An Open Letter to Our World
SHOULD NEW BELIEFS BE REJECTED
SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE BELIEFS?

EDITOR’S NOTE: I am excited to be able to use this space on the Internet as a place in which we can join together to ignite a worldwide exploration of some of the most revolutionary theological ideas to come along in a long time.

The ideas I intend to use this space to explore in the immediate future are the ideas found in GOD’S MESSAGE TO THE WORLD: You’ve Got Me All Wrong.  I believe this book places before our species some of the most important “What if” questions that could be contemplated by contemporary society.

My most recent entry in this column produced an interesting post in the Comment Section below, which in turn prompted an exchange between that poster, Patrick Gannon, and myself, which I would like to highlight here by re-publishing it, inviting each of you to offer your response to its central question:

IF A ONE BELIEF SYSTEM REPLACES ANOTHER, AND THE NEW BELIEFS ARE DEMONSTRABLY MORE BENEFICIAL THAN THE OLD, SHOULD THE NEW BELIEFS NEVERTHELESS BE REJECTED OUT OF HAND BECAUSE THEY ARE ‘BELIEFS’?

I invite you to read the exchange below and offer your observations in the Comment Section.
============================================

PATRICK GANNON WRITES: Neale, can you explain these lines: “Who God Is,” “What God Wants from Us,” and “You’ve Got Me All Wrong”?

[CERTAINLY. I WILL RESPOND TO YOU RIGHT HERE!]

At times (but infrequently) you describe God as an energy, a force, a conscious intelligence, etc. [Patrick, the whole of the Conversations with God series of books offers you the description of God that you seek. Have you read those books?] …but most of the time you describe God as a person, a being, a superhuman with a number of human characteristics. [it is clear to me that you are not reading my material very closely. GOD’S MESSAGE TO THE WORLD: You’ve Got Me All Wrong makes just the opposite assertion, Patrick. It says, clearly and without any room for doubt, that God is NOT a ‘superhuman being’. The CWG cosmology also makes it clear that the Essential Essence which we call “God” can and does take any form which will help any of Its creations know and experience Divinity. In other words, God can appear, and be experienced in our lives, as a protective and loving Father or Mother, as a dear friend or brother or sister on the journey, as a wise counselor and guide…indeed, in any form that we wish, including the form of pure energy, placed at our disposal to be used to produce consistent and predictable results. God is all of this, and more. There is nothing that God is not, or cannot be. The very effort to define God brings the limitations of our human Mind to the process of experiencing God’s unlimited Self.]

You’ve got “me” all wrong: “me” is a term humans use to refer to themselves. Use of the word “who” implies a being, a person. What God “wants” implies that God has wants; and yet you say repeatedly that God has no needs or wants…. Hmm, maybe you say God has no needs, only wants, I don’t recall – but the question still arises – why would a God have wants?  [Now it is really clear to me that you have not absorbed the CWG messages. And that is perfectly okay. You are not ‘required’ to. But if you are going to question me about what I have written and said, you would benefit from knowing more thoroughly what that is. The book What God Wants explains in detail exactly what it is that God wants. Please read Chapter 13 carefully and fully.] As you have said yourself, a “want” is an expression of lack – of not having something. How can “God” lack anything? [Of course, God in Its aggregate “lacks” nothing — for the simple reason that God IS everything It could possible want or lack. All of this is fully explained in the CWG writings. Individuated aspects of Divinity, having forgotten who they really are, can imagine themselves to need, want, or lack something, but The Wholeness that is God cannot and does not. I am not sure what makes you think that It does.]

I understand that humans ‘animate’ God – this has been done with elements of nature, the sun, the stars the constellations, etc. for eons; but once you do this, it all becomes religious, and New Age God is just the basis for another religion as best I can tell, given that She is constantly referred to as a personal being. As such, the legacy religions are going to fiercely resist any New Age Religion. It’s only when the legacy religions are discredited as the Romans eventually discredited the Pagan Gods, before the new religion can fully replace the old…. and then the question remains, will we really be any better off?  [This is a fair and legitimate question. Let me answer it this way. First of all, no one who has read CWG could fail to miss its repeated — and I mean, endlessly repeated — statements that CWG is not a ‘religion.’ Its chief point is that the Authority of God rests within you. Its main message is: “We are All One. Ours is not a better way, ours is merely another way.” But if you are asking me a direct question — Do I think the world would be better off embracing some of the foundational notions of the explorations in CWG than it is today, my answer would be a flat ‘yes, without question.’] Was the condition of mankind improved when pagan gods were replaced by Christianity? It hardly seems so, and the ideals expressed by Jesus weren’t all that different from the ideals expressed by New Age God. [Well, Patrick, there are about 1.5 billion people who would disagree with you on that last statement. As least, the ideals that people SAY were expressed by Jesus are in many, many cases vastly different from the ideals expressed by Tomorrow’ God.]

Your new book appears to be largely about discrediting the old religions, so it’s hard not to view this as part of an ongoing process to establish a new religion to replace the old,  [It seems to me that it should not be ‘hard’ to avoid doing that at all. All you have to do is thoroughly read the CWG material, which makes it abundantly clear that establishing a NEW religion is the LAST thing that is being suggested, recommended, desired, or contemplated. Rather, what is being offered is an invitation to create a New Cultural Story — not the same thing as a ‘religion’ at all — providing humanity an opportunity to reconfigure its relationship with life, with the Earth, with what some people call ‘God,’ and with each other, such that a ‘religion’ is not even necessary.] ….and if the pattern holds true, in due course it will have its own orthodoxy, its own dogma, its own “correct” set of beliefs, and we’ll be right back where we started. Or so it seems to me. [Even if that were true…I mean, even if it rolled out that way and it DID produce, eventually, its own orthodoxy, its own dogma, its own “correct” set of beliefs, what makes you conclude that this would, ipso facto, put us right back where we started? I can’t imagine that the new beliefs — should they arise as an actual “orthodoxy” — would not be more beneficial than the old. We are talking here about a Civil Rights Movement for the Soul, freeing humanity at last from the oppression of its present and ancient beliefs in a violent, angry, and vindictive God. Even if CWG DOES turn into a ‘dogma’ or a ‘belief,’ how could not that be an improvement over our present beliefs? Or is it your assertion that “beliefs”, in and of themselves, are somehow evil, or “no good,” and that even if it is a “belief system” that dramatically improves behaviors, it should be automatically rejected simply because it IS a “belief system”? Is that your assertion?]

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:
  • GH Annie

    Neale,

    OH, where to start? My goodness. I guess with your initial question :should new beliefs that might replace old beliefs be discarded simply because they are beliefs? “As opposed to, for example, proven facts,” is what I hear silently at the end of that question.

