Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about A Course in Miracles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Archive 1: May 17, 2004 - Nov 12, 2005

Initial construction handshakes

[to Gary D:] Thanks for your article on ACIM that I started. It looks very impressive. Where are the followers located? I have the impression that ACIM is quite popular here in the Netherlands and in the USA. There is one controversial group in Wisconsin. Shouldn't that one be mentiond? Andries 17:50, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Andries, thank you for your kind note on the A Course in Miracles article. I liked your stub and although you have said you are a skeptic I thought the stub had nice NPOV. I wrote the article from the background of being an ACIM adherent, and I hope the POV has remained sufficiently neutral.

I hope you don't mind me removing the second paragraph, but I think all of its content has been included in the expanded version.

Thank you also for your suggestions. The followers of ACIM are worldwide, and I will mention that. The controversial cult in Wisconsin should probably also be included in the future, but that is beyond my scope at the moment, because I am very new to Wikipedia, and am currently just trying to do a general overview. The Wisconsin organization is part of a very large and controversial (though fascinating in its own way) subtopic. In fact, I bet we will find that what I have already written will be considered controversial when other ACIM students start to review it. We will see. Thanks again! Gary D 18:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Saw your recent wikification. I had been wondering myself about whether to link to Columbia University and psychiatry, but as I've said, I'm very new to this, and wasn't sure how far to take the whole linkage thing. Didn't think at all about the American links; ethnocentrism, I suppose. Thanks for those. Gary D 22:38, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

"Christian in statement"

GaryD, "Christian in statement", what does that mean? It may be my English because I never lived in an English speaking country but I really don't know what that means. Can you please clarify? Thanks in advance. Andries 18:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Once again, Andries, you ask a good question. This is in fact somewhat odd phrasing, even for native English speakers. It is my attempt to convey information in a few words while avoiding controversy. I took the phrase "Christian in statement" from the ACIM Preface itself, and as used there, it means that ACIM deals in Christian concepts and uses Christian terminology, and of course it is said to come from Jesus, the very center of Christianity. However, ACIM takes the position that it is correcting Christianity, and it in fact dismisses several core Christian principles, so it is not a Christian work in the traditional sense. There are many, many traditional Christians who would call ACIM blasphemy, the work of the Devil, and say everyone involved with it going to Hell. So I used the same phrase that ACIM uses as a means to express the work's conceptual and textual proximity to Christianity without putting it squarely into the Christian camp. There is a term that has been kicked around to describe ACIM, "Neochristianity," but I wouldn't say that term has become sufficiently established to include it here. --Gary D 22:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Gene's report

I removed shallow or waning influence as inappropriate and unsupported, and tried to NPOV a bit. There is still a vast amount which could be added. User: Gene Ward Smith

Why ACIM cannot speak for itself in Wikipedia

I can see you have spent alot of time on this, thank you. I have added a couple of links, in regard to the so called copyright issue. A Course In Miracles is so much more than your/my ideas about it, why not use the course's own descriptions of Itself to present?. Everything is covered in the book. Can we let it speak for Itself? Tony

This may sound like heresy, but no, I don't think we can let it speak for itself, because the context here is an encyclopedia where casual readers come to be brought up to speed quickly on topics with which they are likely unfamiliar. ACIM is heavily nuanced and uses a thick layer of special definitions, allusions, and meanings that even dedicated adherents cannot agree about after several readings of the book. You as an adherent may read those introductory passages and see special personal inspiration and poetry, but the general public coming to Wikipedia for quick information will read them and see meaningless hash. My motto here is always, "think of the reader"; perhaps in an ACIM context that can be seen as a form of Wikipedia helpfulness. --Gary D 21:16, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

==Sigh== ==sniff==

Oh, my pretty article, my pretty article, oh, just look at it now...--Gary D 22:47, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Forgive me if the changes to your article have offended you but please remember it IS Jesus' book and it should not be compromised. God bless.

Trying to Allow Both Sides to Present Themselves

Admittedly, I am a student of ACIM, and have an innate bias in favor of it. Obviously much of the article that was there before my recent edits was written by those who had a strong bias against ACIM. Such things as implying that it might be a ploy of the Devil, and then giving no counter-argument, to me seems to be a bit one sided.

I am a firm believer in letting everyone have their say, but also in trying to make a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts out of this. As such, the recent edits that I made to this page made every attempt, within reason, to retain almost all of the original anti-ACIM material as possible, but to attempt to present both views in as detached and objective of a fashion as I am able.

I have corrected all of the simple factual errors that I found in the article, of which there were several, and I have also tried to give as comprehensive and complete of an explanation of ACIM's philosophy as I am able.

