from Chapter 2, VI., Fear and Atonement

A Course in Miracles

Tolerance for pain may be high, but it is not without limit. Eventually everyone begins to recognize, however dimly, that there must be a better way. As this recognition becomes more firmly established, it becomes a turning point. This ultimately reawakens spiritual vision, simultaneously weakening the investment in physical sight. The alternating investment in the two levels of perception is usually experienced as conflict, which can become very acute. But the outcome is as certain as God.

I do not foster level confusion, but you must choose to correct it. You would not excuse insane behavior on your part by saying you could not help it. Why should you condone insane thinking? There is a confusion here that you would do well to look at clearly. You may believe that you are responsible for what you do, but not for what you think. The truth is that you are responsible for what you think, because it is only at this level that you can exercise choice. What you do comes from what you think.

Fear is always a sign of strain, arising whenever what you want conflicts with what you do. This situation arises in two ways: First, you can choose to do conflicting things, either simultaneously or successively. This produces conflicted behavior, which is intolerable to you because the part of the mind that wants to do something else is outraged. Second, you can behave as you think you should, but without entirely wanting to do so.

This produces consistent behavior, but entails great strain. In both cases, the mind and the behavior are out of accord, resulting in a situation in which you are doing what you do not wholly want to do. This arouses a sense of coercion that usually produces rage, and projections is likely to follow. Whenever there is fear, it is because you have not made up your mind. Your mind is therefore split, and your behavior inevitably becomes erratic.

Everyone experiences fear. Yet it would take very little right thinking to realize why fear occurs. Few appreciate the real power of the mind, and no one remains fully aware of it all the time. However, if you hope to spare yourself from fear there are some things you must realize, and realize fully. The mind is very powerful, and never loses its creative force. It never sleeps. Every instant it is creating. It is hard to recognize that thought and belief combine into a power surge that can literally move mountains. It appears at first glance that to believe such power about yourself is arrogant, but that is not the real reason you do not believe it. You prefer to believe that your thoughts cannot exert real influence because you are actually afraid of them. This may allay awareness of the guilt, but at the cost of perceiving the mind as impotent. If you believe that what you think is ineffectual you may cease to be afraid of it, but you are hardly likely to respect it. There are no idle thoughts. All thinking produces form at some level.

This philosophy of boundless conquest also animated the rulers of medieval Europe. They too aimed first of all at the utmost expansion of the size of their realms. But the institutions of feudalism provided them with only scanty means for warfare. Vassals were not obliged to fight for their lord more than a limited time. The selfishness of the vassals who insisted on their rights checked the king's aggressiveness. Thus the peaceful coexistence of a number of sovereign states originated. In the sixteenth century a Frenchman, Bodin, developed the theory of national sovereignty. In the seventeenth century a Dutchman, Grotius, added to it a theory of international relations in war and peace.

With the disintegration of feudalism, sovereigns could no longer rely upon summoned vassals. They "nationalized" the country's armed forces. Henceforth, the warriors were the king's mercenaries. [p. 822]

The organization, equipment, and support of such troops were rather costly and a heavy burden on the ruler's revenues. The ambitions of the princes were unbounded, but financial considerations forced them to moderate their designs. They no longer planned to conquer a whole country. All they aimed at was the conquest of a few cities or of a province. To attain more would also have been unwise politically. For the European powers were anxious not to let any one of them become too powerful and a menace to their own safety. A too impetuous conqueror must always fear a coalition of all those whom his bigness has frightened.

The combined effect of military, financial, and political circumstances produced the limited warfare which prevailed in Europe in the three hundred years preceding the French Revolution. Wars were fought by comparatively small armies of professional soldiers. War was not an affair of the peoples; it concerned the rulers only. The citizens detested war which brought mischief to them and burdened them with taxes and contributions. But they considered themselves victims of events in which they did not participate actively. Even the belligerent armies respected the "neutrality" of the civilians. As they saw it, they were fighting the supreme warlord of the hostile forces, but not the noncombatant subjects of the enemy. In the wars fought on the European continent the property of civilians was considered inviolable. In 1856 the Congress of Paris made an attempt to extend this principle to naval warfare. More and more, eminent minds began to discuss the possibility of abolishing war altogether.

Looking at conditions as they had developed under the system of limited warfare, philosophers found wars useless. Men are killed or maimed, wealth is destroyed, countries are devastated for the sole benefit of kings and ruling oligarchies. The peoples themselves do not derive any gain from victory. The individual citizens are not enriched if their rulers expand the size of their realm by annexing a province. For the people wars do not pay. The only cause of armed conflict is the greed of autocrats. The substitution of representative government for royal despotism will abolish war altogether. Democracies are peaceful. It is no concern of theirs whether their nation's sovereignty stretches over a larger or smaller territory. They will treat territorial problems without bias and passion. They will settle them peacefully. What is needed to make peace durable is to dethrone the despots. This, of course, cannot be achieved peacefully. It is necessary to crush the mercenaries of the kings. But this revolutionary war of the people against the tyrants will be the last war, the war to abolish war forever. [p. 823]

This idea was already dimly present in the minds of the French revolutionary leaders when, after having repelled the invading armies of Prussia and Austria, they embarked upon a campaign of aggression. Of course, under the leadership of Napoleon they themselves very soon adopted the most ruthless methods of boundless expansion and annexation until a coalition of all European powers frustrated their ambitions. But the idea of durable peace was soon resurrected. It was one of the main points in the body of nineteenth-century liberalism as consistently elaborated in the much abused principles of the Manchester School.

These British liberals and their continental friends were keen enough to realize that what can safeguard durable peace is not simply government by the people, but government by the people under unlimited laissez faire. In their eyes free trade, both in domestic affairs and in international relations, was the necessary prerequisite of the preservation of peace. In such a world without trade and migration barriers no incentives for war and conquest are left. Fully convinced of the irrefutable persuasiveness of the liberal ideas, they dropped the notion of the last war to abolish all wars. All peoples will of their own accord recognize the blessings of free trade and peace and will curb their domestic despots without any aid from abroad.