    Where are our knowings from? Science is so far from facts these days. Yes, we no longer believe the world is a flat object at the center of a well-delimited universe. But, what has that been replaced with? Scientists referring to what used to be hard and fast rules as habits of an ever-emerging Source. Believing that there are objects called quarks collectively, but which it is also believed there are several general groups because only that explains their mathematical theories… which is just another term for beliefs.

    How can we ever know anything for certain? For me, the only knowings are those that have come from within rather than outside of my deepest Self. How do I know that they are things to be known, rather than believed? By the feelings I have when I get the information. For me, they’re not just the everyday feelings I have. They’re entirely different. I mean goosebumpy, textured, aromatically enhanced multifacetedness illuminations of Windows leading to vast amounts of knowings, of which I receive only a minuscule part.

    I guess what I’m saying in my own rather unique way is that I have more faith in my beliefs I receive in that manner than I could ever have in a story that began before history was recorded that someone tells me I ought to believe as truth simply because it’s been that way as far back as any of my ancestors can recall.

    Yes, we need new beliefs. We need new sponsoring thoughts that can lead us there. We need to trust Who We Are over what someone else may have said at one time a long time ago, that may have been taken out of context or even purposely misstatements as a means to their own ends.

    We need to believe Who We Really Are, not some watered-down version that keeps us powerless and in our place while others are gloating about their power over us as we beg but are left starving.

    We need to believe what was once grasped not by Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am,” but Sartre’s “I know that I think, and therefore I am not the thinker.” (And I didn’t look those up to make sure they are exactly right.)

    We need to have something better to believe in, not try to wait it out for Science to finally come up with what they believe is truest, because people are starving NOW. Children are dying NOW. Forestation is being taken down NOW. Our waters are being spoiled and ALREADY CAUSING EXTINCTION OF LIFE FORMS NOW.

    [and she meekly steps down from her soapbox, disappearing into the crowd]

    ~Annie

    • Christopher Toft

      I love your soapbox. I say encore!:)

  • politics

    Neale, what is the difference?

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      Between what?

      • politics

        Beliefs.

  • Christopher Toft

    Okay here are my thoughts. There is a belief amongst some humans that there is such a thing as certainty and “Fact” and that there are other things called beliefs. “Beliefs” from this perspective are statements about “reality” that are unquestionably absolute truths and that these absolute truths are independent of evidence, scientific, empirical or otherwise. These kind of beliefs are common to us all and simply put they are particular types of belief more commonly known as prejudices. I observe that in actuality the word belief or beliefs are just another way of saying “Thoughts”. I believe that there is no such thing as an absolute truth (Not one that can be spoken of in word anyway!), therefore a belief is merely a statement that something is “true” in a given context and even there it is merely “in all probability” true. For example the statement “the sun in shining” is true sometimes.(And indeed which sun??)

    In short, there is no certainty, only probabilistic beliefs. It follows that if a belief system works, produces functionality, sustainability etc it makes sense to use the belief system for precisely what it was intended for – to recreate ourselves in the next grandest vision of who we are. If our current beliefs are not serving us in this way, then change them. Simples:)

  • What’s a belief? How do you define it in terms of the CwG cosmology?

    For me, it seems to be a state of thought that is both rigid, stubborn, fixed, as well as fluid & changeable. Certain beliefs are much harder to overcome, say the aging process, genetics, as opposed to the tooth fairy or say dietary change.

    Beliefs have different degrees & gradations to them as I currently understand them.

    Also, if God is all things, what about the bad, horrible etc? Is it simply free will & ignorance that causes & allows this?

    I think most understand God as good, loving, beautiful, etc. that’s not an issue, but existing as what we might define as evil, bad, horrible is much more perplexing. I always welcome deeper insight to this troubling side of God that perplexes much of the world.

    I realize on a very deep soul level it’s all good, but the horrors we see daily seem to demand a clearer understanding, other than they ways of the lord are mysterious.

    ” is a “belief system” that dramatically improves behaviors, it should be automatically rejected simply because it IS a “belief system”?

    Any dramatic improvement is welcome, and as we live in that dramatic improvement, that experience will tell us how useful & beneficial it is for the human condition. Even within this dramatic improvement, we can we create even greater improvement.

    • Patrick Gannon

      “I think most understand God as good, loving, beautiful, etc.”

      I would agree that most people here in this forum, probably think of God as good, loving, beautiful, etc., but that’s certainly not the case with the Abrahamic God who is very fearful indeed. Many if not most “believers” are scared to death of Bible God and well they should be. He’s a monster according to his book. They project their fear of him to others in order to ease their own fears.

      One reason I am an agnostic, rather than an atheist, is that although I consider the likelihood that Bible God is the real deal to be a minute, tiny, insignificant fraction of a probability, the probability nevertheless exists that God is the cruel tyrant described in the old texts. We don’t know. I’ll put the probabilities for the CWG God at least in whole digits, rather than a tiny fraction, but, in my mind, it cannot be better than 50/50 until I know more. Bible God has been almost entirely disproved, where as the CWG God is defined in such a way that is neither proven or unproven – yet.

      • Yes & we get to decide for ourselves, our own truth about God, reality.

  • Gina

    Neale, I am bowled over by your clarity and compassion to hear someone out, and ability to spell it all out. Although I don’t necessarily like expatiation, amplification, enunciation, or detailed, logical explanation of empirical, conjectural or intuitive data. 🙂

    Beliefs are not the big, hairy deal many people make it out to be. They are just thoughts we think more frequently, consistently. Beliefs are thoughts, and thoughts are creative. Thus beliefs are creative. If one desires to change their reality, it is to their benefit to change one’s beliefs.

    • Patrick Gannon

      I wouldn’t deny that changing one’s personal reality can be effected by changing one’s beliefs; but if one’s beliefs are not valid, then he or she still has a false reality. Is that good; or is truth better? What if the truth is far more difficult – like the end of our existence when our brain dies? Is it better to hide from that, if it turns out to be the truth, or better to deal with it?

      At it’s core, isn’t “God” just about dealing with our fear of death? Isn’t belief all about finding creative ways to hide from our fear?

      • Gina

        Fear of death sets us on the journey to seek God. That’s a popular notion, but for me personally, I didn’t even think about the correlation until I heard that statement. Usually humans don’t give much thought to death when they are young. At least for me I didn’t think much about death, but when my life became hard at times I started thinking about life and God in the context of prayer, source of help and the like. There is more likelihood for anyone to fear life before fearing death. On more occasions it happens in that order, because it is a relatively few that come in close proximity to death at a young age. On the other hand there are endless other agents that can trigger your existential fear that can have you go searching the originator, or the “ultimate victimizer,” as has been in Neale’s case. ;0 Also, it’s not always fear that motivates us, it can be love, a felt sense of connection intact, or epiphanies, NDE, and many others. Beliefs are thoughts, more prevalent, persistent thoughts, so they can be used to whatever ends. 🙂

      • mewabe

        Patrick, I would simply say, after having conversed with you, that you have to make your own choices and choose your own path, and see where it takes you.

