Worldwide Discussion: The People Join In
WAS JESUS A VITRIOLIC ‘FANNER’
OF ‘THE FLAMES OF FEAR?’

Was Jesus a fanner of the flames of fear? Did Jesus use “vitriol” and “quippy rejoinders” to make his points?

I ask this because following my last entry in this headline space — a story about how America is returning to its own Wild West, where everyone packed a six-shooter and the question was not, who is carrying a gun, but who is quickest on the draw? — a reader posting as Rian Dean entered this response in the Comment section below…

Neale, I Love You. Your work has inspired me to make changes in my Life I would never have dreamed possible 20 years ago. You have lead me to a place where fear has no hold on my Life or on the manner in which I choose to express my Divinity. Please do not choose to lend your voice to fear.

I have read and watched the message you bring to us change over the last few years and it seems, from my limited viewpoint, that some of what you write on these pages is increasingly coming from a place of fear.

The Loving, gentle urging of our Souls toward Love has been slowly replaced by ever more strident descriptions of the injustices you perceive in our World today. Less often do I see solutions based in Love. More and more often now these articles hold a sarcastic, snarky tone that definitely spurs conversation, what seems to be missing is the Love-based solution to those perceived injustices.

The Global Conversation website is a treasure. It is an opportunity to expose a fear-based Society to a message of Divine Love in a manner that is unique to our times. The number of posts that rally behind your clarion calls against injustice is impressive, but no more so than every other political site where battle lines are drawn on every issue and people whip out their most quippy rejoinders to defend or attack any given issue.

Please, please, may we use this opportunity to trot out solutions to the issues rather than engage in heated exchanges of vitriol? May we offer solutions to the fear that so grips our Country and our World rather than fanning the flames of that fear?

Remember, we will not solve all of these problems at the same level of consciousness by which we created them.

======================
I am grateful to Rian for posting his comment, because it brings up what I think is a very important discussion of a very important topic: Is it spiritual and loving to use sharp words — even harsh words sometimes — to make a point?

To find my answer to this question I decided to do a little research on the life of Christ. Whatever their religion, whatever their sacred beliefs, few people would deny that the man called Jesus made a huge impact on this world, and was and is considered by many to be one of the most spiritual, loving human beings who ever lived.

How is it, then, that Jesus repeatedly used the words “brood of vipers” and  “hypocrites” to describe those whose behaviors reflected views other than his own? And how is it that he used those words in statements that were very direct and very energy-charged? Utterances such as: “You brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things?”…and: “You say in the morning, ‘It will be foul weather today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Hypocrites! You know how to discern the face of the sky, but you cannot discern the signs of the times!”…

…and elsewhere: “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?” And again, elsewhere, he actually called forth bad things upon certain of those who opposed him, saying: “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.”

How could Jesus speak with such “vitriol”?

But wait. It’s worse. When he found the money changers in the Temple, he actually made a whip out of a rope in which he tied knots…and then he overturned all the tables of the traders in the Temple and drove the sellers and buyers out, waving his whip and shouting: “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!”

What happened to… “we will not solve all of these problems at the same level of consciousness by which we created them”…? Was Jesus “offering solutions,” or was he just expressing his anger?

Is there a place for anger in the words of spiritual messengers?

Let that be our question for the day. Rian? Your thoughts? Others? Your thoughts?

Please Note: The mission of The Global Conversation website is to generate an ongoing sharing of thoughts, ideas, and opinions at this internet location in an interchange that we hope will produce an ongoing and expanding conversation ultimately generating wider benefit for our world. For this reason, links that draw people away from this site will be removed from our Comments Section, a process which may delay publication of your post. If you wish to include in your Comment the point of view of someone other than yourself, please feel free to report those views in full (and even reprint them) here.
Click here to acknowledge and remove this note:
  • Jimmy Hammer

    I feel one thing has to be remembered as “God” pointed out in your books. The Bible was written by men, imperfect filters, and none of them met or heard Jesus speak. What they wrote was handed down via traditions. Also, as “God” pointed out in your book: “Who said Jesus was perfect.”
    I feel, as was said in your book, we should not judge what we see, but choose from all that is (God expressing) what we want to be and who we are.

  • Jimmy Hammer

    After further reflection, it seems that every theological discussion is an attempt by each of us to answer the age old question, “What does it mean to be in the world but not of the world?” We seem to be a split personality, who we think we are and who we really are. We are all somewhere on the path coming from who we think we are and going to who we really are. Where we are on that path determines our perspective and, as pointed out in CWG, this determines our perception of who we are. Based on each person’s perspective each will determine what it means to be ‘not of the world’.

  • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

    I seem to remember Jay Leno remarking a few times that Americans are a very forgiving people, but one thing the are not very tolerant of is hypocrisy.

    Jesus anger for the most part was solely aimed at hypocrisy, in particular to people of a religious nature that proclaimed to be living by the law when they clearly were not.

    Of course if you are healing multitudes, raising the dead at the level of Jesus, I’d say your anger is more appropriate, justifiable, & if you are at that level of beingness he was, it’s more understandable in the larger context as well. Most of the people on this planet are not near the level of Jesus.

    As for the money changers that too was about hypocrisy was in not?

    There is of course healthy anger that can move to positive change & unhealthy anger that moves toward violence.

    Anger without violence makes a better point than anger with violence. Jesus anger was not violent. It was about hypocrisy.

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      Marko, you have said here…..”Of course if you are healing multitudes, raising the dead at the level of Jesus, I’d say your anger is more appropriate, justifiable, and if you are at the level of beingness that he was, it’s more understandable in the larger context as well. Most of the people on this planet are not near the level of Jesus.”

