Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 7

---

Archive 7
Nov 13, 2006 - Mar 7, 2007

---

facts?

I have "factified" all of the claims that look like OR to me. One source is given at the end of the paragraph, but it is unclear if all the ideas in that paragraph are from that book? If so, then let's name the source at the begining of the paragraph or something so it is clear where these ideas are coming from? Sethie 03:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on memory, many of the ideas there come from the Hanegraaf book (although I did not write that particular paragraph). It's one of the few scholarly works on the New Age Movement, by the way. JChap2007 16:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.... what I am after is clarity. As it reads now, the paragraph has about five claims and states them as facts

1)(it) is atypical. now cited 2) It teaches true other-worldliness 3) it has been characterized as a Christianized version of non-dualistic Vedanta where the world is just an illusory chimera that offers violence, sorrow and pain. (at least phrae "has been characterized is there, but who characterized it this way) 4) This is very rare in the New Age movement. 5) Students of the Course seek the ultimate goal of existence in a radically different mode of being than that found in this world.

None of these are actual facts- they are all opinions. If they are going to be in the article, and what I am after is a clear presentation of who said them and that they are merely claims, by a specific group/person/author. Sethie 18:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do not still have the Hanegraaf book, but you could find it at any decent research library. Normally, a source footnoted at the end of a paragraph would indicate that the information in the paragraph came from the source, but you are right to be skeptical given the history of this article and I wouldn't advocate simply attributing such claims to Hanegraaf until we have confirmation. JChap2007 20:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was tempted to assume this was the case, and the way the paragraph was worded and the number of claims withinin it left me hesitant. Sethie 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed (2), and cited (3). (4) and (5) are vague enough they should be removed, but I've left them for now. If you can't find Hanegraaf, the encyclopedia entry for the Course in Melton is also useful. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 00:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your work and i have clarified the wording on one of them, I'll let the rest sit for awhile. Sethie 01:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(book), rewritten

Merge Notes

• The merged article A Course in Miracles (book) was deleted some time ago. Do your history.
• I've pasted the length of ACIM (book) into the "Origins" section of ACIM. The merged article covers the information that used to make up this section, but the former, shorter, Origins section may still be worth integrating, so I've commented the former section out for now rather than deleting it.
• ACIM (book) used a different (probably older) citation style, where its reference information was placed in the reference section with {{cite}} tags, rather than integrating them in the main body as ACIM does and relying on the <references/> tag at the end. The <ref> tag in ACIM (book) was instead used for collecting footnotes. Something should be done about this mismatch.
• ACIM (book) features a "quote barrier" where its author was not confident in the information proceeding after it. I've left it in, but it should be removed when we can match up and verify the sources.
• ACIM (book) contained several images whose links had to be removed from the article because the images themselves were no longer on Wikipedia. If we can find the original source of the images, they should be reincluded if possible, most noteably, Skutch Whitson and Thetford.
• If you find the new Origins section too dry, my former offer of spliting the article still holds.

—Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC); 07:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC); 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

As a tribute to Ste4k, I want to revive the material formerly at A Course in Miracles (book). It contained a well-written and well-sourced (!) account of the history of the Course's primary literature. At the same time, I think it is too unrelated to the A Course in Miracles article to warrent a merge. Without objections, I will create a page at History of A Course in Miracles, place the material there, and add a link to it in the Origins section of the A Course In Miracles article. I welcome any feedback. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 07:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

