When something is logical, you start with a premise, and then as the nature of this premise "extends", it produces logical conclusions. The conclusions that will come from this premise are really established in the premise itself. The limitations or scope of the premise determines what can come from it, and what comes from it is completely in accord with its starting point.

"Every system of thought must have a starting point. It begins with either a making or a creating, a difference we have already discussed. Their resemblance lies in their power as foundations. Their difference lies in what rests upon them. Both are cornerstones for systems of belief by which one lives."

When you use logic, and you arrive at a logical conclusion, what you're looking for is consistency, or the lack of contradiction within the logical system. If what you end up with seems to correlate to what you started with, and there was no obvious "nonsense" creeping in, then you can conclude that your logical conclusions are valid. You won't see any sign of contradiction so you'll consider the conclusion to be "correct". It will seem that the logic "makes sense".

What's happening is you're finding an internal consistency within the system, set up by the premise you started with. And each step you took in your reasoning did not violate the rules of the logic system. So whatever conclusions you ended up with seemed to make sense, based on what you started with. And this gives you a notion of things making sense, being valid, even being correct.

The problem is that the premise itself has absolutely everything to do with what you end up with. The conclusions that come from it, if you follow the logical steps carefully and impeccably, are really "automatic". If you start at a given starting point, you WILL end up at an ending point which is in harmony with the starting point. And you won't be able to come to a "false conclusion" if you reason it through carefully.

But if you start off on the wrong foot, if you begin with an assumption, of your premise is entirely wrong to begin with, what will happen? You'll still make logical steps, you'll still seek out internal consistency, you'll still look for that sense of "it all seems to fit together", and you'll still draw conclusions which seem to be in accord with the premise you started with. And you'll conclude "it makes sense" even. But the conclusions you come to, if you start off on the wrong foot, will be actually false. Even though they'll seem correct.

So you can be logical, and be wrong. If you start out wrong, you will only get something wrong at the other end. If you begin with a lie, you will end up with a lie, but it will be a logical lie which makes sense within the context of the whole system.

Thought systems work the same way, whatever the system is based on determines what can come from it, and only that can come from it and nothing else, unless you want to be contradictory. Yet if you start out with a system based on a lie, you will end up with lies. The lies will seem to make sense and even will seem "true" in that they seem to "add up" without contradicting the starting point, but they will still be false in the big picture. But if you believe them, you will be trapped and stuck, while believing you are free. And that is false perception.

This is the problem with the ego thought system. In the really big picture, the ego's system is a "small picture", and it is out of context, and it does not start with the whole truth. It is not beginning with something that is actually really true. It is starting out on the wrong foot, such as the belief that separation is true, or sin is real, or the impossible is possible, or death is life, or something real can be threatened etc.

When you start out with something ultimately false like that, you will produce an ENTIRE logical "system", where your reasoning will progress completely "logically" from the start to the end. And you will end up with conclusions which seem consistent. The conclusions will even seem to make total sense, IF the premise is true. But in the big picture, if it is recognized that the premise was false to begin with, then even though the conclusions are logically consistent, they are still false conclusions.

So the ego starts off on the wrong foot, on an assumption which is wrong. It starts with the belief that separation is possible, or sin is real, and then begins a progression of seemingly natural logical conclusions. If separation is real, then it must be true (consistent) that bodies are real. Then if bodes are real, it must be true that anything bodies experience is real. And if their experiences are real, then death is real. etc. That's a natural logical progress and completely impeccable logic. But the conclusion is insane because the whole "system of thought", the system of logic, began with a false premise.

When you start with a true premise, such as that God is infinite and permanent and immortal, there are once again logical progressions which come from this. If you follow the steps and start to draw conclusions based on that, and if you are careful to be consistent and not contradictory, you will end up with natural conclusions. And these conclusions will make sense, and seem valid, and they ALSO WILL BE TRUE. If you start with truth, you will end up with truth. And so whether or not the result is true or false, depends on whether the premise is true or false. And what you get out of the system as a natural logical conclusion or outcome, is set up in its starting point.

When the starting point is God, the natural logical outcome of God is the creation of the Kingdom. It's not that God randomly decides to create immortal beings, it's that the whole system just functions that way, truth goes in at the start, progressions of logical consistency occur, and you automatically get creation out the other end. And because you started with immortality, you end up with immortality. "God is but love, and therefore so am I." Such conclusions therefore are not only making sense, they are also TRUE.

"The Kingdom is the result of premises, just as this world is. You may have carried the ego's reasoning to its logical conclusion, which is total confusion about everything."

"The ego's logic is as impeccable as that of the Holy Spirit, because your mind has the means at its disposal to side with Heaven or earth, as it elects."

"From the belief in sin, the faith in chaos must follow. It is because it follows that it seems to be a logical conclusion; a valid step in ordered thought. The steps to chaos do follow neatly from their starting point. Each is a different form in the progression of truth's reversal, leading still deeper into terror and away from truth."

When you begin a thought process/system on a lie or illusion, you will end up with illusory lies which seem to make sense but are false. This means the total absence of REASON, which is the absence of sanity, because the whole system of thinking started out insane. When you start out the thought process/system with sanity and truth, you end up with a SANE conclusion. This is what ACIM refers to as REASON. The reasoning is LOGICAL, just as the ego's reasoning is logical, but it starts with sanity so ends with sane conclusions.

Just because something seems extremely logical, does not mean it is true. And this is a BIG problem for a lot of people studying ACIM. If for example you start out with a premise that e.g. God created the world, and you do not challenge this premise, the ENTIRE course will now be interpreted to try to "fit" it into that premise. And every conclusions drawn will not challenge that premise.

