Persecution vs. Proselytization

[course zealot]

Please read entirety through before passing judgement. It comes around.

Christians persecuting Christians is outrageous service to the spirit of
adversity. There are many Christian Churches, and Christ is the head of them all.
And doesn't A Course in Miracles say "I must found my church on you?"

The world is in need of _leaders_, who proselytize, and serve the truth.

It should be noted that persecution is not proselytization - which seeks to
educate, enlighten, enrich, and lead to salvation. But persecution is the
ministry of satan and seeks to condemn and destroy, to insult and attack. Those
who persecute "have what judges them," so if anyone has persecuted, let him
repent, and "go and sin no more.

If someone wants to advocate another religion on this board it is perhaps off
topic, and yet on the other hand, perhaps of interest to the people of this board.
But it is not persecutory to be an _advocate_, and say "Hi, join the
Jewish/Hindu/Mormon/Muslim religion, etc." But, persistence on off-topic subjects
may, of course, become annoying.

Yet that is not the same as denigrating the topic of this board. Nor is
denigrating the topic of this board the same as merely posting FACTS about one's
experience of the topic religion which perhaps were negative, such as "it didn't
work for me," or even which may bring the religion into questionable light: SUCH
AS: L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer. Thetford and Shucman worked with
some programs in their time in the psychiatric department possibly connected to
the CIA. Edgar Cayce predicted Atlantis would rise from the ocean, and it never
did so.

Saying Cayce, or Scientology, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or another Christian
Church, such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or another denomination,
Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic, are religions of
the Devil, is at least something that ought to be done, pointedly, scientifically,
_limitedly_, based on FACTS, and on certain points, unless you have direct
experience with the religion. "THE RELIGION IS A CULT." Why? Do you think that
any of the previous named religions never benefited anybody? Can you study one of
them and move onto another? How is the religion dangerous?

Would it not make more sense to say, "hi, this other religion has benefited me I
think more than yours might, for these reasons." Rather than to say inflammatory
possibly hurtful things that may be perceived as insulting and offensive.

Yet, let us read what the Urtext has to say about Cayce, of whom Pat Robertson,
once said of his readings were "the work of the devil (full urtext citation will
follow in followup post to this post):"


"Cayce’s notes, too, could have been much shortened. Their excessive length is due
to two factors. The first involves a fundamental error which Cayce himself made,
and which required constant undoing. The second is more related to the attitude of
his followers. They are unwilling to omit anything he said. This is respectful
enough, but not overly-judicious. I would be a far better editor, if they would
allow me this position on their staff." -
- "I am heartily supportive of the ARE’s endeavor to make Cayce’s singular
contributions immortal, but it would be most unwise to have them promulgated as a
faith until they have been purged of their essential errors. This is why there
have been a number of unexplained set backs in their explication. It is also one
of the many reasons why the Cayce material, a major step in the speedup, must be
properly understood before it can be meaningfully validated.
Cayce’s son has been wise in attempting to deal with reliability, which in Cayce’s
case is very high. There is a way of validating the material, and Hugh Lynn is
perfectly aware that this must be done eventually. He is also aware of the fact
that he is unable to do it. In the present state of the material, it would be most
unwise even to attempt it. There is too much that IS invalid. When the time comes
that this can be corrected to the point of real safety, I assure you it will be
accomplished. In tribute to Cayce, I remind you that no effort is wasted, and
Cayce’s effort was very great.
It would be most ungrateful of me if I allowed his work to produce a generation of
witch doctors. I am sorry that Cayce himself could not rid himself of a slight
tendency in this direction. But fortunately I have a fuller appreciation of him
than he had.
I am repeating here a Biblical injunction of my own, already mentioned elsewhere,
that if my followers eat any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. This is what
Cayce could NOT believe, because he could not see that, as a Son of God, he WAS
invulnerable."
("And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out
demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they
drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the
sick, and they will recover.” - Jesus Christ, Mark 16:17-18)
- A Course in Miracles, Urtext, pages 76-79, Combined Verson, pages. 132-136


Isn't it the job of the intelligent to make everything clear and simple to us? Is
Jesus just having a hard time speaking with the Holy Spirit, or can he find no
sufficient channels outside of Cayce and Shucman et al? Any ideas why he doesn't
just *manifest* and write a book, or why he never wrote a Gospel himself? On the
other hand, unlike Cayce, A Course in Miracles seems _absolutely composed_. It
could be more clear and comprehensive... though perhaps the return to the self
merely requires someone to go on and on for 1250 pages... not sure about this. But
the point about if the above stuff about Cayce is valid channeling, then what is
the essential message Jesus is trying to get across - why edit Cayce? Why not
just write a clear book? If Cayce is a "major step in the speed up?" Why not
just tell us what we need to know?
Also, furthermore, as far as drinking poison goes, this is just like acid, so this
is just like cutting oneself with a knife, and the cut healing immediately. It's
all just movement is what I'm saying. Just saying. This material was edited,
supposedly by Jesus, out of the official version of A Course in Miracles, but it
is in the Bible.

Anyway, the point is, if one is going to criticize another's faith/religion/creed,
what have you, perhaps one needs to use clear points. Perhaps Pat Robertson needs
to as well be more clearer as to what about Cayce "is the work of the devil."
Analogously, for instance, from what I know of Scientology, it is a very dubious
religion. I would caution anyone away from it. Is appears to be either in league
with aliens, or infiltrated by them. Scientology apparently will posses you with
a Grey alien and then make you _pay_ to get rid of it, I think. When people try
to leave the church of Scientology they are harassed and harangued, and stalked.
Many who join Scientology are in earnest however, which is why they should maybe
study A Course in Miracles, rather than join "_that cult_." Perhaps the Church
should be prohibited from charging to maintain its tax-exempt status.

These are negative reports. We have negative reports of abuse from former
Scientologists. We probably have former Scientologists who say it helped them,
but how many? Scientology is a group. An organization. A Course in Miracles is
a book. Self-study. Incorporate into your own organization if you please.

Catholicism. Is this a cult?

Are there negative reports from Edgar Cayce followers? I haven't read any. Has
Pat Robertson? Why according to him is the material "the work of the devil?" Is
it merely blinkered or full of errors and perpetrations as the "Course in Miracles
Unedited Urtext" suggests?

Even if someone was an Edgar Cayce follower or a Jew or a Scientologist I would
not say anything to their face about something they may identify with or find
important. Insulting the book of Mormon is another outrage. You have to be able
to criticize correctly, to the right degree in the right forum. Not insult
perpetually by picketing outside the Mormon church. That is inflammatory and
desecration and not the place for it. Are people who point to fraud in the book
of Mormon valid, or apologists? Whichever the case, it is insult to perpetually
picket outside of a Mormon church saying these things when you have not been
outrageously offended yourself. This is a clue, right?

Okay, maybe people insult Cayce because it's easy to point to so many material
errors, like Atlantis not rising from the ocean, it makes him seem like a joke.
His followers should maybe compile a "best of Cayce," text to see if his writings
have any actual merit.