Most historians entirely fail to recognize the factors which replaced the "limited" war of the ancien regime by the "unlimited" war of our age. As they see it, the change came with the shift from the dynastic to the national from of state and was a consequence of the French Revolution. They look only upon attending phenomena and confuse causes and effects. They speak of the composition of the armies, of strategical and tactical principles, of weapons and transportation facilities, and of many other matters of military art and administrative technicalities.[1] However, all these things do not explain why modern nations prefer aggression to peace.

-Pg 824 "Total War"

....

What distinguishes man from animals is the insight into the advantages that can be derived from cooperation under the division of labor. Man curbs his innate instinct of aggression in order to cooperate with other human beings. The more he wants to improve his material well-being, the more he must expand the system of the division of labor. Concomitantly he must more and more restrict the sphere in which he resorts to military action. The emergence of the international division of labor requires the total abolition of war. Such is the essence of the laissez-faire philosophy of Manchester.

This philosophy is, of course, incompatible with statolatry. In its context the state, the social apparatus of violent oppression, is entrusted with the protection of the smooth operation of the market economy against the onslaughts of antisocial individuals and gangs. Its function is indispensable and beneficial, but it is an ancillary function only. There is no reason to idolize the police power and ascribe to it omnipotence and omniscience. There are things which it can certainly not accomplish. It cannot conjure away the scarcity of the factors of production, it cannot make people more prosperous, it cannot raise the productivity of labor. All it can achieve is to prevent gangsters from frustrating the efforts of those people who are intent upon promoting material well-being.

The liberal philosophy of Bentham and Bastiat had not yet completed its work of removing trade barriers and government meddling with business when the counterfeit theology of the divine state began to take effect. Endeavors to improve the conditions of wage earners and small farmers by government decree made it necessary to loosen more and more the ties which connected each country's domestic economy with those of other countries. Economic nationalism, the necessary complement of domestic interventionism, hurts the interests of foreign peoples and thus creates international conflict. It suggests the idea of amending this unsatisfactory state of affairs by war. Why should a powerful nation tolerate the challenge of a less powerful nation? Is it not insolence on the part of small Laputania to injure the citizens of big Ruritania by customs, migration barriers, foreign exchange control, quantitative trade restrictions, and expropriation of Ruritanian investments in Laputania? Would it not be easy for the army of Ruritania to crush Laputania's contemptible forces?

Such was the ideology of the German, Italian, and Japanese warmongers. It must be admitted that they were consistent from the point [p. 832] of view of the new "unorthodox" teachings. Interventionism generates economic nationalism, and economic nationalism generates bellicosity. If men and commodities are prevented from crossing the borderlines, why should not the armies try to pave the way for them?

From the day when Italy, in 1911, fell upon Turkey, fighting was continual. There was almost always shooting somewhere in the world. The peace treaties concluded were virtually merely armistice agreements. Moreover they had to do only with armies of the great powers. Some of the smaller nations were always at war. In addition there were no less pernicious civil wars and revolutions.

How far we are today from the rules of international law developed in the age of limited warfare! Modern war is merciless, it does not spare pregnant women or infants; it is indiscriminate killing and destroying. It does not respect the rights of neutrals. Millions are killed, enslaved, or expelled from the dwelling places in which their ancestors lived for centuries. Nobody can foretell what will happen in the next chapter of this endless struggle.

This has little to do with the atomic bomb. The root of the evil is not the construction of a new, more dreadful weapons. It is the spirit of conquest. It is probable that scientists will discover some methods of defense against the atomic bomb. But this will not alter things, it will merely prolong for a short time the process of the complete destruction of civilization.

Modern civilization is a product of the philosophy of laissez faire. It cannot be preserved under the ideology of government omnipotence. Statolatry owes much to the doctrines of Hegel. However, one may pass over many of hegel's inexcusable faults, for Hegel also coined the phrase "the futility of victory" (die Ohnmacht des Sieges). To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war.

-Pg. 833 "The Futility of War"

Ludwig Von Mises, 1949, Human Action

There exists, primarily found in the younger generation, a general distrust, avoidance, and at times, hatred for the Bible. This is made possible by many of the radical groups whom find it so easy to pass around hate as love and judgment as salvation. The typical notorious examples include protests against gay individuals, who are deemed unholy and to be destined toward a burning hell. A despicable example but nonetheless silly and, if you're capable of feeling above it all, humorous. Who can take such individuals seriously? How can their absurd judgments go on much longer? "But Mark, the youth may become infected!" Is there anything I can do about this? While the nation laughs it off as ignorance, the ideology will undoubtedly fail, and the individuals will question themselves when they've found themselves being laughed at rather than taken seriously. Let them preach what they want as long as they're not hurting anybody. It's up to us to decide what affects us.

Nonetheless, there is still the matter of the Bible and all of the seemingly horrible things it may imply. Many, naive to religion or spirituality as a whole, think really? So this god figure would condemn us to burning flames for having sex before we are wed? That's ridiculous! And it is. There is an unhealthy obsession amongst some Christians with the concept of sin. They use sin as a means to feel guilty, judge others as guilty, and yet, position themselves as holy benefactors. This is exactly what turns my generation off and for good reason! I have said it again and again that guilt should not be held onto, but released. At the age of 18, naive as ever, I laughed back at my computer teacher when he yelled at me for breaking a computer part. I told him literally that he would not make me feel guilty. He responded "Yes you will!" to which , yes, I laughed at him. I wasn't the best kid in high school.

My experience started around the age of 13 where I had begun my venture into spirituality books -- mostly that of the Christian realm. Though this was rather off and on, by the age of 15 I was somewhat actively pursuing spiritualistic concepts. A site I frequented was Philosophy Forums. I had just recently logged back in after resetting my password, which was sent to the archaic hotmail.com, and was happy to see my old conversations with a man were still there. He recommended to me a Christian gem, The Way of the Pilgrim, and was able to answer some areas of confusion I had. One in particular that troubled me was the concept of pride and why it was a sin. I asked him "Is pride in your children a sin?" He correctly responded:

Hmm... what is pride? Pride is when you consider yourself better than your brother, more clever or brave etc. It becomes a sin when you look down on people and start treating them as if they are your servants or when you behave with arrogance towards them.

