Wikipedia

Talk:A Course in Miracles/Archive 5.1

< Talk:A Course in Miracles
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Scottperry


Archive 5.1: July 24, 2006 - Sep 9, 2006


To view earlier archives, see:


(Note: This discussion material is from a period when four or five editors, some of whom had admittedly not read any of the ACIM material, attempted to create an unusual POV fork article. One of these editors was permanently banned from Wikipedia due to his generally divisive behavior as a result of this. The POV fork article was ultimately also voted for deletion. Some constructive changes to the article did eventually result. I am not certain as to exactly how there appear to be two overlapping discussion archives for this period, however I have created this archive 5.1 in the interests of not losing this information. -Scott P. 13:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC))


References

Latest comment: 18 years ago13 comments1 person in discussion

The book "Foundation for Inner Peace; Wapnick, Kenneth (Feb 1, 1997). Concordance of 'A Course in Miracles'. Viking Adult. ISBN 0670869953." is not a reference source. I own the book. It is a concordance for ACIM. It is not a reference source and I think it should be removed. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed it.--Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do own "Wapnick, Kenneth (Apr1991). Absence from Felicity. Foundation for a Course in Miracles. 0-933291-08-6." I believe it is a useful reference source for the article. (late sig)--Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Branch, Rick (1994). The Watchman Expositor: A Course in Miracles Profile. Watchman Fellowship, Inc.. Retrieved on July 18, 2006." I did find this article on the net. It seems useful as an online reference. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Foundation for Inner Peace (1992). A course in miracles. The Foundation. ISBN 0-9606388-8-1." I do own this book as well as a number of other versions of ACIM. It is a primary source. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Williamson, Marianne (Apr 24, 1996). A Return to Love. Perennial Currents. 0060927488." This was/is a popular book derived from ACIM. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not own and have not read the other references. Does anyone else own these books or has anyone read them? (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Do the editors involved with this article really wish to understand the material and work together in good faith to improve the article? If so, this will require obtaining and studying the references. I am willing to do so. (late sig) --Who123 17:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a references section in the first third of the article, and then another one at the end? There should only be one references section, IMO.
I agree. I do not understand the WP reference software yet. I am asking for help with this. I also question which of the references meet WP criteria.--Who123 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just learned that "A Supplement to A Course in Miracles" appears to no longer be available. Perhaps it should be removed from the references?--Who123 23:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in the process of obtaining the reference books for this article. Since the ref. above is not available I am going to remove it from the article.--Who123 15:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked at a book that I do have that can be used for Terminology section. I added it to the References. When I went to the website, I see it has been replaced by a new edition. Any suggestions? Does my reference need to be corrected or augmented?—Who123 15:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I now have the main reference books for the article. I will be studying them now to improve the article both in content and citation.—Who123 18:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Merged & deleted articles

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The contents of several articles were merged in here, but now that material has been lost. As soon as the page is unprotected we should seek out that material and re-merge it.

There may be others, these are what I could find. -Will Beback 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should retrieve the articles. I would like to re-visit whether each article should be merged or stand alone with a link from the main page. It also depends on the vote on the new poll in terms of which article will be the beginning. In any case, I think the information should be retrieved and perhaps placed on the sandbox page.--Who123 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, some of those may need to be revisited. I also think the A Course in Miracles (book) AfD was irregular and should be reviewed too. Those reviews should be done through Wikipedia:Deletion review. -Will Beback 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The material from Attitudinal Healing was maybe a pair of sentences that I deleted earlier because they really were usless. The original article must have been a very short stub. I also think it was nonsense that the material from A Course in Miracles (book) was deleted. If there is not a more effective means of reintegrating the material, I have a copy of it at its prime. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 02:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, some of the mergers were very minor, but we should at least mention the topics. The "A Course in Miracles (book)" AfD deleted the name, but the contents should certainly be included here. On reflection I suppose there's no need to review the AfD, since the name wasn't helpful. Any admin, myself included, can dig out the deleted material from A Course in Miracles (book), in case Antireconciler's copy isn't complete. That stuff (at least the NPOV, verifiable material) should go in here too. -Will Beback 08:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I see. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 23:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Basic tenets

