Asp Forum - rcov & Ruby 1.8.5

John Carter

9/1/2006 5:17:00 AM

15 Answers

David Roberts

9/1/2006 9:27:00 PM

John Carter wrote:
> Is it my fevered imagination, or has Ruby-1.8.5 clobbered rcov-0.7.0,
> causing it to segfault.
>

I may not have exercised everything it can do, but for a contrary
data point I can say that rcov-0.7.0 does run OK on Windows
with ruby installed via OneClickInstaller 185-21 and rcov installed
as a gem. I have run it 'stand-alone' from the command line and
via rake using the Spec::Rake::SpecTask shipped with rSpec.

I guess it might be different on other platforms?

DJ

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Mauricio Fernández

9/4/2006 4:18:00 PM

On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:16:58PM +0900, John Carter wrote:
> Is it my fevered imagination, or has Ruby-1.8.5 clobbered rcov-0.7.0,
> causing it to segfault.

AFAIK it works with ruby 1.8.5 (I just ran it on Pimki's tests to make sure) [1].

> Here is a backtrace...

> #0 coverage_mark_caller () at rcovrt.c:81
[...]
>
> Looking in coverage_mark_caller () at rcovrt.c:81
> for (; frame && (n = frame->node); frame = frame->prev) {
> if (frame->prev && frame->prev->last_func) {
> if (frame->prev->node == n) continue;
> coverage_increase_counter_uncached(n->nd_file, nd_line(n)
> - 1, 1);
> }
> else {
> -line 81--> coverage_increase_counter_uncached(n->nd_file, nd_line(n)
> - 1, 1);
> }
> break;
> }
>
> if I print out n, it's value is (NODE *) 0x2

This code was mostly taken from eval.c's backtrace(). It was changed on
Jul 24, but the modification doesn't seem to imply that the above would
segfault under 1.8.5. At any rate, here's the patch to mirror the new
backtrace():

diff -rN -u old-head/ext/rcovrt/rcovrt.c new-head/ext/rcovrt/rcovrt.c
--- old-head/ext/rcovrt/rcovrt.c 2006-09-04 16:46:46.000000000 +0200
+++ new-head/ext/rcovrt/rcovrt.c 2006-09-04 16:46:46.000000000 +0200
@@ -74,7 +74,9 @@
}
for (; frame && (n = frame->node); frame = frame->prev) {
if (frame->prev && frame->prev->last_func) {
- if (frame->prev->node == n) continue;
+ if (frame->prev->node == n) {
+ if (frame->prev->last_func == frame->last_func) continue;
+ }
coverage_increase_counter_uncached(n->nd_file, nd_line(n) - 1, 1);
}
else {

I wouldn't expect that to prevent the segfault (which I cannot reproduce
anyway), but that's the only patch I can think of right now.

We're looking for either:
* a bug in coverage_mark_caller due to my misunderstanding of backtrace()'s
code in eval.c
* a genuine bug in Ruby (why would a frame->node == 2)
* something caused by a buggy extension (the usual suspect used to be syck,
but it's gotten better as of late ;-)

Is there any way to reproduce the segfault?

[1] 1.8.5 breaks rcov in pure-Ruby mode, but I don't think anybody is using
it anyway, since it's over 100 times slower... I'll try to fix that though.

--
Mauricio Fernandez - http://eige... - singular Ruby

expires

10/18/2009 5:21:00 PM

On Sat Oct 17 2009 13:26:30 GMT+0200
maz <maz@solcon.nl_> wrote:
> expires <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> wrote:
>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>> Reading the textbook, I came across the following
>>> passage, which gives an indication how one's mind is
>>> healed: by accepting one's brother as the Son of God.
>>> It touched me because of its clarity; that's why
>>> I want to share it:
>>>
>>> "1691. Do not, then, be deceived in your brother,
>>> and see only his loving thoughts as his reality, for
>>> by denying that his mind is split, YOU WILL HEAL
>>> YOURS. Accept him as his Father accepts him, and
>>> heal him unto Christ, for Christ is his healing AND
>>> YOURS. Christ is the Son of God Who is in no way
>>> separate from His Father, Whose EVERY thought is
>>> as loving as the Thought of His Father, by which He
>>> was created. Be not deceived in God's Son, for
>>> thereby you MUST be deceived in yourself. And being
>>> deceived in yourself you ARE deceived in your Father,
>>> in Whom no deceit is possible." (T-11.VIII.9:2-6)
>> "clarity"? Hmmm? The IMO very, most unclear part in
>> the above ACIM quote is "and heal him unto Christ".
>> That's not the only unclear part in the above quote,
>> but so what(?), IMHO ACIM is saturated with such
>> unclear statements. I've sometimes wondered how many
>> percent of AVIM's vast text would be left over, if one
>> removed everything that's repeated in it, be it in the
>> same of different words. IOW, how much of ACIM would be
>> left if it were radically reduced to what it says, 10%?
>> Not unlikely IMO, perhaps far less than 5%? Anyhow,
>> much can be said about ACIM, but IMO definitely not
>> that the author(s) did their best to be as clear as
>> they could have been. IOW, the author(s) *intended*
>> certain aspects of what ACIM says to be unclear. Why?
>> Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
>> of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
>> Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
>> you are capable of.
>> --expires
>
> " Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
> " of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
> " Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
> " you are capable of.
>
> Since Jesus is the author of this formulation, its maybe best to consult him
> personally with inquiries. He'd be happy to explain.
>
> My understanding is that it means something equivalent to "forgive him your
> illusions (those that have obscured the Christ) and accept him as the
> Wholeness which your illusions have denied both of you."
>
> best, mART

" Since Jesus is the author of this formulation,
" its maybe best to consult him personally with
" inquiries. He'd be happy to explain.

