A Course in Miracles

[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:

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

Joe has a post up here:

Originally Posted by Joe Brummer

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:

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]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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.

Originally Posted by Emporph

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.

Originally Posted by Emproph

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:

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.

Originally Posted by Emproph

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

Amazon

Take care,
Kirt

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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. (Don't hurt me Patrick!)

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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. (Don't hurt me Patrick!)

But I wonder if I agree with myself! 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...udy_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.

Originally Posted by kirt

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/~dthomp75/2...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.

Originally Posted by ACIM

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by Kirt

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]

Originally Posted by NathanATX

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]

Originally Posted by Kirt

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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'.

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]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

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. (Don't hurt me Patrick!)

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Daniel

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:

Originally Posted by Daniel

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:

Originally Posted by Daniel

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:

Originally Posted by Daniel

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:

Originally Posted by Kirt

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]

Originally Posted by Emproph

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 ). 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.' 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...

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by paul

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.

Originally Posted by Paul

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'.

Originally Posted by Paul

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! 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.

Originally Posted by Paul

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.

(genuflecting towards Arizona)

Originally Posted by Emproph

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.