We talked sparsely, and I simply wasn't too engaged in the idea of becoming a pure Christian always throwing around the word sin and what have you. In fact, it was one of my first questions with him, as to why someone should go around thinking they are the scum of the Earth because they had sinned or they were indebted with sin. Is that humility? Nonetheless, I continued on my spiritual journey toward the Tao Teh Ching, and had thought I had found my spiritual book. It's a search after all; what one book leaves unanswered, another book picks up upon and there always exists small differences of perception from one book to the next. For example, before the Tao Teh Ching, I read the Dhammapada. The Dhammapada has more practicality whereas Tao Teh Ching can be all too abstract at times. Nonetheless, I continued on; I write:

Finally though I've hit on a milestone that has taken me by the heels through the teaching of non-perception, pure non duality, the Tao Teh Ching and Hua Hu Hing were it by Lao Tzu. Though I'm on the verge of something much greater than that. I started the book "The Disappearance of the Universe" which hails "A course in Miracles" which I will be reading next, and both seem to have the same concepts.

Indeed I was actually onto something greater, and while The Disappearance of the Universe is rather forgettable (though nonetheless inspiring); A Course in Miracles is not. Written through a woman in the late 1970s by Jesus himself, it's the most powerful book in the modern day spirituality scene -- notwithstanding plenty of skepticism, mind you. At 700 "Bible text" pages, 365 daily lessons, and a complete Manual for Teachers, it is the most comprehensive book I had ever picked up on attaining enlightenment. A Course In Miracles, during my 18th year, was the reason why I told my teacher I wouldn't feel guilty. I had made a decision to undo that part of my life, and was well on my way. I also, at the time, was intent on becoming enlightened.

But  naturally, my life got a bit more complicated than it used to be. I think many adults will use that complicated excuse as well when reflecting back on youthful ambitions. They'll think they were naive for thinking that way, and weren't hardened by the world yet. Silly! they may say. It's complete bullshit. Coming from a man who has, so far, complicated his life, rather than my life complicating me, I can easily tell you, it's bullshit. What we do in life is always of our own choosing one decision at a time.

But that discussion is for another rant at another time. Besides, I created this blog to make it at least somewhat not about me, so let's move forward. The Course, as it is commonly referred to, emphasizes that guilt is one of the sole weapons the ego uses against oneself. It creates the most unhappiness in the world, and is commonly well masked by another emotion. The honest truth is that many people do suffer from feeling guilty or fearful with or without knowing it. Looking at the root of many emotions is an apt way to remove the veil and see it for what it is. The Course commonly cites "If you did not feel guilty, you could not attack." If you're versed in the work of psychology, then you should be able to see this as the psychological term projection. That which you hate about yourself, you project onto others and attack them for it in hopes of killing it within yourself. Consequently, you feel guilty for having that particular characteristic and wish to rid yourself of it. That is why you see the most self-conscious and miserable men being the harshest in judgment and criticism. It is the confident man who sees no faults in others, and the holy man who sees only the good in others. This basic mind disciplinary skill is essential if you seek to improve yourself.

Therefore, with this is in mind, it should come as no surprise when the harshest priests turn out to be gay, or worse, child molesters. The Catholic church has hurt itself immensely for this, but it is because it has so often twisted God's word with hate, and deservedly obtained a bad reputation. Let us examine a section from A Course in Miracles for a small example:

Nothing the ego perceives is interpreted correctly. Not only does the ego cite Scripture for its purpose, but it even interprets Scripture as a witness for itself. The Bible is a fearful thing in the ego's judgment. Perceiving it as frightening, it interprets it fearfully. Being afraid, you do not appeal to the Higher Court because you believe its judgment would also be against you.

There are many examples of how the ego's interpretations are misleading, but a few will suffice to show how the Holy Spirit can reinteret them in His Own light.

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap" He interprets to mean what you consider worth cultivating you will cultivate in yourself. Your judgment of what is worthy makes it worthy for you.

"Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord" is easily reinterpreted if you remember that ideas increase only by being shared. The statement emphasizes that vengeance cannot be shared. Give it therefore to the Holy Spirit, Who will undo it in you because it does not belong in your mind, which is part of God.

"The wicked shall perish" becomes a statement of Atonement, if the word "perish" is understood as "be undone."

.......

When I said "I come as a light into the world," I meant that I came to share the light with you. Remember my reference to the ego's dark glass, and remember also that I said, "Do not look there." It is still true that where you look to find yourself is up to you. Your patience with your brother is your patience with yourself. Is not a child of God worth patience? I have shown you infinite patience because my will is that of our Father, from Whom I learned of infinite patience. His Voice was in me and It is in you, speaking for patience towards the Sonship in the Name of its Creator.

Therefore, the hate that stems from these so-called Christians doesn't stem from The Bible as they wished it would, but rather the ego. The ego uses the pscyhological term displacement to pull this trick off (I suppose you can see it as the reverse. It's not that persons take their hate out on the Bible rather than on gay people, but rather,  justify their hate using a safe and acceptable premise -- The Bible.) :

In psychology, displacement is an unconscious defense mechanism whereby the mind redirects affects from an object felt to be dangerous or unacceptable to an object felt to be safe or acceptable.

Though some may dispute this, people are inherently good and believe that what they are doing is good. They believe hate is justified for a greater good; they believe through hate they are doing good. Not many persons are capable of fully condemning themselves as evil, and those that do, will see it as "necessary" or "deserving". Yet, even if we abstract that concept, we can see the implication that what they are doing is a means to an end -- a good end. And that's an important concept to grasp, because it can be further generalized that all of what we do is a means to an ending that we perceive as desirable. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Whether we consciously or unconsciously know what that ends is is another story. Consequently, the man who preaches hate does so under the implication that he is doing good. That is why The Course teaches:

Remember that those who attack are poor. Their poverty asks for gifts, not further impoverishment.