Well, if Jesus were really (still) alive/open/willing/able
to discuss anything with anyone anytime, then the Question
arises, why write ACIM at all in the first place?

" [...] "forgive him your illusions" [...]

Who, "him"? And why my illusions? Who do you think you've
responded to? Me as a human being? If it's the human being,
then according to ACIM I don't really exist, do I? Point
is, ACIM itself and 'the regulars' in this newsgroup very
frequently don't make clear who is talking from what 'level'
to which level: (A) The (according to ACIM) real/eternal,
*or* (B) The (according to ACIM) so called unreal/temporal,
not to forget, the physical (form?).

That kind of obfuscation isn't practiced without intent,
IMO. Although after a while it seems to become habitual,
from what I've observed. Anyhow, if it's a good idea to
advise me to ask Jesus directly (to communicate with him
without a physical medium/device), why then does no-one
answer my questions likewise, directly, without a physical
medium/device? Because no-one is listening to my meta-
physical 'voice', perhaps?

--expires

Pieter

10/18/2009 8:46:00 PM

"expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
news:hbc80o$l0d$1@svr7.m-online.net...
> On Sat Oct 17 2009 11:58:54 GMT+0200
> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> Reading the textbook, I came across the following
>> passage, which gives an indication how one's mind is
>> healed: by accepting one's brother as the Son of God.
>> It touched me because of its clarity; that's why
>> I want to share it:
>>
>> "1691. Do not, then, be deceived in your brother,
>> and see only his loving thoughts as his reality, for
>> by denying that his mind is split, YOU WILL HEAL
>> YOURS. Accept him as his Father accepts him, and
>> heal him unto Christ, for Christ is his healing AND
>> YOURS. Christ is the Son of God Who is in no way
>> separate from His Father, Whose EVERY thought is
>> as loving as the Thought of His Father, by which He
>> was created. Be not deceived in God's Son, for
>> thereby you MUST be deceived in yourself. And being
>> deceived in yourself you ARE deceived in your Father,
>> in Whom no deceit is possible." (T-11.VIII.9:2-6)
>
> "clarity"? Hmmm? The IMO very, most unclear part in
> the above ACIM quote is "and heal him unto Christ".
> That's not the only unclear part in the above quote,
> but so what(?), IMHO ACIM is saturated with such
> unclear statements. I've sometimes wondered how many
> percent of AVIM's vast text would be left over, if one
> removed everything that's repeated in it, be it in the
> same of different words. IOW, how much of ACIM would be
> left if it were radically reduced to what it says, 10%?
> Not unlikely IMO, perhaps far less than 5%? Anyhow,
> much can be said about ACIM, but IMO definitely not
> that the author(s) did their best to be as clear as
> they could have been. IOW, the author(s) *intended*
> certain aspects of what ACIM says to be unclear. Why?
> Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
> of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
> Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
> you are capable of.
> --expires

Imo the answer to what "heal him unto Christ"
does mean is given in the words following
immediately: "for Christ is his healing".
"Unto" imo can be read as "towards".
The cause that statements in a book come across
as unclear can be in the reader. It is not by
definition the book itself which then is unclear.
ACIM is meant to be read under the guidance
of the Holy Spirit (one's inner guidance).
My experience is that under this guidance
nothing remains unclear in it.

expires

10/19/2009 12:45:00 AM

On Sun Oct 18 2009 22:45:54 GMT+0200
Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> "expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
> news:hbc80o$l0d$1@svr7.m-online.net...
>> On Sat Oct 17 2009 11:58:54 GMT+0200
>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>> Reading the textbook, I came across the following
>>> passage, which gives an indication how one's mind is
>>> healed: by accepting one's brother as the Son of God.
>>> It touched me because of its clarity; that's why
>>> I want to share it:
>>>
>>> "1691. Do not, then, be deceived in your brother,
>>> and see only his loving thoughts as his reality, for
>>> by denying that his mind is split, YOU WILL HEAL
>>> YOURS. Accept him as his Father accepts him, and
>>> heal him unto Christ, for Christ is his healing AND
>>> YOURS. Christ is the Son of God Who is in no way
>>> separate from His Father, Whose EVERY thought is
>>> as loving as the Thought of His Father, by which He
>>> was created. Be not deceived in God's Son, for
>>> thereby you MUST be deceived in yourself. And being
>>> deceived in yourself you ARE deceived in your Father,
>>> in Whom no deceit is possible." (T-11.VIII.9:2-6)
>>
>> "clarity"? Hmmm? The IMO very, most unclear part in
>> the above ACIM quote is "and heal him unto Christ".
>> That's not the only unclear part in the above quote,
>> but so what(?), IMHO ACIM is saturated with such
>> unclear statements. I've sometimes wondered how many
>> percent of AVIM's vast text would be left over, if one
>> removed everything that's repeated in it, be it in the
>> same of different words. IOW, how much of ACIM would be
>> left if it were radically reduced to what it says, 10%?
>> Not unlikely IMO, perhaps far less than 5%? Anyhow,
>> much can be said about ACIM, but IMO definitely not
>> that the author(s) did their best to be as clear as
>> they could have been. IOW, the author(s) *intended*
>> certain aspects of what ACIM says to be unclear. Why?
>> Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
>> of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
>> Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
>> you are capable of.
>> --expires
>
> Imo the answer to what "heal him unto Christ"
> does mean is given in the words following
> immediately: "for Christ is his healing".
> "Unto" imo can be read as "towards".
> The cause that statements in a book come across
> as unclear can be in the reader. It is not by
> definition the book itself which then is unclear.
> ACIM is meant to be read under the guidance
> of the Holy Spirit (one's inner guidance).
> My experience is that under this guidance
> nothing remains unclear in it.

