Hi,

To find out, please follow the link given below -

Like many I vacillate between the "God" or "No God" thoughts.

If there is a supreme god then that god, for me, has to be a caring
and loving being. Otherwise I would not to be prepared to follow that
path.
So if I believed in that god, my task would be to be a kind,
considerate and a loving person.

Alternatively if there is no god, then for the good of humanity I
still need to be a kind, thoughtful, considerate and a loving person.

Hence whether or not there is or is not god, it makes no difference to
my task which is to be understanding, considerate, compassionate and
loving throughout my life.

"The expression of anger, in the attempt to punish others for their
sins and defend oneself from their atack. It's true result is guilt
and fear of retaliation. It is the fundamental expression of the ego.
It blots out the awarenss of Heaven and is the cause of all our
experiences of BEING attacked. Exists first on thought level, from
which it may also be expresed physically. Attack is one of the primary
purposed the ego sees in the body (since only bodies can actually
attack) a purpose which is the souce of physical sickness. Attack,
however is not real. Minds cannot attack each other, for they are
joined. And minds cannot be attacked, for they cannot be truly
injured. Thus, since it is unreal, attack is never a sin. It is mainly
a call for love."

Minds can't attack but attack exists first on thought level?
Attack is unreal, but attack can be expressed physically?

This paragraph, overall, seems kind of confusing.

But, the overall idea is no one can attack or be attacked in words
typed on the internet, on one's computer monitor.

Something like that?

-----
Right on, Jean! Who hasn't had this experience. I will save this piece.

Love,
wrote:
OK -- I was a bit wary about posting this.....but I sent it to a few
'friends' for input and haven't heard from them....it is the weekend,
I understand that.....but was hoping someone would appreciate it
(other than my dear teacher/facilitator - who may be biased a bit
about me!) So will share it here......I thought it was pretty funny
and also contained 'truth in jest.

Who's on First or 'It is not your function to correct your brother'
(why studing ACIM can be such a challenge!)

Teacher: Costello, I think you were mistaken when you corrected that
fellow.

Student: Why, what makes you say that?

Teacher: Well, it is not our function to correct our brothers.

S: Oh, well, what is our function then?

T: To look at our brothers and see the Peace of God.

S: But what if the brother isn't being peaceful?