I believe that the Wikipedia was intended to be a sort of an alternative to Brittanica. As such, I tend to think that by trying to make the article present both the views of anti-ACIM people, as well as the views of ACIM students, it becomes a more presentable and well rounded article. -Scott P. 01:38, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, representing relevant POVs isnt a "trying" issue, rather its a "do or do not, there is no try" issue. WP articles must represent all important POV's and by so doing become intrinsically NPOV. The problem is in the introductory paragraphs which set the tone - either they are too clinical and not representative of anything in the article, or they are too suggestive of one POV, leaving the whole article leaning to one side or another. So at a certain point its a question of writing style and ability - many prolific contributors of detail and substance arent very good at writing clear concise and well rounded introductions - and vice versa. We all have different strengths in different areas of writing, and we "try" to make things come together.

That said, I greatly appreciate your admission of bias, and Im trying to give enough detail in response to your edits, primarily to help you with your future writings here on WP, and secondarily to improve the article as it is ATM. You claimed the balance was leaning the other way, and hence its rather natural for it to swing in the opposite direction. You will be pleasantly surprised to find that truely improved, NPOV edits are almost universally appreciated, and extremes tend to quickly lose steam after the tone is properly set. Sinreg, -SV|t 08:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

PS: Following the Brittanica Tradition Further

Also, in step with the general Brittanica tradition of allowing various belief systems to first be told in the hypothetical voice of an adherent of the given belief system, but then always grounding any stated beliefs that might appear to be controversial with opposing beliefs or facts, I have attempted to generally follow this same practice here in my most recent edits. I hope nobody is offended by this. - Scott P. 01:49, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Its not a question of offense - though a comparison between WP and Britannica is rather insulting to WP ;). The problem with this style is that its not NPOV. All claims and POV must be put in context as POV claims -very simple. Wether its a whole section titled "what people x say" or a note in the intro, citing a particular source. In any case Britannica style is not WP style, though we do use (for rewrite) their expired copyright stuff from early last century. "Britannica Tradition" has been superceded :) -SV|t 08:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Point by point breakdown of intro problems

1. A Course In Miracles (or "ACIM") is a book on spiritual principles,

First thing - What is it? ~ A book by someone about something, read by someone, who draws x conclusions and bases x associations and concepts on it. -SV

2. alleged to have been written by none other than the person of Jesus Christ,

The wording "none other than..." is improper for an NPOV article. Because this sentence is speculative, (and particular to a POV interpretation) it can be dealt with later - deal with what it (the book) is first. Save claims and speculation for POV section or explicitly cite them as claims by x. -SV

3. via a certain type of channeling process known as inner dictation in which Helen Schucman describes herself as having been the "scribe".

Same as 1 - but at least this is clearer. -SV

4. The official copyright claim for the book lists Helen Schucman and "Anonymous" as the authors. Presumably, here the listing of Anonymous as an author is a veiled reference to Schucman's belief or claim that Jesus Christ was the true author.

This is highly speculative, and more its speculative about a rather unconventional or difficult to rationalise claim. It needs to be determined then, if she actually claimed the work to be "ghostwritten by Gee-zuss" or if its only the claim of its practicioners. -SV

5. The book was written in the style of a textbook, and contains various teachings and exercises covering the topics of forgiveness, brotherhood, and the nature of love.

This (my wording) seems clear, but works only as an intro to the contents of the book - a secondary paragraph. -SV

6. Schucman describes having "received" the material between 1965 and 1978, and to have transcribed it with the assistance of Bill Thetford.

This seems to contradict 3 - please distinguish her claims from the claims of her followers. -SV

7. The title of the book was derived from the book's core premise that love is a miracle, and it surpasses all others in value. -SV

This seems like a claim, its not necessary to attribute it perhaps, but consider "title of the book is claimed to refer to love— as a miracle above all other miracles."-SV

8. The 365 practical exercises it contains were designed to be performed daily over the course of a year, and contain various meditations, prayers and mental exercises intended to provide practical illustrations and applications for the advancement of spiritual wisdom through forgiveness and love.

The combination of "practical" and "spiritual" is almost oxymoronic, or otherwise expressive of a particular POV which advocates a spiritual view. The problem with allowing for one such POV, it means that all variations of such POV must also be considered. Its not POV to represent POV as claims - it is POV to use language which implicitly accepts a POV premise. -SV

9. The general teaching sections of the book consistently aim at enabling students to gain a conceptual framework (...) by which to apply the 365 daily lessons.

Remove my "metaphoric language" - overdone -SV
IMHO my version was superior in that it seperated logically the general concept introduction, the claims of authorship, the contents, and the nature of the followership. Your version simply jumbles the first three and removes the fourth. -SV|t 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply to point by point breakdown of ACIM intro

Dear Steve,
Since my last edit, I came across your point by point breakdown re the ACIM intro, and here is my point by point reply:

1. A Course In Miracles (or "ACIM") is a book on spiritual principles,

First thing - What is it? ~ A book by someone about something, read by someone, who draws x conclusions and bases x associations and concepts on it. -SV

I believe that all of these topics are finally now covered in the intro.

2. alleged to have been written by none other than the person of Jesus Christ,

The wording "none other than..." is improper for an NPOV article. Because this sentence is speculative, (and particular to a POV interpretation) it can be dealt with later - deal with what it (the book) is first. Save claims and speculation for POV section or explicitly cite them as claims by x. -SV

I have removed this phrase.