Exactly, Pieter. My "inner guidance" isn't saying
the same things, isn't responding the same way, as
your "inner guidance". And doesn't ACIM itself tell
you, that by telling me I'm wrong, you're healing
nothing, least of all yourself? After all, isn't
imagining/experiencing that something/someone in
need of healing is real, the fundamental symptom
of the fundamental sickness? Isn't needing and then
projecting/perceiving sickness as if it really exists
and is in need of healing, a very sick way of being
creative? Is your world healed, a *wholly* happy
dream? And if so, what am I doing in it? Are there
not people in hospitals/sickness in your world/dreams?
And if there are, why don't *you* stop creating and
projecting such sick dramas, instead of imagining you
are and/or should be teaching others to stop doing
that kind of sick stuff with their creative abilities?
Isn't believing that something still needs to be done
within the dream/illusion, before one awakes, a/the
perfect way to delay awaking? IOW, is it a good idea
to stay in a cinema until it only plays happy movies,
before one *really* leaves the cinema, or at least
until one stops believing that anything needs to be
done about what's going on in the movies and cinema?
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps nothing at
all is wrong, that nothing at all ever was imperfect?
--expires

mazzel

10/19/2009 8:52:00 AM

"expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
news:hbfiqb$2qb$1@svr7.m-online.net...
> On Sat Oct 17 2009 13:26:30 GMT+0200
> maz <maz@solcon.nl_> wrote:
>> expires <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> wrote:
>>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>> Reading the textbook, I came across the following
>>>> passage, which gives an indication how one's mind is
>>>> healed: by accepting one's brother as the Son of God.
>>>> It touched me because of its clarity; that's why
>>>> I want to share it:
>>>>
>>>> "1691. Do not, then, be deceived in your brother,
>>>> and see only his loving thoughts as his reality, for
>>>> by denying that his mind is split, YOU WILL HEAL
>>>> YOURS. Accept him as his Father accepts him, and
>>>> heal him unto Christ, for Christ is his healing AND
>>>> YOURS. Christ is the Son of God Who is in no way
>>>> separate from His Father, Whose EVERY thought is
>>>> as loving as the Thought of His Father, by which He
>>>> was created. Be not deceived in God's Son, for
>>>> thereby you MUST be deceived in yourself. And being
>>>> deceived in yourself you ARE deceived in your Father,
>>>> in Whom no deceit is possible." (T-11.VIII.9:2-6)
>>> "clarity"? Hmmm? The IMO very, most unclear part in
>>> the above ACIM quote is "and heal him unto Christ".
>>> That's not the only unclear part in the above quote,
>>> but so what(?), IMHO ACIM is saturated with such
>>> unclear statements. I've sometimes wondered how many
>>> percent of AVIM's vast text would be left over, if one
>>> removed everything that's repeated in it, be it in the
>>> same of different words. IOW, how much of ACIM would be
>>> left if it were radically reduced to what it says, 10%?
>>> Not unlikely IMO, perhaps far less than 5%? Anyhow,
>>> much can be said about ACIM, but IMO definitely not
>>> that the author(s) did their best to be as clear as
>>> they could have been. IOW, the author(s) *intended*
>>> certain aspects of what ACIM says to be unclear. Why?
>>> Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
>>> of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
>>> Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
>>> you are capable of.
>>> --expires
>>
>> " Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
>> " of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
>> " Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
>> " you are capable of.
>>
>> Since Jesus is the author of this formulation, its maybe best to consult
>> him personally with inquiries. He'd be happy to explain.
>>
>> My understanding is that it means something equivalent to "forgive him
>> your illusions (those that have obscured the Christ) and accept him as
>> the Wholeness which your illusions have denied both of you."
>>
>> best, mART
>
> " Since Jesus is the author of this formulation,
> " its maybe best to consult him personally with
> " inquiries. He'd be happy to explain.
>
> Well, if Jesus were really (still) alive/open/willing/able
> to discuss anything with anyone anytime, then the Question
> arises, why write ACIM at all in the first place?
>

Ask him.

> " [...] "forgive him your illusions" [...]
>
> Who, "him"? And why my illusions? Who do you think you've
> responded to? Me as a human being? If it's the human being,
> then according to ACIM I don't really exist, do I?

Level discernment would imo first consider what is meant by "really".

The Course affirms that we are individual eternal Souls, forming the Sonship
as a Whole, some of them embarking on a human experience to improve our
Records. The miracle is said to restore man to the celestial order, "where
man is perfect". Reality is defined as eternal while illusion refers to the
temporal order. However, we do exist "for and with each other in time", and
"co-exist with God in timelessness. "

> Point
> is, ACIM itself and 'the regulars' in this newsgroup very
> frequently don't make clear who is talking from what 'level'
> to which level: (A) The (according to ACIM) real/eternal,
> *or* (B) The (according to ACIM) so called unreal/temporal,
> not to forget, the physical (form?).

I agree that Level discernment is the key to solving many seeming paradoxes
in ACIM, and I also agree that much sloppy thinking can be avoided by
applying it.