      Are you saying that if you are not at the level of Jesus — not healing multitudes and raising the dead — that your anger is not appropriate or justifiable, or is somehow “less” appropriate and justifiable, since Jesus’ anger was “more” appropriate and justifiable?

      Just wondering what you are saying here…

      • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

        “Are you saying that if you are not at the level of Jesus — not healing
        multitudes and raising the dead — that your anger is not appropriate
        or justifiable, or is somehow “less” appropriate and justifiable, since
        Jesus’ anger was “more” appropriate and justifiable?”

        No, my main point is anger without violence makes a better point than anger with violence. Jesus’ anger was not violent. It was about hypocrisy.

        But if one is at the level of Jesus, at that playing field level, then you can cast a stone in his judgement.

        • Kristen

          Marko, this is not a judgement or anything at all, purely trying to sort my headspace out. My silly brain remembers trivia about people, but never other matters. Probably as I am more interesting in people themselves than the other discussions.

          I may be wrong but in perhaps late November 2012 I think you wrote that people cannot harm you spiritually or in any other way but if anyone dared to harm you physically it would be a fight to the end so they better be well prepared?? Is this not expression of a violent reaction. And normal!!

          And Y’shua stated that all will be judged and treated based on their own judgements and impositions upon others. Sorry I can’t give the scripture off the top of my head but it’s about 2/3 of the way into Matthew. 2nd column near the bottom on a right hand page if you happen to have the same bible I use for studies for which I don’t know the name of so this is no use to you!. Haha (Autistic memory again!!!)

          • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

            “I may be wrong but in perhaps late November 2012 I think you wrote that people cannot harm you spiritually or in any other way but if anyone dared to harm you physically it would be a fight to the end so they better be well prepared?? Is this not expression of a violent reaction. And normal!!”

            No that was definitely not me that said that & you are thinking of someone else. That is not my writing tone at all.

            Further, just because we can’t be harmed spiritually, doesn’t mean we can’t in the physical.

            I may work & play everyday to have chronic health & chronic well beingness. However, that is no guarantee I will always experience that, but is does raise the probability a lot higher.

            An eye for an eye philosophy is a man construed philosophy.

            The enlighten version is to greet all hurt with love & compassion.

          • Kristen

            Thanks Marko for clarifying. I don’t know why I had thought it was you, and it didn’t make sense with what you say in this thread, hence asking for clarification.

      • Kristen

        In context Y’shua stated that his opinion was that all illnesses are caused by possession. Depossessing people/exorcisms/driving demons out was his way of healing multitudes. This is correct information, your god states the same using reincarnation (a form of possession in many instances) as an example when he informed you that all people CHOOSE their own illnesses, medical problems, death and cause of death. Without a particular reincarnated soul in a particular body these afflictions would not occur.

        Y’shua also taught forgiveness as a way to avoid illness, for anger, resentment etc all manifest into the physical body. He knew karma and consequences must take place, but knew it was in his Fathers and the Christ’s capable hands (and still is), so taught us to turn the other cheek and forgive to avoid these manifestations and illnesses. Another form of his healing abilities – heal before it manifests itself beyond repair.

        For once this is an interesting, and different thread.

        • mewabe

          Interesting…the belief that all illnesses are caused by possession (by a “demon”, spirit, etc) as this is also the ancient shamanic belief.

          Just an observation…

          • Kristen

            Yup. All true beliefs and teachings have the same core, for all are either from The Source or governed/overseen by a Law. If only one religion or belief system teaches something it is bound to be a load of crock or an opinion only. My learning is that if four completely different spiritual teachings or religions all teach the same thing is is bound to be a correct Law. If interested there are quite a few websites with affliction meanings on them, most accurate, although I’m sitting on the fence about mole reading and that moles are past life scars especially from gunshots and shrapnel.

            Many are also manifestations of the present incarnate/first life – poor distance eyesight means living completely in the present and not looking ahead in some cases! Other eye afflictions are not seeing things clearly, not facing the past etc. Although I will give that many unhealed souls are reincarnated too soon so are bringing medical problems and addictions here with them. But I personally define reincarnation as possession anyway, everyone is capable of getting it right the first time. Just my view, and mine only. Windows in homes have similar meanings.

          • mewabe

            Yes, I Iive completely in the present (very poor distance eyesight since early childhood).
            There are many ways to look at things and understand them from a myriad of perspectives, all connected, all saying the same thing, at least partly…bits and pieces that are common, though in time much has been distorted from the ancient, original teachings and by culture. It gets interesting indeed when we look at different traditions and see the similarities and connections, going past the symbolism, which is a form of language of the psyche (as in dreams).

            We dream our lives, and forget that we are dreaming. Everything happens at the level of consciousness, and then becomes physically manifest, including illnesses, accidents, and all of life’s challenges. Every thought creates, and has a consequence, short or long term. Everything can be changed at the consciousness level. Repeated thoughts, consistent inner dialogues act as “prayers” or mantras…whether negative or positive. Many do not understand their own creative power, and that they create their lives, even when they experience the opposite of what they say they want.

            We can heal through any means at this consciousness level, but we can also avoid all difficulties and illnesses, which is even better (through inner guidance and intuition as you know).

            Speaking of dreams, I have worked late enough on yet another project, I am off.

          • Kristen

            Hey – I didn’t mention your eyesight although I knew that already. Although I’m not good with subtlety obviously.

            Do a Y’shua and prove the Shamans correct. Heal thy eyes with foresight!!!!