How is A Course in Miracles (book) "too unrelated" to A Course in Miracles. What is the latter without the former? Not a dog 20:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said not a dog... given that the current Course page is much shorter then the previous- I say- put it on this page and then if the page gets too big we move it. Sethie 20:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. The article is almost nothing without history, and so history should go there. The two articles are not "unrelated" as a matter of the Course being something more than its history, but unrelated as a matter of one being dry and uninteresting, and the other (the current article) being somewhat more tolerable. You can judge for yourself though. I'll copy and paste the article into the origins section. An interested wikipedian can then go about making the sources play nice with each other, as I have no such interest myself. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems that the "Early editing, publication and copyright ruling" is now redunant to this newly inserted content. Also, what is the point of the "semantics" section? Seems to add little to an encyclopedia article about this book Not a dog 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I decided to rename "semantics" as a "terminology" section, and merged in miracle impulse Not a dog 20:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some of it is redundant, and those parts should be removed. The use of language is an important part of the Course, although I do not currently have a source for you with which to back up that claim. My advice would be favor checking the sources for more information on use of language so that this section can be written in a more scholarly fashion above simply cutting out information. It's not because you can't or shouldn't, but because that information will simply be reinserted if it can be sourced and rendered coherently. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 00:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, many different belief systems, theories, ideologies, disciplines have paritucular meanings for particular words, so we should be careful about the attention we give to it here. IE, why is it particularly notable for an encyclopedia article? Not a dog 00:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're getting at, and I think you're right: the the use of language in the Course is not notable in and of itself. The material should be kept if it helps explain the material. Some of what is in the Terminology section does not, and you are right to remove parts of it. The concern I meant to express is simply that the article is becoming even more weighted toward being solely a historical account, that says much about the physical book, and little about what the book says. And the part dedicated to discussing the Course material is not especially well written, reliable, or accurate. Don't think I'm out to rewrite the article. I'm on your side here. I've seen enough people try to rewrite this article with their own ideas of what the Course says. I just want an encyclopedia article that is actually useful, and its because of the article's weakness in telling a coherent story about what the Course says that I recommend we focus both on getting a coherent story and a well sourced story, but until then, sub-standard information is still often serving a role in at least making things coherent. Trust me, I'm not saying you shouldn't make cuts you think are right or are right according to the rules and guidelines we're both familiar with. Your help is obviously valuable. Edit: Perhaps we can make the Terminology section a subsection within the Course material section. The Course material section looks like it could use subsectioning for organization anyway. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC); 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the "Early Editing ... " section, which was mostly redundant with "Origins". I've moved the non-redundant parts to their appropriate sections. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 06:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina

First, let's not have a revert war, shall we?

Second, does anyone have a reliable secondary source for Ali Sina being considered a notable or important critic of ACIM? If such a source exists that would make the comment seem less like original research. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added this cited criticism [1], but I agree with its removal since the source (Ali Sina) apparently has been deemed non-notable for having his own article. Not a dog 13:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, actually. What matters is if independent third parties consider this a notable or pertinent criticism of ACIM. Guy (Help!) 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my original thinking was that if the person is notable enough to have his own article, then his cricitism (presumably being topically related to his notability) would automatically be acceptable. You're saying that the key issue is whether other people find his particular criticism notable? I think I understand better now. Not a dog 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any source that says that Sina is notable as a critic of ACIM, but it should be noted that the language that is the subject of the edit war is a cleaned-up version of Sina's actual article. Sina's primary criticism of ACIM is that Schucman's Jewish heritage influenced her writing/transcription, even using the phrase "Jewish propaganda" at one point. His article on his website (which is what our article's criticism section referenced) came off like more of an anti-Semitic rant than anything else. This part was not mentioned in the summary of his criticism in the WP article. If we have to sanitize a source, can we really claim it is reliable? Sina's analysis, incidentally, is completely at odds with that of reputable scholars such as Hanegraaf, who emphasize the Course's essentially Eastern (not Christian or Jewish) cosmology. JChap2007 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that if the source was "sanitized" then claims by that source likely aren't "reliable" for inclusion. That's why I agree with removing this particular criticism (unless we find a 3-rd party noting that the criticism is sound). However, considering your last comment, just as a general comment, lets be careful not to automatically discredit an opinion/criticism just becuase some other "reputable scholar" disagrees. --Not a dog 17:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should not automatically do anything, but in this case we have Hanegraaf, a professor of religion at the University of Utrecht, who has written an extensive study on the New Age Movement that is well-respected by other scholars, and Ali Sina, who is known mostly as a critic of Islam and who does not appear to have any credentials of or knowledge about this particular topic, as well as an axe to grind. JChap2007 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

NOT a work of channeling, NOT heavily based on eastern religion

"Schucman described the writing process as coming from a divine source through a form of channeling which she referred to as "inner dictation", [2] and wrote the text as if transcribing the words of Jesus Christ."

This description does not fit the definition of "Channeling" given on Wikipedia, mainly because the inner dictation that Helen Schucman received was not outside of her mind. She also made no effort to channel. It simply started one day. She could pick it up again at any time wherever she stoped taking down the message. So I ask to change the quoted sentence above to the following:

"Schucman described the writing process as coming from a divine source which she referred to as "inner dictation", [2] and wrote the text transcribing the words of Jesus Christ."

