Talk:A Course in Miracles#Request for comment suggestion

This article gives some background and a very basic explanation of what it is, but it lacks even a fundamental description of its content. 166.182.250.207 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

What if the reason the article only gives the most basic outline of the Course is because no one really knows what it is talking about? For what if there is no reason or light in this darkness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.189 (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ACIM3COVER.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ACIM3COVER.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Matthew Remski passes WP:N. If you think he doesn't, this is not the place to argue that, instead you should submit his article for deletion. Do I like yoga? No, but it's a free country. People don't have to ask for my permission in order to practice yoga. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

:What if, seeming to tell the truth, ACiM is a book of lies?

:What if, appearing to heal, the book contains many harmful ideas?

:What if, having promised to show the/a way - the Course sets out to mislead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.153.122 (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

::Wikipedia isn't about WP:THETRUTH, but about WP:Verifiable information form reliable sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

it is misleading to claim that this teaching " borrows from New Age ideas "

There is no evidence of this at all.

It is highly original in content.

Of course those indoctrinated with familiar Christian dogma, are going to dismiss it, on entirely spurious grounds 80.189.60.71 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

:The statement is sourced. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

:I have watched this subject butchered many times over many years, this rendition is by far the worst.

:‘A Course In Miracles’ is a modern day manual for the transformation of Mind, as given by Jesus. 2001:8003:321A:7001:1CE2:EBD3:D857:1D5 (talk) 12:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

::First, I'm not a Christian, so I have no reason to defend Christian dogmas. Similarly, there are religion scholars who ascribe ACIM to the New Age, but do not write in order to defend Christian dogmas.

::Second, see emic and etic. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

::{{re|MoreTimeThanBrains}} The Library of Congress is not a scholar. LoC is not a full professor, therefore LoC is not WP:RS, except for its own subjective opinions. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also, facim.org is not WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|MoreTimeThanBrains}} Wapnick is not WP:RS. E.g. we don't WP:CITE Friedrich Engels as WP:IS about Karl Marx. Wapnick has a story to sell. Wapnick is not a disinterested (i.e. unbiased) scholar of religion, he is an involved party. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you George, I've witnessed what I came here to witness....All the best MoreTimeThanBrains (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, Wikipedia is heavily biased for the mainstream academic view, for the views of real scholars of religion vs. New Age gurus. When there is no evidence of the mainstream academic view, we consult debunkers of pseudoscience and heresiologists. Of course, without implying that a certain theology would be WP:THETRUTH.

::::In other words, Wikipedia is a venue for rendering scholarly views, rather than a venue for witnessing in favor of new religious movements. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks again George! The course is one path of many, nothing to fear. Big HUG brother. MoreTimeThanBrains (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The Wikipedia Community sees Wikipedia as a venue for citing WP:RS, not for ventilating our own opinions. These are the WP:RULES of the game. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)