> That kind of obfuscation isn't practiced without intent,
> IMO. Although after a while it seems to become habitual,
> from what I've observed. Anyhow, if it's a good idea to
> advise me to ask Jesus directly (to communicate with him
> without a physical medium/device), why then does no-one
> answer my questions likewise, directly, without a physical
> medium/device? Because no-one is listening to my meta-
> physical 'voice', perhaps?
>

I can't follow your assumptions, while you fist postulate a conclusion and
then ask why things are the way you assumed they are. Ananlyzing the motives
of others can be "hazardous". So I don't know why you seem to be out to find
fault with the material and its students. But thanks for the questions, they
might be serving someone at the right time, and at the right place. They
helped me. Thanks.

> --expires

expires

10/19/2009 6:19:00 PM

On Mon Oct 19 2009 10:51:31 GMT+0200
maz <maz@solcon.nl_> wrote:
> expires <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> wrote:
>> maz <maz@solcon.nl_> wrote:
>>> expires <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> wrote:
>>>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>> Reading the textbook, I came across the following
>>>>> passage, which gives an indication how one's mind is
>>>>> healed: by accepting one's brother as the Son of God.
>>>>> It touched me because of its clarity; that's why
>>>>> I want to share it:
>>>>>
>>>>> "1691. Do not, then, be deceived in your brother,
>>>>> and see only his loving thoughts as his reality, for
>>>>> by denying that his mind is split, YOU WILL HEAL
>>>>> YOURS. Accept him as his Father accepts him, and
>>>>> heal him unto Christ, for Christ is his healing AND
>>>>> YOURS. Christ is the Son of God Who is in no way
>>>>> separate from His Father, Whose EVERY thought is
>>>>> as loving as the Thought of His Father, by which He
>>>>> was created. Be not deceived in God's Son, for
>>>>> thereby you MUST be deceived in yourself. And being
>>>>> deceived in yourself you ARE deceived in your Father,
>>>>> in Whom no deceit is possible." (T-11.VIII.9:2-6)
>>>> "clarity"? Hmmm? The IMO very, most unclear part in
>>>> the above ACIM quote is "and heal him unto Christ".
>>>> That's not the only unclear part in the above quote,
>>>> but so what(?), IMHO ACIM is saturated with such
>>>> unclear statements. I've sometimes wondered how many
>>>> percent of AVIM's vast text would be left over, if one
>>>> removed everything that's repeated in it, be it in the
>>>> same of different words. IOW, how much of ACIM would be
>>>> left if it were radically reduced to what it says, 10%?
>>>> Not unlikely IMO, perhaps far less than 5%? Anyhow,
>>>> much can be said about ACIM, but IMO definitely not
>>>> that the author(s) did their best to be as clear as
>>>> they could have been. IOW, the author(s) *intended*
>>>> certain aspects of what ACIM says to be unclear. Why?
>>>> Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
>>>> of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
>>>> Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
>>>> you are capable of.
>>>> --expires
>>> " Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
>>> " of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
>>> " Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
>>> " you are capable of.
>>>
>>> Since Jesus is the author of this formulation, its maybe best to consult
>>> him personally with inquiries. He'd be happy to explain.
>>>
>>> My understanding is that it means something equivalent to "forgive him
>>> your illusions (those that have obscured the Christ) and accept him as
>>> the Wholeness which your illusions have denied both of you."
>>>
>>> best, mART
>> " Since Jesus is the author of this formulation,
>> " its maybe best to consult him personally with
>> " inquiries. He'd be happy to explain.
>>
>> Well, if Jesus were really (still) alive/open/willing/able
>> to discuss anything with anyone anytime, then the Question
>> arises, why write ACIM at all in the first place?
>>
>
> Ask him.
>
>
>> " [...] "forgive him your illusions" [...]
>>
>> Who, "him"? And why my illusions? Who do you think you've
>> responded to? Me as a human being? If it's the human being,
>> then according to ACIM I don't really exist, do I?
>
> Level discernment would imo first consider what is meant by "really".
>
> The Course affirms that we are individual eternal Souls, forming the Sonship
> as a Whole, some of them embarking on a human experience to improve our
> Records. The miracle is said to restore man to the celestial order, "where
> man is perfect". Reality is defined as eternal while illusion refers to the
> temporal order. However, we do exist "for and with each other in time", and
> "co-exist with God in timelessness. "
>
>> Point
>> is, ACIM itself and 'the regulars' in this newsgroup very
>> frequently don't make clear who is talking from what 'level'
>> to which level: (A) The (according to ACIM) real/eternal,
>> *or* (B) The (according to ACIM) so called unreal/temporal,
>> not to forget, the physical (form?).
>
> I agree that Level discernment is the key to solving many seeming paradoxes
> in ACIM, and I also agree that much sloppy thinking can be avoided by
> applying it.
>
>> That kind of obfuscation isn't practiced without intent,
>> IMO. Although after a while it seems to become habitual,
>> from what I've observed. Anyhow, if it's a good idea to
>> advise me to ask Jesus directly (to communicate with him
>> without a physical medium/device), why then does no-one
>> answer my questions likewise, directly, without a physical
>> medium/device? Because no-one is listening to my meta-
>> physical 'voice', perhaps?
>>
>
> I can't follow your assumptions, while you fist postulate a conclusion and
> then ask why things are the way you assumed they are. Analyzing the motives
> of others can be "hazardous". So I don't know why you seem to be out to find
> fault with the material and its students. But thanks for the questions, they
> might be serving someone at the right time, and at the right place. They
> helped me. Thanks.
>
>> --expires

Sure, ''Analyzing the motives of others can be "hazardous"''.
Not doing so ''can be [equally, if not more] "hazardous"''.

''So I don't know why you seem to be out to find
fault with the material and its students.''