Correctly interpreted as: poor in spirit and their poverty asks for love -- not further hate, which would only lessen spirit. That is a part of why Jesus loved those who would whip him or do him harm, as much as he loved his followers. He did not feel hurt that they hated him. He did not feel defensive that they had ridiculed them, because Jesus did not believe in the ego. He did not condemn sins because he did not believe in sin. Why perpetuate an idea that he was born to teach against? Jesus knew that these men were under false pretenses, and that they "know not what they do." This is a mistake not a sin. Mistakes are correctable. Therefore, do not pity him to the cross and do not hail his death as a sacrifice for Jesus did not believe in sacrifice. Why would He? Sacrifice entails you must lose something in order to gain something; you must go through pain in order to gain. This is of the ego, not of the spirit. Love is not a sacrifice, because it is taught one who loves only gains. He who seeks enlightenment only gains. Possessions are of the ego, and while under the ego's influence, you will believe you have lost them. In reality, this is not the case. Let's examine A Course In Miracles and Jesus's take on the journey to the cross (you only need to read the bolds if necessary):

T-6.1 The Message of the Crucifixion

For learning purposes, let us consider the crucifixion again. I did not dwell on it before because of the fearful connotations you may associate with it. The only emphasis laid upon it so far has been that it was not a form of punishment. Nothing, however, can be explained in negative terms only. There is a positive interpretation of the crucifixon that is wholly devoid of fear, and therefore wholly  benign in what it teaches, if it is properly understood.

The crucifixion is nothing more than an extreme example. Its value, like the value of any teaching device, lies solely in the kind of learning it facilitates. It can be, and has been, misunderstood. This is only because the fearful are apt to perceive fearfully. I have already told you that you can always call on me to share my decision, and thus make it stronger. I have also told you that the crucifixion was the last useless journey the Sonship need take, and that it represents release from fear to anyone who understands it. While I emphasized only the resurrection before, the purpose of the crucifixion and how it actually led to the resurrection was not clarified then. Nevertheless, it has a definite contribution to make to your own life, and if you will consider it without fear, it will help you understand your own role as a teacher.

You have probably reacted for years as if you were being crucified. This is a marked tendency of the separated, who always refuse to consider what they have done to themselves. Projection means anger, anger fosters assault, and assault promotes fear. The real meaning of the crucifixion lies in the apparent intensity of the assault of some of the Sons of God upon another. This, of course, is impossible, and must be fully understood as impossible. Otherwise, I cannot serve as a model for learning.

Assault can ultimately be made only on the body. There is little doubt that one body can assault another, and can even destroy it. Yet if destruction itself is impossible, anything that is destructible cannot be real. Its destruction, therefore, does not justify anger. While you believe that it does, you are accepting false premises and teaching them to others. The message the crucifixion was intended to teach that it is not necessary to perceive any form of assault in persecution, because you cannot be persecuted. If you respond with anger, you must be equating yourself with the destructible, and are therefore regarding yourself insanely.

I have made it perfectly clear that I am like you and you are like me, but our fundamental equality can be demonstrated only through joint decision. You are free to perceive yourself as persecuted if you choose. When you do choose to react that way, however, you might remeber that I was persecuted as the world judges, and did not share this evalutation for myself. And because I did not share it, I did not strengthen it. I therefore offered a different interpretation of attack, and one which I want to share with you. If you will believe it, you will help me teach it.

As I have said before, "As you teach so shall you learn." If you react as if you are persecuted, you are teaching persecution. This is not a lesson a Son of God should want to teach if he is to realize his own salvation. Rather, teach your own perfect immunity, which is the truth in you, and realize that it cannot be assailed. Do not try to protect it yourself, or you are believed that it is assailable. You are not asked to be crucified, which was part of my own teaching contribution. You are merely asked to follow my example in the face of much less extreme temptations to misperceive, and not to accept them as false justifications for anger. There can be no justification for the unjustifiable. Do not believe there is, and do not teach that there is. Remember always that what you believe you will teach. Believe with me, and we will become equal as teachers.

Your ressurection is your reawakening. I am the model for rebirth, but rebirth itself is merely the dawning on your mind of what is already in it. God placed it there Himself, and so it is true forever. I believed in it, and therefore accepted it as true for me. Help me to teach it to our brothers in the name of the Kingdom of God, but first believe that it is true for you, or you will teach amiss. My brothers slept during the so-called "agony in the garden," but I could not be angry with them because I knew I could not be abandoned.

I am sorry when my brothers do not share my decision to hear only one Voice, because it weakens them as teachers and as learners. Yet I know they cannot really betray themselves or me, and that it is still on them that I must build my church. There is no choice in this, because only you can be the foundation of God's church. A church is where an altar is, and the presence of the altar is what makes the church holy. A church that does not inspire love has a hidden altar that is not serving the purpose for which God intended it. I must found His church on you, because those who accept me as a model are literally my disciples. Disciples are followers, and if the model they follow has chosen to save them pain in all respects, they are unwise not to follow him.

I elected for your sake and mine, to demonstrate that the most outrageous assault, as judged by the ego, does not matter. As the world judges these things, but not as God knows them, I was betrayed, abandoned, beaten, torn, and finally killed. It was clear that this was only because of the projection of others onto me, since I had not harmed anyone and had healed many.

We are still equal as learners, although we do not need to have equal experiences. The Holy Spirit is glad when you can learn from mine, and be reawakened by them. That is there only purpose, and that is the only way in which I can be perceived as the way, the truth and the life. When you hear only one Voice you are never called on to sacrifice. On the contrary, by being able to hear the Holy Spirit in others you can learn from their experiences, and can gain from them without  experiencing them directly yourself. That is because the Holy Spirit is One, and anyone who listens is inevitably led to demonstrate His way for all.

