Ask: Can you explain your use of the word "perfect" regarding the Atonement?

          “Liz, you use the word ‘perfect’ often. In the past it has had one definition that is generally understood, but as used with the course it has become flexible depending on the situation in which it is used. If Jesus had a grave, he would be turning over in it. For instance, Jesus appreciated Edgar Cayce’s work but was always quick to point out his errors. Good work but not perfect. Your use of the word seems to have a different purpose. As a believer in predestination as part of the course you seem to use the word to bolster an interpretation or opinion. In this definition perfect and not perfect are allowed at the same time. This is getting uncomfortably close to reincarnation, not in form but intent.  There is an interpretation of the Course as I understand it, that takes away the need for this juggling. In any case would you explain your use of “perfect” and your intent.”—Anonymous 

I believe you refer to my use of the word “perfect” when I describe time and consciousness as the Atonement, or the moment of the idea of not-God arising and being simultaneously undone, unfolding over time. Time and consciousness are therefore an expression, or depiction, rather than bringing something real about. Their cause is in the past, their outcome inevitable as they depict a moment already over. So, what happens in time and consciousness is predetermined and everything that happens in them is a perfect part of the Atonement.

For example, take any movie you like. The movie depicts an idea in the mind of the writer. Everything that happens in the movie is part of the expression of that idea, directly or indirectly. As such, the dialogue and action are perfect, not in themselves or apart from the whole movie, but as part of that whole movie. That movie would not be that movie if all the parts of it were not there.

Here's another example: Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa would not be da Vinci’s Mona Lisa without everything in that painting, not just Lisa La Giaconda, not just her famous smile, but everything in the background as well. Everything in the painting makes it what it is, makes it perfect, not in the sense that it is to everyone’s taste or is without error, but in that it is part of that whole painting. Again, it would not be what it is without every part of it.

And so it is with the Atonement because it has already occurred, and is merely being depicted as time and consciousness. Everything that happens is part of the depiction of the moment of the idea of not-God arising and simultaneously being undone. The parts may not be perfect in themselves, but they are as part of the Atonement as a whole.

In the example you gave, Edgar Cayce played his part perfectly, even though his teaching was not perfect. It didn’t have to be because the Atonement eventually corrects all errors in time.

My intent is to share what I have come to see is true about consciousness and time, in other words, our experience as persons in a world. It explains why consciousness, no matter how it appears, is not separate from God, it belonged to Spirit as soon as it arose, and therefore guilt or any sense of failure is never justified. The life of your person is a perfect expression of the Atonement. And this is true of everyone and every occurrence.

 >>>> 

If you have a question the answer to which you feel may be helpful to others, send it to Liz@acimmentor.com and indicate that you want it answered in this newsletter/blog.