The next sentence says: "The Course is based heavily on the premises of eastern religion, but utilizes traditional Christian terminology.[2]" This is not true. The Course is NOT based heavily on the premises of eastern religion. It stands for itself. Analogies and similarities are due to a single truth, mind or source of life only, however you want to call it. To say this is misrepresentational, if it does not also say that it is heavily based on the teachings of Jesus we all know from the New Testament, also on Paul. But then the statement would become meaningless altogether. Therefore I ask to cancel the sentence and write only: "The Course is utilizes traditional Christian terminology."

Thanks--Mindawiki 01:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Great finds. I am going to wager a guess that what the source is trying to be communicated is that it is comparanle to Eastern religions, while using Christian language. I will make the change, anyone with the actual source can corect me if I am wrong. Sethie 02:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As for your channeling contention, the article does say "a form of channeling. I believe your contentions " She also made no effort to channel. It simply started one day. She could pick it up again at any time wherever she stoped taking down the message" don't discount channeling. However they are interesting facts and I would like to see them menioned.

As for "mainly because the inner dictation that Helen Schucman received was not outside of her mind" this is a theological or metaphysical arguement against the word choice, and doesn't really fit here. Sethie 02:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sethie, what then is the definition given under channeling? It says, "channelling or channeling is the communication of information to or through a person (the channel or medium), from a spirit or other supernatural entity outside the mind (or self) of the channel." How could it be determined that it is outside of the mind (or self) of the channel? This then would also be metaphysical argument. In matters where there can be no proof except the individual's experience one has to rely on what that individual says. What would make me want to say otherwise? What justification would I have for it?

The other thing is this: Why do I have to make a statement in general that it is comparable to anything. I would rather see a comparison by subject than such a categorical one.

Thanks--Mindawiki 03:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"The other thing is this: Why do I have to make a statement in general that it is comparable to anything. I would rather see a comparison by subject than such a categorical one."

I understand the words, but not the context for this, so I can't reply to it.

"How could it be determined that it is outside of the mind (or self) of the channel? This then would also be metaphysical argument." Feel free to take that up on the channeling page.

Wow, that was quick! Reading the approach you are taking, I find myself disinterested in contuing the dialogue. Maybe someone else would like to take up these arguements with you. I'm out. Sethie 04:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"The other thing is..." As you have changed the relevant sentence to the following: "The teachings of the Course have been compared to the fundamental premises of eastern religion, but utilizeing traditional Christian terminology.", I am much happier. Thanks--Mindawiki 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Most popular?

In somewhat the forth sentence it says: "Ironically, observers note that it has been most popular among those who have been disillusioned by organized Christianity."

That is not a true statement. Most popular the Course would have to be among those who had a life and mind changing experience and are continually able to use it for their pursuit of happiness. I do not deny that many turned to the Course for their disillusionment with organized Christianity. But then, everyone can pick up the Course and have a dramatic change in his life through the application of its principles. Further, many who do pick it up, do not stay with it. So the sentence is quite meaningless.

Thanks--Mindawiki 03:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

link to the New Age movement?

The fifth (?) sentence says: "Some go so far as to call it the "most obvious choice" for the single text that is "sacred scripture" in the New Age movement."

Is that link to the New Age movement relevant information or rather a label that does not appreciate but limit the idea and meaning or expression of the Course? You will be able to find some people expressing almost any sort of opinion. So linking A Course In Miracles to the New Age Movement in this way does not really represent meaningful information, but rather gives rise to misleading or limiting judgment.

Thanks--Mindawiki 03:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Poor quotation...

The article does not contain a single quote from the source itself, but holds references that do not even qualify as a quote, like at the very beginning of the article.

--Mindawiki 05:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

misquotation: "spiritual psychotherapy" and proper quotes from the Course...