You are not persecuted, nor was I. You are not asked to repeat my experiences because the Holy Spirit, Whom we share, makes this uncessary. To use my experiences constructively, however, you must still follow my example in how to perceive them. My brothers and yours are constantly engaged in justifying the unjustifiable. My one lesson, which I must teach as I learned it, is that no perception that is out of accord with the judgment of the Holy Spirit can be justified. I undertook to show this was true in an extreme case, merely because it would serve as a good teaching aid to those whose temptation to give in to anger and assault would not be so extreme. I will with God that none of His Sons shoulder suffer.

The crucifixion cannot be shared because it is the symbol of projection, but the resurrection is the symbol of sharing because the reawakening of every Son of God is necessary to enable the Sonship to know its Wholeness. Only this is knowledge.

The message of the crucifixion is perfectly clear: Teach only love, for that is what you are.

If you interpret the crucifixion in any other way, you are using it as a weapon for assault rather than as the call for peace for which it was intended. The Apostles often misunderstood it, and for the same reason that anyone misunderstands it. Their own imperfect love made them vulnerable to projection, and out of their own fear they spoke of the "wrath of God" as His retaliatory weapon. Nor could they speak of the crucifixion entirely without anger, because their sense of guilt had made them angry.

There are some of the examples of upside-down thinking in the New Testament, althought its gospel is really only the message of love. If the Apostles had not felt guilty, they never could have quoted me saying, "I come not to bring peace but a sword." This is clearly the opposite of everything I taught. Nor could they have described my reactions to Judas as they did, if they had really understood me. I could not have said, "Betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?" unless I believed in betrayal. The whole message of the cruficixion was simply that I did not. The "punishment" I was said to have called forth upon Judas was a similar mistake. Judas was my brother and a Son of God, as much a part of the Sonship as myself. Was it likely that I would condemn him when I was ready to demonstrate that condemnation is impossible?

As you read the Apostles, remember that I told them myself that there was much they would understand later, because they were not wholly ready to follow me at the time. I do not want you to allow any fear to enter into the thought system toward which I am guiding you. I do not call for martyrs but for teachers. No one is punished for sins, and the Sons of God are not sinners. Any concept of punishement involves the projection of blame, and reinforces the idea that blame is justified. The result is a lesson in blame, for all behavior teaches the beliefes that motivate it. The crucifixion was the result of clearly opposed thought systems; the perfect symbol of the "conflict" between the ego and the Son of God. This conflict seems just as real now, and its lesson must be learned now as well as then.

I do not neeed gratitude, but you need to develop your weakened ability to be grateful, or you cannot appreciate God. He does not need your appreciation, but you do. You cannot love what you do not appreciate, for fear makes appreciation impossible. When you are afraid of what you are, you do not appreciate it, and you will therefore reject it. As a result, you will teach rejection.

The power of the Sons of God is present all the time, because they were created as creators. Their influences on each other is without limit, and must be used for their joint salvation. Each one must learn to teach that all forms of rejection are meaningless. The separation is the notion of rejection. As long as you teach this you will believe it. This is not as God thinks, and you must think as He thinks if you are to know Him again.

Remember that the Holy Spirit is the Communication Link between God the Father and His separated Sons. If you will listen to his Voice you will know that you cannot either hurt or be hurt, and that many need your blessing to help them hear this for themselves. When you perceive only this need in them, and do not respond to any other, you will have learned of me and will be as eager to share your learning as I am.

As you can see, A Course in Miracles is a little bit more down to earth. I don't expect Atheists to suddenly become devout Christians because of it, but it is definitely a lot more reasonable than letting a love story (Bible) define everything about life. The text is treated as your typical college textbook -- thick & information packed. The daily lessons are your daily assignments that aid you in changing the way you view the world. And finally, the manual for teachers is a small guide on properly teaching others.

I read this while I was working at my gas station back when I was 17/18, and a woman walked in and commented that she had read it too. This was rare, and she commented, "I remember reading it, and thinking everyone needs to read it." This isn't one of those, man it's so awesome, you gotta check it out! lines. She said it for the very reason that I believe it too; it has an enormous benefit in maturing your mind. The book consistently teaches against victimization and that you are in complete control of your life. The Bible tells you similarly that you are in control of your life, but ultimately is interpreted and taught as though you are victimized in the end as it in the final judgment. This is nonsensical, and goes against plenty of other Eastern monks realizing enlightenment through pure self-discipline. They didn't have to "wait" until the end to see if the gate was open or not. They had to do it themselves, and this is important, because the responsibility falls properly back onto us. The Course teaches:

Heaven is not a place or a condition. It is merely an awareness of perfect oneness.

This is why the Dhammapada has just as much utility as The Course as long as the student decides to completely devote himself to the way. What is enlightenment to a monk is the same as what is heaven to a Christian. Therefore, like all things, it comes down to us to accept responsibility and do what is right.

As a final note: This is not a case against The Bible. I think The Bible can interpreted wonderfully, but I am much more critical of the general interpretation of the Bible. If you wish to read a particularly good interpretation of The Bible, read this passage from Autobiography of a Yogi, which is, as it sounds, an autobiography of a Monk and this particular passage is of him talking with his master while he was still a disciple. He cries:

"The Adam and Eve story is incomprehensible to me!" I observed one day in my early struggles with the allegory. "Why did God punish not only the guilty pair, but also the innocent unborn generations?"