  • mewabe

    Here is a simple answer: be who you are, when you are, where you are.

    Who you are is a flux, a movement, a process. It is not fixed. You are not a rock, but a living, responsive being. Like the weather, you may be somber one day, joyous the next, according to circumstances.

    There is an error in some spiritual approaches: it is to confuse the eternal with the immutable, the intangible, the fixed. The eternal is ALIVE, meaning in eternal FLUX. So are our feelings, our thoughts, our moods, our forms of expressions, AND EVERYTHING THAT IS ALIVE.
    Stop being preoccupied with the “should”, STOP MAKING RULES, and be honest, be authentic! If you FEEL anger and do not express it because “a spiritual person should not be angry or show anger”, then that makes you a perfect FAKE, and in my world being a fake is not being spiritual.

    Replacing old religious rules having to do with “sin” with new rules having to do with “negativity” (“negative” feelings, etc) is dancing the same old dance, one that ties you up in a bundle of self-doubts and fears, and that assures that you will never get to the heart of the matter when it comes to knowing yourself, understanding who you are, for to do this you must be FREE to be who you are, at all times.

    Why is it that humans are so OBSESSED with rules, with the way things OUGHT to be, why can’t they accept WHAT IS and grow from that?

    The only anger that is negative is the anger that is suppressed. It then festers and threatens to blow disproportionally and in a way that is not an appropriate response to a given situation. This is where violence originates. This is when people “loose it”, meaning that they loose “control”, meaning that they can NO LONGER SUPPRESS what they have been suppressing for years in many cases!

    Natural anger, the form that is a natural response and proportional to a given situation, and that is fully expressed, is not destructive and passes quickly.

    The same goes, by the way, with all so-called “negative” feelings. None of them are negative unless they are suppressed and then fester and make us rot from the inside out. When they are expressed in a way that is appropriate to the specific situation that triggered them (rather than from past suppressed history) they dissipate quickly.

    At any rate, being authentic means being who you are, even if it means imperfection in the eyes of others, rather than pretending. Nothing is more unspiritual than pretending, than being a perfect fake.

  • Amit Menashe

    i am experiencing some anger these past months, so this post suits me .
    i think anger is natural. i think that sometimes life “invites” us to express anger as a way of saying: this is not my way…there is a different one. .a better one. maybe sometimes anger is an expression of my /our narrow perspective of a moment. anyway anger is natural, and the more we let it be, and let it go, maybe it decreases in our lives.

    love,
    Amit
    Israel

    • Kristen

      Hi Amit
      I think anger is a deliberate reaction to the ACTIONS OF OTHERS. Without these extreme reactions, which we all own and are entitled to, the world would be much worse off. I was talking to a friend today of her sister, who’s husband has hit her a few times. She was mortified when I stated things were much better in more honest and non-PC days when people acknowledged that sometimes people need to sort out matters themselves. In the good ole days her brothers and male friends would have given him a beating and he would have learnt very fast never to hit her again! Only anger would provoke these feelings in them, it is a huge part of justice and a driver behind strength, Law and justice.

      I’m an Israelite (Levi) Kabbalist and have studied for years via the Hebrew University and a Rabbi in Australia.

      In case you think Neales CwG God is the Biblical/Torah God, he is not. 2 Thessalonians 2. Neale is used to me pointing this out!!

      xx (Kabbalic for forehead kiss as a form of blessing)

      • mewabe

        Aanii,

        I completely agree about the anger!
        I feel blessed and transformed by the xx 😉 Ditto…

        • Kristen

          Saw the former reply on a Disqus email, lucky or I would have no idea what you are talking about!.

          xx – since you like it so much!

  • Diego Burgard

    The problem is not the anger but the level of consciousness. To express anger with such deep Love and connexion to God than Jesus’s will be a tool in His Hands. The danger come from the unconscious mind: there the anger will nurture itself instead of vanishing after doing its job.

    Many people on the Path are in this paradox: to see how one can create wars and destruction for his own profit, generating so much suffering, and maintaining us in a barbarian age, and not to allow themselves to express the inevitable emotions related to that. The other situation (or the consequence of the first) is people getting caught in those emotions and feeding their fear and/or anger. A place like Global Conversation could be a place where one can express those love-based emotions and use this expression to rise one’s consciousness level.

    Also, it is important now to say “no” to some things, like war for instance, and to make it well clear; the “yes” to life will get much strength and power for our truth is coming from the heart.

    Love to everybody

  • mewabe

    When “spiritual” people do not “allow” themselves to think, feel or do certain things that they would otherwise do if they did not seek to be on a “path”, they become inwardly conflicted, not to mention FAKE.

    Inner conflict is psychological strangulation, and leads nowhere near inner peace or clarity.
    Again, don’t go by any “should”, by rules, live your life according to WHAT IS, at any particular time and place. KNOW THYSELF, and you won’t get there by pretending to be what you are not.

  • Renate Spreitz

    Anger does is not necessarily bad, it can simply be an awareness that needs to be expressed for relief and to let others know it is recognized as such.

  • ruchir

    I like everything that mewabe has said. I feel that Neale’s writings are indeed inspired from love. I also agree with Rian in that some discussions on this forum end up gravitating towards what is wrong than towards solutions. But that is where the participants choose to take it.

    I think its totally ok to express whatever we want, whether its anger, hate, love, despair, hope. And I do not regard higher consciousness as superior. Plants are life forms of lower consciousness, they are not inferior. Moreover, I would guess that higher consciousness would not preclude any emotion or action – even killing.