        Some individuals might conceive of God as a way of dealing with their fear of death. But that is not necessarily the case for all spiritual or religious people. You of all people, who profess to want to keep an open mind, should not make such sweeping generalizations.

        Find your own truth. And then see what works for you. You cannot be convinced by anyone, you can only convince yourself of what is real for you, so trust your own inner guidance.

        But I am smiling at the thought of people who do not believe in life after death, and who find themselves of the other side, thinking “What the hell happened and where am I?”

        Remember, I have psychic proof, not that I ever thought proof was absolutely necessary, but I am naturally skeptical, perhaps at times too much for my own good.

        • Patrick Gannon

          “You of all people, who profess to want to keep an open mind, should not make such sweeping generalizations.”

          I simply asked the question, “At it’s core, isn’t “God” just about dealing with our fear of death?” I don’t see how that reflects a closed mind.

          Evolution has apparently built a fear of death into us, in order to help us survive, reproduce and continue to evolve the species. That mankind has turned to the supernatural to deal with that fear seems like a reasonable hypothesis, and it’s certainly not an idea that I originated.

      • Patrick Gannon

        Neale, if it turns out to be true that our existence does not end when our brain dies, that would be an amazing discovery that would have profound effects on our society. (Have I ever once insinuated that we should hide from truth? Let’s try to avoid ‘straw man’ arguments). The point is WE DO NOT KNOW, so we should not “believe” it to be true. Believing it to be true does not make it true; though of course fundies would deny that.

        I’m rereading a book by Robert Lanza called “Biocentrism” whose premise most CWG advocates would largely agree with. I do this because I want to understand the ideas and arguments on both sides. If I believed I already had the answer, I wouldn’t bother to read opposing views. Why should I, if I think I already know the answer? Last week I read Graziano’s “Consciousness and the Social Brain” for a completely different viewpoint. When people believe something, how often do they read things that disagree with their beliefs, versus those that do agree with their beliefs (confirmation bias)? Research tells us that this does not happen nearly enough. I found that by researching both sides, I learn so much, and believe so little and am far better for it.

        No, of course I did not make up the idea that God is about dealing with our fear of death. That’s silly. I don’t think you thought that through. That idea has been proposed since the start of philosophy. Start with Epicurus (341—271 B.C.E.)

        We have used God throughout known history to explain the cosmos, our beginnings, our creation, the weather, earthquakes, comets and the rest of the natural world, and slowly, piece by piece science has solved these unknowns and pushed God into less and less relevance. There are still mysteries that remain, and of course some of the biggest are – what is consciousness, and what if anything happens when we die? For that, we still cling to “God” for answers. To say that God isn’t about dealing with fear of death strikes me as unsupportable given that every religion I can think of is focused on the hereafter and helping people face it. Isn’t that what this whole exchange of cultural stories is all about – to replace a fear of death where we have to face this tyrannical, monstrous being full of wrath, vengeance and retribution, and instead slip into the comforting arms of the all loving God who speaks to us from CWG? Of course God is about fear of death. Your whole message has been that we shouldn’t fear death, and I agree with that, even if it turns out that it all just ends; but you can’t deny that for most people, God is all about the hereafter and our fear of death.

        I’ll accept that belief can be a creative way to step through our fear, but if the belief is invalid, then aren’t we cheating ourselves, and aren’t we going to have to deal with the truth when it is eventually discovered? Look at all the angst within Christianity today. Countless Christians used a belief system to step through their fear of God, but now, in the face of truth and knowledge, it holds them back and they drag their kids down with them by insisting that they continue to believe in 6 day creations, dinosaur fossils hidden as a test from God, and to believe that God condones or even orders genocide, racism, sexism, homophobia, discrimination against disabled people, and that we are all born deserving to die. Now science having proven that these beliefs are garbage, these tortured folks are stuck in their cognitive dissonance, and holding the rest of our society back with their insistence on ignorance because the truth contradicts their beliefs.

        I personally used belief in CWG concepts as a creative way to step through my fear, as I transitioned away from Christianity, but exchanging one set of beliefs for another when neither can be proven, was just cheating myself and copping out from the responsibility to deal with whatever the truth ends up being. Ergo, agnosticism is the only thing that makes logical sense. It means having the humility to admit, “I don’t know.”

        This is one of my concerns about CWG. You continue to insist that we must believe, even though we lack knowledge. (If we had knowledge, then there would be no need to believe, right?). I propose that keeps us on crutches and hobbles our development. You’ve defined the word “want” as professing a lack of something. Well, professing the word “belief” indicates a lack of knowledge. Belief seems to be the same thing as “want.” If I believe, it’s the same as wanting something to be true; and I therefore profess a ‘lack’ of knowledge. Now that, I did just make up, and wonder what response it will generate.

        Clearly both of us are entitled to our own opinions and it’s been fun to discuss this with you, as it helps me pull words out of myself to try to explain what I’m thinking – and it points to holes in my arguments where there are some (a few, not many!). I applaud many of the lessons of CWG and the directive to try and live up to our highest vision of ourselves – but I don’t need to believe in God to do that.

  • mewabe

    First of all, it would probably be best that “should” never be part of a conversation. “Should” means rules and regulations.

    Frank Fools Crow once said “believe and you will see”…I would add “love and you will know”.

    There is a difference between beliefs and dogma. Dogma are beliefs set in stone. Religions are usually composed of dogma, not just beliefs. There are dangerous precisely because dogma demands absolute obedience and the end of thinking. Dogma and thinking are mutually exclusive.

    Normal everyday beliefs are much more fluids and are simply tools which we use, consciously and wisely or unconsciously, to create our own experience. They may or may not work for us, they may be rooted in neurosis or come from emotional and psychological clarity, they may originate from the inner self or be the product of conditioning. It is up to the individual to figure these things out.

    • mewabe

      I agree with all your comments Neale.

      As far as the danger of some other person or group turning the CWG material into dogma in the future, as you say that is always a possibility (anything can become extreme, inflexible and rather dogmatic, even a diet, when people become compulsive-see how some compulsive individuals who got on a macrobiotic diet decades ago died because they thought they could live on brown rice alone), but what are you supposed to do about it? Perhaps add a warning in your books: If you ever turn this into a dogma I will come down from heaven and kick your rear end!

      [Yes, I should have said “some mass beliefs” are more dangerous, whenever they disallow critical thinking (religious ideologies, religious dogma)].

  • NealeDonaldWalsch

    When the above exchange between Patrick and I first appeared, Patrick posted a response, and I once again replied to him. Here is that interaction…
    ========================================================

    Neale, thank you for your detailed response. [You are welcome!] I don’t get notifications when you edit inline, vs when someone “replies” to me, so I don’t know how long ago you replied. [Well, I’m glad you discovered that I did.]