I didn't invest a lot of time, energy and hope ''to find
fault'', quite to the contrary. Fact is, I would very much
have preferred if I hadn't found so much of what looks more
or less faulty to me. ACIM is complex, (this) life is complex.
Anyhow, amongst countless details, one made me doubt more
than any other:

" ACIM (FIP 14.XI)
" "The Test of Truth": Does God/ACIM fail that test?
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.course-miracle/msg/493252...

...msg/493252a9cf4b2473

" if all those who meet or even think of you share in
" your perfect peace, then you can be sure that you
" have learned God's lesson, and not your own

Can/has anyone ever pass(ed) that test? Does *everyone*
share Jesus's "perfect peace" when they think of him?
Is the above "or even think of you" part of that test
perhaps just totally crazy/impossible? And if so, how
does one trust an author that comes up with that test?
And another weird detail -> are God and Jesus, for
example, always aware of every thought that anyone has
about them -- without exception? Hardly, as (according
to ACIM) God isn't even aware of the content of our
thoughts/dreams/physicality. Sorry, but without resolving
this "ACIM's Test of Truth" thing, I no longer see reason
to still keep trying to trust ACIM's author.

--expires

mr bill

10/20/2009 1:15:00 AM

On Oct 17, 5:58 am, expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de>
wrote:
> On Sat Oct 17 2009 11:58:54 GMT+0200
>
>
>
>
>
> Pieter <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> > Reading the textbook, I came across the following
> > passage, which gives an indication how one's mind is
> > healed: by accepting one's brother as the Son of God.
> > It touched me because of its clarity; that's why
> > I want to share it:
>
> > "1691. Do not, then, be deceived in your brother,
> > and see only his loving thoughts as his reality, for
> > by denying that his mind is split, YOU WILL HEAL
> > YOURS. Accept him as his Father accepts him, and
> > heal him unto Christ, for Christ is his healing AND
> > YOURS. Christ is the Son of God Who is in no way
> > separate from His Father, Whose EVERY thought is
> > as loving as the Thought of His Father, by which He
> > was created. Be not deceived in God's Son, for
> > thereby you MUST be deceived in yourself. And being
> > deceived in yourself you ARE deceived in your Father,
> > in Whom no deceit is possible." (T-11.VIII.9:2-6)
>
> "clarity"? Hmmm? The IMO very, most unclear part in
> the above ACIM quote is "and heal him unto Christ".
> That's not the only unclear part in the above quote,
> but so what(?), IMHO ACIM is saturated with such
> unclear statements. I've sometimes wondered how many
> percent of AVIM's vast text would be left over, if one
> removed everything that's repeated in it, be it in the
> same of different words. IOW, how much of ACIM would be
> left if it were radically reduced to what it says, 10%?
> Not unlikely IMO, perhaps far less than 5%? Anyhow,
> much can be said about ACIM, but IMO definitely not
> that the author(s) did their best to be as clear as
> they could have been. IOW, the author(s) *intended*
> certain aspects of what ACIM says to be unclear. Why?
> Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
> of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
> Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
> you are capable of.
> --expires

that has already been done

nothing real can be threatened
nothing unreal exists
herein lies the peace of god

whatever the fuck that is
:)