There are some people who study both A Course in Miracles and Cayce. The two are
certainly not mutually exclusive, It may as well be noted on this board. Though,
at that rate, for the individual, neither is ACIM mutually exclusive with any
denomination of Christianity:
https://www.edgarcayce.org/events/event-listings/hq-visitor-center/other-groupsmeetings-(nonare)-on-campus/a-course-in-miracles-study-group/

So saying Jews are of the Devil and their religion is a sin, in the wrong place
with the wrong tact, to the wrong people, without constructive criticism and
critical merit; and in a limited fashion; becomes abhorrent reprehensible
insulting racist hate speech which should be condemned everywhere and has what
condemns it. The whole point when making such criticisms ought to be to lead and
proselytize, not to persecute and offend, but to hopefully set people in a more
right direction.

For, "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
To become all things to all men, does not mean to accept their evils, but lead them.

"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I
might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to
those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are
under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law
toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without
law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all
things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the
gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."

Paul notes "to the Jews I became a Jew." If to the Christians he became a
Christian, his words found throughout the Bible, nevertheless prove that he's a
Saint. While you need not agree with all things he wrote, if you corroborate him,
he corroborates you, and if you read his writings, you will no doubt find benefit
in some or much of them.

But as back to what I was discussing as to saying "Jews are of the devil;" Pure
insult, without explanation is baseless, offensive, and the same as racism. Such
hate speech lead to the Holocaust. Such hate speech lead to prohibition of drugs,
weapons, willful sexuality, and tent and vehicle dweller rights in the United
States today. This is denigration, impoverishment, and taxation, upon our poor
American people, of which 25 million *children* are insufficiently fed.

You might as well crucify Christ. He would drink wine in public if he could.
Communion, and the blood of the new covenant anyone?

In other words, such hate speech is anti-Christ. And so are the actions of those
who follow it.

So, whoever you are who post here or anywhere, from now until forever. Learn to
proselytize and advocate, and learn to not insult and persecute. Learn to be a
true preacher. Please, now and forever. Thank you.


Paul the Apostle:
"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle,
because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am,
and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they
all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was
I or they, so we preach and so you believed." - 1 Corinthians 15:9-11

"For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect
has come, then that which is in part will be done away." - 1 Corinthians 13:9

"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and
they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd."
- Jesus Christ, John 10:16

"28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28

"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the
world through Him might be saved."

But, "this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
- Jesus Christ, John 3:17,19

For, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
- Jesus Christ, Luke 5:32

"God wills no one suffer. He does not will anyone to suffer for a wrong decision,
including you."
- A Course in Miracles, Chapter 8, Section 3

"I will with God that none of His Sons should suffer."
- Jesus Christ, A Course in Miracles, Chapter 6, Section 1

[course zealot]

The Course in Miracles Urtext mentions several names. The following passages
mention, the names Lucifer, Cayce, and Mary Baker Eddy.

The Course in Miracles Urtext is the original unabridged, unedited notes as taken
by Helen Schucman. The notes were later edited by Bill Thetford as directed by,
and under the guidance of, the dictator.

The Foundation For Inner Peace version is the official Textbook. The Urtext is
like the Apocrypha to the Biblical Cannon.


"(Dictated directly without notes)
Though Christians generally (but by no means universally) recognize the
contradiction involved in victimizing others, they are less adept at ensuring
their own inability to victimize themselves. Although this appears to be a much
more benign error from the viewpoint of society, it is nevertheless inherently
dangerous because once a two-edged defense is used, its direction cannot be
self-controlled.

B. recently observed how many ideas were condensed into relatively few pages here.
This is because we have not been forced to dispel miscreations throughout. (There
is one set of notes not yet transcribed which is devoted to this. These emphasize
only the enormous waste of time that is involved.) Cayce’s notes, too, could have
been much shortened. Their excessive length is due to two factors. The first
involves a fundamental error which Cayce himself made, and which required constant
undoing. The second is more related to the attitude of his followers. They are
unwilling to omit anything he said. This is respectful enough, but not
overly-judicious. I would be a far better editor, if they would allow me this
position on their staff.

It is obvious that Cayce himself was not able to transcend the misperceptions of
the need for sacrifice, or he could not possibly have been willing to sacrifice
himself. Anyone who is unable to leave the requests of others unanswered has not
entirely transcended egocentricity. I never “gave of myself” in this inappropriate
way, nor would I ever have encouraged Cayce to do so.

Cayce could not see the Atonement as totally lacking in sacrifice at ANY level. It
WAS obvious to him that the mind cannot be so limited. It was equally apparent to
him that the Soul is merely unaffected by such an idea. This left him only the
body with which to invest his misperception. This is also why he used his own mind
at the “EXPENSE of his body.”

Because Cayce was a somewhat erratic listener, he was compelled to correct his own
errors at very great length, and not always adequately. Consider the basis from
which he started, when he began with “yes, we have the body.” It is noteworthy
that in all these readings, a large section was actually devoted to the body, even
though he usually concluded with the caution that the body cannot be healed by
itself. It would have saved an enormous number of words if he had always begun
with this.

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. It is noticeable throughout his notes
that he frequently engaged in a fallacy that we have already noted in some detail:
namely, the tendency to endow the physical with nonphysical properties. Cayce
suffered greatly from this error. He did not make either of the other three.
However, you will remember that it is this one which is particularly vulnerable to
magical associations. Cayce’s accuracy was so great that, even when he did this,
he was able to apply it constructively. But it does not follow that this was a
genuinely constructive approach.

It should also be noted that, when Cayce attempted to “see” the body in proper
perspective, he saw physically discernible auras surrounding it. This is a curious
compromise, in which the nonphysical attributes of the self are approached AS IF
they could be seen with the physical eye.

Cayce’s illiteracy never stood in his way. This is because illiteracy does not
necessarily imply any lack of love, and in Cayce’s case very definitely did not.
He therefore had no difficulty at all in overcoming this seeming limitation. What
DID hamper him was a profound sense of personal unworthiness, which,
characteristically enough, was sometimes over-compensated for in what might be
called a Christian form of grandiosity. Cayce was essentially uncharitable to
himself. This made him very erratic in his own miracles, and, because he was
genuinely anxious to help others, left himself in a highly vulnerable position.

His son comments both on the rather erratic nature of the Cayce household, and
also on the rather uneven nature of Cayce’s temper. Both of these observations are
true, and clearly point to the fact the Cayce did not apply the Peace of God to
himself. Once this had occurred, particularly in a man whose communication
channels were open, it was virtually impossible for him to escape external
solutions. Cayce was a very religious man, who should have been able to escape
fear through religion. Being unable to apply his religion wholeheartedly to
himself, he was forced to accept certain magical beliefs which were alien to his
own Christianity. This is why he was so different when he was asleep, and even
disowned what he said in this state.

The lack of integration which this split state implies is clearly shown in certain
offthe-mark detours into areas such as the effects of stones on the mind, and some
curious symbolic attempt to integrate churches and glands. (This is hardly more
peculiar than some of your own confusion.)