    Have I read the CWG books? If you’ve followed my posts you know that I read all 3 CWG books and a number of your other books. I see ‘Communion’ and ‘New Revelations’ in my bookcase in my office, and I have several more in the study downstairs. I have certainly contributed to your financial well-being. [The reason that I thought you had either not read or not absorbed the CWG material very well is that the questions you asked had already been answered — and I want to say, thoroughly — in the CWG texts. Indeed, repeatedly, quite by intention, so that clarity about such things as “what God wants” could not be missed.]

    To be honest, after a while, it seemed to me, like the same basic material presented in different ways, so you could sell another book. [Your guess as to my motives is incorrect. First, each of the 9 CWG dialogue books moves the conversation forward into areas not touched on or covered before. Then, in the non-dialogue books which have followed, my intention was to respond to the many readers who wrote to me seeking clarification or expansion of a concept they’d found in the dialogue. And I offer no apology for presenting “the same basic material in different ways.” All good teachers do that. Anyone who wants to get a message across knows it must be repeated — sometimes endlessly — to be “gotten” at a deep level. And New Thought writers are competing with an Old Cultural Story that has been repeated over and over again for thousands of years, and continues to be repeated in pulpits, books, movies, and stories to this very day. Repetition therefore meets Repetition in the Arena of Ideas…and well it should.]

    I read CWG1 many times and listened to the CDs countless times. I gave away copies of the CDs and a few CWG books and was a CWG “evangelical” for some time. Back before you took it all in-house with programs and seminars, there was a movement to spread the CWG word by us – the people who read and loved your books, but someone pulled the sheet out from underneath that endeavor and the process was commercialized, along with justifications about how it’s OK to make money. [No one has ever stopped anyone from sharing the CWG messages whenever they wished to, so long as they did not represent themselves as having been trained or deeply backgrounded in CWG by me, or imply by use of the CWG logo or name that they had been. But all I have ever done is encourage the establishment of CWG Study Groups around the world, and I have never stopped anyone from sharing this material. Have we produced our own programs and seminars in-house? Of course we have. I was asked to, by readers around the world who wanted the chance to sit in the same room with me and explore the material deeply. And we made sure that our fees — captured to cover our expenses and provide minimal income so that the teaching could continue — were always 66% lower than any other similar programs out there. Always. This has been our guideline from the beginning. What are others charging? Charge one-third of that. And make sure that 20% of all seats at every workshop are made available on full scholarship, for those who cannot afford to pay anything. Give books away, too, through a Books for Friends program. And put four or five books on the Internet, in full. And then offer a 3-day Spiritual Renewal Retreat every year absolutely free for anyone who wishes to attend. Yes, this certainly sounds like overt commercialization. No question. Ah, but why charge anything at all? Because, as CWG states clearly: “All true benefits are mutual.” And you’re right. It IS “okay to make money.” A huge section of the CWG dialogue discusses this point, and makes it clear that our society has its priorities distorted. It’s okay to pay a million dollars a month to someone who plays baseball, or to pay 50 million to someone to take their clothes off and simulate a sexual act in a movie, but it’s not okay for someone who does what some would call work that directly assists or benefits humankind to produce a good income from it. So nurses, ministers, priests, rabbis, teachers and others in the helping professions should not experience financial abundance. That’s called “commercialization.” Wow. I get it. Interesting set of priorities we have there. No wonder the world is upside-down.]

    No problem, [Really? Then why did you bring it up?] I should have remained focused on that myself and not wasted so many of my own work hours. I participated in writing letters that were going to be sent to businesses, media, etc. to spread the word – all for naught. [I’m sorry you felt this was wasted time. I have come to understand, however, that no effort in life which was intended for good is ever for naught.] While my views are evolving, I don’t hesitate to point out that your material provided to me with CWG was a valuable stepping stone away from religion and into greater personal growth – which is perhaps why I can now sit and question an internationally acclaimed author with self-confidence. [Questioning is one thing. Impugning my motives is another. You may want to look at that.]

    What I apparently haven’t made clear is that the words you often use frequently seem to contradict the concepts you claim to support, and you don’t seem to understand that’s what I’m driving at. I agreed that some people need to animate their idea of God, as you do by using Ed Asner and the other lady whose name I forget to play the parts of God in your CD. [Patrick, for goodness sake, if I wanted to put the text in Audio Book format (and thousands asked me to), I had to have a human being read God’s words. Should I have gotten a robot to do it? A metallic electronic Text-to-Voice program? And yes, I used both Ed Asner and Ellen Burstyn in order to make a point, since I had to use a human being anyway. My point was that God is neither male nor female. But I did not wind up “using” Ed and Ellen because I wanted to “animate” my idea of God. I was producing an audio book.] I accept your point that people can envision this force, power, intelligence, essential essence, consciousness, or whatever in human terms – though I personally think it is counterproductive to do so. [And for others it is not. For some others, it is precisely the opposite. For some others it is VERY productive to do so. So there you have it. To each his own. I know you agree with this.]

    You seem to encourage people to think of God as a personal being with the words that you use – and maybe you don’t realize this. [On the contrary, I very MUCH realize it. I have a wonderful friendship with God! Even wrote a book by that title, encouraging others to create one as well. And millions have. And millions have been grateful for the suggestion.] I pointed out that you regularly use words that describe “God” as a being, as a person. You insist that this is not at all what you mean, [No, no…I insist that this is not the ONLY thing I mean. I am saying that God can show up in our lives in a hundred different ways, INCLUDING as a “being.” I am saying that it is not a case of either/or, it is a case of both/and. Yes? You see?] and I will take you at your word – but it’s very confusing in light of the words you often use in your posts and newsletters that insinuate that God is a personal being. [I am sorry that you find the idea that God does not have to be one thing or the other “very confusing.” I understand that sometimes I refer to God as a Deity and sometimes I refer to God as the Essential Energy, and I am sorry if this feels confusing for you to follow.] I’m just trying to share with you, the impression that I think you leave with your readers, may not be what you intend. [It is precisely what I intend. God can be (and will be, instantly, if you ask God to) your greatest friend, your greatest helper in times of need, your greatest comforter in times of sorrow, your greatest companion in times of loneliness — and the greatest, most powerful Essential Energy you could ever employ to generate specific outcomes in your life. That is precisely what I intend to communicate. I’m sorry if this is confusing to you.]