mazzel

10/20/2009 11:45:00 AM

"expires" <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> schreef in bericht
news:hbiaid$52o$1@svr7.m-online.net...
> On Mon Oct 19 2009 10:51:31 GMT+0200
> maz <maz@solcon.nl_> wrote:
>> expires <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> wrote:
>>> maz <maz@solcon.nl_> wrote:
>>>> expires <expires.2009sep31.v8i@maxi-bayern.de> wrote:
>>>>> Pieter <hrdouwes@zonnet.nl> wrote:
>>>>>> Reading the textbook, I came across the following
>>>>>> passage, which gives an indication how one's mind is
>>>>>> healed: by accepting one's brother as the Son of God.
>>>>>> It touched me because of its clarity; that's why
>>>>>> I want to share it:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "1691. Do not, then, be deceived in your brother,
>>>>>> and see only his loving thoughts as his reality, for
>>>>>> by denying that his mind is split, YOU WILL HEAL
>>>>>> YOURS. Accept him as his Father accepts him, and
>>>>>> heal him unto Christ, for Christ is his healing AND
>>>>>> YOURS. Christ is the Son of God Who is in no way
>>>>>> separate from His Father, Whose EVERY thought is
>>>>>> as loving as the Thought of His Father, by which He
>>>>>> was created. Be not deceived in God's Son, for
>>>>>> thereby you MUST be deceived in yourself. And being
>>>>>> deceived in yourself you ARE deceived in your Father,
>>>>>> in Whom no deceit is possible." (T-11.VIII.9:2-6)
>>>>> "clarity"? Hmmm? The IMO very, most unclear part in
>>>>> the above ACIM quote is "and heal him unto Christ".
>>>>> That's not the only unclear part in the above quote,
>>>>> but so what(?), IMHO ACIM is saturated with such
>>>>> unclear statements. I've sometimes wondered how many
>>>>> percent of AVIM's vast text would be left over, if one
>>>>> removed everything that's repeated in it, be it in the
>>>>> same of different words. IOW, how much of ACIM would be
>>>>> left if it were radically reduced to what it says, 10%?
>>>>> Not unlikely IMO, perhaps far less than 5%? Anyhow,
>>>>> much can be said about ACIM, but IMO definitely not
>>>>> that the author(s) did their best to be as clear as
>>>>> they could have been. IOW, the author(s) *intended*
>>>>> certain aspects of what ACIM says to be unclear. Why?
>>>>> Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
>>>>> of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
>>>>> Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
>>>>> you are capable of.
>>>>> --expires
>>>> " Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
>>>> " of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
>>>> " Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
>>>> " you are capable of.
>>>>
>>>> Since Jesus is the author of this formulation, its maybe best to
>>>> consult him personally with inquiries. He'd be happy to explain.
>>>>
>>>> My understanding is that it means something equivalent to "forgive him
>>>> your illusions (those that have obscured the Christ) and accept him as
>>>> the Wholeness which your illusions have denied both of you."
>>>>
>>>> best, mART
>>> " Since Jesus is the author of this formulation,
>>> " its maybe best to consult him personally with
>>> " inquiries. He'd be happy to explain.
>>>
>>> Well, if Jesus were really (still) alive/open/willing/able
>>> to discuss anything with anyone anytime, then the Question
>>> arises, why write ACIM at all in the first place?
>>>
>>
>> Ask him.
>>
>>
>>> " [...] "forgive him your illusions" [...]
>>>
>>> Who, "him"? And why my illusions? Who do you think you've
>>> responded to? Me as a human being? If it's the human being,
>>> then according to ACIM I don't really exist, do I?
>>
>> Level discernment would imo first consider what is meant by "really".
>>
>> The Course affirms that we are individual eternal Souls, forming the
>> Sonship as a Whole, some of them embarking on a human experience to
>> improve our Records. The miracle is said to restore man to the celestial
>> order, "where man is perfect". Reality is defined as eternal while
>> illusion refers to the temporal order. However, we do exist "for and with
>> each other in time", and "co-exist with God in timelessness. "
>>
>>> Point
>>> is, ACIM itself and 'the regulars' in this newsgroup very
>>> frequently don't make clear who is talking from what 'level'
>>> to which level: (A) The (according to ACIM) real/eternal,
>>> *or* (B) The (according to ACIM) so called unreal/temporal,
>>> not to forget, the physical (form?).
>>
>> I agree that Level discernment is the key to solving many seeming
>> paradoxes in ACIM, and I also agree that much sloppy thinking can be
>> avoided by applying it.
>>
>>> That kind of obfuscation isn't practiced without intent,
>>> IMO. Although after a while it seems to become habitual,
>>> from what I've observed. Anyhow, if it's a good idea to
>>> advise me to ask Jesus directly (to communicate with him
>>> without a physical medium/device), why then does no-one
>>> answer my questions likewise, directly, without a physical
>>> medium/device? Because no-one is listening to my meta-
>>> physical 'voice', perhaps?
>>>
>>
>> I can't follow your assumptions, while you fist postulate a conclusion
>> and then ask why things are the way you assumed they are. Analyzing the
>> motives of others can be "hazardous". So I don't know why you seem to be
>> out to find fault with the material and its students. But thanks for the
>> questions, they might be serving someone at the right time, and at the
>> right place. They helped me. Thanks.
>>
>>> --expires
>
> Sure, ''Analyzing the motives of others can be "hazardous"''.
> Not doing so ''can be [equally, if not more] "hazardous"''.

Nothing can beat this one, my friend. So true!

> ''So I don't know why you seem to be out to find
> fault with the material and its students.''
>
> I didn't invest a lot of time, energy and hope ''to find
> fault'', quite to the contrary. Fact is, I would very much
> have preferred if I hadn't found so much of what looks more
> or less faulty to me. ACIM is complex, (this) life is complex.

Yes, you are right. That's one particular and existing way of seeing it, and
I fully hear you. I know the place from which it looks v e r r r y complex,
yes.

But is it really? I experienced a shift towards unambigious simplicity and
ease. I just wished I could sustain it 24/7. My radical Ideal would be:

Life=God=Love,
ACIM=WordOfGod=WordofLife=WordOfLove

The work of God is wholly lovable and wholly loving, and we ARE the work of
God. That's essentially it so far.

> Anyhow, amongst countless details, one made me doubt more
> than any other:
>
> " ACIM (FIP 14.XI)
> " "The Test of Truth": Does God/ACIM fail that test?
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.course-miracle/msg/493252...
> ...msg/493252a9cf4b2473
>
> " if all those who meet or even think of you share in
> " your perfect peace, then you can be sure that you
> " have learned God's lesson, and not your own
>
> Can/has anyone ever pass(ed) that test?

Suggestion. Let us just for the purpose of this exchange, assume, even if
half-hearted, that ACIM is lighthearted, simple, easy and clear. It will not
escape us that seen from this angle; Jesus is quite humorous and often a bit
string-pulling to make himself a bit more clear time after time.

Whenever I feel strong resistance to a particular train of thought, i apply
what i have learned so far. Not unlike the gift of ommissions in derivative
'versions' of ACIM.... what has been ommitted gets the present chance to
gain special attention by showing up. Hopla! Same with flaws in our
recitations/audio renderings from the lessons. Whenever a listener sends an
error report, I notice that the lesson itself and as a whole could need a
thorough review. Thanks, Teacher!

IMO, its just all a gift seen from that viewpoint. A passage makes no sense
and seems in conflict with another? What can I do? level discernment,
meditation, prayer, surrender and trust. Trust that I will get it exactly at
the moment that I need to get it. As Katie used to say: no breath sooner and
no breath later. Perfect! A little willingness, and effort, sometimes great
effort all together, like years and years of meditation and prayer, thinking
that i know what it is i need to know. until what Is emerges from the point
of surrender and not needing to know what it is i need to know.