A few notable quotes from A Course in Miracles:

Miracles occur naturally as expressions of love. They are performed by those who temporarily have more for those who temporarily have less. (p. 1)

There are no idle thoughts. (p. 27)

Anger involves projection of separation, which must ultimately be accepted as one’s own responsibility, rather than being blamed on others. (p. 84)

The world is only in the mind of its maker. Do not believe it is outside of yourself. (p. 207)

God calls and you do not hear, for you are preoccupied with your own voice. (p. 232)

You have so little faith in yourself because you are unwilling to accept the fact that perfect love is in you, and so you seek without for what you cannot find within. (p.293)

Like any communication medium, the body receives and sends the messages that it is given. It has no feeling for them. All of the feeling with which they are invested is given by the sender and the receiver. (p. 387)

Give faith to one another, for faith and hope and mercy are yours to give. (p. 394)

Seek not to change the world, but choose to change your mind about the world. (p. 415)

Reason cannot see sin, but can see errors. (p. 428)

The memory of God comes to the quiet mind. (p. 457)

Pain’s purpose is the same as pleasure, for they both are means to make the body real. (p. 537)

Seek not outside yourself, for all your pain comes simply from a futile search for what you want, insisting where it must be found. (p. 573)

Only the self-accused condemn. (p. 606)

Every choice you make establishes your own identity as you will see it and believe it is. (p. 621)

Reason is mans foremost equipment in the biological struggle for the preservation and expansion of his existence and survival. It would not have any function and would not have developed at all in the fools paradise.

-Ludwig Von Mises (Money, Method, and the Market Process, pg 35)

More often than not, your mind is going to be working against you.

It is unfortunate that if you give a man everything he wants, he'll waste away his life with a gluttonous appetite for desire and pleasure (think lottery winners). It is unfortunate that man doesn't know what is best for him, but rather, lives a life of trial and error. And it is deplorable that when man does know better, he tends to ignore it in the light of comfort, pleasure, and general laziness.

We're born into this world undeniably attached to our ego, and it's this fact alone that so much grief has been brought into this world. Much of it is pure childishness. A young child screams "I want it!" when he seeks a possession, while the civilized man creates elaborate justifications for toys and wars of conquest.  The average civilized man wants his own toys as well, but meanwhile, finds the pursuit of knowledge repugnant.

Give the civilized man everything from birth, and observe how the sickest desires are followed out or how psychological defects form. The line of Caesers, for example, were a notable sick line -- think Caligula the pervert or Nero the arsonist.

The ego wants things, and if you so victimize yourself to your ego, you will find yourself in a perpetual state of desire. The old adage goes, "The mind is a great servant, but a terrible master." Regrettably, so long as you base your decisions on impulse desires,  you will undoubtedly live a futile life responding only to the stimuli of a destructive master. You don't wake up thinking you want to exercise -- you direct yourself toward exercise. You don't blindly pursue knowledge -- you  direct yourself toward the pursuit of knowledge.

Directing yourself toward nobler pursuits will improve yourself and most notably, your mind. Discipline yourself long enough, and soon, your reward shifts from candy's sweet taste to the post-workout high, or from the idle mind toward the active mind. Eventually the mind operates on a higher level than it had previously before. This is indicative of a man with a strong spirit.

As I said, our  minds primarily work against us. That's not to say, we're in some battle, but the mind stems from childlike behaviors. When we mature, it is not from the mere incremental year aging, but rather our mind maturing past the childlike behaviors. When we regress, we regress back toward our child behaviors. General laziness, for example, is oft an umbrella term for a simple unwillingness to work in order to improve. The mind stomps its feet the same way a stubborn child does -- no more! I wish rather to sit around in comfort!

If we are to traverse a river upstream, then we can analogize the water's current as temptation, pleasure, and mindlessness. As we work our way upstream, we demonstrate noble, disciplined, self-improving behavior. Giving up our efforts and letting pleasure and mindlessness rule will revert us back to childish behaviors as the current drifts us downstream. The top and origin of the river can be symbolized as truth. As we pursue truth, the current grows stronger whereas the mouth of the river has a mild and gentle current. We walk up the gentle current easily as children, and we laugh at the thought of being down there as adults. And yet, many don't go on much past it. Why stop? Is it not because of my aforementioned general laziness, to which, the mind prefers comfort over effort? Childishness over adulthood? I fully believe that a turning away from emotion does not make you a robot, as the nay-sayers would have you believe, but a man. The robot is the man who allows his emotions to push the buttons which activate his response.

Therefore the first task in improving yourself is to train your mind. This is a lot to go into, and there's plenty of great books to aid you, but the best advice I can give is to observe your mind at all times and be completely honest with yourself. Don't let pride get in the way and delude you into defending your weaknesses. Doing so will ensure you that there's nothing to improve upon and that you're safe to drift idly in the water thinking "that's just how I am." People change all the time, but only when they elect to change themselves. When they do so, the growth is rapid and exciting. Whereas a person may have seen themselves as "shy", they'll see it more realistically as a fear to speak up. Understanding this as a fear, they'll inevitably take a leap of faith eventually to speak up, and be relieved to find it wasn't all that bad.As a side note: Having been around the internet for a decade or two (hell I practically grew up here), it's these same "shy" ones that are the rudest online and have no problem speaking up.

When you've solidified a stable, productive, and energetic mind, you can begin sorting out your philosophies. The reason why we need philosophies is that they stabilize your footing as you move upstream. A slippery step will ensure a fall as you move through the torrents, whereas a strong footing will at least give you the ability to hold strong where you are until the torrents die down. To put it more bluntly: life throws you curve balls, and if you're not firm on your principles, you're capable of being knocked down. In Atlas Shrugged , Ayn Rand's magnum opus, her protagonists went to college for two things: philosophy & physics. She chose these two for the link between philosophy & rationality (as symbolized by physics). Rationality gives you a hawk's eye for inductive&deductive logic solving whereas philosophy is necessary to give you your understanding and drive in life.  The link that binds them is that rationality is vital in choosing and developing your philosophies. For example: do you believe in communism? Do you see it as the perfect society because it abolishes classes and we can all live equally? By doing so, you make the false presupposition that men are happy to be equals. To the rational and observant man, it is obvious to see why communism will fail. It simply ignores the precept of human action -- that humans are individuals, and that they each have their own dreams and ambitions.