    I’m sure many people see the “God” you describe as a being like the Abrahamic god is understood to be – only nicer. [i hope that this is one way they see God, yes. I sure do.] Most of the time it seems to me you refer to God in this “personal being” sort of way. [Yes, you’ve made that point now…er, um….repeatedly.] You even use the word “deity” at times – and that specifically means a “being.” [Okay, you’re selling past the close.] Sorry, but this is as confusing to me as when Jesus specifically says that he did not come to abolish the law and Christians insist this means he came to abolish the law. On the one hand, the God you describe is an all that IS essential essence, and in the next instant it’s a She with wants and needs and all sorts of human characteristics. [You say that you have read the CWG material so thoroughly that you were once evangelistic about it….yet you keep insisting that I describe God as a being “with wants and needs,” in spite of the fact that the book What God Wants and the book GOD’S MESSAGE TO THE WORLD: You’ve Got Me All Wrong, and every one of the Conversations with God books, make it clear that just the opposite is true: that God “wants and needs” nothing. But if you have not absorbed this message, quite purposely repeated in every book I have ever written, I can understand why you are confused.]

    With regard to my contention that much of what Jesus said is inline with CWG; I’m referring more to what he was actually reported to have said in the NT, as opposed to what Christians have said that he’s all about. I’ve read the material. Jesus gave us ‘love your neighbor, ‘turn the other cheek,’ ‘love your enemies,’ and much more that is fully in line with how I understand CWG – and you said as much in the book. I referred to Jesus – not to Christianity, which indeed, has very little to do with Jesus. [Fair enough. We agree, then, on this.]

    In CWG you seemed to think Jesus actually performed miracles and the like. [I don’t think that he did, I know that he did.] I don’t recall if you said in CWG that you believed there was an actual resurrection, but I hope not. [I’m curious. Why?] You’ve mentioned in CWG that you thought Moses was a real person. It’s clear that your early Christianity played a role in the ‘stream of consciousness’ that produced CWG. [No question. God has made it clear in the dialogue that He will speak to us in any way that She feels will most quickly and easily be received and understood by us — and then expand our ideas beyond that entry point to places we never even dreamed existed.] The real question is whether that stream of consciousness originated in your brain or in some other way. I’m agnostic on that till science tells us more, but it’s clear that your mind – your memories, experiences, knowledge, beliefs, etc. all played an active role in what came out of that stream of consciousness to give us CWG. [Yup. Agreed again. In fact, when I brought this very thing up in the dialogue, asking God how do I know these are not just my own memories, thoughts, ideas, etc., God replied in words that made it clear to me that the sum total of all we have experienced in our life is part and parcel of our present state of consciousness. That is what the evolution of the Mind is about.] It didn’t all come from outside of you, and I don’t think you said that it did; but it’s an important point for people to keep in mind, even if some of it did come from outside of your mind. [I could not agree more.]

    Now to the CWG as a religion question…. Jesus never intended to start a new religion. Paul, more than anyone else is probably responsible for Christianity. I get it that you say CWG is not a new religion, but you have followers who would love to turn it into one – I exchanged posts with one here not long ago. Whatever your intentions for CWG, it can get out of your hands and get turned into something very different from what you envisioned. [Does this mean that no one should ever write books that place new ideas—even ideas they say are inspired by God—before humanity?]

    Because you use so many ‘personal being’ type descriptions in your writing to refer to God, it’s not a big step to a personal New Age God that has as little to do with CWG as Christianity has to do with Jesus. [I surely hope this does not happen. But it does not argue that I should therefore have never published these books. It points to a danger, but isn’t that the danger of all new ideas? I mean, that someone will adopt them, and that others may twist and distort them? Does that argue for the presentation of No New Ideas? Or does that argue for diligence on the part of many in making sure that distortions do not occur…or are as limited as possible, and corrected quickly? I’m not sure what the point here is. Is the point that I should never have allowed the books to be published? If not, then what IS the point?] From books and CDs to seminars and sessions, the march to religion and profit seems to be inching along, and once you’re gone, all bets are off… someone else will pick up the reins, and there will be squabbles for control and we’re off to the races – just like early Christianity. [Books and CDs and seminars and sessions are all ways that any good ideas get shared in our world of today. They do not represent a “march to religion” when the books, CD’s, seminars and sessions directly announce that they are NOT a religion. As to your introduction, once again, of the word “profit,” I am sorry that I do not play first base for the New York Yankees, or undress and simulate sex acts on camera, in which case there would be no problem, presumably, with making a “profit” from what I do, but I do understand that to make a “profit” from placing what some feel are wonderful ideas about God into the world seems to be inappropriate to you. I don’t happen to agree. When we decide to change some of the things from which people are encouraged to make a profit, we will change the world.]

    I’ll finish with “beliefs.” I think that belief is the most limiting thing a human being can do to him/herself. The only reason to believe is because you don’t “know.” Once you know something, there’s no longer any need or reason to believe it. [I agree. But unfortunately, due to the limited capacity of the human Mind, many people find it difficult to “know” everything. In fact, most of us find that difficult. I’ll go further. I don’t think the human Mind was even designed to allow us to “know” everything. At the level of Soul, we DO “know” everything, and there is nothing for us to learn. We need only to remember. CWG tells us this. But the Mind alone, without connecting with the Soul, is not designed to be able to hold the “knowing” of everything. So some things seem to have to be taken on faith. Some things — things that we can’t seem to know directly, from experience or observation — wind up being things we “believe”, based on someone else’s observation or experience. That does not seem to be an unreasonable way to proceed through life, and I reject the categorical statement that believing something is the most limiting thing a human being can do. For many people “believing” is just the opposite. It REMOVES the limits placed on the human Mind by the need to “know” something as a matter of observable and provable fact. To me “the most limiting thing a human being can do” is to require every single idea that has ever been placed before the Mind to be factually substantiated before it can be embraced as functional. I don’t require my wife to factually substantiate that she loves me when she puts this idea into my head. I believe that she does, and she doesn’t have to prove it to me. If I said “prove it” every time someone said “I love you” to me, now THAT would be “limiting”!]

    The problem with belief is that people who hold beliefs stop looking for the answers, the truth, the knowledge, because they think they already have it. [Who said so? Who said that? Is that your observation? If so, I want to suggest that you have observed very few people, and have made a broad generalization that is, from MY observation, patently untrue. Here is what I find to be my truth about this: People who hold beliefs CAN stop looking for answers, and some of them do — but some of them, a great many of them, don’t. So I would question your very broad generalization.]

    Without overcoming belief, we’d still be in the Bronze Age; but scientists threw off the belief system and moved us forward with knowledge to replace beliefs.[And science has done well in many, many areas; in those areas where certainty through empirical evidence has proven possible. Yet science even today is wrestling with whether there even is such as thing as “consciousness.” Does that mean, because science has not proven its existence, that we are not served by believing in it?]