3. via a certain type of channeling process known as inner dictation in which Helen Schucman describes herself as having been the "scribe".

Same as 1 - but at least this is clearer. -SV

Inserted word: claim to refer more neutrally to this process.

4. The official copyright claim for the book lists Helen Schucman and "Anonymous" as the authors. Presumably, here the listing of Anonymous as an author is a veiled reference to Schucman's belief or claim that Jesus Christ was the true author.

This is highly speculative, and more its speculative about a rather unconventional or difficult to rationalise claim. It needs to be determined then, if she actually claimed the work to be "ghostwritten by Gee-zuss" or if its only the claim of its practicioners. -SV

All of these assertions can be documented by ample already published source material. If you would like, I would be happy to provide appropriate footnoting for this.

5. The book was written in the style of a textbook, and contains various teachings and exercises covering the topics of forgiveness, brotherhood, and the nature of love.

This (my wording) seems clear, but works only as an intro to the contents of the book - a secondary paragraph. -SV

This is included in the intro as I feel that a good intro needs to briefly touch on the type of contents to be found in the book.

6. Schucman describes having "received" the material between 1965 and 1978, and to have transcribed it with the assistance of Bill Thetford.

This seems to contradict 3 - please distinguish her claims from the claims of her followers. -SV

Please elaborate. I cannot see the contradiction. BTW, Schucman never had any personal “followers”, only people who followed the teachings of ACIM who never ascribed any particular spiritual authority to her, other than having once “channeled” ACIM

7. The title of the book was derived from the book's core premise that love is a miracle, and it surpasses all others in value. -SV

This seems like a claim, its not necessary to attribute it perhaps, but consider "title of the book is claimed to refer to love— as a miracle above all other miracles."-SV

The actual text includes numerous assertions that this is its core premise. Why not allow its core premise to be laid out in the article intro?

8. The 365 practical exercises it contains were designed to be performed daily over the course of a year, and contain various meditations, prayers and mental exercises intended to provide practical illustrations and applications for the advancement of spiritual wisdom through forgiveness and love.

The combination of "practical" and "spiritual" is almost oxymoronic, or otherwise expressive of a particular POV which advocates a spiritual view. The problem with allowing for one such POV, it means that all variations of such POV must also be considered. Its not POV to represent POV as claims - it is POV to use language which implicitly accepts a POV premise. -SV

It seems to me that your assertion here that spirituality is inherently impractical is an oxymoron, and may represent a certain POV. Considering the fact that all of the exercises and teachings are meant to involve real-life situations, and not merely theories, is it not POV to insist that such is inherently impractical, and therefore to imply that the fundamental premise of the book must be inherently flawed, as you seem to be insisting?

9. The general teaching sections of the book consistently aim at enabling students to gain a conceptual framework (...) by which to apply the 365 daily lessons.

Remove my "metaphoric language" - overdone -SV

I thought you were the one who inserted this. I agree and have removed it.

IMHO my version was superior in that it seperated logically the general concept introduction, the claims of authorship, the contents, and the nature of the followership. Your version simply jumbles the first three and removes the fourth. -SV|t 08:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I have since laid out the intro with separate paragraphs for each of these three things.

Thanks,

Scott P. 11:53, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Further thougts about point by point breakdown

"All of these assertions can be documented by ample already published source material. If you would like, I would be happy to provide appropriate footnoting for this.

That stuff needs to be directly cited, and footnoted. "According to the ACIM literature..." etc. -SV

"Please elaborate. I cannot see the contradiction. BTW, Schucman never had any personal “followers”, only people who followed the teachings of ACIM who never ascribed any particular spiritual authority to her, other than having once “channeled” ACIM.

"Devout believers" then? I think what I meant (when I wrote it) was that if youre going to be overtly specific about the 'type of process' above, then generalizing it to "recieved" can be contradictory to the notion of "inner dictation" (lowercase). I mean isn't "inner dictation" what everyone does when they think to themselves? ;) -SV

"The actual text includes numerous assertions that this is its core premise. Why not allow its core premise to be laid out in the article intro?

Fair enough - I wasnt certain because Ive never read it - was only talking about wording. Citing it may be a Good Thing - using an early foundational citation. -SV

"It seems to me that your assertion here that spirituality is inherently impractical is an oxymoron, and may represent a certain POV. Considering the fact that all of the exercises and teachings are meant to involve real-life situations, and not merely theories, is it not POV to insist that such is inherently impractical, and therefore to imply that the fundamental premise of the book must be inherently flawed, as you seem to be insisting?

Touche! Indeed you are right, though my comment nevertheless stands. Its a subtle point, of course, and depends on what the wording around it is. Just because the teachings "involve real-life situations" doesnt mean that the solutions it gives are practical. So theres a need to distinguish between the basic use of "practical" and the implied meaning of "practical" as a value judgement for the ACIM teachings. About this point "hard to predict, the future is" —depends on context. I havent read it yet - wildo shortly. Sinrega-SV

Each of your suggestions now incorporated into article.