"A Course in Miracles (ACIM or the Course), refers to itself as a course of 'spiritual psychotherapy' and of spiritual transformation..." is the first sentence of the article. The term "spiritual psychotherapy" is not in the Course. It is given on Robert Perry's Site without reference. (http://www.circleofa.org/articles/HealingJudyAllen.php)

My suggestion is therefore to say:

A Course in Miracles (ACIM or the Course), refers to itself as "a course in mind training" (1) and "a course in how to know yourself"(2), it "states, and repeatedly, that its purpose is the escape from fear." (3)

(1)(A Course in Miracles. 2nd. New York: Penguin Group, 1996. ISBN 0-670-86975-9. Text. page 16)

(2)(A Course in Miracles. 2nd. New York: Penguin Group, 1996. ISBN 0-670-86975-9. Text. page 335)

(3)(A Course in Miracles. 2nd. New York: Penguin Group, 1996. ISBN 0-670-86975-9. Text. page 163)

I do not quite know how to insert these references in the article.

Thanks--Mindawiki 06:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

mentioning the literary quality of ACIM, for example its extended use of jambic pentameter

I miss mention of ACIM's particular and striking literary quality, i.e. its extended use of Blank verse over hundreds of pages. It also contains sonnets hidden in the text. The amazing thing about is, while one has to get used to it, it is still a language of modern use.

"God has not many Sons, but only One. Who can have more, and who be given less? It is for him the Holy Spirit speaks, and tells you idols have no purpose here. For more than Heaven can you never have. If Heaven is within, why would you seek for idols that would make of Heaven less, to give you more than God bestowed upon your brother and on you, as one with Him? God gave you all there is. And to be sure you could not lose it, did He also give the same to every living thing as well. And thus is every living thing a part of you, as of Himself. No idol can establish you as more than God. But you will never be content with being less." (A Course in Miracles. 2nd. New York: Penguin Group, 1996. ISBN 0-670-86975-9. Text. page 621)

"You who perceive yourself as weak and frail, with futile hopes and devastated dreams, born but to die, to weep and suffer pain, hear this: All power is given unto you in earth and Heaven. There is nothing that you cannot do. You play the game of death, of being helpless, pitifully tied to dissolution in a world which shows no mercy to you. Yet when you accord it mercy, will its mercy shine on you." (A Course in Miracles. 2nd. New York: Penguin Group, 1996. ISBN 0-670-86975-9. Workbook. page 364)

Thanks--Mindawiki 20:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

(moved from User talk:JChap2007)

Just to let you know that the information contained in my edits are factual and not assumptions or opinions, as I was one of the legal team that won the lawsuit freeing the Course in Miracles for over 8 years. And you are incorrect when you say that I cannot state the fact the Jesus is the Author of A Course in Miracles, since the scribe herself said so in different citations of her writings, such writings which were introduced into court as evidence. And therefore, the concepts of the work should correctly be stated as coming from the Author Himself, as if He were quoting from any other author's work.I will continue to edit this page to corrrect the misstatements and errors of fact that others opposed to ACIM attempt to publish. EVERYTHING THAT I SAID IN MY EDITS IS VERIFIABLE. in peace, Carol J. "Katie" Forbes, J.D.Katieforbes 13:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we really cannot say that any book is divinely inspired because that is an inherently unverifiable statement, even if someone else has said it. I don't of any editor here "opposed" to ACIM; certainly I'm not. With respect to the factual errors, in the article, could you discuss them on the talk page so that we can reach consensus to change them please? JChap2007 17:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not honor "expert opinion" or first hand experince as a reliable source. You only get to put your own thoughts or experiences into an article if they are published somewhere.

Just because the court ruled that Jesus was the author or that it was divinely inspired does not mean it's true. It is still just a claim... in this case, a court supported claim. To state it as a fact violates WP:NPOVSethie 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources do not state that the court ruled that Jesus was the author. The sources state only that according to Schucman, Jesus was the author. There is a big difference between evidence introduced into court and the opinion of the court. Therefore, if Katieforbes can produce the sources which thereby provide verification, then we can include it. It doesn't matter if the statements are the truth, only that they are previously and verifiably published. For a quick example, the statement about selling 1.5 million copies is untruthful, but verifiable. It's untruthful because it gives the impression that the original book sold 1.5 million copies and that is not the truth. Zghost 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Consolidation of Litigation section rationale.

It seems to me that the old litigation section was overly detailed about specific points of the litigation, and underly informative about providing a concise and accurate summary of the court outcome. I have modified it in the hopes of achieving this.

Thanks,

-Scott P. 17:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

We ought to take out the criticisms. They are not constructive.

_{-(Unsigned comment apparently by user Remi0o on February 22, 2007 at 10:04. Unsigned documentation by user Scott P.)}