    That is why I think we need to be patient. I think most people would agree that consciousness can be equated in some sense with the idea of the soul, of the Oneness, the essential essence, you refer to; the all that IS idea – and science is going to figure out consciousness. If it turns out that it is emergent – that it springs from the matter of the brain – then the whole “god” idea is going to require a radical revision, isn’t it? [Why? God had nothing to do with the brain of humans? God could not have been ingenious enough to use the brain as the means of producing consciousness? That’s like saying that God had nothing to do with evolution because science has now proven and demonstrated how our species has evolved. So since science has now discovered how God did it, that means that God must not have done it??? And must not even exist? Wow, let’s throw the baby out with the bath water, while we’re at it.]

    I appreciate the discussion. [So do I, Patrick. Thank you! I don’t get a chance to exchange views at this level with people very often. This is what The Global Conversation is all about, and I’m glad to see it being used this way!] I appreciate that you, like many people, would like to leave a legacy. I only caution you that others may take CWG when you are no longer here to correct them, and they will use the words you have written in posts, and newsletters to support a deity, a personal god who has wants and needs, and they will require certain beliefs and practices, and of course there must be a financial gain for the organization, and you will sit on a cloud with Jesus and shake your head and ask how in the world did that happen? [I’m not going to sit here and suggest that there is no way in the world that this could ever happen. But what is your point in repeatedly making this observation? I ask again and again…What is your point? Is it that one should never bring new ideas to the table for fear that someone else may later distort them? If that is not your point, then what IS your point? That new ideas are dangerous because they may be twisted and maimed by others? Is your point that ideas which are claimed to have been inspired by GOD should not be placed before humanity for this reason? Is that your point? Would that include the Declaration of Independence? Einstein’s Theory of Relativity? Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses? All of these ideas were inspired by God. Whence commeth inspiration? And all of these ideas created enormous change and meteoric advancement in the evolution of our species. Should they have been kept quiet, never been spoken out loud (much less written down), for fear that they could be distorted? I’m not sure what your point is here, Patrick.]

    • Gina

      [And New Thought writers are competing with an Old Cultural Story that has been repeated over and over again for thousands of years, and continues to be repeated in pulpits, books, movies, and stories to this very day. Repetition therefore meets Repetition in the Arena of Ideas…and well it should.]
      This is true. Old stories are in technicolor— in all sorts of musical and visual arts genres you can think of; musicals, epic poetry reading with incidental orchestral music, exotic, percussion instruments playing etc. Being widely exposed to audio-visual material in these forms in the most tender, impressionable ages is the most powerful, effective, unshakable, indelible education agent for our young. Oh and their frequency and regularity and consistency? Wow, talk about organized repetition… New Thought movements are so puny in comparison—profit or not.
      While we’re at it, we could consider employing a robotic, voice to text, to do your next audio book. Why not? Our born-LTE – ready generation of youth might be more accessible thru such super technological approaches!

  • Andres

    Beyond the discussion regarding “beliefs”, clearly the insight provided by Neale and his CWG material, about humanity’s problems boiling down to a shared Cultural Story, is astoundingly relevant, and probably the deepest and most heart-centered truth I can think of. The problem is that it is somewhat like a snake bitting its own tail…you change your co-created reality by changing your beliefs, but what you want to change in such reality exists precisely because you branded it as negative, a.k.a. Seeing Any Thing As Negative (SATAN). Is climate change something evil, or just a change that corresponds to shifting levels of collective conciousness brought about by global conversations such as this one? ISIS? etc.? Anyone? Neale?

    • Climate change may be a result of collective consciousness, but that does not mean it is beneficial for the planet or it’s many life forms. Well, it may benefit us by waking us uP to clean it up so we can live on a healthy life affirming planet rather than a polluted unhealthy planet.

      • Andres

        Thank you Marco for your response. It is my opinion that the planet, like God, cannot be damaged in any way. And life will certainly continue way after humans are gone. Whether we judge it unhealthy or not

        • mewabe

          Beware of new age spiritual ideas that are tainted by political ideologies (in this case conservatism?) and only serve to validate such ideologies…the planet cannot be killed, but the ecosystem, the life-supporting system is devastatingly altered by industrial, human generated pollution, as are our own bodies which are ALSO a part of the NATURE WE RECKLESSLY AND MINDLESSLY DESTROY (ever seen a picture of the tar sands in Alberta, of a clearcut forest or the trash floating in the ocean?)

          • Andres

            Yup I ‘ve seen it, live right next to the Amazon Basin. Seen it destroyed by poor families just trying to scrape out a living. And don’t think branding others as conservative is gonna stop them. There is no future for nature’s status quo if you don’t change the status quo for humans. Trying to blame someone for it is not the solution, it’s the problem. Thanks for your post buddy.

          • mewabe

            The dialogue just got derailed!

            I never “blamed” conservatives for destroying the rainforest or any other ecosystem. In this we are all equally guilty. But I did noticed how some so-called spiritual ideas are used by some people, often conservatives, as yet another convenient mean to deny inconvenient truths.

            To get back to the topic, you mentioned that the planet cannot be damaged in ANY way.

            Look at it this way:

            The human body, that is part of nature, can be damaged in MANY ways (from abuse, from a myriad combination of chemical and industrial pollution, from inorganic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, from certain medications, from drugs or alcohol, from unhealthy habits, among many other things).

            In the same manner, the physical earth, which is nature, can be damaged in MANY ways, and is. The ozone layer is damaged, the oceans are damaged, the water supplies are polluted, the air is polluted, the land is polluted, the forests are disappearing, etc, and this is only the beginning, humanity apparently ain’t done yet.

            The only difference between the human body and the earth is a matter of threshold of tolerance to abuse. The effects of abuse on the human body can take decades. The “body” of the earth being much larger, the effects of abuse on the earth can take many centuries, and be so slow as to make us believe we can get away with murder (yes, destroying the earth’s ecological balance is committing murder towards the future generations).

            It would be so refreshing to see people who profess to love God actually respect, honor and love her physical creation, one of which being the earth, and to see them demand that the rape and destruction of such a beautiful Divine creation ceases immediately.

            But to do this, they would first have to acknowledge that the planet is being raped and its ecological systems damaged. And that is a difficult thing for conservative Christians or any other conservative types to acknowledge, because their ideology gets in the way of the facts.

            Thanks for your comment buddy.

          • Andres

            Hi Mewabe. I appreciate your input. I certainly don’t wish to get enmeshed in U.S. political debate (not a U.S. citizen). I understand what you mean about certain new age ideas being used to justify behaviors you and I don’t condone. I am just trying to reflect on the CWG teachings regarding what we brand as “wrong” and how that shows up in our co-created reality. Today I see in the news. that the Millenial generation in the United States is having fewer children than any generation in history, not out of lack of desire to have kids, but out of fear and uncertainty about their financial future. The question is, how did the most powerful, wealthy, technologically advanced society the planet has ever known (at least in recorded history) end up doing this to its own future, when we understand the long term economic implications for those living today, of fewer and fewer babies? And surprisingly to some, this sounds like good news, it means Millenials are somewhat more “responsible”. May I dare to ask, is it possible that maybe our Cultural Story is so much about guilt and revenge, that we humans jeopardize our own future and we think it is good news? Does environmentalism that sees humans upon this earth simply as a destructive force, a plague of some kind, correlate with what we say being upon this earth and experiencing life is all about? Are these not just old fashioned abrahamic (not to say Christian) beliefs about not deserving life, unworthiness and original sin with a new name? Sorry it took so long to answer. Thanks Mewabe for the chance to have this conversation.