In order to uphold the premise that God created this world, a LOT of adjustments have to be made to the course's meanings, in order to produce consistency and a lack of contradiction. And this can lead to what seems like a consistent picture, but it is also completely wrong. Because it started out with a belief that is completely mistaken and unfounded, in light of God's nature.

A massive collection of CONSISTENT logical conclusions will be made based on it. And all of these conclusion together will form the appearance of what seems like a completely consistent internal coherence. It will STILL all seems to "fit together". A clear "picture" will form. There won't appear to be any contradictions. And any steps necessary to keep the premise valid will be made, regardless of the extent to which that means changing the meaning of the course.

Everything it says will be interpreted through that lens and filter. And the person will end up with a very elaborate, consistent, highly polished, internally supportive, self un-contradictory, and seemingly highly sensible set of conclusions. And it will all seem TRUE because it seems to make sense. And they will marvel at the seeming beauty of its logical harmony. BUT, the entire thing will be bullshit, because it all starts out with a false premise. And so the entire system of thought is completely mistaken. Yet it is regarded as truth because of its consistency.

You have to therefore be careful that your reasoning begins with something which is absolutely true. You need to understand God's nature first. And when you reason based on the truth, you will end up with truthful and valid and consistent answers, which are correct. You can't start with the world and try to reason backwards to find the truth. You have to start at the beginning of the system.

You have to have an awareness or grasp of what the absolute truth IS FIRST, before you can even proceed to think about anything. If you set off on the wrong foot, every conclusion you come to will be potentially false. But most of us will start out with false conclusions and assumptions and not question them, resulting in more false conclusions. Because we're starting out exploring all this with our egos, which has taken a whole bunch of assumptions as true, and this has not yet been questioned.

We have to find out first what the premise of our entire thinking is, whether we have started out on the wrong foot or not. And for that you have to ask yourself, what is the ultimate truth really like? What is God like? What is his nature? What IS the ultimate absolute premise? Where DID everything actually start, and what is the logical nature of that premise? Because from God, everything real proceeds as a logical system of thought, and it proceeds only according to His nature, and nothing can come from it which is unlike its starting point. So you have to be REALLY clear about God's nature before you can reason anything correctly.

When you can understand what God is like, you can start to draw truthful conclusions. And if you are careful, you can be GUARANTEED that these conclusions will be true. But if you do not understand God's premise, or you have difficulty being impeccable with your logic, then you will come to false conclusions because you'll be starting out with something false. And yet these conclusions will see true to you and make sense, even though they are mistakes or errors in reasoning. And you can end up with a whole lot of "it makes sense" even if you start out with lies.

This is happening A LOT in ACIM circles because many students are not yet in a position to grasp the nature of God's system, the premise of reality and the one truth. And so most of us are struggling to come to terms with what the conclusions are, yet alone being able to grasp where it all started or what it's all based on. And a lot of time is spent trying to uncover or learn about the premise.

If you return to the highest possible starting point, the pre-separation system, and you look at how God functions, and then you begin to reason out what CAME from that premise, and if you do so impeccably logically, you WILL come to true conclusions. But if you are mistaken about God, you will be mistaken in everything you conclude.

Those true conclusions will not only show you the things God COULD do, it will also show you what he COULD NOT do. What CAN come from Him, and what cannot. What He would will, and what he would not. And thus what you are, what your nature is, and what you are capable of in reality. When you do that, you'll see why the ego's system is entirely a FALSE premise, and EVERYTHING that comes from it will be false. And that includes the attempt to oppose God's premise, to overthrow the Kingdom, to make another world (including Earth), and why Earth CANNOT have come from God due to its nature being a complete contradiction of God's nature.

God does not make contradictions because He is logically consistent. For Him, heaven is the natural outcome of His premise. And Heaven is the ONLY outcome of His premise. Nothing else CAN come from it because it is rooted in truth. And because of His nature, Heaven HAD to be created. It's in God's nature to extend His logical premise to produce The Kingdom. Which is why it has always existed.

Earth, which is OPPOSITE to heaven in *EVERY* way, CANNOT COME FROM GOD. Its nature is opposite to His premise. It does not function like Him. It does not begin with the premise He begins with. And it cannot be a natural outcome of His thought system. If He were to create it, in addition to creating Heaven, that would mean two entirely different and opposing outcomes can result from a single premise. This is logically IMPOSSIBLE regardless of what the premise is. Each premise produces ONE conclusion in accord with it, not two different ones.

God could only create one or the other, and which one is set up in his beginning nature. Since Earth is opposite to Heaven, God could NOT have created it, otherwise He would have to have STARTED OUT with a split mind and be opposing himself. He would have to be fundamentally contradictory, as a premise, in order to PRODUCE two contradictory outputs. He could only Create ONE or the other, not both, and they cannot both exist or "be one" because of their contradictory natures. If Earth is real, heaven does not exist at all.

God is NOT contradictory, so He can ONLY produce ONE outcome. That outcome is HEAVEN, and Earth is therefore NOT OF GOD, and is not based on truth or reality. And since God is real, Earth therefore, logically, cannot be real. And since only what God creates CAN exist, Earth does not exist at all. And if God is permanent, Earth cannot be permanent. And if God exists, having Created ONLY heaven, Earth cannot exist at all. This is why "there is no world" and God did not create it.

"The world you see is an illusion of a world. God did not create it, for what He creates MUST be eternal AS HIMSELF" is a logical statement. Since Earth is NOT eternal, it must have come from a NON-ETERNAL premise, and since God is eternal, it cannot have come from HIS premise. And because HIS premise is true, it must have come from a FALSE premise. And therefore Earth is an illusion, and never will it be His one outcome.