Dear Steve,
I have now made adjustments to the wording, or inserted foundational quotes, as per each of your kindly suggestions. Thanks for putting up with a newbie.

Scott P. 19:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

hey, i'm doing some editing...

some of you know me already. jason AKA clark_kent_. i'm doing some tidying and editing of this page. partly, because i'm a journalism major, and partly because i'm just that way. i'm NOT editing for content! i'm editing to tidy it up a bit and organize it better.

graytooth

historical Jesus

i do not think it is relevant to put the adj. "historical" in front of Jesus. it looks awkward, and Jesus will do just fine to the average reader. i'm aware that this is a hot button issue inside ACIM but for the purpose of the introduction to ACIM in an encyclopedia i don't think the word "historical" is appropriate.

Dear Graytooth,
I agree that perhaps in the first instance of Jesus' name that is a good idea, however I think that further down it may be helpful in order that the new reader might know that the article is specifically referring to the historical Jesus, rather than the 'Jesus' author of ACIM, whom the average reader might not believe is one and the same.

Take care,

Scott P. 01:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if you put four tilde's in a row at the end of your article, Wikipedia will automatically insert your name, the date and time.

on spiritual principles

furthermore, it's not a book ON spiritual principles.

neither it is a book OF spiritual principles.

it's a spiritual self-study book that is designed to help the individual remove the blocks to the awareness of love's presence.

Differences between editions

According to the article there are three editions (the Urtext edition, the Hugh Lynn Cayce edition and the Criswell edition) plus the printed edition. What are the differences between these editions? And what is the the history? Thanks! --Pym98 09:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

what are the differences between the "versions"

unfortunately, explaining the differences between the Urtext, Hugh Lynn Case, and any other earlier "versions" of ACIM would be a monumental task. i know there are articles out there that would help answer this question and it would certainly be a subject worthy of some kind of explanation in the Wiki article. i'll get back to ya on that one.

07:39, July 18, 2005 Graytooth

Thanks. I located some info on this in bio articles on Helen Schucman and William Thetford. --Pym98 12:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Graytooth. This question requires a very detailed answer. I would suggest that someday it might be a topic worthy of a whole new Wiki-article. Perhaps one titled: 'A Course In Miracles: Editorial History.'

Scott P. 22:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Gary Renard's "Movement"

I loved Renard's book, but I don't think it has yet had a million copies published to qualify for special mention in this section as it is currently set up. There is a possiblity of setting up this section for the 10 top sellers that are ACIM based. If done this way, in my not so humble opinion it might work best if each book showed how many sold, and if they were ranked by sales numbers as they currently are. Any more books than that, and I think this section begins to look more like a bookstore than an encyclopedia article. I'm not certain whether or not Renard's book would qualify for this (yet). If it did, then that would be fine with me. If anyone else wanted to do the research for this, I'd say 'go for it'. Meanwhile, I can't see why Renard couldn't be classified as a Miscellaneous ACIM Movement of Note. As such, I can't see why a Renard Specific wiki-article, fully cross-linked, could not be added if someone wanted. Renard is absolutely fascinating. Who knows, perhaps one day in the distant future historians will be poring over old Wiki back-edition files to see what we beginners actually thought of him.

Scott P. 23:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of critical review section

As a result of certain concerns pointed up by Defenestrate's recent edit, I have attempted to clean up the critical review section of this article.

-Scott P. 03:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Blending of recent edits by user Csernica

Dear user Csernica,
Thanks for your recent edits to this article. I have attempted to incorporate nearly each of the points you have made concerning this article. The only one point that I could not quite see was your apparent belief that it is widely held that Jesus did not emphasize internal development before external development. Personally it seems to me that the Gospels of the Bible are filled with example after example of how Jesus taught the importance of developing one's inner self first, before working to develop outward behavior patterns. I would be happy to discuss this further with you here if you might be interested. Again, thanks for your work on this article.

Sincerely,

-Scott P. 21:29:17, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

There was no need to "incorporate" my changes; I did that myself when I made the edits. No one "owns" Wikipedia articles.

You are assuming a particular Biblical interpretation as normative; this is strongly non-NPOV. My changes were aimed at bringing the presentation more toward the center where it can be made clear that the interpretations being used are only one of several possible -- IMO they don't even represent a majority view in many cases and I attempted to make that clear. It has now been made less clear.

You have made several errors of fact here. There's nothing about ACIM that compels one to consider it apocrypha, as the "must" tells the reader. My own faith tradition would consider it completely irrelevant. The definition of apocrypha in that article is correct, and indeed all apocrypha predate the canon of the NT. (By the definition you use, the Koran is apocrypha, which it is certainly not. Neither is Conversations with God, which would also meet your definition.) ACIM is certainly not deuterocanonical as the article originally presented; that's going much, much too far. I have no idea why you edited the remarks on the origins of the New Testament as you did. By the time a formal canon was decided upon, all of the books were well over 200 years old. Furthermore, the canonization of the NT was the end of a process, not the beginning, which is why I changed "first" to "finally". "First" is incorrect. What canonization accomplished was to accord to the approved books the same level of authority as had always been assigned to the Old Testament books, and that these books should be regarded as more authoritative than all others was a tradition of very long standing, inherited from Judaism.