Your principles should and most likely will inspire you. For me, freedom is a very cherished principle, and one I'd risk my life to defend. The basis of "inspired" means to be in spirit. This is very different than when you're thinking egotistically or in body. When man is inspired, energy levels generally rise and the body is ignored. Something bigger than themselves overtakes them and drives them to work toward a particular goal. When we think with the body, we sit around, eat, drink, smoke, and energy levels typically go down. Rationality is predominantly a product of spirit, not of the body. Whereas the body is primarily driven by emotions (which admittedly may employ basic rationality as a means to their end),  rationality detaches itself and looks at the big picture. As a side note: In regards to cherishing freedom, I should mention that I'm obviously not alone here. If you've ever wondered about the great historical battles where one side was greatly outnumbered and yet won the battle -- it was because freedom was at stake. The separate Greek states when faced with the possibility of Persian conquering put aside their differences and fought together at the Battle of Marthon. Americans defeated British rule similarly.

Thinking in spirit is what motivates us to fulfill our dreams, and drives us toward these dreams. Many lament "I have no motivation!" but they don't ask themselves what is motivation or why they don't have any. A college student, for example, complains about homework and "not having any motivation to do it." Yet they didn't address the fundamental questions of why homework is even in front of them:

• Why am I at school?
• What do I hope to accomplish in this learning?
• What value does this work have in front of me, and what will it do for me?
• How much did I drink last night?

Ok, so maybe they're a good student, and the last doesn't apply. Nonetheless, this is the very reason why I call it utter stupidity that kids are pushed toward college and subsequently choosing what they'll do in life at 18. Hell, I think I got lucky because I actually enjoy what I do. Maybe when they're off making $8-12/hr trying to get by will they understand just how important college is. During this time, they can decide what they want to do and appreciate college a bit more when they get to it (and all the money that's being paid for it).

A great book that addresses motivation and somewhat provides a shortcut to everything I just wrote about is NLP: The New Technology of Achievement. Furthermore, in regards to being logical, a great little book is Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking. Again, this is one of those moments where it'd be self-defeating to let your pride override your necessity for a book on thinking logically. The fact of the matter is that we're much more prone to go through the day one impulse after the next. When faced with a situation that calls for rationality, we habitually overlook it or approach it haphazardly. In general, the best, if not cliché, advice is to stay mindful, question things, and reason things out yourself.

I just found out this life changing programming maneuver... subclassing BackgroundWorker. Threads can be a bitch to handle in any language. I don't like having to set up threads to call certain classes or whatever. Instead, I want to just call a method within my class that automatically runs it on another thread. That's exactly what happens when you subclass BackgroundWorker. But before we jump in, let's go over a few basics for thoroughness's sake.

What are threads, and why do we need them

By default, programs run on one thread. Like driving in a single lane, all the code travels down this one path. This isn't a big deal in typical scenarios, but anytime the code goes into a loop or sleeps, all code halts at that one point. Consequently, you can only do one thing along one path, and you need to be sure that your code doesn't try jumping ahead of itself.

This usually isn't a big issue until you begin developing a GUI application. Say you need a lot of CPU to run a certain task, and you suddenly realize the whole GUI completely froze and you get a Windows "Not Responding" error and uh, if you're anything like me when this first happens, you're like wtf!

This gets alleviated by implementing threads in your program. The problem in the aforementioned scenario is that since your program is busy doing something else, it can't handle the main windows form. C#, in general, has great thread handling. There's three methods you can pretty much use:

1. You can use the Thread class, and handle the thread yourself. Nothing too complicated here just be sure to create an object/class that is capable of running independently and managing things itself. Threads (in general, not just here) can't cross-over onto another thread to pick up a variable, reference, or object. This will result in a security error. Supposedly you can't restart a thread after you've stopped in, so there's that to look out for as well, but honestly. I don't know what Microsoft is talking about or what I'm reading, because I used to do it all the time ("Mark, you're such a rebel!").
2. You can use the ThreadPool class if you're going to be handling a great number of threads. For example, if you have search queries coming in, and you want each of them running on its own thread to ensure that you can run as many queries for as many clients as possible, you'd assign each new query with a ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(). This can get a tad complicated, so if you want to learn more, read up on it here: How To Use A Thread Pool
3. You can use the BackgroundWorker, which is the most simplistic and basic to use.  It's similar to using a regular Thread, but instead, you setup a method OnDoWork which takes (object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) as its parameters. The thing here to focus on is the DoWorkEventArgs, since that takes in the argument e.Argument as well as setting the return result, e.Result. Call the BackgroundWorker RunWorkerAsynch method and it shoots over to OnDoWork, and does its task asynchronously.

Obviously we'll be focusing on BackgroundWorker, since it's capable of being subclassed. I know many of you don't need it, but again, for thoroughness:

In object-oriented programming, a subclass is a class that inherits some properties from its superclass.

Therefore you can implement BackgroundWorker right into the class that does the most resource intensive tasks. Why's this a huge deal to me? Because instead of littering my MainWindow class with all sorts of long complicated OnDoWork event handlers, I can just simply call in my resource-intensive class, and run it from there. First let's look at a normal approach of BackgroundWorker:

private void dataGridView_DragDrop(object sender, DragEventArgs e) //on a drag drop operation
{
     string[] files = (string[])e.Data.GetData(DataFormats.FileDrop);
     BackgroundWorker bw = new BackgroundWorker();
     bw.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(bw_OnDoWork);
     bw.RunWorkerAsync(files);
 }
private void bw_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
    string[] files = (string[])e.Argument; //Get files using e.Argument
    /*Perform your resource intensive task here or call something intensive*/
}

So all in all, we took in the files that the user dragged and dropped and made a new EventHandler that would handle DoWork. Not bad! There's nothing wrong with this approach.