"Heaven remains your one alternative to this strange world you made and all its ways; its shifting patterns and uncertain goals, its painful pleasures and its tragic joys. God made no contradictions. What denies its own existence and attacks itself is not of Him. He did not make two minds, with Heaven as the glad effect of one, and earth the other's sorry outcome which is Heaven's opposite in every way."

Some people recall and quote that Heaven is supposedly not a place or a condition, but just an awareness of perfect oneness. Well, if you go read the full paragraph, it says otherwise:

"THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS THE DWELLING PLACE OF THE SON OF GOD, who left not his Father, and dwells not apart from Him. Heaven is not a place nor a condition. It is merely an awareness of perfect Oneness, and the knowledge that there is nothing else. Nothing OUTSIDE this Oneness, and NOTHING ELSE within."

Now, when he says is it not a place, what he means it is does not involve SPACE OR TIME. Everything that you usually think of as a "place" is actually the idea of "something is over here, but not over there, because they are separate". So like the USA is a place, the Atlantic ocean is a place, the moon is a place. But in Heaven, there are no separations, and everything is everywhere. So you can't have a "local" location there, or some part which is separated off as a discrete "place" separate from the rest.

Instead, Heaven is actually a PLACE where you can live, exist, be, share, have, extend, and live forever. You can DWELL there. You can BE there. It is existence! It is where God is. His being is the location of your soul. But the difference is, it is not a place of SPACE or TIME, and there are no 3D forms or objects. It is pure being/mind/spirit that transcends spacetime.

If you then consider that anything outside of the Kingdom is an illusion, and the "world you made" is an illusion of being outside the Kingdom/God, and THIS WORLD EARTH is therefore an illusion, it is an ILLUSION OF PLACES, due to being based on spacetime, where everything is separated out. And therefore this world actually represents the idea that EVERYTHING IS NOWHERE, and nothing is everywhere (absence of God), and therefore this "place" that you like to think of as a place is actually NOT EXISTENCE, is NOWHERE, and DOES NOT EXIST.

So to think of Earth as "a place" is wrong. And to think of Heaven as NOT a place, is wrong. We have it all backwards. Heaven is THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN BE AND LIVE. And Earth is not a place at all. It is oblivion.

We have to be careful about this because frequently I've heard people saying Heaven is only a state of awareness, not a place. That leads them to conclude you can't GO THERE, you can't be IN HEAVEN, and it's not somewhere OTHER than this world. That it's not even a world at all. "Beyond this world is a world I want" and "you cannot see two worlds" tells us IT IS a world. An existence.

So when we say Heaven is not a place we end up believing it's just a state of mind, and then you start to think ok, I can be IN HEAVEN while I am IN A BODY. And I can be totally awake inside a dream yet not having a dream. And its possible to have awareness of total oneness while IN a body. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. No-one who accesses the knowledge of Heaven and overcomes perception and the "body is a dream" illusion, can possibly stay in a body and be IN Heaven. If you want to be IN heaven you have to actually "leave this world" and GO THERE. Or in other words, recognize THIS WORLD IS NOT A PLACE, and overlook it (forgiveness) and realize you are actually IN heaven.

"Heaven is here now". THIS WORLD IS NOT HERE NOW.

Heaven is the ONLY PLACE you can be. "There is no life outside of heaven."

Where is Jesus? Why isn't he in a body walking around THIS "place"? Because he's not here. He's in Heaven.

The ego is NOT the idea of being an individual self. It is in fact the idea of DENYING your self, attacking your self, destroying yourself, and trying to kill your self.

The ego is the very idea of imprisoning your free will, trying to make you unwilling to be free, and stripping away your freedoms as an individual.

The ego is also the ILLUSION of having independence, which is made from pictures of isolation, imprisonment, limitation and restriction, all limits placed on your actual self.

When you wake up, you do NOT wake up to the end of individuality. You wake up TO your individuality. If being in the ego means you are NOT BEING YOURSELF, then waking up means you return to being yourself.

You have free will in God and you are an individual BEING. Here is what ACIM actually explicitly says:

"God, who encompasses all being, nevertheless created separate beings who have everything individually and want to share it to increase their joy."

That's what it ACTUALLY says. So that means that we actually ARE individual beings who have everything, which automatically implies that we must have free will.

Therefore, waking up means that you RETURN TO the freedom of your will, you lift away the imprisonment you've placed on yourself, you REGAIN your freedom to be individually free, you accept atonement for YOURSELF (not for others), you become part of the atonement plan and then you help others to heal and wake up.

This entire doctrine of thinking of the ego as "an individual" is actually FAILING to overlook THE ILLUSION that the ego is presenting. The ego has been quite clever to make it look as though its "separateness" IS independence. It is not. It is imprisonment. It's the exact opposite of what it looks like.

And since people think that the ego is "a self", they then conclude that undoing that self means kind of the disappearing of that self, or like the very core of your being is ripped out and doesn't exist any more. This is absolutely the OPPOSITE of what happens.

As you wake up, you become MORE OF YOURSELF, you INCREASE your freedom, you gain access to YOUR INDEPENDENCE, you return to being a CO-CREATOR (many many quotes that prove this), and you become a SELF again. An individual in heaven. You are a co-creator with God, with your own free will and individuality.

The entire FALSE INTERPRETATION of the course has led many people to think that you do not exist and have no soul and are not individual and have no free will. THIS IS NOT WHAT THE COURSE SAYS AT ALL. If you go and read it yourself and especially in the earlier versions, you will find out that this interpretation IS A LIE, and has been spread around like wildfire by well-meaning but MISTAKEN teachers.