You eliminated the information I presented in the addition to the next paragraph where I was trying to point out that objections to ACIM range far outside the fundamentalist community, as indeed it does. As phrased, the paragraph seems to be saying that only fundamentalists disagree with it, and mainly on the basis of their reading of the book of Revelation. This is not true.

"Seemingly similar" in the "internal vs. external" paragraph is a non-NPOV interpretation of Christ's teachings; the "seeming" requires a certain approach that's not necessarily normative. In fact, it's not used by any major confession I know of. Next time you read the Gospels, examine how often Jesus says something about internal practices against something to do with actually helping your neighbor. For every admonition to the Pharisees to "cleanse the inside of the cup" first (which is a multi-layered saying, by the way) there are at least two telling us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick and imprisoned, give water to the thirsty. I acknowledge that there are POVs that may emphasize the former over the latter, but this needs to be presented as such. Telling the reader that this "seemingly similar" philosophy is actually there in the face of strong majority traditions to the contrary doesn't do that.

In general, this article is heavily pro-ACIM in presentation and not really in the best Wikipedia style. That's not a criticism aimed at you personally; it's really a problem endemic to articles on faith subjects that are written primarily by adherents to that faith. The natural bias in favor of one's own faith is often so ingrained in the believer that it's very difficult to detect, and so it takes a strong effort to distance oneself from faith propostions one knows to be true and present the information in a neutral style that acknowledges that alternate points of view must, against the entire patchwork of opinion, must be shown as simply one among many. I tend to do this myself, and have to work hard to avoid it. This article is a good example of that. I'm not saying that ACIM users haven't made a good-faith effort to use a neutral POV; I actually think the opposite. This article isn't particularly non-NPOV regardless, and the recent changes I made were an effort to partially correct that.

In light of all the above, I'm reverting. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear User Csernica,

Again, thanks for your patience with this article, and also for not doing a straight-forward full revert, but for taking the time to carefully consider my edits on a point by point basis. I feel that you have made several valuable contributions to this article in your work with it. I hope you might forgive me, but I can never quite keep my hands off of edits. Still, I hope to always try to remain open to correction too. I have tried to keep what I saw as your concerns, still present within the article, but I have also tried to keep my concerns as well. In doing so I have made some edits that I hope you will find as acceptable. If not, please do proceed with whatever corrections you may feel to be necessary. By the way, thanks for the lesson concerning the definition of the words 'apocryphal' and 'deutero-canonical'. When I first used the term deutero-canonical in the article I had an incorrect understanding of that word, which you have helped to correct.

Regarding your mention of an inherent pro-bias that appears to exist in many faith related articles. I have also found this same type of bias in Britannica. So long as a particular faith is not perceived by the public as being particularly deleterious, Britannica generally adopts a quasi-pro bias whenever it presents a faith article. I believe that they do this as a sort of a form of respect towards those who hold that faith. To me Britannica seems to especially do this with major religions. I can see part of Britannica's reasoning for this.

Imagine if Britannica had a even a slight anti-bias towards Islam. All they would have to do is place certain facts in prominent places. Such facts as the fact that Muhammed advocated slavery, taught that it takes two women to equal one man when testifying in court, recommended that a wife should always walk two paces behind her husband, advocated for 'holy wars' (jihad), was a warrior himself, advocated various forms of serious bodily mutilation and very cruel forms of capital punishment such as cricifixion and stoning for criminals and miscreants, etc. etc.. If they did this, they'd never hear the end of it. No they conveniently omit many such facts.

I believe that in so long as such an article does not make any clearly inaccurate or intentionally misleading claims, that such a pro-bias in a faith based article ought to be somewhat tolerated to a slightly greater extent than it would normally be tolerated in a non-faith based article. I'm not saying that that I feel that ACIM deserves the same level of tolerance that Islam does mind you. Only that I feel that perhaps it deserves just a wee bit more tolerance for a pro-bias than a non-faith article might normally receive. My two cents worth. Rub them together long enough and you might just get a blister on your thumb. :-) Again, thanks for your help with this article.

Take care,

Scott P.

I confess I'm rather annoyed. Your tone in the talk pages is, of course, unimpeachable and indeed goes far past what most Wikipedians would consider ordinary courtesy. (It is, for example, very much not the norm to add salutations and closings, nor to indent paragraphs. Talk pages are more like ongoing casual conversations than formal correspondence. But not even email is normally conducted so formally.) On the other hand, it seems to me you consistently mischaracterize your edits. "Blend" sounds as if you're making minor copyedits to bring an edit more in line with the overall tone of the article, and not making any material changes. Yet a material change is what nearly every one of your "blends" has been. There's nothing conceptually wrong with that of course; that's how articles develop. But it's much better to call a spade a spade.