Cayce’s mind was imprisoned to some extent by an error against which you have been
cautioned several times. He looked to the past for an explanation of the present,
but he never succeeded in separating the past FROM the present. When he said “mind
is the builder,” he did not realize that it is only what it is building NOW the
really creates the future. The past, in itself, does not have the ability to do
this. Whenever we move from one instant to the next, the previous one no longer
exists. In considering the body as the focus for healing, Cayce was expressing his
own failure to accept this AS ACCOMPLISHED. He did not fail to recognize the value
of the Atonement for others, but he did fail to accept its corrective merit for
himself.

As we have frequently emphasized, man CANNOT control his own errors. Having
created them, he does believe in them. Because of his failure to accept his own
perfect freedom FROM the past, Cayce could not really perceive others as similarly
free. This is why I have not wholly endorsed the Cayce documents for widespread use.

I am heartily supportive of the ARE’s endeavor to make Cayce’s singular
contributions immortal, but it would be most unwise to have them promulgated as a
faith until they have been purged of their essential errors. This is why there
have been a number of unexplained set backs in their explication. It is also one
of the many reasons why the Cayce material, a major step in the speedup, must be
properly understood before it can be meaningfully validated.

Cayce’s son has been wise in attempting to deal with reliability, which in Cayce’s
case is very high. There is a way of validating the material, and Hugh Lynn is
perfectly aware that this must be done eventually. He is also aware of the fact
that he is unable to do it. In the present state of the material, it would be most
unwise even to attempt it. There is too much that IS invalid. When the time comes
that this can be corrected to the point of real safety, I assure you it will be
accomplished. In tribute to Cayce, I remind you that no effort is wasted, and
Cayce’s effort was very great.

It would be most ungrateful of me if I allowed his work to produce a generation of
witch doctors. I am sorry that Cayce himself could not rid himself of a slight
tendency in this direction. But fortunately I have a fuller appreciation of him
than he had.

I am repeating here a Biblical injunction of my own, already mentioned elsewhere,
that if my followers eat any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. This is what
Cayce could NOT believe, because he could not see that, as a Son of God, he WAS
invulnerable."
- A Course in Miracles, Urtext, pages 76-79, Combined Verson, pages. 132-136


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


"(Tell B. that there are certain advantages in being a Psychologist. A major one
is the understanding of projection, and the extent of its results. Possession is
very closely related to projection. “Lucifer” could be literally translated “Light
Bearer”. He literally PROJECTED himself from Heaven. Projection still has this
“hurling” connotation, because it involves hurling something you DO NOT want, and
regard as dangerous and frightening, to someone else. This is the opposite of the
Golden Rule, and having placed this rule upside down, the reverse of miracles, or
projection, follows automatically.)

The correction lies in accepting what is true in YOURSELF, by bringing ALL that
you are into light. (HS fearful of writing next part.) Cacey [sic] was wrong about
Possession, and he was also wrong about hurting himself. One of the major problems
with miracle workers is that they are so sure that what they are doing is right,
because they KNOW it stems from love, that they do not pause to let ME establish
MY limits.

While what he (Cacey) [sic] did came from Me, he could NOT be induced to ask me
each time whether I wanted him to perform this PARTICULAR miracle. If he had, he
would not have performed any miracles that could not get thru constructively, and
would thus have saved himself unnecessary strain. He burned himself out with
indiscriminate miracles, and to this extent did not fulfill his own full purpose,
and was also subject to the Scribal error I mentioned at the start. The Disciples
were also prone to this.

The answer is NEVER perform a miracle without asking me IF you should. This spares
you from exhaustion, and because you act under direct communication the trance
becomes unnecessary. Because miracles are expressions of love, it does NOT follow
that they will always be effective. I am the only one who can perform miracles
indiscriminately, because I AM the Atonement. You have a ROLE in Atonement, which
I will dictate TO you.

Remember, you already have a point about the involuntary nature of miracles. We
also have established the fact that everything involuntary belongs under Christ-
control, NOT under yours. Under Christ-control, Miracles REPLENISH the doer as
well as the receiver.

Possession really means “Not under Christ-Control”, thus making him (the mind?)
vulnerable to projection. The reference to the earth-bound entering bodies really
refer to the “taking over” by their own earth-bound “thoughts”. This IS Demon
Possession. After all, Lucifer fell, but he was still an angel. He is thus the
symbol for man. [?] Atonement is the knowledge that the belief that angels can
fall is false. It is true that mind can create projections as well as miracles,
but it’s NOT true that projections are REAL. Any psychologist should understand
this. This is what is meant by “ The Truth shall set you free.”

Christ-controlled miracles are part of the Atonement, but Christ-guidance is
personal, and leads to PERSONAL salvation. The impersonal nature of miracles is an
essential ingredient, because this enables Me to control their distribution as I
see fit.

Christ-guidance, on the other hand, leads to the highly Personal experience of
Revelation. This is why it involves PERSONAL choice. A guide does NOT control, by
definition, but he does DIRECT, leaving the following up to you. “Lead us not into
temptation” means “guide us out of our own errors.” Note that the word is “lead”,
NOT order.

“Take up thy cross and follow me” should be interpreted to read “Recognize your
errors and choose to abandon them by following My guidance.”

(Tell B. when he is afraid of Possession, he need only remember that error cannot
really threaten Truth, which ALWAYS can withstand its assaults. Only the error is
really vulnerable.) The “Princes of this World” are princes only because they are
really angels. But they are free to establish their kingdom where they see fit.

If you will remember that ALL princes INHERIT their power from the Father, the
right choice becomes inevitable.

The soul is in a state of grace forever.

Man’s reality is ONLY his soul.

Therefore, man is in a state of Grace forever.

Atonement undoes all errors in this respect, and thus uproots the REAL source of
fear. If you will check back at the reference to uprooting, you will understand it
better in this context.

(Tell B. that WHENEVER God’s reassurances are experienced as threat, it is ALWAYS
because man is defending his misplaced & misdirected love and loyalty. That is
what projection always involves.)

“Casting spells” merely means “affirming error”, and error is lack of love. When
man projects this onto others, he DOES imprison them, but only to the extent that
he reinforces errors they have already made. This distortion makes them vulnerable
to the curse of others, since they have already cursed themselves. The miracle
worker can only bless, and this undoes the curse and frees the soul from prison."
- A Course in Miracles, Urtext, pages 22-24, Combined Version, pages 30-33


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


"When the “lies of the serpent” were introduced, they were specifically called
lies because they are not true. When man listened, all he heard was untruth. He
does not have to continue to believe what is not true, unless he chooses to do so.
All of his miscreations can disappear in the well known “twinkling of an eye”,
because it is a visual misperception.