Being individual does not make you an ego. Having free will does not make you an ego. Being a co-creator does not cause separation or isolation. You are not "just" the one son, you are one of many sons. This IS the teaching of A Course in Miracles, not the fabricated FICTION that has been spread over the top of it to cover up your individuality.

You have a permanent self which God created, it is free, it has its own mind, it can choose, and it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Its quite easy to write something that says the truth. For example, refer to my previous post about a model for healthy existence. All the statements are true.

Now, when you read such statements .... you are worthy of love, you're innocent, there's no guilt in you etc... to some degree this 'news' can feel good. I mean, as you read it sometimes it feels like a relief to just see the words written and to experience that. I remember many times reading the Course itself and Jesus would say something simple like "there is no sin" and I'd feel this sense of relief and joy, like it soothed me or healed me in some little way.

Thing is, this is all very nice and I think maybe you can experience some degree of healing and help from reading or writing such things. And then everyone applauds and likes it and so on (thanks ;-)... BUT.... this CAN become a substitute for really deep healing and change. And it also at times becomes a bit of a quote-fest where we all like to take our favorite (special?!) bits of the Course and throw them out there, because... to some degree, it sort of makes us feel a bit soothed or tingly inside.

But we really need to make sure that this isn't all that we're doing. It's not enough to just repeat what's been said or to read the text or to quote it or to discuss the words or to say things that sound spiritual. We still have to do healing work. We still have to be willing to realize that everything happening in our normal mundane everyday life is only there as a spiritual lesson, nothing is not a lesson, and we have some work to do.

We still need to find our blocks to awareness of love's presence, which can come in the form of some deep healing at times. It can mean healing what you think of as 'past stuff', ie reinterpreting it. It isn't all cerebral. There's a lot of cerebral superstars working with the Course who are good at dealing with life on that level but don't really ever talk about how they just were a blubbering mess or had a huge catharsis or are struggling with ego reactions or having a hard time forgiving a particular person. That's where the work is, and that's where the blocks are getting removed.

So there are a few activities or types of Course people, and only one of these is actually really helping you to wake up:

1) Quote what the Course already said

2) Quote what some other Course person said

3) Refer to your favorite course sound byte

4) Discuss or debate what the Course means

5) Think about the metaphysics and figure it out

6) Understand the course concepts

7) Try to be more loving and spiritual

8) Seek for the obstacles to awareness of love and remove them

Only the last one is actually getting you to be awake! Its a dirty messy nasty business that involves a lot of healing and inner transformation. It's not about thoughts. It's not about discussion. It's about you being faced with your personal curriculum on a daily basis, which is not the same as anyone else's, and being challenged to learn a lesson, and not wanting to, and having to find a way to forgive and heal and release and transform your viewpoint to that of the Holy Spirit, using this personal situation for that purpose. It's laborious. It's long-winded. It takes time and effort and willingness. It's not comfortable. Sometimes it hurts. But unless you're actually working on changing what you are EXPERIENCING, you will not be able to eventually experience the truth.

Sometimes when I post loftier thoughts and metaphysics and statements about what God thinks of you, it can sometimes lead you to falsely conclude that digesting it is your only role, or that you should attain such a truth overnight. That's misleading. I apologize for that confusion. If its not practical and you can't really use it to help you heal, then what use is it other than to have a passtime of being interested in Course stuff, being a commentator, or a critic, or a storyteller? The Course is meant to be USED to change your mind.

Anything this side of the separation from God, comprises the ego's thought system, and the ego THINKS in terms of exclusion. "If this is true, and that is different, that is not true".

Anything the OTHER side of the separation from God - God Himself, creation, sonship, souls, heaven etc, is NOT governed by the ego thought system. It's rules and laws completely defy the ego. God functions in *inclusive logic*. The way that God "reasons" is totally unlike the ego.

When we use the ego's thought system, and the ego's way of thinking, to try to understand the meaning or nature of GOD's system, it is absolutely guaranteed every time to produce false conclusions. The ego looks at God and sees separations where there are none, and sees unity where there are divisions. It CANNOT see the whole of God's nature comprehensively or inclusively without rejecting some parts of it as false.

Any study of heaven or God or creation or anything not of the ego, cannot be accurately done *using* the way the ego thinks. It's not merely a matter of just "thinking about it better" - the ego's use of logical exclusions is fundamentally a FAULT based on separation that instantly pollutes the conclusions you'll come to.

The only way to correctly discern the nature of creation, heaven, sonship, God etc, is to THINK LIKE GOD. And this thinking like God comes to conclusions which are TOTAL NONSENSE to the ego's thinking, seems like they are "false conclusions" when in fact they are true, and produces the total opposite of what the ego would conclude.

This is why huge chunks of A Course in Miracles's metaphysics and statements have been GROSSLY MISUNDERSTOOD and mis-taught since the beginning of the Course's inception. And we are making this same mistake to this day.

In God, it is logical to say, "If this is true, and that is seemingly separate from this, that must be true also." See how that seems to make no sense to the ego? It sounds false, but it's not. Example: "If God has given all of His love to me, and there is another soul here, then God must have also given all of His love to that soul as well." The ego screams, "no" "that can't be" "there's not enough love to go around". And this is because the thought system of God is based on SHARING and INCREASE, which the ego totally opposes and cannot see sense in.

The ego says, "if I give this to you, I will lose it." God says, "if I give this to you, it will increase and we will both have it". They are fundamentally different modes of reasoning. The ego says, "if this statement Jesus just made about heaven is true, this other statement is saying something seemingly different so it must be false". God says, "this statement Jesus just said is true, AND that other statement is true, and there is NOT a contradiction."

