> On 6-Aug-2007, Chuck yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>>>> As far as I'm concerned, this is really simple. Helen did not take
>>>> responsibility for the work in her lifetime as far as I can see. She
>>>> allowed it to be spread, and failed to take responsibility for this
>>>> action as well. I don't care what her excuses were. I don't expect to
>>>> get away with this kind of behavior. To expect me to allow someone
>>>> else to get away with this kind of behavior is inconsistent with my
>>>> expectations of myself and everyone else I deal with. If someone wants
>>>> to claim they channel someone I recognize (or not), fine. I expect
>>>> them to be responsible for what they do with what they channel. And
>>>> the test of that, for me, is being able to explain what the meaning is
>>>> and to be able to live by what they channel. If they can't do that,
>>>> it's preaching with another layer of excuse, as far as I'm concerned.
>>>> Cable is filled with preachers, and I don't pay much attention to them
>>>> either. Translated, apply ACIM to Helen's life and see how she failed
>>>> to live what she promulgated on the rest of humanity, by her own
>>>> admission.
>>>> By her example, our shared responsibility
>>>> to each other is erroded. I happen to value
>>>> that shared responsibility as a core value
>>>> in our life on spaceship earth.

>

>>> Regardless of Helen's example, or lack thereof,
>>> I think that the course, by reinforcing the truth
>>> that we ARE responsible for what we experience,
>>> has probably contributed to and expanded the
>>> web of shared responsibility on our planet,
>>> small and weak though it may be.

>

>>> n.

>> Your interpretation of the course is not the course.

>
> That's quite true, nor have I claimed
> otherwise. But how does this remark
> relate to the discussion at hand?
>
> n