Man’s spiritual eye can sleep, but as will shortly appear in the notes (reference
Bob, elevator operator) a sleeping eye can still see. One translation of the Fall,
a view emphasized by Mary Baker Eddy, and worthy of note, is that “a deep sleep
fell upon Adam”. While the Bible continues to associate this sleep as a kind of
anaesthetic utilized for protection of Adam during the creation of Eve, Mrs. Eddy
was correct in emphasizing that nowhere is there any reference made to his waking
up. While Christian Science is clearly incomplete, this point is much in its favor."
- A Course in Miracles, Urtext, page 602 (Insert for page 61, - per page 600),
Combined Version, page 73


https://tinyurl.com/Course-In-Miracles-Urtext-pdf
https://tinyurl.com/ACIM-Urtext-Text-pdf
http://www.miraclesinactionpress.com/dthomp74/2008/TOOLBOX/Original%20Versions/FIP.htm

[course zealot]

Post by course zealot
Please read entirety through before passing judgement. It comes around.
Christians persecuting Christians is outrageous service to the spirit of
adversity. There are many Christian Churches, and Christ is the head of them all.
And doesn't A Course in Miracles say "I must found my church on you?"
The world is in need of _leaders_, who proselytize, and serve the truth.
It should be noted that persecution is not proselytization - which seeks to
educate, enlighten, enrich, and lead to salvation. But persecution is the
ministry of satan and seeks to condemn and destroy, to insult and attack. Those
who persecute "have what judges them," so if anyone has persecuted, let him
repent, and "go and sin no more.
If someone wants to advocate another religion on this board it is perhaps off
topic, and yet on the other hand, perhaps of interest to the people of this board.
But it is not persecutory to be an _advocate_, and say "Hi, join the
Jewish/Hindu/Mormon/Muslim religion, etc." But, persistence on off-topic subjects
may, of course, become annoying.
Yet that is not the same as denigrating the topic of this board. Nor is
denigrating the topic of this board the same as merely posting FACTS about one's
experience of the topic religion which perhaps were negative, such as "it didn't
work for me," or even which may bring the religion into questionable light: SUCH
AS: L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer. Thetford and Shucman worked with
some programs in their time in the psychiatric department possibly connected to
the CIA. Edgar Cayce predicted Atlantis would rise from the ocean, and it never
did so.
Saying Cayce, or Scientology, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or another Christian
Church, such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or another denomination,
Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic, are religions of
the Devil, is at least something that ought to be done, pointedly, scientifically,
_limitedly_, based on FACTS, and on certain points, unless you have direct
experience with the religion. "THE RELIGION IS A CULT." Why? Do you think that
any of the previous named religions never benefited anybody? Can you study one of
them and move onto another? How is the religion dangerous?
Would it not make more sense to say, "hi, this other religion has benefited me I
think more than yours might, for these reasons." Rather than to say inflammatory
possibly hurtful things that may be perceived as insulting and offensive.
Yet, let us read what the Urtext has to say about Cayce, of whom Pat Robertson,
once said of his readings were "the work of the devil (full urtext citation will
follow in followup post to this post):"
"Cayce’s notes, too, could have been much shortened. Their excessive length is due
to two factors. The first involves a fundamental error which Cayce himself made,
and which required constant undoing. The second is more related to the attitude of
his followers. They are unwilling to omit anything he said. This is respectful
enough, but not overly-judicious. I would be a far better editor, if they would
allow me this position on their staff." -
- "I am heartily supportive of the ARE’s endeavor to make Cayce’s singular
contributions immortal, but it would be most unwise to have them promulgated as a
faith until they have been purged of their essential errors. This is why there
have been a number of unexplained set backs in their explication. It is also one
of the many reasons why the Cayce material, a major step in the speedup, must be
properly understood before it can be meaningfully validated.
Cayce’s son has been wise in attempting to deal with reliability, which in Cayce’s
case is very high. There is a way of validating the material, and Hugh Lynn is
perfectly aware that this must be done eventually. He is also aware of the fact
that he is unable to do it. In the present state of the material, it would be most
unwise even to attempt it. There is too much that IS invalid. When the time comes
that this can be corrected to the point of real safety, I assure you it will be
accomplished. In tribute to Cayce, I remind you that no effort is wasted, and
Cayce’s effort was very great.
It would be most ungrateful of me if I allowed his work to produce a generation of
witch doctors. I am sorry that Cayce himself could not rid himself of a slight
tendency in this direction. But fortunately I have a fuller appreciation of him
than he had.
I am repeating here a Biblical injunction of my own, already mentioned elsewhere,
that if my followers eat any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. This is what
Cayce could NOT believe, because he could not see that, as a Son of God, he WAS
invulnerable."
("And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out
demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they
drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the
sick, and they will recover.” - Jesus Christ, Mark 16:17-18)
- A Course in Miracles, Urtext, pages 76-79, Combined Verson, pages. 132-136
Isn't it the job of the intelligent to make everything clear and simple to us? Is
Jesus just having a hard time speaking with the Holy Spirit, or can he find no
sufficient channels outside of Cayce and Shucman et al? Any ideas why he doesn't
just *manifest* and write a book, or why he never wrote a Gospel himself? On the
other hand, unlike Cayce, A Course in Miracles seems _absolutely composed_. It
could be more clear and comprehensive... though perhaps the return to the self
merely requires someone to go on and on for 1250 pages... not sure about this. But
the point about if the above stuff about Cayce is valid channeling, then what is
the essential message Jesus is trying to get across - why edit Cayce? Why not
just write a clear book? If Cayce is a "major step in the speed up?" Why not