The ego is fundamentally incapable of accurately depicting or representing God's nature. It's thought system, it's very WAY OF THINKING about God, is broken. It is limited. It CANNOT think "like God" in order to be able to "map God" or accurately "see" God. Instead it dissects God and splits Him up unnaturally and joins parts together which are not joined.

Any discussion about the nature of God or his creation MUST be made based on how God thinks, thinking about it LIKE the way that God thinks about it, which means "holographic logic", otherwise all manner of false conclusions will arise.

And MAJORLY FALSE CONCLUSIONS HAVE ARISEN pertaining to everything the course says about God's nature, heaven, the sonship, the existence of individual free-willed souls, the performance of miracles, the demonstration of the end of death, and various other things, which has massively watered-down A Course in Miracles and turned it into a sanitized powerless blob-forming heaven-splitting sonship-denying miracle-less lie.

We need to learn to "think like God thinks" if we are to be part of Holy Spirit's thought system. It' snot just a matter of still thinking like the ego but in a happy way. The Holy Spirit's thoughts are TOTALLY UNLIKE the ego's thoughts, and his reasoning and logic are TOTALLY UNLIKE the ego's reasoning and logic. To grasp heaven and to attune ourselves to it, we have to embark on embracing an entirely new way of thinking, one which does not dissect Jesus's statements and does not see contradictions where they don't exist.

The main thing I don't really like about ideas of non-duality and oneness, is that it really ignores the CREATIVE qualities of God.

If there is only God, and there is nowhere to go, and nothing to do, and God is just sitting there by himself, as a "oneness", in which there is no "duality" or separations of any kind, how do you get from there to a recognition that God CREATES?

For God to even have thoughts, or to create even one son, flies in the face of this idea that God is one thing. Even if you say, well, God has one son but it's part of Him... you can't even really say that either. There can't even be anything you can refer to as "one son", if there is only God.

Jesus says for example, "I am my father are one". And he goes on to clarify that this does not mean there aren't PARTS to that statement. It does not mean, there is only the father. It does not mean, that whatever we're referring to as the son is actually the father, and therefore we are really talking about "one thing". It ACTUALLY means, there *IS* a distinct Son, who is in SOME way "separate" from the Father, enough to establish that there are really TWO things.

"I" (part 1) and "the father" (part 2). Otherwise we might as well just not ever mention the Son or Christ whatsoever and just say that God is all that exists. Jesus is careful to make this distinction, that Son and Father are having some kind of mutual experience or state of being which he's labelled as "one", but that this oneness does not UNDO OR ignore the fact that there are still two things happening here.

In the truest sense of what non-duality or oneness means, it implies there isn't a two-ness of anything. And if you are being really, really, really strict about that logical reasoning, it SHOULD mean that God has NO SON AT ALL. There's either oneness - one thing, or there isn't.

There's a whole spectrum of beliefs out there which proceed from the strictest of interpretations ie "there is only God" through the slight blurring of boundaries to suggest "there is a son, but there's only one of them", through to "there are other sons but they're really the one son", through to "sons are the ego", and all manner of interpretations in between.

But here is the simple fact of it. If God has a thought which creates a son, or if his "effect" is his son, or his son is actually really "himself" pretending to be a son, then this makes himself also the dreamer of dreams and the maker of death. Does that fly with you?

Are you willing to have God be the one who is responsible for separation? And what about the Holy Spirit, did God - who must be dreaming, create the holy spirit as a perfect non-dreamer, in order to pull himself out of the dream he himself made, due to apparently not being able to wake up himself, while simultaneously having created a holy spirit who is not asleep? Does that make any sense whatsoever?

We're told conflicting messages by various teachers who have not really reasoned this out. If there is a God to return home to, a God who did not believe in the separation idea and did not dream, how is that even possible unless somehow there is something that distinguishes God from the one who is having a dream? Even if it's just ONE son, how is it that this one son is able to do ANYTHING that is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from the Father, ensuring that the Father does not entertain or enter into or be affected by this dreaming son?

If truly they are so joined and are so "one" that they literally are the same thing, or the same self, the son literally cannot dream without dragging the father into it. And that would mean the entirety of EXISTENCE would now fall from grace and we'd all be permanently dead, God included. There has to be SOMETHING about the son of God, or this aspect of God, which somehow renders its choices incapable of affecting God. How is that possible if God is supposedly so joined to and connected to this dreamer, in such a way that there is "influence" between them?

What it HAS to indicate, is that EITHER there is a separation between the Father and the Son, OR some other mechanism or dynamic of relationship which guarantees that God will not ever dream. Because if God is the dreamer, then God has made a world of death and also doughnuts and rainbows and chocolate bars. So what IS it that makes God NOT affected by the dream? What is it that sections off the dreamer from God? Even if it's just a dream, it IS still a made idea, it IS an IDEA in the mind, even if it's an idea of impossibilities. We DID have a mad idea, even if it's a nonsense idea. Why didn't GOD have the idea, and why isn't God trapped in an illusion?

The ego would conclude, it MUST mean that there is separation in heaven. It cannot conclude otherwise. But there is another possibility. FREEDOM. Is it not possible, that God gave such TOTAL FREEDOM to his creations, that by all intents and purposes, his creations actually are ABSOLUTELY free and therefore literally have a will of their own, a mind of their own, a spirit of their own, and can CHOOSE on their own, WITHOUT it having any effect on God whatsoever? If the son or sons is FREE, and God has "given" them FULLY, and has COMPLETELY set them in heaven as permanent free-willed beings, this WOULD completely explain why it's possible for God to not be part of dreaming.

"God, who encompasses all being, nevertheless created separate beings, who have everything individually, and want to share it to increase their joy."