I know nothing at all of your personal religious background, but for some reason many of your edits seem to hark back to a conservative (or even fundamentalist, literalist) Protestant interpretation. (As does the rest of the article, which I see from the history is not solely your work, so please don't feel I'm trying to single you out. I'm characterizing what I see as a problem with the article, not with you personally.) However, Protestantism, even taken across all denominations, is not a majority Christain confession, or even arguably a majority conservative Christian confession when considering its conservative wing. Roman Catholicism, with over a billion adherents, is by itself fully half the world's Christians and in terms of docrine and exegesis is in no way liberal. Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy account for about another quarter billion. All together they comprise a clear majority witness on issues where they agree, and this is one of them. (There are also some major disagreements, but not in any area that's relevant here.) Traditional Christian eschatology is based on far more than the Book of Revelation, which for this majority witness only secondarily foretells the future, and even then in typological, not literal terms. The most vivid and reliable picture of the "end times" is given by Jesus himself in the Gospels, and St. Paul has something to say about them as well. To emphasize Revelation in a discussion on eschatology is to largely miss the point, and has a great deal to do with why I reverted that paragraph originally. I can see I failed to express myself clearly on this earlier, and of course I also failed to notice the further discussion of this topic later in the article, which also gives undue emphasis to Revelation. (Should that section later be edited, it should be noted that "revelation" and "apocalypse" mean precisely the same thing. Revelation does not "foretell" the Apocalypse, it is the Apocalypse.)

I must admit this is taking up rather more of my attention than I anticipated. Mainly I was trying to more clearly represent traditionalist Christian objections to ACIM. This talk page is my last effort in that direction, and I will now set it aside.

It's best not to compare Wikipedia's editorial policy with that of other encyclopedias, by the way. If others have not always striven to adhere to a neutral point of view there's no reason to abandon that policy here. Certainly we should aim for a respectful approach, but this must not cross the line into advocacy and IMO this article comes dangerously close to doing that. Once that line is crossed, history shows that you risk a rather heavy-handed reaction from the community. This is why I was at some pains to explain the nature of the bias I perceived. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, I do appreciate your work with this article, and I did not intend to annoy you by what I called 'blending'. Perhaps the better term might be 'compromise', which as you know, is perhaps one of Wiki's greatest assets. I seldom find my own words to be complete, until they have been first edited by someone else. My initial reaction to someone else's edits to my own edits, is almost always some form of annoyance. Still, I do believe that the end product, even though I often disagree with the other editors personal point of view, is nearly always superior to what had been there before. I hope that you might reconsider making further edits to this article, as I truly feel that your suggestions and edits have added significantly to this article. In any event, I thank you.

-Scott P. 20:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Peacebird's recent editing of the ACIM article

Hello Peacebird,
Thanks for the many excellent suggestions and edits you have just made to the ACIM article. I have accepted many of them without further edit, have edited many of them slightly, and have edited some of them to a fairly large extent. With each of them, I have attempted to accept the spirit, if not the letter that the edit was made in. In all cases, I also attempted to harmonize your edits with the exact terminology used in ACIM, and even with the exact type of capitalization, etc.., which I think is the main point of this article, to accurately summarize as best as possible on this book, and to contextualize it within the milieu of various different world views in which it is found. Any further such edits would be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

-Scott P. 20:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Scott,

You should realize that your use of words may seem counter to the spirit of Wikipedia. It sounds very much like you are claiming ownership of an article when you tell someone you have or have not "accepted" his or her edits. Your tone in this and other comments on the talk page are consistent with an attitude of ownership.

-70.145.102.253 09:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions for improvements in the article yourself, please do not let my 'attitude' stop you. My primary hope here is for the accuracy of the article and not ownership, and I sincerely apologize if I may have inadvertently given anyone any other impression.

-Scott P. 16:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

New Religions Category

Why is ACIM in the "New Religions" category, when it says on the first page "This is not intended as the basis of a new cult"?

It is regarded by many people and religious scholars as a new religious movement. Can you seriously deny that it is not religious when the text claims to channel Jesus? However, I have to admit that there is a difference between the ACIM networks and grass roots groups, compared with hierarchical organizations with an extensive doctrine or centered around a charismatic leader, such as Hare Krishna and the Unification Church, respectively. There are several other movements in Wikipedia classified as new religious movements that explicitly assert that they are not religious or assert that they did not want to found a new faith or religion, Transcendental Meditation and Sathya Sai Baba respectively. Andries 20:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) (amended)