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I was bold and shortened this section. It now only presents "basic tenets" of ACIM, rather than lengthy quotes. I also removed many of the "our" and "we" formatted references since that tone is not encyclopedic. I also removed stuff like "the miracle of the course" because it isn't proper to describe this book as "a miracle" in an encyclopedia article. Not a dog 13:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The tag for the talk section includes, "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." I find that your deletion of most of this section makes the article worse rather than improves it. The section was fairly well written, sourced, and cited. I am going to revert. Can we please discuss substantial changes here first particularly if the section is sourced and cited or there is disagreement?—Who123 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then tell me how my edit made the article "worse." Just being well-written and sourced doesn't mean the content is appropriate. This section is called "Basic tenets". The first sentence notes that it has roots in psychology and englightenment. Why do we need additional mention of that at length further down in teh section. You don't. Just state what the basic tenets are, cite the source, and move on. This isn't supposed to be a book report or instruction manual. Further, sentences like this are inappropriate for an encyclopedia: the Course focuses on our awakening to our oneness with the Divine. Our perception changes so that we no longer see ourselves as separate. This sounds like a recruting brochure or personal testamony, not an encyclopedic description of what the book's "basic tenets" are. And the "In summary" paragraph is redundant to the opening paragraph. I could go on. IMO, this section is not well-written, and should be trimmed accordingly. (BTW, not every change should have to be discussed. This is a wiki, afterall) Not a dog 14:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Still awaiting your reply here. Not a dog 22:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that yourself, JChap, and I working together have made this a useful section as it stands now.—Who123 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Christianity

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
(edit conflict) Let's also discuss: the article should continue to present ACIM as a form of Christianity even though it's not. I plan on making some changes to the article this weekend and will not wait for your preapproval. You had no problem when, earlier this week, I added positive material about ACIM. Why do you have a problem with NOt a dog's changes now. Most of the reliable sources I have found present ACIM in a postive light incidentially. It's the article's unencyclopedic, prosyletizing tone that is the major problem here. I have tried to discuss the differences between ACIM and Christianity above, but you did not respond to that. Work has been needed on this article for a long time. JChap2007 23:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am tired of the conflict here and am taking a wikibreak. You say that ACIM is not Christian. There are many definitions of what a Christian is. My Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a Christian as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." Please see Wiktionary [1]. In the WP Christian article the first paragraph gives a few simple beliefs of Christians. Even though these are only a few beliefs it is noted that not all Christians hold all of these beliefs. ACIM itself has its foundation on the Christian Bible (as noted in ACIM) and the author as Jesus Christ makes many references to his life on Earth and the Christian Bible. You may also wish to do a Google search on the Unity Church and ACIM. I do agree that some of the teaching of ACIM are different from most Christian churches. What is perhaps most threatening to Christian churches is that ACIM focuses on a direct relationship with God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit rather than going through the intermediary of clergy and churches, although it is not in opposition to clergy and churches. Hope this helps.—Who123 02:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Enjoy your wikibreak. The reliable secondary sources I have found characterize ACIM as eastern, possibly a form of Vedanta, rather than Christian. These are from within the New Age movement itself or from friendly scholars like Hanegraaff, not from Christian ministers, incidentally. My own reading in ACIM would tend to confirm this as ACIM seems to be inconsistent with the great majority of the Nicene Creed. To call it Christian would be to take an extremely broad definition of that term! Saying that it is Christian because it contains a teaching from Christ is relying on an unproven assertion that the voice Schuchman heard really was Christ. We shouldn't be making a judgment on this one way or the other. JChap2007 19:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Although I am still on my wikibreak, I thought I would take a few minutes to respond. I have never heard of the Nicene Creed. In reading the article there are many Christian groups that do not accept it. Even in those that do, there is controversy between versions. The dictionary seems to provide a broad definition of Christians as those who believe that Jesus Christ is Divine. ACIM is somewhat different than other scripture that appears to rely on belief. The purpose of ACIM is not a universal theology but a universal experience. What attracts me to ACIM is the theoretical framework which I find internally logical and consistent with my many peak spiritual experiences. I am a "doubting Thomas" and have difficulty accepting something on faith. I am not saying that one has to believe that the author was Jesus Christ. Almost any assertion about religion is unproven. Religion is outside the scientific model. I am saying it is Christian because ACIM, as it is written, identifies the author as Jesus Christ whether one believes that or not. A similar argument would apply to the Christian Bible. The Bible relies on the unproven assertion that Jesus Christ is Divine and that that the unproven material in the Bible is true. I agree as editors it is not our place to say if it is true or not. I believe our place is to present to the reader what ACIM is about. As noted in the Basic tenets section, Christianity is only one category that ACIM fits into. It also fits into Eastern spirituality. I hope this makes sense.—Who123 04:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, my main point above was that the reliable secondary sources (those external to ACIM) do not regard it as Christian. It's what they think that's important, not what we think. ACIM is a new religion trying to expand. Nothing wrong with that. It would obviously like to piggyback on a major brand. That is not our problem. My main concern is that the article implies that ACIM is not that different from Catholicism, Protestantism, etc., when even the most basic beliefs are completely different.
In response to your post, the Nicene Creed is a statement of the basic beliefs of Christianity and is well-known to Christians, whether you have heard of it or not. The article does not say there are many groups that do not accept it. There are a few who do not regard it as authoritative because it is not contained in the Bible (sola scriptura), but even they agree with its praecepts. Even though there are different versions of the creed, ACIM is vastly different from any of them.
I would propose we solve this by limiting claims on whether ACIM is Christian or not to claims in reliable secondary sources. JChap2007 13:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
We have reliable secondary sources stating that it is Christian. The primary source clearly identifies Jesus Christ as the author whether one believes this or not. In some aspects it does vary from the Nicene Creed as do other Christian groups. It appears to me that the current version reflects the sources in that it is Christian but varies in some respects from mainstream Christianity.—Who123 18:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Psychology