          • mewabe

            Thank you Andres.
            Yes, my comments specifically addressed the US political scene…

            I understand how some people portray humanity as a plague or cancer…I don’t. I also know how this can be rooted in the self-hatred generated by Abrahamic religions focused on “sin”, and be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
            All of this has become a tangled web that will be difficult to untangle, as some religious people actually wish for the destruction of the world.

            I see things differently, from a natural perspective, from a more indigenous point of view, one that is simpler and more direct. I see the deep fear that is at the root of civilization’s endless quest for power and control over everything. I see the lack of humanity’s connection to the earth. Most of humanity searches for God, but very few become conscious of their oneness with the land upon which they walk, with the air and waters, with the plants and animals, with all of nature.

            Humanity is not a plague, but it is lost and terribly fearful, because believing itself separate from all life. It is plain to see from a natural perspective, one that acknowledges our deep connection to all of nature.

          • Andres

            Wise words my friend. Thanks for sharing

          • mewabe

            Thank you Andres.

  • Patrick Gannon

    There is some discussion of science below… I will be the first to admit that many scientists hold “beliefs” as do religionists. For this reason, belief is just as much of a trap to them as it is to people who turn to the supernatural to explain that which they don’t know.

    It is entirely possible that there is something beyond our PMR or physical matter reality. The problem is the tools scientists have today are based on the space/time rule set that define this PMR. If there is an NPMR or non-physical matter reality, they deny it exists because they can’t see outside the PMR box they are in with their space/time tools. It’s very possible that this PMR is all there is – but maybe not. They could be right, but if they had more open minds and pushed the research in different directions, they might find out more quickly what is and what isn’t so. By labeling investigation into activities ‘outside the box’ so to speak, as pseudoscience, they shame themselves into not wanting to go down those paths of exploration, potentially denying themselves the very discoveries they seek.

    On the other hand, religionists who insist there is something outside the PMR box, are also believers and like scientists, can’t prove their beliefs either – indeed, far less so. So what do we end up with? We have two groups of people, each proposing beliefs that contradict each other, and instead of working together to figure it out one way or the other, all the energy is spent attacking the other’s beliefs. If both sides had open minds and shunned beliefs, they would communicate more clearly with each other and there would be less contention between them. It’s gotten so bad that belief traps have people actively throwing away some of the benefits science has given us like immunity through vaccinations, and a lot of that claptrap is as associated with the New Age movement as it is with religious fundamentalism.

    The thing is, time is on the side of science. The goal of scientists is to uncover truth, to prove other scientists and other theories wrong and to get that Nobel prize. Over the centuries since the Enlightenment, who has contributed more to society: science or religion? Unless you consider population control through war and killing to be a beneficial endeavor, religion, based on belief, has brought us little of benefit, as best I can tell. Much of what science has brought us has involved overcoming religious beliefs, such as epilepsy being caused by demons, or the earth being the center of the universe, or a literal Genesis creation or God being responsible for the weather. Even from a social standpoint, those with beliefs, the religionists, have frequently done everything they can to deny rights to other individuals; and they continue to do so – all based on beliefs derived from primitive, mythical texts. Scientists meanwhile work to find out what the truths really are about race, sex, orientation, disabilities, etc. by studying the human genome for example. Progress doesn’t come from belief on the religious side; it’s mostly roadblocks to scientific and social progress that comes from that side.

    Now Neale is proposing that we replace one old set of religious beliefs with another set that still has a number of similarities, particularly to Christianity with its miracles and resurrections and other such mystical beliefs. I don’t deny that it is a nicer set of beliefs, but it’s still based on believing things we don’t know. We don’t like the word ‘religion’ so we call it a ‘new cultural story’ but it’s a new set of beliefs that is religious in many respects, and therefore subject to being turned into dogma as Mewabe mentioned below. Perhaps upgrading or replacing beliefs eases us along – I admit it was a stepping stone for me – but in my opinion, an open, skeptical mind that looks at the evidence from both sides, is the only truly rational decision.

    Neale asks me, “Or is it your assertion that “beliefs”, in and of themselves, are somehow evil, or “no good,” and that even if it is a “belief system” that dramatically improves behaviors, it should be automatically rejected simply because it IS a “belief system”? Is that your assertion?

    I would not use the word “evil” but if we believe something that isn’t true, we’re lying to ourselves, like fundamentalists who believe in a six day creation. If we believe in something and we don’t know whether what we believe is true or not, we’re still just fooling ourselves and taking a cop out from real responsibility to find out what is and is not true; so yes, that is essentially my assertion. Also it remains to be seen if the new belief system dramatically improves behaviors – I’ve seen plenty of antagonism from New Agers to legacy religion and the scientific community. New beliefs equates to new divisions.

    Neale, I try to model myself after “Anne” the “fair witness” from “Stranger in a Strange Land” who when asked,”What color is the house on the hill” responds that it is “white on this side.” Anne would never assume that it was white on the other side unless she saw it, and then she wouldn’t assume it stayed white after she left.

    P.S. I responded further to the post Neale cut/pasted below in the older thread.

    • GH Annie

      Patrick,

      You say that “time is on the side of science.”

      I disagree. Science has already provided the answers to the diseases causing many of our children to die, yet still they are dying hourly. Science has already taught farmers how to increase crop yields, yet people are still starving. Science has already learned how to easily and cheaply turn sunlight and wind into electricity, yet people still live without it. Science has already taught us that the best way to deal with AIDS is to use a condom during sex, yet people are still contracting the disease and dying from it. Science has already taught us that deforestation will ultimately cause there to not be enough oxygen producing plants to sustain life, yet the forests and jungles continue to be razed.

      Science has provided many answers, yet the world is still in the state that it is. Why?

      If we believe, because of our current cultural story, that the children who are dying from disease belong to a different religion and are therefore separate from us and don’t matter, then it’s not science we need.

      If we believe, because of our current cultural story, that the people who are starving aren’t working hard enough and bring it upon themselves, as well as being separate from us and therefore don’t matter, then it’s not science we need.

      If we believe, because of our current cultural story, that it’s OK to continue to burn fossil fuels and let many people do without because they have no access to or cannot afford them, even though cheaper solar and wind technologies are available, and they’re separate from us so they don’t really matter anyway, then it’s not science we need.