    I have a predisposition towards action, so when I want to change something, I act. However, through CWG and Law of Attraction, I have understood that being-ness is a greater creative force. Rian could have been talking about that.

  • Christopher Toft

    I’m not sure about this. Suppressing anger is stupid and dangerous in the extreme(and ultimately impossible), but does this really mean that it’s okay to go around calling people “viper” and “hypocrite”? Even if a person is behaving hypocritically does it really help to call them names? Will this cause them to go “Oh hang on yeah, Jesus has a point, I’m worrying too much about rules and not practicing compassion” or is it more likely a Pharisee will just react with “See? Angry lunatic who wants to bring the world into chaos and death”. Or is the anger supposed to reach those “with ears to listen?” Any thoughts?

    • mewabe

      I think that anger can be expressed without insulting a person, without scolding, without blaming, without self-righteousness, without attacking. I don’t think Neale is vitriolic or insulting in his articles. Some anger may be coming through, at times, and it shows that he is a living, breathing human being, not the one dimensional figure some apparently want him to be.

      It has been my observation that Anglo-Saxons (this is a broad generalization and only meant to be seen as such) do not deal well with emotions, particularly what they judge to be “negative” (as compared to, let’s say, Latin populations). Could this have something to do with the criticism he receives, since much of the aspect of the new age that encourages a “see no evil hear no evil speak no evil” attitude originated in North America, beginning in the 70’s with a focus on “positive thinking”?

      Jesus was born in the middle east, in a region where people do express strong passions and emotions, as they do among Latin cultures.

      • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

        How we deal & handle negative emotions is probably the single most important factor to our spiritual growth.

        A collective that has a good handle on that, is a healthy collective.

      • Christopher Toft

        “I think that anger can be expressed without insulting a person, without scolding, without blaming, without self-righteousness, without attacking.”

        So do I. I’m just not sure calling someone a viper is a good example of that. I also agree with what others said: How do we even know Jesus said this?

        “I don’t think Neale is vitriolic or insulting in his articles. Some anger may be coming through, at times, and it shows that he is a living, breathing human being, not the one dimensional figure some apparently want him to be.”

        Personally I don’t find Neale “Vitriolic”. A little sarcastic and mocking sometimes yes, but in a good “Mocking ridiculous human behaviours” kind of way, rather than in a destructive blaming way.

        Don’t really know about the cultural thing. But then I’m just an emotionally unintelligent Anglo-Saxon;)

        • mewabe

          I did not really mean to criticize Anglo-Saxon culture, but that’s just what I did, I know. Ouch…there goes my reputation as a rational person (did I ever have such a reputation?)

          There may be general characteristics in specific cultures that cause a majority of people to behave or think a certain way, by osmosis…but then, perhaps not. I know every individual is different.
          I personally always feel comfortable with people who express their feelings, positive or negative, of any culture, gender or specie (4 legged “people” included).

          About the viper thing, yes, that was offensive, the way Jesus insulted vipers :)

          • Christopher Toft

            “I did not really mean to criticize Anglo-Saxon culture, but that’s just what I did, I know. Ouch…there goes my reputation as a rational person (did I ever have such a reputation?)”.

            Hey criticise away, I’m recovering from white Anglo-Saxon middle England disease! I was just poking fun at the generalisation, saying Anglo- Saxon culture is not all bad and that we should also be mindful of the negatives in our own cultures.

            “About the viper thing, yes, that was offensive, the way Jesus insulted vipers :)”
            Well obviously the Pharisees were a bunch of myopic, legalistic idiots(OOH LOOK I INSULTED THE PHARISEES!). I just question whether insulting them to their faces is helpful. Jesus didn’t say, “look your all behaving like a load of heartless snakes who care more about law than compassion” he said, “Look you ARE a bunch of heartless snakes” Helpful? Was Jesus misquoted here I wonder?

          • Kristen

            Crock – you like to criticize us, and mean to do it. It’s your hobby! LOL.

            Go make some fried bread.

    • Kristen

      His viper reference is to the snake/serpent in Genesis – one who deceives people and doesn’t speak the truth, and is shrewd. Most of his teachings are full of symbolism and his language is very similar to how we use slang now. I guess it would be his form of profanities although as a Jewish person he was forbidden from using real profanities. A spade is a spade in any language. We all use strong language when it is really important to convey the seriousness of the matter or our opinion to others. As a Judge he knew and knows the importance of people being Law abiding for he knows the consequences, hence the anger and threats. This is acting in peoples best interests longterm. Like Father like Son!

      • Christopher Toft

        Fair enough(As your neighbour would say 😉 ), a spade is indeed a spade. But as I said below it’s one thing to say “You are behaving like a viper” and another to say “you are a viper”. We cannot change what we think we are because we are it, but we can change our behaviour when it is destructive & inappropriate because it’s not unchangeable.(And nothing is unchangeable. I believe Jesus understood this deeply). Perhaps it is not anger but how we are angry?

        • Kristen

          Fairy nuff.
          I think it is probably more WHY we are angry. Too much responsibility is placed on good people, victims etc to control their reactions whilst the original instigators of the anger get away with a lot. We need to get back to the roots of the problem and look at the cause of the anger, which will be another person most of the time, before we can uncover how we are angry, and address the anger itself. Look at how anger is triggered at a natural response though – ever knocked your funny bone on a wall or got frustrated moving furniture?? It is a deliberate response to many factors, but yes we are an intelligent species perfectably capable of controlling ourselves in most circumstances.

          Yes he did, and still does know everything is changeable, hence his envangelical drive to try to change peoples ways. I guess it’s the message, not how it is conveyed, nor the messenger. I like the messenger though, although I do not agree with a lot of his policies.

