a male body that I couldn't find my 'solution' in another gay person, but only with a straight. So I'm thinking there's something more to that.

Re: Zerbie, I think it's an understatement to say she is "a lot smarter than she thinks." Zerbie has turned extreme hardship in her own life into love for others, and she is very good at it and consistent. I think if she died tomorrow, she would have died a success.

[Daniel]

Please forgive the hop-scotching around that I'm about to do...


While we're on the topic of learning more about the story behind A Course in Miracles, one book that is a "must read" is Absence from Felicity by Kenneth Wapnick.

Kirt- thanks for the recommendation. I read Wapnick's Love Does Not Condemn some years ago, when I first picked up the Course.


I think Daniel was really seeing when he first proposed a purpose of CIM as a means to help establish a kind disposition, particularly towards those who are contrary. "Love your enemies..." I think I see him looking to bridge that gap between knowing and being...and I consider that a wow moment.

The Course as a means, or method, towards enacting the Golden Rule. You are right Paul. That was my original motivation. The Workbook (the part of the Course which has daily lessons) is probably the best way to proceed in that endeavor. I'm sorry if my stumbling upon- and over- the issue of homosexuality in the Course has caused a bump in the road.

In a context of reincarnation/karma. A reason for choosing to come back as gay can be that it presents a powerful opportunity to establish/learn an attitude of love. It makes sense to put onself in difficult positions if the purpose of life on earth is to develop, evolve (is that word to loaded?). That's very funny, eh? Being gay is a 'choice'...sort of, one we made before birth, but it takes some progress to become conscious of it as such.

I don't have an issue with reincarnation. And in fact had a pastlife regression some years ago which was rather illuminating. I think I posted about it here in another discussion.

In terms of what the Course says about homosexuality, your thoughts above make a great deal of sense to me. That being the soul as choosing a way of being in the world which is - inherently- more challenging, one which entails a great deal of unravelling of misperception for all concerned. That said, I'm still mulling what the Course is referring to when it talks about homosexuality and 'fantasies'.

The temptation is always to make that scripture/tool "it" (idolatry) when it's really just a tool to get us 'there.'

La Verita! I don't want to be worshipping the Course- thank you very much! :lol: And the bowing and scraping that can go along with those who are held up as authorities gives me pause. As some point we all have to think for ourselves, as hard as that can be.

Re: Zerbie, I think it's an understatement to say she is "a lot smarter than she thinks." Zerbie has turned extreme hardship in her own life into love for others, and she is very good at it and consistent. I think if she died tomorrow, she would have died a success.

:love::love::love::love: (genuflecting towards Arizona)

I think I see your point, but at the time it may have been even more destructive to the acceptance of the Course, and to the understanding of homosexuality for those taking the course. Perhaps this was part of the reasoning.

Good point. Packaging is important too. Scholar types like myself who are fascinated by original scources and matters which can lead to controversy (I've done a great deal of research in another field and have come to realize that I am a library rat!) often don't appreciate that, for great ideas to have great influence, they have to have be disseminated in such a way that make them accessible.

[Daniel]

That's what I've been telling myself after reading a brief history of the Course.....here:

http://www.execulink.com/~dthomp75/2007/docs/pre-stuff1colEbrown2.htm#_Toc159767772

This is the site that has the urtext in PDF format. Here is an informative passage.

The “personal material” which was later, and probably correctly removed from the Course, deals extensively with the difficulties Bill and Helen had with each other as well as with the Course. Bill’s tendency to be a “professor who refuses to profess” and withdraw from his assignment is dealt with, as is Helen’s reluctance to do as she’s asked by the Voice, which is to “help Bill” with “Bill’s better idea.”

Toward the end of the scribing, Helen and Bill had increasing difficulty collaborating, and some sense of the dynamics is offered by Kenneth Wapnick in his book Absence from Felicity whose title describes the situation he found when he met them in 1973 and began to help them get the material ready for printing.

Bill Thetford would never be the “professor” of the Course which the dictation clearly calls on him to be, nor would he ever fully exercise the role of “editor” he is assigned. Helen Schucman, whom Ken Wapnick described as a “compulsive” editor, took over the editing role and by her own admission “wanted to change everything” and proceeded to change a great deal. While she also noted that Thetford “wanted to change nothing” she not only failed to “help him” in his role, as she was repeatedly asked, but proceeded to actively obstruct him by making changes herself, changes the Voice specifically stated were Thetford’s responsibility and not hers.

My earlier musings speculated on Thetford's internalized homophobia as reason for the references to sex and homosexuality being edited out. Seeing that the urtext is the third document the link gives a complete history of editions), it is highly likely that Thetford intended the references to sex and homosexuality to be included in the final product. It was after this edtion that he seemingly gave up editorial control....or rather....did not exercise it. The author of the article quoted above suggests that Schucman took it upon herself to edit the Course, and found the beginning chapter's conversational tone at odds with the Voice's latter expression.

So much for talking outloud. Sorry Bill. My apologies.

Just goes to show: you have to weight a good deal of information before making a conclusion. And I think I have more to do on this issue.

[Emproph]

suggests that Schucman took it upon herself to edit the Course, and found the beginning chapter's conversational tone at odds with the Voice's latter expression.

And that's exactly the impression I felt from it's "conversational tone." Despite the blinding logic of its truth, I found it hard to accept from an authoritative point of view, ie Jesus. And for a free thinker like me, it's still somewhat disturbing to realize.

It was as though I wanted to accept it from an authoritative view, rather than from a 'hey this just makes sense' point of view. It also comes back to my own previous definition/idea of Jesus.

But the whole point is that he is God AND human, and was trying to relay this same truth to the rest of us, even way back when. So why wouldn't he be "conversational" in expressing that truth now?

Then again, why am I still asking the question? Even if it came from "Satan," if it's true, does it matter?

Which brings us back to it for the sake of curiosity. Since it is true (I'm a witness), why wouldn't it be Jesus?

Or perhaps better yet, and according to the story of Jesus, of course it would be Jesus.


...?

[Daniel]

Emproph- Strangely enought, the provenance of the Course has never been an issue for me. One way of explaining this is that I've always been drawn to the ideas expressed in it, rather than the 'person' saying them. They resonate with all that I've learned and experienced with Buddhism and Buddhist meditation practice. However, if I had come straight to it from being the Pentacostal that I was, I might be singing a different tune.

One question comes to mind. Why do you think conservatives find it so threatening?