For me, heaven absolutely IS NOT a picture of what we traditionally are told is a state of pure non-duality, or even really a state of this "oneness" where there is "only God" happening. It's NOT one thing. It contains FREE WILLED BEINGS OF LIGHT, who are SO free that they literally are free to choose whether or not to will with God.

So get this picture... that God created beings - who are not only fully created and completely SET FREE by unconditional love, but He even gave them SUCH freedom that they could in fact freely decide for themselves whether to love or not. You'd think that this would be quite insane, or suicidal, for God to create thoughts which seem capable of disagreeing with their own creator. Why would God do such a crazy thing? Because He knows that nothing REAL can be threatened, and even if they DO choose to side with dreams, these dreams don't REALLY threaten reality. And that anyone who does dream WILL awaken at some point, because it is not God's will that He be cut off from his creations.

The picture I have of God is that He is FAR more a creator of individual free-willed souls, to whom He has given TOTAL freedom, to the extent that they have to willingly COOPERATE and CO-CREATE by their own will, that they are not mere "parts of God Himself" but actually are real distinct entities with their own minds and their own being. They CAN and do naturally want to share their mind and being with God also, and with the whole sonship, but not because they are forced to or inherently made to. They freely willingly want to do so, to increase their joy, and because Heaven is filled with celebration of Creation.

God is a creator, not a blob. God has sons, many many many sons. God also created angels. This is all perfectly written about in ACIM by Jesus with hundreds if not thousands of statements supporting it. It is the EGO which has a tough time comprehending how it is possible for God, who is whole, could create "many wholes". Or how many wholes can exist simultaneously. Or how God can ADD something to existence. Or how He could create "distinct beings" who have everything "individually", including the creation of multiple minds, and how these multiple minds can coexist harmoniously without war, and without competition, and without differences.

Oneness means "of one kind". In the LIKENESS of God. It means SHARING, by multiple individuals. It does not mean "God is all that exists".

Yes there are statements which at times seem to speak to certain ASPECTS of God's nature in isolation which perhaps gives impression that Jesus is saying there is nothing but God, or that God is all that is, etc... but... it's not the complete picture. Sometimes Jesus refers to the "one son", sometimes to the sonship, sometimes to individual sons. References to the one son do NOT cancel out references to individuals. The ego has a SPAZZ about how this can make sense and be true. It sees only separations where there are none, and joins together things which are not one thing.

Oneness, as in, "there is only one thing" is actually an EGO IDEA. It is the result that EGO reasoning comes to when it boils everything in its EXCLUSIVE thought system down. And it thinks that this final conclusion is accurate and truthful. It is not. It is divisive and incorrect and a false conclusion. God's creation is not "one thing", God's sonship is not devoid of parts, and God DID create multiple beings. Objections to this are, funnily enough, THE EGO objecting to ITS belief in what Heaven must be like.

We are creations of God, children of God, God has created multiple minds, multiple souls, multiple sons, each of whom is SO FREE that they are able to decide for themselves whether or not to will with God. The only REAL choice is to will with God, but our minds DO have the ability and freedom to CHOOSE to dream of an alternative. And we have used that ability. And it has not affected God.

Many many times Jesus has said to me, "you are free". And I could never really quite accept or understand how this is possible, given the framework of how everyone is teaching the course. What wish teachings of "time is already over" and "there's only one son" and so on, I couldn't see how it's possible that I am free. How does a son of God be free, if that son is just part of God's enforced will or some kind of script? Gradually and very confusedly I've come to accept more that we actually DO have free will, because we DO have total freedom. We are to come to God WILLINGLY.

This is why we NEED to have "a little willingness" and eventually total willingness. Willingness isn't coercion. Love does not enter where it is not welcome. We actually literally MUST CHOOSE HEAVEN "heaven is a choice *I* must make". We have to WANT to WILLFULLY choose to accept it. We're not going be willing OR able to accept it if we think it's being forced on us and we don't want it. We have to have total personal willingness to will WITH GOD, to CO-CREATE, to participate and to exercise WILLINGLY the decision to carry out God's will. We are not slaves.

We are not JUST effects. We have been given the power to CAUSE as well, the power to will, and the power to create FREELY. Free will was given NECESSARILY in order to allow us to create freely like the Father. Without this freedom, we could not WILLINGLY WANT to agree with God's will for us. God, who is cause, caused us to BE causes. It is an EGO IDEA that we are "only an effect". That's a dead end. We are not a dead end. We are extenders and freely-willing CO-CREATORS with God. Because we want to be, because it's natural to want to be, and because God ONLY willed that we will FREELY.

Sometimes you may not realize that you are being a victim, particularly if you are angry.

A person becomes angry as a reaction to the perception that something has happened to them that they didn't seem to choose.

The perception of things happening outside of your will, is victimhood, and usually entails some 'other' source or person that 'causes' the situation. And since they seemed to choose it 'for you', you see yourself as being unfairly or unjustly treated.

Then you believe that your anger is justified because you see yourself as 'innocent', i.e. it's not you that's wrong, but the other.

Whenever it is the other that is wrong, i.e. you are angry at them for any reason, believing they have done something, you ARE in victimhood.

Now, it may not seem like victimhood, because we may usually think of victimhood as when you feel afraid or you've been attacked and are hurt or whatever. But if you're in anger, you definitely are experiencing and perceiving yourself as a victim, or as having been victimized.

Anger comes out of the hurt. Anger comes out of the victimization.

You may not realize that being angry is being a victim, because the anger turns into victimization or outward attack/retaliation, which makes it feel like you are 'empowered' or 'rising up against' the oppressor, which gives you a false sense of being justified in making THEM a victim, which conceals the fact that if you are angry, you DO perceive yourself as a victim and are playing a victim role.

