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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

...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 time

you 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?

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

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

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

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.

Originally Posted by BruceChris

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.

Originally Posted by BruceChris

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.

Originally Posted by Emproph

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?

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by kara speltz

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.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

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

Originally Posted by Jennifer5

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. 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 . 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]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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.

Originally Posted by Emproph

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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]

Originally Posted by scott snedeker

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]

Originally Posted by paul

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Ok. Here goes.

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

What's the deal here?

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:

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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.