So, "test of peace"! Now, this gets my attention. Hey, there's something
like a measure stick. Wait a minute, this is a course I am learning from my
Teacher. No midterm marks, but eventually graduation, yes. And encouragement
to bring the end into the now already, to have already that which is
aspired, to own what is already there in truth. Hm, lets see. Just curious.
How far will I come doing the test?

Well, I can become still and share the Love with every living being. Even
the thugs that tried to steal my art project and plotted to smear my name.
Even the idiot next door who climbed into our trees and butchers them half
to death. Even the cop who follows me to stop and punish me for speeding
4km/h above the limit.

Maybe by doing this the Peace in me is also flowing in them, as minds are
joined. Maybe if I try the test over and over, a little more Peace flows in
by sharing it without demanding that they send it back. It helps me regain
Peace, so why not do it. Maybe through sharing it with them without
conditions feels attractive to all minds, since no one loses and only gain
is possible.

[weeks later] Wow, the next policeman reacts so friendly. I tell him that
I'm broke, he says, ok, this time just a warning, forget the fine for now.
The neighbor helps to heal the tree by letting me use his latter so I can
reach the wounds to heal the tree. The former opponents signalize they
realized were in error and rectify their statements, shaking hands. It is as
if a miracle attracts the next, and Peace flows freely, once I started to
practice for the final test, instead of jusding the final test utopia and
bullshit.

Well, knowing darn well how often I tripped and stumbled, one thing did I
learn. There's no fall so deep that Peace will not provide the cushion to
land on like a feather. If I can learn that, every other mind can. If Jesus
has learned it and passed the test, he's in the best position to train us
and prepare us for the same.

Easy, simple. Truly complex were my excuses and doubts, and defenses against
the simple Truth. Hell, I don't even know how to explain the parody of life
that I invented to diminish peace and make the world and its True Maker
suffer for the mean complexity of it, not even able to provide a simple
Course!

Gee, i'd rather try Peace and practice. Feels as if that is the proper thing
to do, because it works and its not rocketscience. Or is it?

Peace, maz.

> Does *everyone*
> share Jesus's "perfect peace" when they think of him?
> Is the above "or even think of you" part of that test
> perhaps just totally crazy/impossible? And if so, how
> does one trust an author that comes up with that test?
> And another weird detail -> are God and Jesus, for
> example, always aware of every thought that anyone has
> about them -- without exception? Hardly, as (according
> to ACIM) God isn't even aware of the content of our
> thoughts/dreams/physicality. Sorry, but without resolving
> this "ACIM's Test of Truth" thing, I no longer see reason
> to still keep trying to trust ACIM's author.
>
> --expires