This absolutely REQUIRES that you, cooperatively, willingly, and freely, have actually chosen to go along with the perception of seeing the situatuation in such a way, that you look like you've been victimized. It requires your own mind to look at the role you're playing in the situation, and to conclude that you didn't ask for this. this is of course grossly mistaken because you cannot be an unwilling victim. I know that is incredibly controversial and maybe hard to accept, but the mind actually USES situations to position you as victimizable and attacked, because it has motives that run much deeper than just this situation (such as the death wish, or the desire to be unconscious).

So as the Course says, "anger is NEVER justified".

It's never justified because nothing ever happens to you against your will. And you MUST have chosen to perceive yourself as being in a 'victim dynamic' in order for you to then experience the reaction to that perception, which manifests as anger or righteousness.

So yes. If you are angry and upset in any way, you MUST be believing you are a victim, and probably you are blaming the other person, and probably you are not admitting honestly the part that you play in this.

It requires tremendous HONESTY to be able to realize and admit not only that you are angry because YOU CHOOSE TO BE, and not only that you're angry because YOU VICTIMIZED YOURSELF through your false perception, but also to be honest enough to admit that IF you do not choose to see yourself in this 'role' or 'relationship' to 'other', then you CANNOT experience yourself as a victim and therefore cannot be angry.

I myself did not realize that being angry was being a victim, until Jesus pointed this out. And if you see yourself as victimized, your anger WILL turn into victimization quite quickly. Then you will retaliate. That's what anger is, a retaliation (reaction) against a perceived mis-treatment. But you can never be mis-treated. If you see yourself mis-treated, you are mistaken in your perception and you are unaware of the power of your own mind.

Lesson 14 simply says that God did not create physical things because they are not real. For example.

"God did not create that war, and so it is not real."

"God did not create that airplane crash, and so it is not real."

"God did not create that disaster (specify) so it is not real."

"God did not create that illness (specify with name of person) and so it is not real."

If you notice it says that God did not create an airplane crash. So let's think about that for a moment. It isn't saying that there's an airplane crash that can be looked at with a different kind of perception which somehow sees that God DID create the airplane. It isn't saying that the airplane is REAL. It isn't saying that the airplane has any kind of existence at all.

It's saying literally that there IS NO airplane, and there is NO CRASHED airplane, and the whole thing DOES NOT exist because God DID NOT create it.

While yes in the short term you might have a changed perception which allows you to look upon the airplane crash and not label it as a tragedy, or not think of it with fear, or not regard it as a problem, in some bigger perspective, this still does not change what the lesson is teaching. The lesson is simply teaching that the ENTIRE THING DOES NOT EXIST.

What does that tell you?

It tells you that planet earth, all physical objects, all physical bodies, all matter, all galaxies, the whole contents of space and time, every form of matter, ever shape and object, all of it IS NOT created by God. It does not say that we are merely failing to recognize it as God's creation. It does not say that if you look at it properly you'll see that it is made of God. It does not say that forgiveness will show it to you differently than the ego shows it, although that will happen. But even a true perception of it will NOT change the facts of what the lesson is teaching.

The lesson is teaching you that God does not create airplanes, or crashes, or the potential for crashes, or objects with metal wings, or motorized propellors, or air conditioning units, or oxygen tanks, or any other such physical things. Not even the physical bodies of the pilots or the passengers, or their luggage. NONE OF IT.

The simple lesson is that the whole thing IS NOT REAL. It is NOT THERE. It DOES NOT EXIST.

And on that basis, it is implying clearly and obviously that planet earth does not exist. Not that we're merely mis-perceiving earth, or mis-perceiving something that God DID create. It's telling you that he had absolutely nothing to do with airplanes whatsoever, on any level, in any way. And therefore because these things are not real, they DO NOT exist, have NOT been created, are NOT part of God, and are NOT THERE.

It could have simply gone on to say "God did not create that planet earth and therefore it is not real."

This in turn tells you that there must be some OTHER WORLD which is there, which God did create, some kingdom of God which is like God's nature and DOES NOT contain airplanes that crash or airplanes of any kind. Who needs airplanes when you can be anywhere you want with a thought? Who needs crashes when you are immortal spirit?

It's not merely that we're misperceiving earth, as though there is a real earth beneath our ego projections. There is NO EARTH. It's an entirely un-created, un-real world on all levels and in all ways. And that is where it is part of a second system of thought, secondary to God's system of thought - which is heaven, and which is a kingdom NOT OF THIS WORLD, and NOTHING to do with earth at all.

This should be very simple to understand and accept, and it is statement like this that should tell you one and for all the earth is not only not real and not a creation of God, it does not exist in reality at all. Hence the teaching "there is no world."

This is an absolutely bullet-proof teaching. It is impossible to conclude anything else about it without states of denial and twisting of meanings and distortions of truths.

It should also be obvious that even in a practical sense God did not create airplanes because PEOPLE make them out of piles of parts. And God did not create the parts, or the materials that they're made from. God had nothing to do with it. YOU MADE THIS UP!

In the section below, Jesus writes about how God did not create a meaningless world, God only creates things which are meaningful, and the world we see (earth etc) is not meaningful, and therefore does not exist, because God did not create it. For example he even gives examples of things in this world which God did not create and are therefore not real:

"God did not create that war, and so it is not real.

God did not create that airplane crash, and so it is not real.

God did not create that disaster [specify], and so it is not real."

This means not only are your personal perceptions and interpretations of the world not real, it also means the stuff IN the world, the wars and airplanes and disasters and so on ARE NOT REAL, so they DO NOT EXIST AT ALL, regardless of how you are looking "at" them. Looking at a plane crash in a "happy way" is denial of the fact that there IS NO plane crash, and that isn't to do with your personal private perception, nor is it really to do with your interpretation of way of looking at the plane crash. It's on a much bigger scale, of the fact that there is no plane or crash whatsoever because it doesn't exist, and the plane and the crash are PART OF YOUR MISPERCEPTION.