just tell us what we need to know?
Also, furthermore, as far as drinking poison goes, this is just like acid, so this
is just like cutting oneself with a knife, and the cut healing immediately. It's
all just movement is what I'm saying. Just saying. This material was edited,
supposedly by Jesus, out of the official version of A Course in Miracles, but it
is in the Bible.
Anyway, the point is, if one is going to criticize another's faith/religion/creed,
what have you, perhaps one needs to use clear points. Perhaps Pat Robertson needs
to as well be more clearer as to what about Cayce "is the work of the devil."
Analogously, for instance, from what I know of Scientology, it is a very dubious
religion. I would caution anyone away from it. Is appears to be either in league
with aliens, or infiltrated by them. Scientology apparently will posses you with
a Grey alien and then make you _pay_ to get rid of it, I think. When people try
to leave the church of Scientology they are harassed and harangued, and stalked.
Many who join Scientology are in earnest however, which is why they should maybe
study A Course in Miracles, rather than join "_that cult_." Perhaps the Church
should be prohibited from charging to maintain its tax-exempt status.
These are negative reports. We have negative reports of abuse from former
Scientologists. We probably have former Scientologists who say it helped them,
but how many? Scientology is a group. An organization. A Course in Miracles is
a book. Self-study. Incorporate into your own organization if you please.
Catholicism. Is this a cult?
Are there negative reports from Edgar Cayce followers? I haven't read any. Has
Pat Robertson? Why according to him is the material "the work of the devil?" Is
it merely blinkered or full of errors and perpetrations as the "Course in Miracles
Unedited Urtext" suggests?
Even if someone was an Edgar Cayce follower or a Jew or a Scientologist I would
not say anything to their face about something they may identify with or find
important. Insulting the book of Mormon is another outrage. You have to be able
to criticize correctly, to the right degree in the right forum. Not insult
perpetually by picketing outside the Mormon church. That is inflammatory and
desecration and not the place for it. Are people who point to fraud in the book
of Mormon valid, or apologists? Whichever the case, it is insult to perpetually
picket outside of a Mormon church saying these things when you have not been
outrageously offended yourself. This is a clue, right?
Okay, maybe people insult Cayce because it's easy to point to so many material
errors, like Atlantis not rising from the ocean, it makes him seem like a joke.
His followers should maybe compile a "best of Cayce," text to see if his writings
have any actual merit.
There are some people who study both A Course in Miracles and Cayce. The two are
certainly not mutually exclusive, It may as well be noted on this board. Though,
at that rate, for the individual, neither is ACIM mutually exclusive with any
https://www.edgarcayce.org/events/event-listings/hq-visitor-center/other-groupsmeetings-(nonare)-on-campus/a-course-in-miracles-study-group/
So saying Jews are of the Devil and their religion is a sin, in the wrong place
with the wrong tact, to the wrong people, without constructive criticism and
critical merit; and in a limited fashion; becomes abhorrent reprehensible
insulting racist hate speech which should be condemned everywhere and has what
condemns it. The whole point when making such criticisms ought to be to lead and
proselytize, not to persecute and offend, but to hopefully set people in a more
right direction.
For, "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
To become all things to all men, does not mean to accept their evils, but lead them.
"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I
might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to
those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are
under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law
toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without
law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all
things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the
gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."
Paul notes "to the Jews I became a Jew." If to the Christians he became a
Christian, his words found throughout the Bible, nevertheless prove that he's a
Saint. While you need not agree with all things he wrote, if you corroborate him,
he corroborates you, and if you read his writings, you will no doubt find benefit
in some or much of them.
But as back to what I was discussing as to saying "Jews are of the devil;" Pure
insult, without explanation is baseless, offensive, and the same as racism. Such
hate speech lead to the Holocaust. Such hate speech lead to prohibition of drugs,
weapons, willful sexuality, and tent and vehicle dweller rights in the United
States today. This is denigration, impoverishment, and taxation, upon our poor
American people, of which 25 million *children* are insufficiently fed.
You might as well crucify Christ. He would drink wine in public if he could.
Communion, and the blood of the new covenant anyone?
In other words, such hate speech is anti-Christ. And so are the actions of those
who follow it.
So, whoever you are who post here or anywhere, from now until forever. Learn to
proselytize and advocate, and learn to not insult and persecute. Learn to be a
true preacher. Please, now and forever. Thank you.
"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle,
because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am,
and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they
all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was
I or they, so we preach and so you believed." - 1 Corinthians 15:9-11
"For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect
has come, then that which is in part will be done away." - 1 Corinthians 13:9
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and
they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd."
- Jesus Christ, John 10:16
"28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28
"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the
world through Him might be saved."
But, "this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
- Jesus Christ, John 3:17,19
For, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
- Jesus Christ, Luke 5:32
"God wills no one suffer. He does not will anyone to suffer for a wrong decision,
including you."
- A Course in Miracles, Chapter 8, Section 3
"I will with God that none of His Sons should suffer."
- Jesus Christ, A Course in Miracles, Chapter 6, Section 1