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

And let's also discuss the entire Psychology section, which is little more than huge quotes directly out of ACIM. Per WP:QUOTE and WP:NPS, this is in appropriate for an encyclopedia article. It should be trimmed heavily. Not a dog 02:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, still on wikibreak but I thought I would address this. I read the WP:QUOTE article. I think that quotes are useful. Although I have not looked at the Basic tenets section recently, I think the use of quotes there is good. I would also like to direct you to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. I think the Summary style and Rationale work well for this article. If a reader wants a little information they can just read the Introduction. If they want a little more they can read the Basic tenets. I they want more they can read the entire article and then See also and External Links. I agree that the theology and psychology sections are a mess right now. To properly develop those sections will take some time as sources need to be studied, outlined, and then the sections need to be written and re-written. My intention was to begin to work on the theology section next (I think the psychology section depends on the theology section). Rather than trimming them right now, please consider putting a stub or some other tag there. My intention is to replace these sections with well written material that is sourced and cited. It does take time and I have only so much time to devote to WP. Are we in fairly good agreement on the material before these sections?—Who123 05:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
If "the theology and psychology sections are a mess right now," then they shouldn't be in the article. They should be worked on in a sandbox until in a state appropriate (ie, "with well written material that is sourced and cited") for inclusion in an article. Not a dog 10:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Further, if you want to follow the WP:SUMMARY guidelines, you must also pay attention to WP:SIZE. Having these large chunks of quoted material directly from ACIM is unwieldy, and is counter to the whole point of "summarizing" a text. In the spirit of providing different readers different amount of details, these chuncks of primary sourced text should be added to Wikisource and linked to there. Not a dog 10:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I remember an administrator pointing to a guideline that it is better to include information for the reader as long as it does not violate WP policies (not guidelines) than exclude it. There is controversy in this area as can be seen in Wikipedia. The WP:SIZE guideline does not appear to be a major concern as I have seen many articles that are about double the suggested size. Examples are: Wikipedia 62 KB, Christianity 61 KB, and Illegal immigration to the United States 77 KB. There are many others.
On another note, since the talk page is about discussion of the article, it seems that these should not be sub-topics.
On yet another note, what kind of wikibreak is this?—Who123 13:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Just as the fact that some people get away with murder doesn't mean I should be allowed to murder, the existence of other articles of a large size does make it ok for any article to include long primary textual quotes in excess of WP:SIZE. You have yet to provide any substantive justifications as to why these particular chunks of text (and my other edits noted above that you reverted) actually should be included, nor have you countered my assertion that works in progress should not be in the article. Not a dog 14:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to take a wikibreak but am also trying to be responsive to your concerns. I have made a new section about article size. In terms of controversy regarding specific sections, please post your specific concerns under the section name here so that we can discuss them. Thanks.—Who123 19:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. A 3rd opinion has been requested on this article. The dispute in question: whether this article appears to violate WP:QUOTE and should have quotes removed 3rd opinion: I agree this article has too many quote. Since the article has triggered WP:SIZE, quotes should be significantly removed or trimmed. In addition, the use of the "main" template should be instituted with subarticles to trim the size of the article down. Thank you. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 11:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. The size is no longer an issue as the article is now below suggested article size. I think JChap and I are content with the quotes as they now stand (last I checked). Although many articles are above the suggested size, perhaps someone could write a second article on the teachings of ACIM that would go into more detail on the theology, psychology, and relationships. On the other hand, I think these would be useful in the main article with a size over suggested limits.—Who123 15:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina essay at faithfreedom.org