But since I seem to be ranting about it, let's look at subclassing it in my program (since I'm a shameless self promoter):

TorrentBuilder class

class TorrentBuilder : BackgroundWorker
{
     public TorrentBuilder()
     {
 /*This means that the backgroundworker can report progress through the ProgressChangedEventHandler.
 Note that you must report the progress yourself, ie, calculate a number to show where it is*/
        WorkerReportsProgress = true;
        WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
     }
     protected override void OnDoWork(DoWorkEventArgs e)
     {
        e.Result = this.BuildFromArrayList((ArrayList)e.Argument);
     }
      .....
}

MainWindow class

TorrentBuilder tb = new TorrentBuilder();
 
private void dataGridView_DragDrop(object sender, DragEventArgs e)
{
   string[] files = (string[])e.Data.GetData(DataFormats.FileDrop);
   dataGridViewProgressBar.Visible = true;
   tb.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(tb_DragDropCompleted);
   tb.ProgressChanged += new ProgressChangedEventHandler(tb_DragDropProgress);
   tb.RunWorkerAsync(files);
 }
 
void tb_DragDropProgress(object sender, ProgressChangedEventArgs e)
{
   dataGridViewProgressBar.Value = e.ProgressPercentage;
}
 
void tb_DragDropCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
   data.AddTorrents((Torrent[])e.Result);
   dataGridViewProgressBar.Visible = false;
}

The big reason I went this route is because TorrentBuilder will practically always need to be running on a separate thread since it can get resource intensive. It doesn't make sense if the task isn't resource intensive and doesn't require a second thread. In this case, I think the maxim Keep it simple is appropriate.

Anyway, that's all I really have to say on this subject. If you want more information, just google BackgroundWorker, C# threads, threading in C#, main window froze in C# wtf, or whatever you can think of.

Honestly, who doesn't think today's MMORPGs are dull? Maybe they really are all crafted for 12 year olds, where simplicity is the key to profits, but come on! Something's gotta give! In today's MMORPG, you can:

• Pick a race/class
• Level up that class
• Do mundane quests to get special items
• Join up with a group and run into a dungeon a million times to get that super special item
• Bitch to each other about who gets that special item
• PVP with one another in an enclosed environment where nothing is really at stake except maybe you have to respawn or something
• Repeat

Not only does the game hold your hand to ensure nothing bad happens to you, it's nothing but a pursuit after a random drop that the game will continue to allure players in with. The PvP is laughable, and can we just do away with levels? What the hell is so great  about levels?

I'm sick of it, and call for a return to an Ultima Online like return. UO had skills that could be mastered by doing specific actions. So instead of just picking some cutout class like Blacksmith, you just went in and got to mining. And you totally sucked at it. And it took you forever to get a profit while you tightly pinched onto that precious 1000 gold you started out with. And the only persons willing to buy from you were the NPC (Non-player-character) vendors. It was an uphill climb between begging the rich to lend you a hand, and avoiding getting killed while you mined. In fact, it'd be better you make some connections first to ensure your safety up there. Or use 600 of that 1000 gold to buy a horse, so you can plan a quick escape if necessary. Maybe you had a real life friends who could look out for you. It could get a little stressful, no doubt. But you know what? That was what made Ultima Online one of the greatest experiences for those that were lucky enough to play it in its prime (that is, until EA bought it). I sat around hunting crappy monsters for crappy gold, talking to strangers, figuring out how the game even works, and loved every second of it.

This was a real MMORPG.  This was an MMORPG that has players shouting in Britannia Bank that they're selling X Item and/or giving portals to their shops to market their items. This was an MMORPG that allowed you to barter for the best price,  shop around different players' shops, and talk to your friends or guild members about what the best "Mall" was. This was an MMORPG where land is a precious commodity, and you can own your own home (or castle), and sell that same home. In essence, UO had the perfect free market. We all worked for what we had, and we all started out with near nothing. Nothing was guaranteed unless it was in your bank, and the only protection was the city guards (which was only activated by yelling "guards!"). Talk about a libertarian's fantasy.

Now we have games that keep your characters as safe as possible. They start out and are led through the entire process. They go on quests and are awarded with items and money. They rise in ranks. Maybe they pick up a rare item or two on their grinding, and sell it for some money. Maybe they buy that rare item with the money they earned. Soon they start getting into groups, and go after the big loot.

All I could say is "meh". It was fun in the beginning but now it's become such the norm in the industry that it's a total bore fest. There have been small changes to try to spice things up like Age of Conan's mouse style combat wherein you move the mouse to slash, instead of just auto attacking, but it's too little too late. I hear you make the argument that players in Ultima Online turned out exactly as warriors or mages or whatever the presets are in the new games -- but that's not exactly true. There were craftsmen who doubled as mages so they could teleport around. There were those who could wield a sword while also doing a few spells. The system was very customizable and to this day, I still see new innovations upon it (in the free private pre-EA UO servers).

Now, it's not that we need everyone playing Ultima Online again, but rather, we need to reevaluate the merits of this system so we can break out of the jail cell of levels, experience, quests, and system awarded loot. Instead let's start looking at an alternative system that provides players with more power:

• A set of skills that enables customization on the player's part. These skills can be leveled up slowly by doing the appropriate action.
• A system where the players run the barter&trade. Limit the number of crazy-special loot drops in order to keep the system simple & fair. PvP benefits greatly from this.
• A system that doesn't guarantee safety -- this non-guarantee of safety, after all, creates two of the best clashes one can be actively involved in: good VS evil.
• A system where you can buy your own houses, and set up vendors (shops), and sell these houses.

Until this happens, we just see more of the same old same old with games like Final Fantasy XIV by Square-Enix, who may just manage to create two major letdowns back to back in the span of two years. Star Wars: The Old Republic looks like a possible Planetside, but I'm not entirely sure as I don' t see any indication of how a class system levels up.

All in all, I miss my old game that EA came in and brutally murdered. Even the private servers that started out well intentioned corrupted it with all sorts of private server item crap to pay for their own funding. UO, alongside so many other classics, shows how great game-play ultimately trumps production values any day of the week. In general, I think the game industry needs to re-prioritize away from production values and into creativity. Until then, I'll see you in one of the many free private servers of UO.