          • Christopher Toft

            “I think it is probably more WHY we are angry. Too much responsibility is placed on good people, victims etc to control their reactions whilst the original instigators of the anger get away with a lot”.
            I disagree with this for the same reasons Neale would: Like Neale I believe that there are no victims or villains and we are all the instigators of our own anger-no-one makes us feel angry, it is a choice. We may not experience it as a choice precisely because we believe someone else did it to us.

          • Kristen

            Agree to disagree. Differences are what generally makes the world work, we need different people in different roles.

  • flojones

    It seems to me that when we try to interpret or juge the acts of Jesus we do the same thing as theologists and religions did and keep doing which is trying to find guiding rules of how we should, we could, we may act to live rightly in this world. We loose our freedom. As we do this we are not looking inside for answers, we cut ourselves from ourselves, we cut ourselves from Life and as we do this it becomes increasingly difficult to act naturally and shamelessly.

    As for anger, we got to remember that nothing in our life is personal, not even our emotions. As long as we think they are personal they disrupt us from peace and love. When we experience life as impersonal as any animal do, they can’t linger for long. Anger is then just a signal. A signal that I can choose to use my creative power to create something new, to give myself and God a new, richer experience.

  • http://paulatozermusic.bandcamp.com/ Paula Tozer

    Has anyone considered that, perhaps, the words of Jesus were changed and manipulated in translations of the Bible from ancient Aramaic? It is common knowledge that it did happen, and it is always your choice whether you accept it as your truth.
    Love and fear cannot coexist. Only one is true. The other is part of the illusion that identifies us as bodies that can be attacked, and we, as separated beings, feel threat.
    What need would the wholeness of God, who IS everything, beyond duality, have to protect Itself?
    My version of Jesus would respond with Love. Period. That I do not understand what that kind of universal love looks like does not bother me in the least. I know I still have a lot to remember.
    My circle of influence does not, at this time, include the situation with firearms in the US, or whether we are all going to “hell in a handbasket.” I concentrate on my world, the one in front of me each and every day. My perceptions will always color my world and the only solution for misperception is correction, which I must ask for each and every moment, if I am to remain in alignment with Love. And remember that it is not the situation in which I find myself, but my reaction to it, that determines a positive or negative outcome.
    Like a pebble being dropped into a pond, the intention with which I cast the stone creates a ripple effect. Do I want that effect to be promoted by fear, or Love?
    We attempt to find a resolution to the world’s problems as we perceive them outside of ourselves. That is not where the solution lies.
    TRUTH IS REGARDLESS OF MY PERCEPTION OF IT.

  • Seb

    As CwG have said many times, the words, the life and the deeds of Jesus Christ is not excactly how it is stated in the bible, so the argument made in the article seems to contradict itself.

    Genrally speaking though, spiritual messengers should also express their anger, as long as it is expressed in a natural, loving and understanding way. “Speak your truth, but sooth your words with peace”.

    I do get the point that Rian is trying to make. If we don’t want fear to rule our lives, why should we pay any energy to any event, which would make us fearful of what the morrow will bring? While I understand the logic, I think it is of great importance to adress such issues, but while doing so, one may choose to engage in the event from a place of love, and actively choose not to be fearful, no matter what comes at you. This way, we will collectively choose a better tomorrow from a place of love, and not fear.

  • mewabe

    About the fear thing…apart from a natural, instinctual, helpful fearful response to a present threat, such as a fire in a theater where you are watching a movie or a bus crashing in your living room, all seemingly irrational fears should be faced and understood. Being fearful of something that may or may not happen is a condition that should really be examined.

    Suppressing, glancing over or sugar-coating “negativity” (global environmental pollution, endless wars, a government by oligarchy, growing economic inequity, the erosion of civil rights, etc) is NOT the proper way to deal with fear. It is called denial.

    Should we be reminded to have courage in the face of difficulties? The world is suffering from sickness and is in a spiritual crisis, as well as in a physical, cultural and economic crisis. It is all falling apart from within, which is normal, as it was all built on false premises (endless growth, separation, etc). Now is not the time for denial, but for stiffening that spine (as some would say)…to look at the world and assess the depth and extant of its massive problems, and then realize that none of us are alone.

    The power is in all of us facing the storm TOGETHER. This is how humanity will survive, if it so chooses. If we do this, there may not be a storm, just a slight breeze. The individualistic survivalists (everyone for himself) have it all wrong, needless to say. If you become fearful seek support and work together towards a goal of healing the world in whatever way you choose, but do not crawl under a rock and get upset with those who tell you how things are, and do not criticize them fort doing so.

    There is not one way to fix things, there are many ways, at many levels. Pick the one that fits you! Sooner or later it will all spontaneously coalesce into one organic movement of massive change, from within and from without. If you trust human consciousness, you can easily envision this.

    (End of sermon).

    • Kristen

      Amen.

  • Blake

    Jesus is a man not a myth. If you want to believe in the myth of Jesus I invite you too. If CWG is correct in saying that We are all One and that I am Divine, I am Jesus and Jesus is me.

    The idea of a human being playing a God? I know what Joshua (Jesus) said, “You got me all wrong!” It was man kinds ignorant’s that wrote fantastic myths about this MAN they forgot is a MAN. CWG even said that what the Bible reads is a Myth written by men of hope and faith. Remember, knowing is the third level of awareness meaning mastery in life.

    So what if the Myth said he healed people, I heal people all the time. So what if he rose from the dead, even Neale had 600 lives and counting. I have had well over that and maybe more. Reincarnation I know exists!