Bump

[course zealot]

Post by course zealot
Please read entirety through before passing judgement. It comes around.
Christians persecuting Christians is outrageous service to the spirit of
adversity. There are many Christian Churches, and Christ is the head of them all.
And doesn't A Course in Miracles say "I must found my church on you?"
The world is in need of _leaders_, who proselytize, and serve the truth.
It should be noted that persecution is not proselytization - which seeks to
educate, enlighten, enrich, and lead to salvation. But persecution is the
ministry of satan and seeks to condemn and destroy, to insult and attack. Those
who persecute "have what judges them," so if anyone has persecuted, let him
repent, and "go and sin no more.
If someone wants to advocate another religion on this board it is perhaps off
topic, and yet on the other hand, perhaps of interest to the people of this board.
But it is not persecutory to be an _advocate_, and say "Hi, join the
Jewish/Hindu/Mormon/Muslim religion, etc." But, persistence on off-topic subjects
may, of course, become annoying.
Yet that is not the same as denigrating the topic of this board. Nor is
denigrating the topic of this board the same as merely posting FACTS about one's
experience of the topic religion which perhaps were negative, such as "it didn't
work for me," or even which may bring the religion into questionable light: SUCH
AS: L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer. Thetford and Shucman worked with
some programs in their time in the psychiatric department possibly connected to
the CIA. Edgar Cayce predicted Atlantis would rise from the ocean, and it never
did so.
Saying Cayce, or Scientology, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or another Christian
Church, such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or another denomination,
Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic, are religions of
the Devil, is at least something that ought to be done, pointedly, scientifically,
_limitedly_, based on FACTS, and on certain points, unless you have direct
experience with the religion. "THE RELIGION IS A CULT." Why? Do you think that
any of the previous named religions never benefited anybody? Can you study one of
them and move onto another? How is the religion dangerous?
Would it not make more sense to say, "hi, this other religion has benefited me I
think more than yours might, for these reasons." Rather than to say inflammatory
possibly hurtful things that may be perceived as insulting and offensive.
Yet, let us read what the Urtext has to say about Cayce, of whom Pat Robertson,
once said of his readings were "the work of the devil (full urtext citation will
follow in followup post to this post):"
"Cayce’s notes, too, could have been much shortened. Their excessive length is due
to two factors. The first involves a fundamental error which Cayce himself made,
and which required constant undoing. The second is more related to the attitude of
his followers. They are unwilling to omit anything he said. This is respectful
enough, but not overly-judicious. I would be a far better editor, if they would
allow me this position on their staff." -
- "I am heartily supportive of the ARE’s endeavor to make Cayce’s singular
contributions immortal, but it would be most unwise to have them promulgated as a
faith until they have been purged of their essential errors. This is why there
have been a number of unexplained set backs in their explication. It is also one
of the many reasons why the Cayce material, a major step in the speedup, must be
properly understood before it can be meaningfully validated.
Cayce’s son has been wise in attempting to deal with reliability, which in Cayce’s
case is very high. There is a way of validating the material, and Hugh Lynn is
perfectly aware that this must be done eventually. He is also aware of the fact
that he is unable to do it. In the present state of the material, it would be most
unwise even to attempt it. There is too much that IS invalid. When the time comes
that this can be corrected to the point of real safety, I assure you it will be
accomplished. In tribute to Cayce, I remind you that no effort is wasted, and
Cayce’s effort was very great.
It would be most ungrateful of me if I allowed his work to produce a generation of
witch doctors. I am sorry that Cayce himself could not rid himself of a slight
tendency in this direction. But fortunately I have a fuller appreciation of him
than he had.
I am repeating here a Biblical injunction of my own, already mentioned elsewhere,
that if my followers eat any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. This is what
Cayce could NOT believe, because he could not see that, as a Son of God, he WAS
invulnerable."
("And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out
demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they
drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the
sick, and they will recover.” - Jesus Christ, Mark 16:17-18)
- A Course in Miracles, Urtext, pages 76-79, Combined Verson, pages. 132-136
Isn't it the job of the intelligent to make everything clear and simple to us? Is
Jesus just having a hard time speaking with the Holy Spirit, or can he find no
sufficient channels outside of Cayce and Shucman et al? Any ideas why he doesn't
just *manifest* and write a book, or why he never wrote a Gospel himself? On the
other hand, unlike Cayce, A Course in Miracles seems _absolutely composed_. It
could be more clear and comprehensive... though perhaps the return to the self
merely requires someone to go on and on for 1250 pages... not sure about this. But
the point about if the above stuff about Cayce is valid channeling, then what is
the essential message Jesus is trying to get across - why edit Cayce? Why not
just write a clear book? If Cayce is a "major step in the speed up?" Why not
just tell us what we need to know?
Also, furthermore, as far as drinking poison goes, this is just like acid, so this
is just like cutting oneself with a knife, and the cut healing immediately. It's
all just movement is what I'm saying. Just saying. This material was edited,
supposedly by Jesus, out of the official version of A Course in Miracles, but it
is in the Bible.
Anyway, the point is, if one is going to criticize another's faith/religion/creed,
what have you, perhaps one needs to use clear points. Perhaps Pat Robertson needs
to as well be more clearer as to what about Cayce "is the work of the devil."
Analogously, for instance, from what I know of Scientology, it is a very dubious
religion. I would caution anyone away from it. Is appears to be either in league
with aliens, or infiltrated by them. Scientology apparently will posses you with
a Grey alien and then make you _pay_ to get rid of it, I think. When people try
to leave the church of Scientology they are harassed and harangued, and stalked.
Many who join Scientology are in earnest however, which is why they should maybe
study A Course in Miracles, rather than join "_that cult_." Perhaps the Church
should be prohibited from charging to maintain its tax-exempt status.
These are negative reports. We have negative reports of abuse from former
Scientologists. We probably have former Scientologists who say it helped them,
but how many? Scientology is a group. An organization. A Course in Miracles is
a book. Self-study. Incorporate into your own organization if you please.
Catholicism. Is this a cult?
Are there negative reports from Edgar Cayce followers? I haven't read any. Has
Pat Robertson? Why according to him is the material "the work of the devil?" Is
it merely blinkered or full of errors and perpetrations as the "Course in Miracles
Unedited Urtext" suggests?
Even if someone was an Edgar Cayce follower or a Jew or a Scientologist I would
not say anything to their face about something they may identify with or find
important. Insulting the book of Mormon is another outrage. You have to be able
to criticize correctly, to the right degree in the right forum. Not insult
perpetually by picketing outside the Mormon church. That is inflammatory and
desecration and not the place for it. Are people who point to fraud in the book
of Mormon valid, or apologists? Whichever the case, it is insult to perpetually
picket outside of a Mormon church saying these things when you have not been
outrageously offended yourself. This is a clue, right?
Okay, maybe people insult Cayce because it's easy to point to so many material
errors, like Atlantis not rising from the ocean, it makes him seem like a joke.
His followers should maybe compile a "best of Cayce," text to see if his writings
have any actual merit.
There are some people who study both A Course in Miracles and Cayce. The two are
certainly not mutually exclusive, It may as well be noted on this board. Though,
at that rate, for the individual, neither is ACIM mutually exclusive with any
https://www.edgarcayce.org/events/event-listings/hq-visitor-center/other-groupsmeetings-(nonare)-on-campus/a-course-in-miracles-study-group/
So saying Jews are of the Devil and their religion is a sin, in the wrong place
with the wrong tact, to the wrong people, without constructive criticism and
critical merit; and in a limited fashion; becomes abhorrent reprehensible
insulting racist hate speech which should be condemned everywhere and has what
condemns it. The whole point when making such criticisms ought to be to lead and
proselytize, not to persecute and offend, but to hopefully set people in a more
right direction.
For, "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
To become all things to all men, does not mean to accept their evils, but lead them.
"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I
might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to
those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are
under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law
toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without
law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all
things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the
gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."
Paul notes "to the Jews I became a Jew." If to the Christians he became a
Christian, his words found throughout the Bible, nevertheless prove that he's a
Saint. While you need not agree with all things he wrote, if you corroborate him,
he corroborates you, and if you read his writings, you will no doubt find benefit
in some or much of them.
But as back to what I was discussing as to saying "Jews are of the devil;" Pure
insult, without explanation is baseless, offensive, and the same as racism. Such
hate speech lead to the Holocaust. Such hate speech lead to prohibition of drugs,
weapons, willful sexuality, and tent and vehicle dweller rights in the United
States today. This is denigration, impoverishment, and taxation, upon our poor
American people, of which 25 million *children* are insufficiently fed.
You might as well crucify Christ. He would drink wine in public if he could.
Communion, and the blood of the new covenant anyone?
In other words, such hate speech is anti-Christ. And so are the actions of those
who follow it.
So, whoever you are who post here or anywhere, from now until forever. Learn to
proselytize and advocate, and learn to not insult and persecute. Learn to be a
true preacher. Please, now and forever. Thank you.
"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle,
because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am,
and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they
all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was
I or they, so we preach and so you believed." - 1 Corinthians 15:9-11
"For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect
has come, then that which is in part will be done away." - 1 Corinthians 13:9
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and
they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd."
- Jesus Christ, John 10:16
"28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28
"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the
world through Him might be saved."
But, "this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
- Jesus Christ, John 3:17,19
For, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
- Jesus Christ, Luke 5:32
"God wills no one suffer. He does not will anyone to suffer for a wrong decision,
including you."
- A Course in Miracles, Chapter 8, Section 3
"I will with God that none of His Sons should suffer."
- Jesus Christ, A Course in Miracles, Chapter 6, Section 1

Bump

[course zealot]

