My most delightful teachers Jack and Eulalia Luckett
taught us to change any words that might be a stumbling
block.

This was based on Bill Thetford's example. When two
course brothers were arguing over the meaing of a particular passage and asked him for his opinion-- who was right.
He said: "Tear the page out. It's not worth the separation
of the Christ."

Jack and Layle told us a story: One student was an Atheist,
so naturally had a problem with the God talk. This guy was also a rather emotionally shut down macho sort. Jack asked:
What do you really like? He said: Well I kinda like Zucchini.
Jack said: From now on, every time you see Father, God, Christ you read 'the great zucchini'.

They also taught us to change "Sinlessness" to
"Innocence" ... etc.

I don't take it personally.
I was one of those people who took offence, to start, changed the language, was super conscious about it... but then something happened, then at some point realised I was attaching myself too much to the words and my definition of those words. Shifting the language was taking me out of flow and mindfull prayer, instead I was in my head and not experiencing.
We all have our insights to shed light upon, this is where my travels lead me. one of my philosophies is take what you need and leave the rest, but do try it. I haven't necessarily tried to "sell" anyone the course though
blessed be
aurora

New to The Course, but to comment a little on language...I agree with everyone on this thread...the approach for myself took some time, for I was against anything Christianity for a long time. Blindly diving into other, alternative & eastern religions.

But I came to realize the similiarities among all religions and concluded that it really doesn't matter what you call God (speaking of the Highest of Highs in our own consciousness), or what you call enlightened ones such as Jesus, Buddha etc...The fact is God exist, whether you think it's a he/she, has eight limbs, 2 heads, black, white, green, yellow, an alkaline battery or just IS....depending on culture and/or callings you may call God what you will...

These enlightened beings realized that and did teach that, in their own cultural, cryptic way. However over the thousands of years their teachings have been diluted by the powers that be and their own names corrupted with what they taught. Therefore there is this stigma attached to such words as Jesus, Sin, God, etc....

Jesus was a man that lived 2000 years ago and realized his Christ Consciousness (now that is a word we use in place of enlightenment or anyother term you may want to use) and tried to teach this to his followers. Jesus died in the flesh and went on to the other realms where we will soon one day go. Christ Consciousness exist among us all, inside of us all.. Don't like Christ Consciousness or even Enlightenment, hell make up your own word....maybe Poodle Dip....maybe I'll have to work on that one a little though...

I like the idea of if you don't like it, change it....whatever make you feel all tingly inside, use it...

much love
Sij

I also had a lot of problems with the male-oriented language once I got into the workbook. I didn't bother me in the theory section; I would just add "or she" as I read, for example. But once I got into the workbook and was supposed to repeat every 15 minutes something like "I am a holy Son of God" well I just couldn't relate. I didn't even want to change it to "I am a holy Daughter of God" cause that would be even more tying myself to a gender and the point is, I'm genderless because the separation never happened and this body isn't real. The real problem I couldn't get past was what I imagined of the viewpoint of whoever was sharing the information with Helen when she channeled the course (the source of the course). Why couldn't they just write "I am a holy child of God" to express the idea? There are many opportunities to be truly gender free in the writing, not just saying to the women "well you know its gender free and Son means child." If it means child, write child.

So this callous disregard for the viewpoint of women is what I couldn't get past and I eventually stopped doing the workbook. The lessons became more struggles than trainings, as I kept coming upon cognitive dissonances whenever I came across something that made me male. Again, I don't have to identify female, and am happiest with gender neutral language. But son, and he, and him, and so on are not gender neutral to me.

A friend of mine tells me that I have to learn to forgive myself for having this reaction. I guess I'm nowhere near that yet since all I can see is the desire to forgive the writers of the course for creating the conflict in the first place by expecting all women to do internal gymnastics to be able to benefit from the course, while men can just read it naturally. Why is it we are always the ones who are supposed to let things go and be flexible? How can this be a new liberating philosophy if it presents the same old assumptions that women should be the sacrificing ones, as what, the nobler more mature half of the species? I don't think so.

I would have normally had a hard time with both the masculine aspects of it and the old terms such as God and Holy Spirit etc. Then I read "The Disappearance of the Universe" and something about that book allowed me to let go of those hang ups. It was quite interesting. -- L

"Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours" - Illusions by Richard Bach

I just stated the course with some friends. I don't have much of a problem these days, but I was reading other simialr books and decided that I would have to change my terminology, just to finish reading. But then I realized that they are just words...!! So now I resonate with the message and pay less attention to how they are saying it.

I tried to read, "disapperance of the universe" but it was so slow moving that I put it down. There are other books out there that I resonate with. Gary Renard lives here in Maine and is going to be speaking in Sept so I thought maybe I would go and listen to what he has to say.

Thanks
Sherri