Quote
Scottperry
1. ACIM teaches that anger, after much work, can always ultimately be replaced with love.
2. ACIM teaches that love [b:062935dfd1]does[/b:062935dfd1] include the correction of error.
3. ACIM teaches that love [b:062935dfd1]does not at all include [/b:062935dfd1]the denial that correctable errors do exists.
4. ACIM teaches that uncorrectable error (sin) does not exist, and instead that all errors can ultimately be corrected.

You're absolutely right, this can be very easily misunderstood. It can be interpreted as "Anger is an error, I must do my best to either avoid anger, or immediatly crush it as soon as I experience it." (repression) or "Anger is a natural emotion which is perfectly healthy and must be resolved rather than buried to explode at a later date." (expression.)

It is still ACIM's fault for not making this clear. The language seems to be purposefully leading people to the conclusion that anger is an error (at least it did for me, others might interpret it differently.) Anger is not an error. It must be promoted to people than anger (and healthy expression of it) is natural and human.

I've been around people who (as a result of black and white cult thinking) bury their emotions. They are always cheery and appealing on the outside. Behind closed doors however, they can be explosive and violent.

I can see how you might feel as if A Course In Miracles, or ACIM, was being unclear, or perhaps unrealistic in its apparent expectation that anger must ultimately be quashed. For me it's like ACIM's teaching about the role of modern medicines. ACIM advises students to continue taking whatever medicines they feel that they need for health, and only to stop taking these, should they ever feel that stopping would be [i:04b502d36b]better [/i:04b502d36b]for their health. ACIM teaches tolerance for modern medicines, despite the fact that ACIM also teaches that ultimately one's health is a perfect reflection of one's inner state. Personally, whenever I feel I need medicines, I still take them, yet I also try to remain open to the possibility that one day I may find a better harmony of mind and body that might not need so many medicines.

Same with anger. I don't believe that ACIM ever says that anger is to be ignored, denied or suppressed. Still perhaps some people may misinterpret ACIM in this way, and naturally they would get frustrated. Anger is to simply be better understood, and perhaps one day to be [i:04b502d36b]gone beyond[/i:04b502d36b].

At any rate, I don't think that this forum was designed or intended to be a place to discuss the fine points in too much detail about any religions or belief systems such as ACIM. To the best of my understanding, ACIM, [u:04b502d36b]standing by itself[/u:04b502d36b], is not really regarded by many as a cult.

True, what some people have done with ACIM appears to be to use it as an aid to establishing some cults (e.g. Charles Anderson of Endeavor Academy). Bearing the primary intentions of this forum in mind, if you might be interested in discussing ACIM (standing by itself) any further with me then I would certainly be happy to reply to any personal messages or emaills on this topic.

Thanks,

Scott P.

I still feel that ACIM's teachings tend to be black and white and are confusing and inconsistent within themselves. Anger, in ACIM, is not considered a normal human emotion but an "error." If someone hurts me and I feel angry, what is the "error" in feeling angry? That is a normal response. The only issue is what I do with my feelings of anger.

While I agree that ACIM does not teach one to condemn anger, it does set one up to strive to eliminate/"resolve" all anger and replace it with love, as if the only options are anger or love. IMO, these two emotions are not mutually exclusive. I can love someone who has been abusive towards me and still feel angry for the abuse.

The kind of simplistic, black and white thinking, that is promoted by ACIM does not allow for the complexities or ambiguities of human emotions. I think anger is a very important piece of the human emotional package and trying to "always...replace" it with love is dangerous and ultimately not loving. Not accepting anger as a valuable part of our humaness can lead to being very vulnerable to being abused, as well as to being vulnerable to cultic thinking.

QE

Quote
Scottperry
1. ACIM teaches that anger, after much work, can always ultimately be replaced with love.
2. ACIM teaches that love [b:49ee7d66ef]does[/b:49ee7d66ef] include the correction of error.
3. ACIM teaches that love [b:49ee7d66ef]does not at all include [/b:49ee7d66ef]the denial that correctable errors do exists.
4. ACIM teaches that uncorrectable error (sin) does not exist, and instead that all errors can ultimately be corrected.

As I said, I don’t think that this forum is the place to belabor an argument about a text that most people don’t find to be cultic in and of itself, but since you insist.....

Actually ACIM would teach that the emotion of anger is of the ‘black-and-white’ mentality. Why? Because it paints the perpetrator into a black corner, from which there is no real escape. To forgive, according to ACIM is to correct, not to go into denial, which in a sense is what anger does. Anger denies that there is any redeeming value whatsoever in the perpetrator. By doing this, it seems to me that neither the victim nor the perpetrator are served. Forgiveness envisions correction. First it envisions correction first in the mind of the victim, then it offers that correction to the perpetrator.