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This material keeps coming back into the article. Should it be here? The author attributes certain aspects of ACIM to "Jewish propaganda." Is this a reliable source? JChap2007 00:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I presumed it was reliable since Ali Sina is notable enough to have his own article. While his views might be unpopular, I presume they are notable. Not a dog 01:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

On the role of the Savior

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The theology section needs much work, but particularly, the "On the role of the Savior" has a number of inconsistencies and unsupported claims:

  1. The claim that the course states "Jesus is not the only savior" isn't supported by the following text. All that is indicated is that the Course doesn't need a savior. Nowhere is it presented that there could be more than one (unless this is referring to the fact that people are the source of their own salvation).
  2. After saying that there is no need for a savior, and the people are the source of their own salvation, the section goes on to say that "nowhere does ACIM teach that a 'Savior' is unnecessary for salvation" This is some kind of double-negative statement, which is philosophically weak, and seems inaccurate since just above it is noted that "We do not need a savior."
  3. Again, after quoting the book of saying "we do not need a savior," the section goes on to argue that "the need for a 'Savior' is stressed consistently throughout ACIM" This is highly inconsistent.
  4. The statement "only full recognition of the exceptionless presence of the sinlessness of Christ, the 'Savior', in the Sonship is required for salvation" isn't supported by the citation given "When brothers join in purpose .. (recognizing the Christ in one another)... they quickly reach the gate of Heaven itself."

Are these errors in the writing of this section, or do such inconcsistencies exist naturally in ACIM? Based on the provided info, I suggest the following re-write for this section:

The Course strays from traditional Christian theology in that recognition of Jesus Christ as the Savior is not necessary for salvation. ACIM interprets the crucifixion and the resurrection to be an example of how the power and example of Christ's forgiveness was so great that ultimately even the greatest of physical assaults could not hold or affect him.

Not a dog 21:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As this was all uncited I removed it. In terms of your suggested re-write, the first statement is controversial. The second statement, IMO, is true. ACIM places the emphasis on the Resurrection rather than the Crucifixion. Unless cited, it should probably not be added.—Who123 18:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I was just trying to work with what was there, as I have no intimate knowledge as to what the actual beliefs re JC are. However, when you say the first statement is "controversial," do you mean that it is contested within the ACIM community? It if is a true statement, which happens to be a controversial one, it should still be included, no? Not a dog 19:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I have tried to work with what was there as well but we do not know who wrote it and it was unsourced. JChap wanted to start all over. As you have pointed out we do not want to add uncited material. Perhaps "controversial" is the wrong word. ACIM is written in the first person with Jesus as the author. It is not a text of religious dogma that requires blind faith. It is a transformative guide to change the way we perceive the world so that its teachings become self-evident. ACIM has many aspects in terms of our awakening. These include Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and each other. Jesus does have a pivotal role. Here are a couple of quotes:
"I inspire all miracles, which are really intercessions. They intercede for your holiness and make your perceptions holy. By placing you beyond the physical laws they raise you into the sphere of celestial order. In this order you ARE perfect."
"I am in charge of the process of Atonement, which I undertook to begin. When you offer a miracle to any of my brothers, you do it to YOURSELF and me. The reason you come before me is that I do not need miracles for my own Atonement, but I stand at the end in case you fail temporarily. My part in the Atonement is the cancelling out of all errors that you could not otherwise correct. When you have been restored to the recognition of your original state, you naturally become part of the Atonement yourself...The power to work miracles belongs to you. I will provide the opportunities to do them, but you must be ready and willing. Doing them will bring conviction in the ability, because conviction comes through accomplishment. The ability is the potential, the achievement is its expression, and the Atonement, which is the natural profession of the children of God, is the purpose."
"The Holy One shares my trust, and accepts my Atonement decisions because my will is never out of accord with His. I have said before that I am in charge of the Atonement. This is only because I completed my part in it as a man, and can now complete it through others. My chosen channels cannot fail, because I will lend them my strength as long as theirs is wanting."
—Who123 20:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
As for whether or not JC is the only savior according to ACIM, please see lessons #99, #186, #238, to name a few. Sethie 07:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I read the lessons you mentioned. Part of the lessons mention the Holy Spirit. I think ACIM and mainstream Christianity would agree that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit play a pivotal role in our salvation. What I think these lessons add is that our true Self also plays a pivotal role. I believe this is the Christ Mind that we share. Is this what you are saying?—Who123 14:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Theology & Psychology sections