He goes even further to tell us that the illusions we "see", some of them can be part of our "personal hell", while other illusions are "shared".

I think this is an important point because "perception" is not just about your own personal hell within your own mind. And accepting atonement is not just about you becoming happy with a horrifying world of death and destruction, sitting on a fence smiling at passers by who go about their torture. Some aspects of perception are also taking place on a shared level, outside your body, and in "forms" which are actually parts of your perception as a much larger being/mind, shared with other minds as part of the sonship who is dreaming this whole world.

Many people think the Course is only about fixing your "personal hell" ie the illusions or perception that are "inside your own mind". This is only PART of the truth. A big part of the illusions which need correcting are OUTSIDE your personal mind, in the larger mind which we collectively are contributing to, and which encompasses this whole universe. This is why Jesus says "this world IS perception".

Whenever Jesus talks about "the world you see" many people have interpreted it to mean he's referring to your personal private interpretation of the world, as though an imaginary world that you overlaid on top of the world. This correlates to many passages in the course about false perception and seems to give it credence. But it also misses the point that Jesus is quite plainly referring to THE PHYSICAL WORLD not just your personal interpretation of it. The world you see, this universe, does not exist. The world you see, this universe, which is not "inside" your little mind, but is part of a collective shared mind, needs to be "corrected" because IT is perception.

Objects and clouds and rocks and people and mountains and rivers and trees and dogs and cats are all part of this illusion, and all part of perception, and all part of your mind. Not just the stuff that seemed to be inside your personal space.

"God did not create a meaningless world.

The idea for today is, of course, the reason why a meaningless world is impossible. What God did not create does not exist. And everything that does exist exists as He created it. The world you see has nothing to do with reality. It is of your own making, and it does not exist. "

"This is your personal repertory of horrors at which you are looking. These things are part of the world you see. SOME OF THEM ARE SHARED ILLUSIONS, AND OTHERS ARE PART OF YOUR PERSONAL HELL. It does not matter. What God did not create can only be in your own mind apart from His. Therefore, it has no meaning. In recognition of this fact, conclude the practice periods by repeating today's idea:

God did not create a meaningless world."

It means there's something you have absolutely no awareness of. You can't see it, taste it, smell it, touch it, hear it or sense it. It's as though it does not exist whatsoever. And since you place a lot of trust in your body's perceptual abilities you conclude that whatever is unconscious simply does not exist. That's the whole point of having made something unconscious in the first place.

For you, what you consider sanity, and what you consider to make sense, and who you think you are, are all based on how much awareness you have. You believe that you are fully aware right now of everything there is to be aware of.

Your sense of identity is intimately tied into this, because the edges of your awareness of Self creates a sense of where you stop and where otherness begins. Anything outside of your self seems to be not who you are.

The problem is that it's possible for there to be something so out of your awareness, so inaccessible to your senses, that you have absolutely no evidence of it and absolutely no way to believe that it's there. It'd be like me telling you there's a giant pink monster dancing outside your house, and without you being able to see it whatsoever you have absolutely no reason to believe me.

You do place a lot of trust in what your body shows you and if you cannot perceive something, you basically will say, well.... that doesn't exist, it's not true. And if someone else is experiencing something that seems totally unreal and untrue for you, you will not believe them, and dismiss it as fictional nonsense.

But it is actually possible for there to be something that exists outside of your conscious awareness. It's actually there, but you seem to have absolutely no awareness of it. This relates not only to immense unconscious guilt and unconscious sin, but also to the presence of God. You have made God unconscious to you, and in being not aware of His presence you basically believe that He does not exist.

While you are unconscious of God, or other stuff, it's possible for your mind to conceive of what might be there, to develop trust that it is there, and to utilize it in some way or experience/witness its expressions, without you necessarily being able to be fully aware of it, to understand it, to directly experience it or to see it. Placing some amount of belief in its existence, even if it is outside of awareness, is an act of "faith", ie trusting in something you believe is true in order to bridge the gap between your limited awareness and a state of greater awareness which is temporarily hidden.

As A Course in Miracles says: "The miracle is taken first on faith, because to ask for it implies the mind has been made ready to conceive of what it cannot see and does not understand. Yet faith will bring its witnesses to show that what it rested on is really there. And thus the miracle will justify your faith in it, and show it rested on a world more real than what you saw before; a world redeemed from what you thought was there."

As Jesus is telling us, it is possible to have faith in God and trust God's truth, to some extent, even if you're not fully experiencing Him yet. You might not be in a state of revelation, but miracles pave the way for revelation. This also means that it is possible to receive the benefits or expressions of that love, even if it's coming from outside your awareness, and to SEE (ie witness) its power and effects in the form of miracles, even if you do not yet understand it.

Such miracles don't require you to be fully aware of God. They only require you to trust and therefore have faith that God is there to do His part and fulfill His function at all times, regardless of your readiness or willingness, and all it takes is a LITTLE willingness from you to open the door and let Him in. This includes the correction/healing of your mind but it also includes the expression of love as miracles of healing and other manifestations, which can come about through having faith/trust even if you are not yet aware of the whole of yourself as Christ.

At some point we will cease to be unconscious and therefore will cease to be limited. We will be more directly able to express love and use its power. Until then, we learn to trust in a power greater than what we are aware of, even if we can't see it, and gradually the gap between you and it will diminish, it will reveal itself more directly over time as love's presence, and you will eventually be One with it, recognizing yourself in it.