In my own case, I offered my cult abusers the opportunity to publicly apologize for their abusive behavior, and when they refused to reply, I moved on. In this way, I believe I made for myself a far healthier mental-space than by merely leaving in unresolved anger. This is what I believe ACIM means by teaching its students to resolve all anger. To always offer a way for reconciliation, even though others may not accept it. This leaves the mind of the victim in greater peace, and leaves the perpetrators with a way out of their corner, if ever (or whenever) they might be ready to start trying to work their way out of the corner that they have painted themselves into.

I would be happy to respond to any further questions on this topic via email or forum messaging.

Scott P.

I am not trying to belabor this point about ACIM; however, I think this attitude towards anger and other "negative" emotions can be found in other religious groups/cults as well (everyone has to be sweet and loving all the time). While some anger may be the result of perceiving someone as the "bad guy," I do not believe all anger falls into this category. I think anger can provide us useful information that someone else is abusing us and that we need to take action to protect ourselves.

I grew up around abusive anger and for many years was terrified of anyone expressing anger towards me, or of feeling/expressing my own anger. I thought it would be wonderful to live in world without anger. However, I could not stand up for myself or express my own opinions. It has been very hard for me to set boundaries. As I have become more comfortable with my anger (and this does not me using it to lash out at, or abuse anyone, or even casting them as a bad person), it has become easier for me to set boundaries and speak my own mind.

I am just questioning whether labeling anger as an "error" which always needs to be "replaced" with love is realistic or helpful. Certainly, if one's perceptions of reality are skewed, they need to be looked at and adjusted.

I think the question of how one views the emotion of anger is pertinent to many cults (and I do not consider ACIM a cult) which is why I am bringing this up again. I would be interested in other people's experience with how anger was viewed in other cults/groups and how it affected them.

QE

I agree that the subject of anger seems to be treated in an irrational way in cults. At least it is in all of the cults with which I am familiar.

As I understand it, in Scientology any anger that any Scientology student may have towards Hubbard, or towards the 'Tech' is treated with extreme disciplinary measures. It is referred to as 'unethical' and as a 'with-hold', and must somehow be 'cleared' from the Scientologist's mind, via various forms of punishment or increased expensive auditing requirements. Anger expressed towards anyone whom the CoS views as hindering its goal of world domination is considered to be healthy, ethical, and to be a sign of spiritual advancement, which is generally rewarded in some way.

Major thought control here, no? The definitions themselves of the words 'ethical' and 'anger' are totally redefined. No wonder former CoS'ers usually have so much trouble after leaving when they then work to re-arrange their brains along logical lines so they might better fit into the real world.

On a slightly more controversial note, it seems to me that down through the centuries the Christian Church has often abused the emotion of anger. How many Crusades, wars, Inquisitions, and executions have been instigated because of the 'just wrath' of the 'Mother Church'? I'm sure the body count must go into the millions.

Now, on perhaps an even more controversial note, it seems to me that some parents have been known to 'abuse' the emotion of anger in order to justify abusing their kids too. After such abuse, when the kids express anger back towards the parents, these same parents will describe the anger felt by their children as [i:875dbd5f03]unhealthy[/i:875dbd5f03], while they will acclaim their own angry abuse of their children as somehow [i:875dbd5f03]healthy[/i:875dbd5f03]. No wonder the kid gets screwed up. The one person in the world who is supposed to be his or her primary teacher is quite screwed up himself or herself, so what do you expect?

So, yes, I agree that the emotion of 'anger' deserves close scrutiny and understanding, but I do not believe that it is something that one needs to be content to go to bed with night after night, ad infinitum. Instead, it seems to me that it's like the warning sign by the side of the road that reads, 'Bridge Out Ahead!' Once noted, evasive action needs to be taken, or else some very definite problems will occur.

But by the same token, sometimes perhaps one of the solutions could be to offer to work together to rebuild the bridge in a new way, using a new design that might actually meet your own needs as well as the needs of the other. If the other doesn't want the new bridge to be built in this way, then it now becomes the other's problem, and no longer your own.

After the other refuses, now it only makes sense for you to get out the old AAA triptik and look for a detour that will take you to a better place to spend your free time. Cut your losses, move on to better relationships, but keep the offer open on rebuilding the bridge according to your own design, should the other ever want to take you up on it. This seems to me to be a healthy way of addressing the natural, human emotion of anger, that at least for myself, eventually enables a better night's sleep.


Take care,

Scott P.

There is one dynamic of getting out from under a cult that in my experience can be a waste of time. I've often felt myself spending too much time trying to 'project' my own problems onto the cult leader, just as the cult leader may have once done to myself. Not to justify the cult leader doing this to me, but as they say, I don't believe that 'two wrongs = one right'.