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

These sections are filled with uncited material. I am going to reduce each section to a stub. This should remove most if not all of the uncited material. I think the citation tag should be considered for removal.—Who123 18:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

What makes Foundation for the awakening-mind a "personal website" that should be removed, but not Circle of Atonement (which Who123 conveniently removed the "John Perry's site" annotation from)? Not a dog 17:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I am not associated with the sites or people. I think Foundation for A Course in Miraclesand Circle of Atonement are similar sites. Both people are well known within the Course community. Both offer additional resources. I removed "Robert Perry's site" to make it consistent with the others and because COA is more than just Robert Perry. I suppose "Kenneth Wapnick's site" could have been added to Foundation for A Course in Miracles instead.
There is a long list of other sites that could be included. Foundation for the awakening-mind appears to be a one person site. He is not published except for material on the net that I know of. I do not know this person. I have not come across him in my readings. The main page has a place for "Donations" and "Make a Donation". This site appears to be added for advertizing reasons.
If we wish to add a much more extensive list of internet resources then I am not opposed to this as long as the site does not contain material that may be in violation of existing copyrights.—Who123 18:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not at all suggesting creating a long list of links (see WP:EL), but if the existence of a "Make a donation" disqualifies a site, then quite a few external links would have to be removed across Wikipedia, including Circle of Atonement. Also, just to be clearn, whether or not you have "come across him in your readings" is not a satisfactory reason to remove a link. Not a dog 23:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
At WP:EL under Links normally to be avoided, I think these two clauses apply:
"Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources." This site is unverified original research.
"Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming." This is a spam external link for David Hoffmeister who (according to the site) received $28,357 in donations in 2005. This paid for his personal travel, occupancy, telephone, and other misc items.
There are probably a dozen sites more appropriate than this.—Who123 16:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the policy, thanks. You were suggesting, however, that the mere existence of a "donations" page meant this site was inserted for "advertizing reasons" I'm just saying that isn't a valid assumption, nor a de facto reason to prohibit a site. Anyway, carry-on. Not a dog 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually it is a guideline rather than a policy. I was simply trying to make my reasons more clear. I do not have any personal objections to David Hoffmeister or his site. I noticed that other external links have been removed that I thought were useful to the reader. I do not think we should link to material in violation of copyright. If we can all agree, I would be happy to extend the external links to a dozen or so including David's. I think they would be helpful to the reader. By providing a selection we would not be biasing the article to one person or group. I am open to working together on this.—Who123 16:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
No the Foundation for the awakening mind was not put there for advertizing reasons. It is a valuable external link just as the Circle of Atonement link is. I am not going to check every day if you removed it or not. I really don't see the point in going back and forth adding and deleting a couple of links. It should be fine to have a few external links. including those two.
We already have FACIM and COA. I am opposed to adding a minor site with monetary goals unless we also add in a dozen or so sites for balance.—Who123 15:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"I do not think we should link to material in violation of copyright." How could an external link violate a copyright? Not a dog 20:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Some versions of ACIM are still under copyright or the copyright status is unclear. I think the FIP 2nd edition remains under a valid copyright. The status of the HLC and Urtext are unclear to me. I do not think WP should link to sites that post material in violation of copyright.—Who123 15:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Course_in_Miracles/Archive_5.1&oldid=1137103041"