Post by course zealot
Please read entirety through before passing judgement. It comes around.
Christians persecuting Christians is outrageous service to the spirit of
adversity. There are many Christian Churches, and Christ is the head of them all.
And doesn't A Course in Miracles say "I must found my church on you?"
The world is in need of _leaders_, who proselytize, and serve the truth.
It should be noted that persecution is not proselytization - which seeks to
educate, enlighten, enrich, and lead to salvation. But persecution is the
ministry of satan and seeks to condemn and destroy, to insult and attack. Those
who persecute "have what judges them," so if anyone has persecuted, let him
repent, and "go and sin no more.
If someone wants to advocate another religion on this board it is perhaps off
topic, and yet on the other hand, perhaps of interest to the people of this board.
But it is not persecutory to be an _advocate_, and say "Hi, join the
Jewish/Hindu/Mormon/Muslim religion, etc." But, persistence on off-topic subjects
may, of course, become annoying.
Yet that is not the same as denigrating the topic of this board. Nor is
denigrating the topic of this board the same as merely posting FACTS about one's
experience of the topic religion which perhaps were negative, such as "it didn't
work for me," or even which may bring the religion into questionable light: SUCH
AS: L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer. Thetford and Shucman worked with
some programs in their time in the psychiatric department possibly connected to
the CIA. Edgar Cayce predicted Atlantis would rise from the ocean, and it never
did so.
Saying Cayce, or Scientology, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or another Christian
Church, such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or another denomination,
Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic, are religions of
the Devil, is at least something that ought to be done, pointedly, scientifically,
_limitedly_, based on FACTS, and on certain points, unless you have direct
experience with the religion. "THE RELIGION IS A CULT." Why? Do you think that
any of the previous named religions never benefited anybody? Can you study one of
them and move onto another? How is the religion dangerous?
Would it not make more sense to say, "hi, this other religion has benefited me I
think more than yours might, for these reasons." Rather than to say inflammatory
possibly hurtful things that may be perceived as insulting and offensive.
Yet, let us read what the Urtext has to say about Cayce, of whom Pat Robertson,
once said of his readings were "the work of the devil (full urtext citation will
follow in followup post to this post):"
"Cayce’s notes, too, could have been much shortened. Their excessive length is due
to two factors. The first involves a fundamental error which Cayce himself made,
and which required constant undoing. The second is more related to the attitude of
his followers. They are unwilling to omit anything he said. This is respectful
enough, but not overly-judicious. I would be a far better editor, if they would
allow me this position on their staff." -
- "I am heartily supportive of the ARE’s endeavor to make Cayce’s singular
contributions immortal, but it would be most unwise to have them promulgated as a
faith until they have been purged of their essential errors. This is why there
have been a number of unexplained set backs in their explication. It is also one
of the many reasons why the Cayce material, a major step in the speedup, must be
properly understood before it can be meaningfully validated.
Cayce’s son has been wise in attempting to deal with reliability, which in Cayce’s
case is very high. There is a way of validating the material, and Hugh Lynn is
perfectly aware that this must be done eventually. He is also aware of the fact
that he is unable to do it. In the present state of the material, it would be most
unwise even to attempt it. There is too much that IS invalid. When the time comes
that this can be corrected to the point of real safety, I assure you it will be
accomplished. In tribute to Cayce, I remind you that no effort is wasted, and
Cayce’s effort was very great.
It would be most ungrateful of me if I allowed his work to produce a generation of
witch doctors. I am sorry that Cayce himself could not rid himself of a slight
tendency in this direction. But fortunately I have a fuller appreciation of him
than he had.
I am repeating here a Biblical injunction of my own, already mentioned elsewhere,
that if my followers eat any deadly thing it shall not hurt them. This is what
Cayce could NOT believe, because he could not see that, as a Son of God, he WAS
invulnerable."
("And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out
demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they
drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the
sick, and they will recover.” - Jesus Christ, Mark 16:17-18)
- A Course in Miracles, Urtext, pages 76-79, Combined Verson, pages. 132-136
Isn't it the job of the intelligent to make everything clear and simple to us? Is
Jesus just having a hard time speaking with the Holy Spirit, or can he find no
sufficient channels outside of Cayce and Shucman et al? Any ideas why he doesn't
just *manifest* and write a book, or why he never wrote a Gospel himself? On the
other hand, unlike Cayce, A Course in Miracles seems _absolutely composed_. It
could be more clear and comprehensive... though perhaps the return to the self
merely requires someone to go on and on for 1250 pages... not sure about this. But
the point about if the above stuff about Cayce is valid channeling, then what is
the essential message Jesus is trying to get across - why edit Cayce? Why not
just write a clear book? If Cayce is a "major step in the speed up?" Why not
just tell us what we need to know?
Also, furthermore, as far as drinking poison goes, this is just like acid, so this
is just like cutting oneself with a knife, and the cut healing immediately. It's
all just movement is what I'm saying. Just saying. This material was edited,
supposedly by Jesus, out of the official version of A Course in Miracles, but it
is in the Bible.
Anyway, the point is, if one is going to criticize another's faith/religion/creed,
what have you, perhaps one needs to use clear points. Perhaps Pat Robertson needs
to as well be more clearer as to what about Cayce "is the work of the devil."
Analogously, for instance, from what I know of Scientology, it is a very dubious
religion. I would caution anyone away from it. Is appears to be either in league
with aliens, or infiltrated by them. Scientology apparently will posses you with
a Grey alien and then make you _pay_ to get rid of it, I think. When people try
to leave the church of Scientology they are harassed and harangued, and stalked.
Many who join Scientology are in earnest however, which is why they should maybe
study A Course in Miracles, rather than join "_that cult_." Perhaps the Church
should be prohibited from charging to maintain its tax-exempt status.
These are negative reports. We have negative reports of abuse from former
Scientologists. We probably have former Scientologists who say it helped them,
but how many? Scientology is a group. An organization. A Course in Miracles is
a book. Self-study. Incorporate into your own organization if you please.
Catholicism. Is this a cult?
Are there negative reports from Edgar Cayce followers? I haven't read any. Has
Pat Robertson? Why according to him is the material "the work of the devil?" Is
it merely blinkered or full of errors and perpetrations as the "Course in Miracles
Unedited Urtext" suggests?
Even if someone was an Edgar Cayce follower or a Jew or a Scientologist I would
not say anything to their face about something they may identify with or find
important. Insulting the book of Mormon is another outrage. You have to be able
to criticize correctly, to the right degree in the right forum. Not insult
perpetually by picketing outside the Mormon church. That is inflammatory and
desecration and not the place for it. Are people who point to fraud in the book
of Mormon valid, or apologists? Whichever the case, it is insult to perpetually
picket outside of a Mormon church saying these things when you have not been
outrageously offended yourself. This is a clue, right?
Okay, maybe people insult Cayce because it's easy to point to so many material
errors, like Atlantis not rising from the ocean, it makes him seem like a joke.
His followers should maybe compile a "best of Cayce," text to see if his writings
have any actual merit.
There are some people who study both A Course in Miracles and Cayce. The two are
certainly not mutually exclusive, It may as well be noted on this board. Though,
at that rate, for the individual, neither is ACIM mutually exclusive with any
https://www.edgarcayce.org/events/event-listings/hq-visitor-center/other-groupsmeetings-(nonare)-on-campus/a-course-in-miracles-study-group/
So saying Jews are of the Devil and their religion is a sin, in the wrong place
with the wrong tact, to the wrong people, without constructive criticism and
critical merit; and in a limited fashion; becomes abhorrent reprehensible
insulting racist hate speech which should be condemned everywhere and has what
condemns it. The whole point when making such criticisms ought to be to lead and
proselytize, not to persecute and offend, but to hopefully set people in a more
right direction.
For, "I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
To become all things to all men, does not mean to accept their evils, but lead them.
"For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I
might win the more; and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to
those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are
under the law; to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law
toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without
law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all
things to all men, that I might by all means save some. Now this I do for the
gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you."
Paul notes "to the Jews I became a Jew." If to the Christians he became a
Christian, his words found throughout the Bible, nevertheless prove that he's a
Saint. While you need not agree with all things he wrote, if you corroborate him,
he corroborates you, and if you read his writings, you will no doubt find benefit
in some or much of them.
But as back to what I was discussing as to saying "Jews are of the devil;" Pure
insult, without explanation is baseless, offensive, and the same as racism. Such
hate speech lead to the Holocaust. Such hate speech lead to prohibition of drugs,
weapons, willful sexuality, and tent and vehicle dweller rights in the United
States today. This is denigration, impoverishment, and taxation, upon our poor
American people, of which 25 million *children* are insufficiently fed.
You might as well crucify Christ. He would drink wine in public if he could.
Communion, and the blood of the new covenant anyone?
In other words, such hate speech is anti-Christ. And so are the actions of those
who follow it.
So, whoever you are who post here or anywhere, from now until forever. Learn to
proselytize and advocate, and learn to not insult and persecute. Learn to be a
true preacher. Please, now and forever. Thank you.
"For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle,
because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am,
and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they
all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore, whether it was
I or they, so we preach and so you believed." - 1 Corinthians 15:9-11
"For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect
has come, then that which is in part will be done away." - 1 Corinthians 13:9
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and
they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd."
- Jesus Christ, John 10:16
"28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is
neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28
"For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the
world through Him might be saved."
But, "this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
- Jesus Christ, John 3:17,19
For, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
- Jesus Christ, Luke 5:32
"God wills no one suffer. He does not will anyone to suffer for a wrong decision,
including you."
- A Course in Miracles, Chapter 8, Section 3
"I will with God that none of His Sons should suffer."
- Jesus Christ, A Course in Miracles, Chapter 6, Section 1