I've felt this very strong psychological tug, wanting to return insult with insult, injury with injury, and condemnation with condemnation, when leaving a cult. But while perhaps this tug may only be a natural first response to leaving such an insulting, injurious, and judgmental environment, I do not believe that it is a healthy response to hold on to over the long haul. Even though such attitudes and reflexive responses may have been almost unavoidable when first leaving, I believe that it then becomes my responsibility to work to transform such attitudes from the negativity they may seem to represent when first leaving, into more positive and constructive attitudes that can be drawn out of them later on.

In the case of one cult that I have recently been dealing with, the cult of Charles Anderson, I feel that I have recently enabled myself to find a greater sense of personal peace by answering a recent diatribe of insults aimed at myself ,with a certain type of what I feel is an honest evaluation of Anderson that includes both some questions about him, and also some praise about him.

Over at the Wiki Anderson article discussion page at:

[en.wikipedia.org],

I recently wrote;

"On a different note, as someone who has a strong interest in studying the ACIM texts, I also see Anderson as someone who has done a great service to myself and to all others who may have similar interests in closely studying and analyzing the ACIM text (and many of these others have also expressed similar gratitude). I say this because I believe that the diligent and difficult work that he did in order to have the copyrights to the earlier versions of this text released, and also the work that he did in order to both secure copies of these editions and to release them via the Internet and via other channels, was an extremely invaluable service to all such interested parties."

By writing this over there, I feel that I have somehow soothed a certain heart muscle of my own, that has somehow enabled me to alter my tendency to want to paint Anderson with a very black brush. I feel that this has somehow opened up a blocked artery or something, enabling me to remember that Anderson is not one to be judged or condemned, only one to be worked with in the hopes of one day gently bringing him out of his own delusion of somehow truly believing that the salvation of the world actually depends on everyone bowing before him. I have written this in the hope of one day gently working to bring him back to the realization that the salvation of the world only depends on each one of us individually submitting ourselves to our own abilities to think rationally and to reason.

I feel that the best answer is to always try to work with gentleness, never with violence or force. I will never be able to force anyone to accept anything that I may see as the Truth. But I can always honestly express whatever it is that I feel that Truth may be. Then it becomes their simple choice of whether or not they are ready yet to hear it, and it becomes my responsibility to then let it go, having then said what needed to be said, and to move on with the rest of my life.

Scott


PS: While I've never been a member of Anderson's cult, I have recently been drawn into having to deal with them as a result of my being an editor at the Wikipedia. My dealing with them over at Wiki has included a lengthy dialogue over there between myself, some of their former members, some of their current members, and others. For more on this, please see the link above.

Having had plenty of experience with ACIM devotees in several venues (and having listened to ACIM teachers and ministers on a number of occasions), I can firmly state that if the book itself cannot be classified as a cult text, then it is at the very least a tailor-made tool for those who wish to exert mind control upon others. Thus I would consider ACIM cultic, absolutely.

I have met and known personally and professionally dozens of ACIM ministers, teachers, and students, and I can say with certitude that I would never again trust a single one of them (ACIM-indoctrinated as they are).

The effect upon the reader/student who surrenders to the dogma of this book is definitely akin to the much-discussed brainwashing of Landmark adherents. To reinforce this, I have seen many people go back and forth between Landmark and an ACIM church or group. As others on this thread have commented, their philosophies are similar. I would venture to say that ACIM and Landmark "students" end up in pretty much the same state, and it is not a good one at all. Relationships divided, families destroyed, you name it. Not to mention their hostility to non-believers in their respective cults. Brainwashed ACIM adherents hang together tightly and support each other however (to outlandish extremes), and anyone who does not accept the teaching is viewed as a hostile attacker. The wrath of the supposedly peaceful ACIM reader is something incredible to behold, let me tell you! As for ACIM ministers and teachers, the ones I've known are all bright and sunny outside, but hostile wild-eyed fanatics behind closed doors away from the public eye. So how then is the Course helping them be more peaceful?

I don't give a hoot about the theology of the course. It is a warmed-over fundamentalist version of Christian Science wedded with theosophical new age extremism, all delivered by way of a "channeled" Jesus. As such, it is a fraud and a hoax from the get-go, because nobody "channels" a 2000 year-old dead guy. Such a silly idea is bad metaphysical fiction.

The reason ACIM uses Jesus is apparently to give credence to the mind control message contained within. As has been said elsewhere, whenever you purport to speak with or for the voice of a superhuman or divine authority figure - whether it be Jesus or some wise alien being or ancient sage or whatever - people in emotional need will automatically fall into line, desperate to believe any message they think comes to them from "on high". They are expected to take for granted what is said in this book because after all, this is the most famous authority figure in history giving them new, specific (and irrational) instructions about their thinking.