Dana.Moen

10/20/2009 2:21:00 PM

On Oct 19, 1:18 pm, expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de>
wrote:
> On Mon Oct 19 2009 10:51:31 GMT+0200
>
>
>
>
>
> maz <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
> > expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de> wrote:
> >> maz <m...@solcon.nl_> wrote:
> >>> expires <expires.2009sep31....@maxi-bayern.de> wrote:
> >>>> Pieter <hrdou...@zonnet.nl> wrote:
> >>>>> Reading the textbook, I came across the following
> >>>>> passage, which gives an indication how one's mind is
> >>>>> healed: by accepting one's brother as the Son of God.
> >>>>> It touched me because of its clarity; that's why
> >>>>> I want to share it:
>
> >>>>> "1691. Do not, then, be deceived in your brother,
> >>>>> and see only his loving thoughts as his reality, for
> >>>>> by denying that his mind is split, YOU WILL HEAL
> >>>>> YOURS. Accept him as his Father accepts him, and
> >>>>> heal him unto Christ, for Christ is his healing AND
> >>>>> YOURS. Christ is the Son of God Who is in no way
> >>>>> separate from His Father, Whose EVERY thought is
> >>>>> as loving as the Thought of His Father, by which He
> >>>>> was created. Be not deceived in God's Son, for
> >>>>> thereby you MUST be deceived in yourself. And being
> >>>>> deceived in yourself you ARE deceived in your Father,
> >>>>> in Whom no deceit is possible." (T-11.VIII.9:2-6)
> >>>> "clarity"? Hmmm? The IMO very, most unclear part in
> >>>> the above ACIM quote is "and heal him unto Christ".
> >>>> That's not the only unclear part in the above quote,
> >>>> but so what(?), IMHO ACIM is saturated with such
> >>>> unclear statements. I've sometimes wondered how many
> >>>> percent of AVIM's vast text would be left over, if one
> >>>> removed everything that's repeated in it, be it in the
> >>>> same of different words. IOW, how much of ACIM would be
> >>>> left if it were radically reduced to what it says, 10%?
> >>>> Not unlikely IMO, perhaps far less than 5%? Anyhow,
> >>>> much can be said about ACIM, but IMO definitely not
> >>>> that the author(s) did their best to be as clear as
> >>>> they could have been. IOW, the author(s) *intended*
> >>>> certain aspects of what ACIM says to be unclear. Why?
> >>>> Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
> >>>> of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
> >>>> Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
> >>>> you are capable of.
> >>>> --expires
> >>> " Please don't forget, if you respond to this posting
> >>> " of mine, to try to explain what "and heal him unto
> >>> " Christ" is supposed to mean, ideally as explicit as
> >>> " you are capable of.
>
> >>> Since Jesus is the author of this formulation, its maybe best to consult
> >>> him personally with inquiries. He'd be happy to explain.
>
> >>> My understanding is that it means something equivalent to "forgive him
> >>> your illusions (those that have obscured the Christ) and accept him as
> >>> the Wholeness which your illusions have denied both of you."
>
> >>> best, mART
> >> " Since Jesus is the author of this formulation,
> >> " its maybe best to consult him personally with
> >> " inquiries. He'd be happy to explain.
>
> >> Well, if Jesus were really (still) alive/open/willing/able
> >> to discuss anything with anyone anytime, then the Question
> >> arises, why write ACIM at all in the first place?
>
> > Ask him.
>
> >> " [...] "forgive him your illusions" [...]
>
> >> Who, "him"? And why my illusions? Who do you think you've
> >> responded to? Me as a human being? If it's the human being,
> >> then according to ACIM I don't really exist, do I?
>
> > Level discernment would imo first consider what is meant by "really".
>
> > The Course affirms that we are individual eternal Souls, forming the Sonship
> > as a Whole, some of them embarking on a human experience to improve our
> > Records. The miracle is said to restore man to the celestial order, "where
> > man is perfect". Reality is defined as eternal while illusion refers to the
> > temporal order. However, we do exist "for and with each other in time", and
> > "co-exist with God in timelessness. "
>
> >> Point
> >> is, ACIM itself and 'the regulars' in this newsgroup very
> >> frequently don't make clear who is talking from what 'level'
> >> to which level: (A) The (according to ACIM) real/eternal,
> >> *or* (B) The (according to ACIM) so called unreal/temporal,
> >> not to forget, the physical (form?).
>
> > I agree that Level discernment is the key to solving many seeming paradoxes
> > in ACIM, and I also agree that much sloppy thinking can be avoided by
> > applying it.
>
> >> That kind of obfuscation isn't practiced without intent,
> >> IMO. Although after a while it seems to become habitual,
> >> from what I've observed. Anyhow, if it's a good idea to
> >> advise me to ask Jesus directly (to communicate with him
> >> without a physical medium/device), why then does no-one
> >> answer my questions likewise, directly, without a physical
> >> medium/device? Because no-one is listening to my meta-
> >> physical 'voice', perhaps?
>
> > I can't follow your assumptions, while you fist postulate a conclusion and
> > then ask why things are the way you assumed they are. Analyzing the motives
> > of others can be "hazardous". So I don't know why you seem to be out to find
> > fault with the material and its students. But thanks for the questions, they
> > might be serving someone at the right time, and at the right place. They
> > helped me. Thanks.
>
> >> --expires
>
> Sure, ''Analyzing the motives of others can be "hazardous"''.
> Not doing so ''can be [equally, if not more] "hazardous"''.
>
> ''So I don't know why you seem to be out to find
> fault with the material and its students.''
>
> I didn't invest a lot of time, energy and hope ''to find
> fault'', quite to the contrary. Fact is, I would very much
> have preferred if I hadn't found so much of what looks more
> or less faulty to me. ACIM is complex, (this) life is complex.
> Anyhow, amongst countless details, one made me doubt more
> than any other:
>
> " ACIM (FIP 14.XI)
> " "The Test of Truth": Does God/ACIM fail that test?http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.course-miracle......
>
> ...msg/493252a9cf4b2473
>
> " if all those who meet or even think of you share in
> " your perfect peace, then you can be sure that you
> " have learned God's lesson, and not your own
>
> Can/has anyone ever pass(ed) that test? Does *everyone*
> share Jesus's "perfect peace" when they think of him?
> Is the above "or even think of you" part of that test
> perhaps just totally crazy/impossible? And if so, how
> does one trust an author that comes up with that test?
> And another weird detail -> are God and Jesus, for
> example, always aware of every thought that anyone has
> about them -- without exception? Hardly, as (according
> to ACIM) God isn't even aware of the content of our
> thoughts/dreams/physicality. Sorry, but without resolving
> this "ACIM's Test of Truth" thing, I no longer see reason
> to still keep trying to trust ACIM's author.
>
> --expires- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi again. It would seem I stirred up a bit of a 'hornet's nest' in
your thoughts about ACIM with that quote and this seemed a good place
to talk a little more about it. And first, I'm no expert, I'm just
giving my opinion..... so take it for what it's worth.
:-)

Okay, so you know those times you're at "almost perfect peace".....?
Those times when everything seems right with the world? Well sure
there may be people who aren't feeling peaceful when they think of
you...... but at those moments, are you really aware of that? In those
moments, don't you pretty much see everyone and everything you think
of .... don't you kind of 'bring them along' with you so to speak, to
the peaceful place you're in? In that moment, your thoughts of them
thinking of you would be thinking they are thinking of you in peace.
( Damn, sometimes words get so in the way of what I'm trying to say!!
So much "thinking" going on when it really isn't thinking going on at
all!! )

And as a side question...... have you ever read the book A Course in
Marigolds? I loved it and thought it was one of the better takes on
ACIM. I also really liked a book by Richard Bach, called Running from
Safety. To me it helped explain, in a way I could understand, how a
loving creator could be 'unaware' of anything about it's creations.

Expires, I for one don't see that one has to study, study, study, the
course books. If you feel a pull to set them down, why not do so?
They're not going anywhere and how I see it is you can pick them up
again if ever you want to....... you can't lose this ....that you are.
Your questions and even doubts have a reason for you. They will lead
you and everyone you're meant to touch... to where you 'need' to go.
And thanks again for giving me an opportunity to awkwardly state my
point of view. :-)

comp.lang.ruby

rcov & Ruby 1.8.5

John Carter

David Roberts

Mauricio Fernández

expires

Pieter

expires

mazzel

expires

mr bill

mazzel

Dana.Moen

x Login to ForumsZone