A Path to Mystery
I'm trying again to gather together a core set of materials that I think most clearly lay out a single coherent mystical Christian theology, or at least seem to converge for me:
* Mary Baker Eddy's 'Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures', 1875-1910
* Frances Bird's 'The New Dispensation', circa 1915
* Agnes Sanford's 'The Healing Light', 1947
* Thomas Merton's 'New Seeds of Contemplation', 1949-1961
* Helen Schucman's 'A Course in Miracles', 1965-1972
* Rick Joyner's 'The Harvest', 1989
* Regina Dawn Akers' The Holy Spirit's Interpretation of the New Testament, 2006
ACIM and NTI are very closely linked, and Science & Health predates both. The Harvest and The New Dispensation, though nearly over seventy years apart, also are linked by language and metaphor. Science & Health, ACIM and The Healing Light all deal directly with healing miracles.
To which I might add:
* The writings of Julian of Norwich, late 14th century
* The writings of St Teresa of Avila, 1515-1582 and St John of the Cross, 1542-1591
* The Zodiac messages (1921-1957)
* The Stephen experience (1973-1980)
* The Medjugorje messages
* The Quaker and Anabaptist movements
* The 'Emerging Church' movement
There's a common thread here, through Christian Science, Christian Spiritualism, Roman Catholic (Trappist/Cistercian/Benedictine and Carmelite) monasticism, Latter Rain Pentecostalism, Charismatic Anglicanism, and no formal religious alignment at all (ACIM, which paradoxically is the writing which most strongly asserts itself as being the actual voice of Jesus), and it intrigues me the more because it crosses such steep denominational boundaries.
It also challenges me deeply because there's a very high standard of life, thought and conduct set which I'm not sure how to live up to.
October 22nd, 2008 - 17:01
What you mentioned was the irreality of sin, which is in line with Thesophic, Anthroposophic, New Age and other religious teachings. It is a very convenient way to get rid of the sin-factor and obviously contradicts the Bible….If that is what ACIM teaches, then I can’t see where I have spread falsehood.
October 22nd, 2008 - 18:53
Computer was not working. This is my third try to get it on the comments.:. …www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv7xyi0PGL4 and never cave in
October 23rd, 2008 - 07:23
“All this aside, what would you call ACIM? Is it channelled material or not?”
Channelled, inspired, received, prophetic. It’s always difficult to give hard definitions for these things, but I think ‘chanelled’ is as good a word as any, since it seems to have come by a word-by-word inner inspiration. Not quite the same process as automatic writing or speaking in tongues, but similar, it seems to me. One step more definite than the ‘inner conversation’ one often experiences during in prayer.
I have experienced a similar thing once, back in 1990, in the months after I was baptised with the Spirit, with writing a religious poem which appeared to form in my mind very precisely word by word. I felt like it was something ‘received’ and not just imagined by me.
Interestingly, some of the phrases in that poem match the turns of phrase used in A Course In Miracles — as does the whole mood of it — which is one of the reasons why I feel that ACIM is a very strong candidate for being the actual words of the actual historical Jesus. I feel as if I’ve communicated with that voice before.
“As far as I can see, Wapnick is not mentioned in the bibleprobe article.”
If you’re talking about http://bibleprobe.com/miraclecourse.htm , then yes he is:
The dictating “Jesus” contradicted nearly everything the Bible says about Him. That fact is admitted by Kenneth Wapnick, head of the foundation that publishes the Course.
Wapnick indeed claims that the Course contradicts the Biblical Jesus; but I believe he’s mistaken.
“What you mentioned was the irreality of sin, which is in line with Thesophic, Anthroposophic, New Age and other religious teachings. It is a very convenient way to get rid of the sin-factor and obviously contradicts the Bible”
Again, I dispute this. I’ve explained to you exactly how I believe that teaching the *unreality* of sin is extremely Biblical – and in fact that to teach its reality as a power equal and opposite to God would be to directly *contradict* the First Commandment of the Hebrew scriptures, “God is one”. Also, that to call sin (as it is) unreal is not convenient at all – it does not grant one licence to tolerate it in one’s life, but in fact the opposite. Repenting from sin and ‘calling it unreal’ *are the same thing*; what you no longer allow place for in your view of the universe, is unreal to you.
There is no sin in heaven; therefore a world without sin can exist. Therefore, sin is not a necessary part of the world. Therefore, it is unreal.
All the world is created by God; God creates in his own image. God does not sin; therefore, God does not create sin. Therefore, sin is not created by God. Therefore, it is unreal.
Whether that Biblical teaching agrees or disagrees with various other philosophies variously called “New Age” doesn’t really seem relevant to me. If those teachings agree in various particulars with what Jesus teaches, then in those respects I’d call them correct.
October 23rd, 2008 - 09:05
I don’t understand your conclusion, that something that is not necessary is automatically unreal. (3 paragraphs up)………There are lots of things that are not necessary. Are they all unreal? According to what you say they must be. Question: WHAT IS LEFT THAT IS REAL?