    Only a immature child race would make a God out of a man that just did what we all are capable of doing for each other, love one another without hurting. Forget the Bible, put it away, put all the books away, “self knowledge will avail us nothing!” (Buddha Ji Gong and Bill Wilson)

    I read what I KNOW in my heart and soul and acknowledged what I know reading the books that are Divinely placed in my hands. There is no accident that you are reading this.

    Blessings

    • Jimmy Hammer

      Well said, Blake. I was just reading Osho today and he was speaking about all the ‘Holy Books’, that they are dead. All the great Masters never wrote a book. They were written by their disciples and followers. (Maybe Lao Tzu, but he was forced to before he could leave the country.) And, he even said, “The Truth that can be spoken is not the Truth.” Thanks for your post. Namaste, Jimmy

    • Kristen

      Pretty everything Neales God says is myths! Or will be in the future.

  • http://www.doitall.ca Drew Arrington

    Hello Neale and Rian and all. Rian just shared this with me in his postings and I thought I could weigh in on this.

    Rian, I discussed this with a christian friend of mine about 12 years ago now and I think that my answer might be relevant here. Consider that Jesus was a teacher, asked to help teach the people of the time. In each situation, I would assume, being a master, he weighed his words and understood what he was saying and the outcomes that could happen from them. Being someone who was conscious, I would think that he understood how the words would most likely be taken and that he chose them to provoke, rather than to condemn.

    I know that I sometimes choose words that will insight things to make a point, not feeling any attachment to the words themselves, but knowing that in the circumstance the anger, or forcefulness is what is called for to illustrate a point or move things to the next level.

    So, we do not truly know what was going through the mind of Jesus, nor do we truly know the results, I just figure that if he was the master people ascribe him to be, then I would think that his reasons would be to move towards love.

    Some times a master must use a means to attain an end and if the end is enlightenment, then the palette of the master must have every color and shade to use, including blackness.

    Like you say Neale, “Jesus did not heal those he healed because he saw their condition as imperfect. He healed those he healed because he saw those souls asking for healing as part of their process. He saw the perfection of the process. He recognized and understood the soul’s intention.”

  • Tasha England

    Hi, everyone. To answer Neale’s question from my perspective, sure there’s a place for anger in the words of spiritual messengers. Why not? How effective those words are in getting the messenger (and/or the message) where s/he wants to go is another question, as Drew, Rian, and Christopher have already pointed out. So where do we want this conversation to go?

    As Blake rightly said, Jesus was a man, and others have pointed out that Jesus wasn’t perfect. That, in fact, was my first thought before commenting. Jesus wasn’t perfect. No one is perfect. It is comforting that Jesus, and other spiritual teachers, are fallible, at least comforting to me when I, after reacting in a not-so-nice way to some circumstance, reflect on my actions and know that I could have ACTed in a much nicer manner.

    Namaste.

  • Kristen

    Oh dear.
    Are we forgetting that Y’shua was a High Priest who were the first police force. In fact Scripture defines that all priests are to ensure all crimes are stopped and criminals punished or they would be held accountable and punished for those crimes themselves. He himself stated he was not here to make friends, he was here as a teacher and a punisher, which is his role on Judgement Day WHICH IS REAL NEALE – YOU’LL SEE!
    In fact there are scriptures especially for your God Neale – 2 Thessalonians 2. CwG is all prophecised about thousands of years ago.

    Are we also forgetting Y’shua is a Christ, which is one who understands the workings of the Universe, all of which is governed by Law. Most are completely automated and in clear sight as a part of “seek and ye will find”. The role of all Christs is to teach Law as both Y’shua and Buddha did amongst many others AS this role is also one of having the responsibility of bringing Law and Consequences down to Earth. This is why they have all worked so hard to teach THEIR OWN people the importance of following Law and Consequences, for they are all extreme personalities in order to fulfil this role. Extremely kind and generous whilst also being extremely strict as punishers. Try to get into this headspace when thinking or teaching about him as it makes all Christs easier to understand and explains their impatience and tempers. Also remember who his father is!!!!!!!!!! Obviously he is going to have a temper. Every parable and teaching they gave is a Universal Law. Again seek and ye will find. Translating all of these in every teaching into longhand Laws are some of the requirements at the Da’at position at the top of the Tree of Life, therefore a requirement for Immortality. Ie anyone attaining immortality will in effect then become a mini Christ. Neale, over the years you seem to think that Christs, Teachers and the Christ Conscious state seems to be some sort of Tinkerbell peaceful state. Trust me, it is not. It’s almost like being in a state of war against evil and suffering. Remember YOU are the only person to ever walk this planet who has introduced the incorrrect information that there is no such thing as consequences other than self imposed, no-one else.

    Are we also forgetting the clear difference between crimes and misdemeanours and SINS. Most are defined in Leviticus from memory and all are defined seperately. Sins are only religious matters which were forgiveable through animal sacrifices. Crimes and misdemeanours carry different consequences. Believers are completely wrong when they thing Y’shua did on the cross so they can be forgiven for everything – this only covers religious sins and matters that carried an animal sacrifice. (including giving birth to a girl child LOL!). He replaced the animal sacrifices, nothing more, nothing less.

    Sorry if this sounds grumpy. Not intended. It’s 11pm so I’m rushing. Or maybe I’m in Christ mode after studying. Haha. As I have offered you before Neale, I have done all the Law papers which explains a lot you bring up if you would like a copy. If I can trust you as it’s my retirement fund and dowry!!!

    Not proof read sorry. Bedtime!