The reason I said it's odd that ACIM is listed as a "new religious movement" is because it is just a book, and it is a book that says it is not intended as the basis of a religious movement. I believe that all legally recognized religions have to register with the United States government in some regard, correct? If you do any research on the topic, you will find that there is no religion called "A Course In Miracles." Sure, some have set up churches around the Course (which I don't think is good), but that doesn't make the Course -- the book itself -- a religion. If you read the book itself, nowhere does it say to start a church around it, how to have meetings to discuss it. Kenneth Wapnick, who is the only still-living person who helped bring the Course to the world, has said that the Course is primarily intended as a self-study book. Also, anyone who really understands the Course realizes that it is not "literally" channeled from Jesus. Jesus in the Course is a symbol. People just seem unable to understand that when Helen Schucman said she "scribed" the Course (she never used the word "channel") she did not mean she was literally communicating with the spirit of the historical Jesus Christ. She just meant it symbolically. She meant she felt the information was coming from her "heart" (another symbol), or the part of her mind that was highly spiritual. Kenneth Wapnick himself has mentioned this several times. People choose not to hear it because it's too "abstract" for them. -- Campania 07:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
- Campania, ACIM is listed under religious movements in the list of the UVa.[1] I guess ACIM is not registered as a religion because ACIM is the basis of a movement, it is not an organization. An anology, I guess that Gaudiya_Vaishnavism is not registered as a religion, but Hare Krishna is. On second thoughts, it may be better to have ACIM categorized under religious texts and channeled texts only. Andries 08:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC) (amended)
  - Yeah, I think it should be just listed under "religious texts" or "spiritual texts," and "channeled texts." ACIM itself is not a religion. I'm sorry, but the school in Virginia is wrong. How can a book be a religion? -- Campania 00:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
    - One thing that may stand for a little clarification here is the difference between a cult and a New Religious Movement. The term New Religious Movement apparently first came into popular use as a reaction to the negative connotations that had become associated with the word cult. But (and this is a big but), the new term was not intended to be a mere replacement for the word cult. As the name implies, it was intended to be a sort of a larger umbrella term, meant to imply no judgment as to whether any given religious movement was good bad or indifferent. As such, ACIM does say it is not intended to be the basis of a new cult, but ACIM does not say that it is not intended to be the basis of a New Religious Movement. In fact, ACIM praises the virtues of true religion in many instances, stating that true religion is simply the remembrance of God. As such, I personally see no problem in listing ACIM as a New Religious Movement. My opinion and $1 might get you a cup of coffee, for whatever its worth. Thanks. Scott P. 22:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Yeah, well, my opinion should get you a breakfast burrito at Taco Bell, at the very least! Anyway ... we need to keep in mind that ACIM was penned in the mid-1960s before all the PC jargon such as "New Religious Movement" came along. To be the most succinct, I simply return to what I said before: ACIM itself is merely a book. A book is not a religion, and therefore I don't see how ACIM itself can be placed in the category of "New Religious Movement." Now, there are some religious movements -- such as the group in San Francisco and the Endeavor Academy -- that have used ACIM as the basis for their religious movement; in such cases I believe it is the churches themselves that belong in the category of "New Religious Movement," but not the Course itself. Whatever the case, it's a minor point and not worth getting upset over. :) -- Campania 00:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
        I think I hear my stomach calling out for a Taco Bell breakfast burrito right about now and a cup of tea. (I don't really like coffee anyways.) Personally, I don't go for the 'formal' part of religion at all. But if someone else goes for it, 'power to them'. I agree, it's not worth anyone's time to try to 'tell' anyone else how they should or shouldn't study ACIM. The main thing is to find out how one's self 'should' study. Gotta go now. Have a date at Taco Bell.... ;) Scott P. 12:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking for positive reviews: then read Wouter Hanegraaff

Hanegraaff praised in his Dutch article about channeling ACIM's flawless internal consistency. I suggest you read his English book. Andries 22:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

W.J. Hanegraaff has written 7 books in English. Which one do you recommend? Scott P. 05:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, for taking so long to reply, but to be honest I do not know for sure. I think that Wouter J. Hanegraaff's book "New Age Religion and Western Culture: Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought" (Leiden Brill, 1996) deals with channeling and ACIM. Andries 15:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

A Course in Madness?

All the New Age types praise ACIM, but I found it very dark and world-hating, to the point where going deeply into it nearly caused a nervous breakdown.

Basically, all the universe is eventually subsumed in Christ, and destroyed. In fact, it's as if it never even existed - all the love, beauty and magic is hatefully trashed. Then God and Christ just sit there forever, enjoying each other's company and nothing else ever happens. I found it truly world-hating. I guess you had to have been raised a Catholic and sat in too many body-hating, suffocating churches to not be too thrilled about being subsumed in Holy Christ and bored for the rest of eternity while Christ and God play pat-a-cake or whatever. I found it even more extreme than Advaita, which subsumes everything in One, but doesn't say it will be forgotten to the extent that it never existed. Somehow, that bothers me. It seems to take a real hatred for the world to wish it never even happened and will never even be remembered, or at least learned from. And it's pretty boring that nothing happens for the rest of eternity.

Also, you're supposed to get so detached that nothing really matters, and you're just "doing your duty" and going through the motions, like a spiritual zombie. Yes, I know detachment is a wonderful thing, but only if it comes to you as a gift of grace or enlightenment. ACIM uses psychoanalytic techniques to hypnotize the Mind into thinking everything is unreal, but true spiritual awakening can only come through the Spirit, not the mind. Thinking you can force it with a mental course is to court zombiehood, IMHO.