Bump

[course zealot]

Why would you read someone's hate messages? Why would you want to read horror?
People come to this board, probably seeking God. They are not interested in
reading arguments. People on this board are interested in God already. Yet
someone was saying that if you don't believe in God in their own particular way,
you will be cast into the lake of fire, and not exist again. This is ludicrous.
At the least if you were going to say such things, you would say it about those
outside the church "for there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ,
for everyone in Christ is a new creation." The thing is, those outside the Church
probably don't even care. You're trying to use coercion, and then persecuting
those who are already in their own church, rather than proselytizing your own
Church. When Christ himself, said he had other sheepfolds.

If you were going to jack, or suggest God jacks, you'd be very pointed and
precise. But even the Jews already concluded that, "the just shall live by
faith." Two wrongs don't make a right. But there is right and wrong. Freedom is
right, and doing something against somebody else's will is wrong. And our unfair
economic system (beyond the absolute blasphemy of prohibition, as a solution to
admittedly legitimate social grievances) is the cause of all kinds of evil.

If there's a negative argument, it probably doesn't go further than:

"Do not be deceived. Sinners will by no means inherit the kingdom of God.

or Karma, like someone else could want to jack you.

But really the analytical argument that doing something against someone else's
will is a contradiction in your own mind is both positive and negative. To choose
2+3=5, and not anything else under the sun. People are good at heart and don't
have a heart of darkness. If someone wants to hurt others because they've been
hurt by others they need to know they're only hurting themselves more if they ever
come to their right minds (not that they necessarily ever will in their current
lifetime), but sadists have been made sad. Otherwise, poverty is the root of all
kinds of evil. Overpopulation is the cause of this. Economic inequality and
economic unfairness are also the issue. While stealing from those who have the
same or less than you is immoral, and stealing a poor man's horse is capital, an
unfair system justifies even robbery, and how can one but acquit. Withholding
being as wrong as robbery, and robbery being as right as withholding. Socialism
has merit, and Marxism has none being a worse solution than Capitalism.
Libertarian Laissez Faire economics is as bad as Marxism. Why does the State need
to own all of the means of production, why not just some of the means of food
production. And if the Government is going to wither away into Utopia as Karl
Marx says, then why not say no one owns anything unless they're carrying it today?
Anyway, so much for the government owning the means of production, small
businesses are 50% of the American economy. Marxism fell in 1989. Really all it
comes down to is savings, so we don't eat the whole factory, but save some of the
fruits of our capital and labor, which are mostly the results of our capital. No
one would be earning much trying to play in the NBA in Chad, Central Africa. No
one would be earning much without the U.S. (or a first world) economy.

[course zealot]

So you execute someone for insulting a religion. Do you really think God is with
you, and not with the person you executed? That is, Blasphemy laws themselves are
blasphemy to God indubitably. True, some people sometimes say offensive
inflammatory insulting impolite things, but is it your legal right to murder them
(in other words the government's)? Criminal punishment is always akin to murder.

So ultimately restrictions on hate speech would come down to a restriction on all
insults, including your right to insult or criticize the Government.

It's surprising how many nations have blasphemy laws today. I wonder if a Jew
wanted to reform his religion in Germany if he would be effectively executed.

Can we really say what we want? And of any issues, how are we to know the legal
wrangle jangle from one city to another city, or one State to another State, much
less from one country to another country. How can we live abroad? Or the 10,000+
pages of the Federal Title code? Not even a lawyer can or does know the law. What
we really need, more than a Geneva Convention, is a Convention on the treatment of
all prisoners, regardless, including a limit on the things one can be arrested
(read executed) for.

For starters, if something is not a sueable offense, and nor is one indicted for
it, the Constitution indicates one can't be arrested. Yet cops have been
violating this every day. So violating another's body or property would be all
legal and illegal would at most come down to. Perhaps endangering. Yet in an
economically unfair system, who can blame others for stealing? While stealing
from those who have the same or less than you is immoral, and stealing a poor
man's horse is capital as mayhem or murder (if not insured), but I guess stealing
from the rich or taking a penny from everybody is no different than the IRS or
Robin Hood in an absolutely unfair economic system as ours. Such robbery is as
rightful as withholding, and withholding is as wrongful as robbery. How will you
not join me, in acquitting robbery, as well as all things, until our civilization
as well as criminal justice system is absolutely reformed and corrected. How
could you convict and be an accessory to what amounts to unrighteousness? Many
want to turn you to evil and to the devil. Many want to turn you to the cult they
have made America into. And the United States criminal justice system is a cult.
It is a false and unholy religion. While we define America as the country which
begins with us, we say down with the United States criminal justice system. There
is $1 trillion in fraud yearly in the United States. With the average Fraud
estimated at $130,000. If the average fraud was $100,000 this would be 10 million
cases of fraud. Would you throw all these people in prison?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law
https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/

We claim the land and the equal right to govern it. We encourage all good
Americans to claim the same. We claim to be the head of any government which
perpetrates to govern this land. We encourage all good Americans to claim the
same. Your country begins with you, and only you can be the foundation of your
country. This is one nation under God, which means one nation under you and me,
because we are under God, and not under this nation, and I am not under you, and
you are not under me.

Demand. Grievance. Target. Objective. Four terms to keep in mind when
contemplating war. This is not an advocation nor threat of war, but an advocation
for peaceful reform.

...

You have to think, what if we had blasphemy laws in the United States. How much
of what is written on this board would be safe? Would you be free to say anything
new at all? What kind of a chilling effect might this have on free speech?