    • Guest

      Sorry I’d rather live a short life in peace than a lonnnng life in fear for after life!
      But if I live in peace not fearing about being condemned in the after life,
      won’t I be respecting others anf Life at the highest level ? My behaviours should then please your God of fear, no ? fine so let’s keep on with Neale and CwG, it’s much much funnier and faster to bring peace, harmony and right living.

      • Kristen

        I don’t fear God at all, but at least I know what to be wary of and to avoid. Which includes nothing i want to partake in anyway.

        Go for it with Neales God and CwG. I have no problem with it at all, nor Neale other when there are clear implications his God and the Biblical God are the same one and misleading people into thinking there are no judgements just because Neales God is not a punishing God. This does not mean none are. I would never convert anyone to my God as He is very tough, and I do not do religion at all. Unless born Jewish it is downright dangerous. As Y’shua stated – “do not enter into any contract with God you are not prepared to honour”. Likewise I would never attempt to convert anyone to Kabbalah as it is hard and time consuming, my studies have been approx 20 hours a week for 5 years. but heaps and heaps of fun. Neales God is the recognised God of the Afterlife, therefore all reincarnated people here which is nearly everyone so is technically your God.Just do not trust him – a word of advice. I think only Israelitesare not reincarnated as Israelite bodies have our own different souls with God’s laws ‘preloaded’ into them. Just a generic soul put into babies, nothing more, nothing less. Do whatever makes you happy. And yes, life is all about right living. Nice wording.

        One word of unwanted advice would be to stay well away from any peace campaign. 666 is the reincarnation of King Solomon, the sign or mark of his name is the peace sign for the name Solomon means peace. Although any are probably harmless I am sure Jewish people, probably Muslims, Kabbalists and many Christians know this, so it could be dangerous especially with radical fundamentalists Christians.

  • NealeDonaldWalsch

    Wow. I love your response, Rian. A totally and completely fabulous response. Thank you.

    I have been told that Anger is a Natural Emotion. It is our way to say, “Thanks, but no thanks.” if anger is repressed, and never expressed, it turns into a very unnatural emotion called rage.

    Having said that, I am not sure that I agree with you that anger never solves anything. From my experience anger does, in fact, sometimes “allow us to attain our stated goals.” I can think of a number of times in my life when my anger, firmly but non-violently expressed, allowed me to attain a certain goal. Most of us probably can remember such times. There are times when the expression of anger, without violence, can be very, very important.

    I’m also not sure I like your “poke in the eye” analogy as used here, Rian. It is true, of course, that no one responds in a good way to a poke in the eye. But some people do respond in a good way to a little kick in the pants. I have in my life, and I know others who have as well. Sometimes we need someone to give us a little kick in the pants.

    So I don’t see a little bit of direct talk in a column here as a “poke in the eye” so much as a little kick in the pants.

    But I’ll tell you what I do like about your reply here, Rian. I like the energy of it. And your clarity. And your intention. It’s good to have a dialogue with someone as sweetly intentioned as you. Thanks for the exchange. I agree with you in the main, for sure. Love always works. I just think that anger, as a human emotion used as a human tool in a human context, can sometimes be a spritely and helpful part of human love. (Surely, every parent knows this.)

    I send you love, Rian.

    Appreciatively….Neale.

    • Christopher Toft

      I like that Neale clarifies the difference between anger and violence.

    • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

      “I can think of a number of times in my life when my anger, firmly but non-violently expressed, allowed me to attain a certain goal. Most of us probably can remember such times. There are times when the expression of anger, without violence, can be very, very important.”

      I bet a lot of garages & closets got cleaned up simply through the anger & frustration of being tired of all the crap that had to be cleaned out & or organized. All great social change came from anger turned to action.

      You said “Anger,without violence,” that’s healthy anger. In a very advanced HEB world I doubt there’s much need for anger, but where it may exist, is probably very low level, if at all.

  • mewabe

    The word hypocrite made me think of the way we, human beings, truly are…

    Human beings and animals end up behaving very similarly, once you take out the rationalizations used by humans to validate their own actions. The difference however is that animals do not carry baggage, such as guilt, blame and endless resentment, as far as we know. They do what they do and move on. The torturous guilt and the endless blame and feelings of victimization humans choose to experience and express have never stopped them from oppressing, abusing, assaulting, betraying, dispossessing, exploiting and killing each other, in the names of religions, ideologies, nations, honor, cultural traditions and a myriad of other ridiculous concepts.

    As compared to human beings, the blunt honesty of animals is indeed very refreshing. They fight and kill for food, for sex, for territory, without religious or ideological symbols to legitimize their behavior. They are wild, not hypocrites.

    Our religious, cultural, ideological symbols and concepts have not civilized us. They have made us consummate hypocrites. They have given us the means to believe that the barbaric, the cruel, the ruthless can be totally justified, and even made into law and rewarded daily by the State, by religious authorities, and by culture.

    Where do we go from here? First we look at ourselves and acknowledge our primitive condition and our animal nature, discarding the myth of civilization. We are merely technologically advanced barbarians. By observing the behavior of many animals, we can learn about ourselves. No doubt that this is embarrassing, which is why most people are revolted when watching wild animals, because they see part of themselves, and feel that their own primitive, instinctual drives have been exposed for all to observe. The animal in the human is revealed by the animal.

    Much of human history is a long struggle attempting to prove that we are not animals, to separate ourselves from nature in all possible manners. It is ironic that the more we do this, the more we hate what we have become. This need to differentiate ourselves from the animals is very ancient and particularly obvious in old earth cultures. It is the main thrust of western civilization, visible in its effort to separate us from nature and in its
    neurotic obsession to get absolute control and mastery over all things of the earth, not leaving any stone untagged or any creature or particle unaccounted for.