October 23rd, 2008 - 12:15
Reading the original: Bibleprobe,you say, has not read it. John has not read it. And admittedly Nate has not read the Urtext either, but just “glanced at it. So, who can talk?
October 23rd, 2008 - 16:54
“I don’t understand your conclusion, that something that is not necessary is automatically unreal. (3 paragraphs up)………There are lots of things that are not necessary. Are they all unreal?”
Good catch actually, my argument may be a little sloppy there. I originally wrote “true” instead of “necessary”.
But I would say yes, in my way of thinking, what does not follow from God’s nature is unreal. All things that exist, exist because of the direct will and nature of God. God is the necessary being; our existence is necessary because it follows from God’s.
(There are probably scholars of philosophy who would disagree with me on that point, and I wouldn’t necessarily argue; I may be wrong on the finer points of necessary existence versus contingent existence and such.
What I am trying to say is that what comes from God is real and what does not come from God is not real; and that there are things in our lives which “need to be there” because they are God’s will for us, and things in our lives which do NOT need to be there, because they are sin; not God’s will.
There is a school of theology which claims to be Christian which argues that sin is an inevitable, unavoidable part of “human nature”. This is what the Course disagrees with, and what I believe the Bible also disagrees with.)
“Reading the original: Bibleprobe,you say, has not read it. John has not read it. And admittedly Nate has not read the Urtext either, but just “glanced at it. So, who can talk?”
Look, this line of argument is extremely frustrating to me and smacks of deliberate dishonesty.
I said I’ve not read the “Ur-Text”, which is an unformatted very early edition. Very few people have. It is on my list to read, but I have a very long list of books to read first.
I *have* read the full text of the 1972 edition, of the Textbook and the Workbook. I took a year to read the Workbook, as recommended by the text itself. I base my remarks on that. I am *NOT* speaking about that which I have not read.
Can you say the same? Have you read *any* of the editions? Have you read anything other than biased third-party interpretations?
Here they are, right here:
http://home.att.net/~acim/
http://courseinmiracles.com/
You’re right though that I should read the Ur-text, so perhaps I’ll move it up the queue.
October 23rd, 2008 - 17:12
I just read the first chapter of the Ur-Text, and thank you for pushing me to do it. I admit I have been a little frightened in case I found things that bothered me. Reading this material feels dangerous – it’s like it reads me at the same time. I can only take it in small bites at a time. And reading the unfiltered version is a whole new experience.
(Scary, because what if after all this *isn’t* the real Jesus? What if I find something in this next level that I really can’t accept?)
“Heaven and Earth shall pass away” means that they will not always exist as separate states. My Word, which is the Resurrection and the Light, shall not pass away, because Life is Eternal. YOU are the work of God, and His Work is wholly loveable and wholly loving. This is how man MUST think of himself in his heart, because this is what he IS. Add: “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.”
October 23rd, 2008 - 17:59
If you find it scary then there is probably a good reason for that CAUTION in your spirit.
October 23rd, 2008 - 18:01
And if you want to discuss it, I’m sorry, but I won’t read it.
October 23rd, 2008 - 18:24
Also, I did not say you should read the Urtext. But I am inclined to say: Throw it in the fire……….Fahrenheit 451
October 23rd, 2008 - 19:02
You do realise Farenheit 451 *is* a dystopia, right?
October 23rd, 2008 - 19:17
What is a Dystopia?
October 23rd, 2008 - 19:21
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia
October 23rd, 2008 - 19:23
Fahrenheit 451 is the temparature you need to burn a book. And yes there are books that are better burned than read. (see Acts 19:19)
October 23rd, 2008 - 19:26
A dystopia is a society where I’m accused of deliberate dishonesty by people who should know better.
October 23rd, 2008 - 19:37
The bookburning in Acts was a voluntary action. I am not advocating burning other people’s books.
October 23rd, 2008 - 19:49
You *are* making a dishonest argument, though, when you claim simultaneously that 1) you know exactly what A Course In Miracles teaches and that it contradicts the Bible, and 2) that you have not read it and have no intention of ever reading it, and 3) although I have read it, you will not accept my word for what it teaches, and 4) you’re quite happy to take at face value the word of people who misrepresent what it contains.
How can you claim all of those at once and call yourself honest?
If you don’t want to read it, fine, I understand. But don’t then also claim that you *know* what it teaches.
I’m not saying that you’re not generally and otherwise an honest person, but it seems to me that this argument you’re making here and now *is* in itself, dishonest. Sorry. No hard feelings, but I call a spade a spade.
October 23rd, 2008 - 22:08
1.: Nate, please show me the place where I said that “I know exactly what ACIM teaches”.
October 23rd, 2008 - 22:22
3.) I did accept your word for what it teaches. You talked about sin not being real. I kind of understand how you mean it, and I kind of still have a problem with putting things that way. Sorry…………………………………….4.)Yes I did rely on the wikipedia. If that is my crime, you do it all the time.
October 23rd, 2008 - 22:50
Leaving the cultlane now. As usual, great talking with you. There is a nice Dylan song I just heard for the first time. It’s called: “Lay down your weary tune lay down” It’s on youtube.