About the only persons who criticize ACIM are dyed-in-the-wool Xtians, but I am amazed no other people have mentioned it seems to have a dark side, and is not beneficial for all who study it. I can't be the only one out there. I've gone deeply into all sorts of spiritual stuff but this is the first one that really wounded me. I was caught by surprise at the world-hating aspect of it. "Going through the motions" until Christ comes is not, in my view, the truly spiritual life, rich in both body and soul, and striving to better the world and help and love others while living wholly yourself, in body, mind, And spirit.

For some reason, I never see criticism of ACIM except from the Xtian fundamentalist perspective. It would be helpful to hear if any others have had problems with its deeper philosophy, which really has nothing to do with miracles, and everything to do with denying the world entire. Maybe I am the only one who sees this, but if there are others out there, I hope you speak up.

Jim Mooney, seren37 at Yahoo.com

Jim,

Truly ACIM does deny the reality of what most would call reality. That, in and of itself, could certainly seem to be quite bewildering, perhaps even wounding. It seems to me that ACIM can only make any kind of sense at all if one focuses on what it teaches is reality, not what it teaches is illusion. Reality namely being love. Such a focus seems to me to be quite a proactive and positive stance, not a stance of zombie like hatred. To constantly actively seek out, and work to recognize, the presence of love in every circumstance and situation, as ACIM teaches one to do, seems to me to be a form of affirmation, not a form of denial. But certainly without taking this focus into account, it would seem to be a course in madness.

Scott P. 07:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

IS RENARD CANONICAL?

Love also presents a problem. Perhaps my confusion is that I read Renard's "Disappearance.." concurrently with ACIM and may be confusing the two. If his interpretation is accurate that is no problem; if not, it is.

Renard states that not only does the universe disappear, it is forgotten to the extent that it is as if it was never created.

Now, it seems to me if you loved your Creation, you wouldn't want to forget it utterly. I know the world is flawed, but largely because of us - we harm each other rather than help.

Also, I seem to recall this is ACIM. When time ends, nothing else happens. God and Christ just sit around swooning over one another for transternity. You get a night of Brahman without any following days. But if you go to the trouble of creating one universe, why not another? And if the universe was That bad then you'd still want to remember it to make sure you did something different. And if it wasn't so bad, you would want to remember some of the beauty, to recreate it, perhaps better. The whole thing seems contradictory. And yes, I know that on higher levels contradictions are the norm - I did study Taoism.

Finally, Renard really does seem to counsel a sort of zombie-state, a state of not being concerned with the illusion of reality but just doing your duty. No passion. I wrote him and that clearly seemed what he meant.

Yet, as another contradiction, he seems passionate about the harm conservatives are doing. I am myself, what with a war based on two bald lies, but how can you be detachedly doing your duty and be passionate about politics? I suspect the detachment is a tad bogus.

Speaking of Taoism, ACIM seems to go halfway - rejecting the world and that's it. In Taoism or Zen you go from the naive acceptance of the world, to seeing it as illusion but then you come back to it and see that the "illusion" is also a manifestation of the Great Love. ACIM never comes back to the world, which is why I said it seemed too world-rejecting to me. Everyone knows "reality" is an illusion, these days - there are endless "Quantum this and that.." books showing it. The question is one's Attitude toward the illusion, and that you are an illusion yourself. The attitude of ACIM seems very Terminal in saying the universe is kaput and that's that. Xtianity does seem to seek final solutions in this way, more so than Eastern values.

I guess the real question is how much of Renard's writing truly reflects ACIM. Perhaps that is a springboard for another page.

-User: 24.63.89.90 (AKA Jim) 22:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Jim,

ACIM does not throw out the baby with the bathwater. It does not teach one to forget love, along with the rest. It only teaches those who would study it to always and everywhere remember that love is central, and that in this process of remembering, the bathwater of a student's illusions will proceed on down the drain where it belongs. Thanks for your question. (BTW, if you sign your article with a minus sign and four tilde's, like -~~~~, then Wiki will automatically create a good signature for you.)

-Scott P. 17:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is getting too long

This article is quite long and almost twice as big as the recommended max. size (32k). A long article in itself is, in my opinion, not a huge problem if there is a good summary. Unfortunately the summary (that normally precedes the table of contents) of this article misses essential aspects of the text (teachings and groups). In other words this article is seriously in need of some good editing. Andries 15:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Andries,

I'm not quite certain what you mean about the intro missing info on groups and teachings. Could you elaborate? As far as I might guess, I suppose that the intro could be lengthened by adding info about the smallish Endeavor group, but other than that I don't see what you are saying about this. As far as overall length, several articles about religious topics on Wiki are way over the limit. It would seem that religious topics may tend to often be more involved than others. Do you have any suggestions about what other info could be better summarized or how one might begin to go about summarizing it? Scott P. 07:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)