    When we become more conscious of our condition, no longer blinded by illusion of having evolved far above the animals, we may start evolving, while finally understanding what it means to be fully human. It is, possibly, only then that we will let go of the use of violence to resolve conflicts, among other long overdue improvements.

    • Michael L

      Then I assume head butting and violent tail twirling is out!!!

      • mewabe

        Unless we all grow horns, claws and fangs…which may look good on Halloween night.

  • http://paulatozermusic.bandcamp.com/ Paula Tozer

    Wholeheartedly agree, Rian. Anger is fear in one of its many disguises. Its attempts to resolve the environment it is creating only serves to proliferate that environment. Folks have said that Jesus was “angry” and a “punisher.”

    Man ‘o man, I am glad my version of Jesus is different.

    Take for example the hoopla that has been created around that Sterling man’s prejudices. This man, obviously, has had a life of fear, regardless of how much money he has made, and must be a desperately lonely individual. That does not excuse his behavior, NOT IN THE LEAST, but I ask you, who among us has not had SOME thought that could be described as unloving?

    It does not mean that he should be in a position of power over others, but then from where has his power come? From the athletes who feel they have “made it” by wanting to be part of a pro team, paid bizarre amounts of $$, and from the fans who make it all possible. It is a worldly view. We all have a buy-in on some level, or we would not be attracted to this situation. Are we not supposed to “be in this world but not of it?”

    The ego loves to punish. It loves to be righteously angry. It loves to feel like it is superior. Why? Because it gets its energy and its illusion of life from these things.

    What would LOVE do? Really. What would a loving omnipotent, omniscient God do in this situation, given that it is all ONE situation? Punish ITSELF? C’mon folks . . .

    Neale, where it is true that repressed anger turns into self-flagellation, depression, and rage . . . what is the cause? Is it not seeing ourselves as “other” and victims? A perceived need for defence? And if the versions of the Bible we have now are accurate, in any of them you care to read . . . What did Jesus, the Lamb of God do, in the face of the ultimate condemnation? We all believe, regardless of theology or dogma or rite or ritual, that God is LOVE, don’t we?

    Anger is a separation concept, not a whole thought. We have to be angry “at” someone or something. On the level of humanity it can serve a purpose and does get results for a time, however, our actions as a result of that anger may not be in anyone’s best interests. As Paula, or Rian, or Neale, or anyone who has a separate identity, we don’t know. Of ourselves we are simply “a noisy gong or a clanging symbol.” Unless we ask for help from Source we cannot act in line with LOVE.

    What we give we receive and when we look around we see what we believe. When we present a fear concept and get fear concepts and condemnation back, how can we expect otherwise?

  • Kristen

    Neale,
    If you want to see a perfect example of hypocrisy in action take a look at Lisa Mccormicks column this week. Very un CwG, as that particular column frequently is. A hate group at it’s best I guess. To hate the biblical God, religion and His people is one thing, but to spread hate about private businesses is a whole different ballgame.

  • Erin

    QOTD: “Is there a place for anger in the words of spiritual messengers?”
    MPO: Yes & No.
    Spirit-u-all messengers, are in human form. In this place, Anger exists. Therefore, it is an opt To Be.
    However, self-control also exists…and honing the skill of managing self through Self is a process.

    Sooo…As one chooses to example of wiser ways to be human with higher thinking, then they are in constant reminds of being aware of the triggers that produce Anger, as well as the fact that it is they who hold control of the safety latch that sets this bullet loose.

    Now, let’s add in Understanding. Understanding that Words are as ammo…They transform matters with intense speed. Impo…One who walks the ways of ‘Spiritual Messenger’ would, in their process, eventually find no need of such weaponry, and move with Words of Grace, which they would come to Understand, rock matters even quicker, and produce deeper effects.

    Sooo…That said…”Yes”…In the process of honing skills, there are simply times that we may “lose it”…comes with the territory, while smoothing our curves & edges. However, once one claims their define of ‘Spiritual Messenger’, “No”…Anger no longer serves good purpose.

    (heehee…Hope ya got a giggle on the gun analogy) :) <3

  • Diana Villafane

    In this discussion you are all pre-supposing that everything that is reported in the Gospels that Jesus did and said is indeed exactly what He did and said…

    • http://www.destinyrunes.com/ Rian Dean

      Whether or not it is believed, I just look at the intent of the comparison. It is not necessary, to me, to believe the reference is factual. I understood the intent of bringing up the situation in regard to the question posed. If taken simply as metaphor I found the lesson to be a very powerful condemnation to the use of anger as a catalyst of change. Nothing that Jesus supposedly tried to stop has in fact been stopped. To my point of view the “righteous indignation’ scenario illustrates just how futile using anger to correct any perceived crime or injustice really is.

      • Diana Villafane

        Hello Rian: The issue I am addressing is that many people use what Jesus said and did as reported in the Gospels as a paradigm for action, as an example to follow or as a justification for what they want to do without ever asking if He, as an enlightened or evolved person actually said and did what has been reported. In fact, they do this with the entire corpus of Scripture (of whatever religion they subscribe) with no serious thought as to whether or not it is just, fair, loving or ethical. So here we are in the 21st century still perpetuating the injustices of the past, repeating history over and over because we (humanity) continue to strive to imitate the past and therefore, have learned and evolved very little. I agree with you though on the perniciousness of anger.