Some of the comments I found in this old thread merit being repeated:

From a former ACIM student:

Quote

ACIM's philosophy, taken to it's logical conclusion, is destructive and did not help me to be more at peace - quite the contrary.

An ACIM teacher and apologist wrote:

Quote

To the best of my understanding, ACIM, standing by itself, is not really regarded by many as a cult.

People with understanding and experience know better.

And about the author of the ACIM text:

Quote

"This woman who had written so eloquently that suffering really did
not exist spent the last two years of her life in the blackest
psychotic depression I have ever witnessed."

Is this the kind of person ACIM students look to for direction? If so, do they realize that they may very well follow in her footsteps? I have seen how ACIM students struggle and feed on one another for constant support and reinforcement. If misery loves company, maybe the deluded do too.

One of the wackiest things an ACIM teacher said to me once stems from their apparent philosophy that everything that exists is *one thing*, that we are not individuals at all. I'd just gotten a new shirt, and the teacher said to me, "I'm glad I did that for me." I just stood there, unable to respond. His next comment was, "After all, there's only one of us here." What the hell can you say in response to such a bizarre remark?

I am always cautious about using the word "evil", but that is one word I would have to use to classify the ACIM movement. Evil and crazy.

Quote
Vicarion
And about the author of the ACIM text:

Quote

"This woman who had written so eloquently that suffering really did
not exist spent the last two years of her life in the blackest
psychotic depression I have ever witnessed."

Is this the kind of person ACIM students look to for direction? If so, do they realize that they may very well follow in her footsteps?

This is not really the whole story. The story is that Dr. Helen Schucman was an educated, non-religious psychologist. She apparently channeled the text of the ACIM book while in a trance state. A male colleague of hers transcribed her words. Neither one of them really understood what was going on and they were very freaked out by it. Both were rational, scientific people. They had no idea what to do with this text once it was transcribed. It sat around for years until they approached a woman who was involved in the "New Age" scene and gave it to her. (Sorry, I forget the woman's name, but I can look it up later.) Neither one of the psychologists really wanted to have anything to do with the book or the teachings and were more than happy to turn it over to this woman, who was able to get it published.

So even though Dr. Schucman is technically the "author" of ACIM, she was NOT a believer in it. She had no interest in the book once it was out of her hands and did not follow the teachings. Nor did she ever teach the course. In fact, she may not even have been identified as the author (I'll have to check on that.)

So my point is that no ACIM students would have been looking to her for guidance because she was not involved with what ACIM turned into. She was no more responsible for ACIM than a birth mother would be responsible for a child that was given away for adoption soon after birth.

(Edited for spelling & clarity)

I think you're forgetting the part about Helen growing up in a Christian Science environment, and a house full of metaphysical texts. She had plenty of years of exposure to this kind of material.

Let's face it: "channeling" is either a delusion or deliberate deception, so we have to conclude either way that Helen wrote the book. Call it what you will, she wrote it, scribed it, dictated it, whatever. It came out of her mind and from nowhere else. No "Jesus in the ethers" whispered it in her ear.

Quote

She was no more responsible for ACIM than a birth mother would be responsible for a child that was given away for adoption soon after birth.

I'm sorry, but she WAS responsible for the book. It contains her thoughts and words and teaching.

When a person reads this book for guidance or spiritual enrichment, they are looking to a woman who spent the last two years of her life in a "psychotic depression".

EDITED TO ADD:

You might want to read this page:

[skepdic.com]

[i:5d1c8ce7ac]Some explanations, however, are more plausible than others. The two most plausible are: She was deluded or she perpetrated a conscious fraud.[/i:5d1c8ce7ac]

and

[i:5d1c8ce7ac]Whether you claim to be channeling or hearing voices, if you claim to be a medium for the words of some spirit you are doing essentially the same kind of thing: You are passing on ideas and disclaiming responsibility for them.[/i:5d1c8ce7ac]

I touched on this point in a previous post. She "passed on ideas" yet disclaimed responsibility by attributing them to a dead guy. That dead guy happens to carry a lot of weight with many people, so to some, the information in that channeled book actually means a lot. In other words, if I wrote a book of spiritual maxims and called it "Words of Wonder" by Vicarion, people would go, "Huh? Who? What?" But if I put out that same book and said it was dictated from "the great beyond" by JESUS himself...well...the new agers would love it, and the fundies would hate it. Especially if a lot of what's in the book flies in the face of accepted Christian dogma.

Personally, I have no use for either the traditional or the metaphysical...both interpretations are extreme and irrational.