      If we believe, because of our current cultural story, that sex education including how to appropriately use a condom increases the number of teenagers having sex, and besides, those people dying of AIDS deserve it and are separate from us so it doesn’t affect us anyway, then it’s not science we need.

      If we believe, because of our current cultural story, that human beings have the right to cause the extinction of other species by deforestation, not to mention threatening the survival of our own species, and that other species are separate so they don’t matter anyway, then it’s not science we need.

      Children are dying NOW. People are starving NOW. People go without electricity (not to mention clean water and sanitation) NOW. People are contracting and dying of AIDS NOW. Species are going extinct, and our own future is at risk, NOW.

      If we can change peoples’ beliefs, we can change all of these situations. And we can start (and have started) NOW.

      What do you find so threatening by things that aren’t rock-solid proven by science? It’s been wrong many, many, MANY times.

      The earth moves around the sun, yet at one time it was “proven” by the convoluted backtracking of each planet’s motions that the sun moved around the earth.

      Blood moves through the arteries because of tiny valves, compression and relaxation of blood vessel walls, and blood pressure. Yet at one time it was “proven” blood moved in ebbs and flows, like the tides.

      Pluto was once thought to be a planet, and now it’s not.

      Science can be wrong. Is often wrong. Then it is corrected or expanded upon.

      Why can’t we do the same with our cultural story, or religions, or histories written by the winners of wars, without raising the hackles of people who “believe” in science?

      Blessings,
      ~Annie

      • Patrick Gannon

        I only proposed that science will find answers. I don’t propose that we will use them properly. In fact it is often those who have “beliefs” that are responsible for the misuse of what science has given us.

        You’ve set up a bit of a ‘straw man’ argument, suggesting that I said science was never wrong, and if you’ll note, I started off the post saying, “I will be the first to admit that many scientists hold “beliefs” as do religionists. For this reason, belief is just as much of a trap to them as it is to people who turn to the supernatural to explain that which they don’t know.”

        Mainstream science does hold beliefs, and these beliefs are proven wrong again and again. The beauty of science is that it has built in mechanism and processes designed to test beliefs and seek truths if the beliefs are found wanting. Science reorganizes itself around the new knowledge. Religion and beliefs don’t give us new knowledge; and often fight to prevent that very thing since it might challenge the beliefs. CWG has not brought us new knowledge – it has brought us new beliefs. Now, as in the old cultural story, science needs to test those beliefs.

        I proposed a few times in this forum, in weeks past, that advocates of an all that IS sort of God in which psi effects are considered to be real, that these believers test the beliefs – for example by gathering thousands of people online in order to stop a clock or affect a random number generator. My suggestion has been met with silence, because believers don’t question or test; they believe.

        When I said, time is on the side of science, I meant that in time, science, and not religions will figure out what consciousness is for example.

        You agree that science can be and often is wrong, and you agree that it then corrects and expands upon itself in an orderly process. You ask why we can’t do this with cultural stories. My answer is that the cultural stories are based on beliefs, and unlike science, there are no built in mechanism and processes specifically designed to continue to seek out new knowledge and information. Rather the focus seems to be on preventing that very thing.

        • GH Annie

          Patrick,

          Do you not see that CWG itself is “designed to continue to seek out new knowledge and information?” Both it and Neale say we all are continually having our own conversations with God. It’s a matter of, as I see it, how conscious one chooses to be.

          I consider what my Soul tells me to be knowledge, not faith in a belief.

          Blessings,
          Annie

  • Gina

    Beliefs are thoughts we think more often, more cosistently, and since there are things we can’t personally experience or scientifically prove, we can test the universe and watch the effects instead. For example, watch the effects certain beliefs create, or effects of believing in consciousness. I understand CwG to explain consciousness to be the combination at any given time of one’s level of awareness (state of the mind?) and the Soul’s knowing. We can assume this to be true and watch the results this belief creates. Why don’t you practice what you profess and drop the weighing of pros and cons, efforts to defend your position, somehow hearing out both sides of the argument as a fair judge? In terms of the law of attraction, this doesn’t work. If it’s your conviction that this new belief system could produce beneficial effects, then make your focus more singular rather than dual. In light of the brightness of your energy field, so to speak, Neale, yours is muddied and watered down.

    • Gina

      Consciousness in CwG terms, as I recall, is the mind’s attention to the Soul’s knowledge. The brain doesn’t host consciousness, but rather, consciousness animates the brain. So it is with the body and soul. The body does not house the soul, but the body lives within the cobweb of life force originating from the Soul. To me this was very persuasive explanation that made far more sense than the others, given what I had gathered about what the Soul is and the relationship between energy and matter. My filter is more sparsely woven and im not as lucid and dexterous as Neale, so I cannot further explain why it rings true.

      • Patrick Gannon

        “The brain doesn’t host consciousness, but rather, consciousness animates the brain.”

        Challenge yourself. Read Graziano’s “Consciousness and the Social Brain.”

        He won’t ask you to “believe” him, but he’ll make a compelling argument for how awareness arises from the physical process of the brain through the development of an ‘attention schema’ based on competing information that the brain is processing.

        • Gina

          Can it be both consciousness arises from the physical process of the brain, and consciousness animates the brain? My belief regarding this is, consciousness/energy/soul comes before any matter, gives birth to, and undergirds, and holds together all things physical. Therefore my belief is that consciousness continues after the physical brain death. All that scientific research on this topic does is, find out how the physical brain registers and processes consciousness. They don’t prove the origin of consciousness, nor disapprove consciousness apart from the brain.

          It wouldn’t be challenging myself if I start looking for the evidence of the brain as the origin of consciousness. It would be backsliding, devolving, though! There is so much anecdotal evidence of consciousness surviving clinical death. It’s saying the toaster is the generator of electricity. I know if I look for evidence I will find it, evidence that supports either proposition, because of the law if attraction. Scientific research is biased by the experimenter ‘s prejudice.
          You can say that I’m wanting this to be true, that’s what a belief is. That may be. I’m not so eager about figuring out the mysteries of the universe. I just want to live happily. You see, I don’t have a burning desire or pressing questions or urgent matters. I’m not your match in intellectual discussions. You and Neale are. Or Mewabe. 😉 I don’t wanna delve into this belief/consciousness topic. My grid is too sparse and mercurial to stick long enough around boring stuff. My thought processes are rapid fire, clusters of images, and cerebral and finicky. They fleet before I put words to it, much less, a logical progression of words. My head gets on overload, and physically heats up like your overloaded cell phone. Not angry, just overwhelmed. In the mean time im enjoying your exchanges with other folks. Keep going. 😀

          • Patrick Gannon

            “Can it be both consciousness arises from the physical process of the brain, and consciousness animates the brain? My belief regarding this is, consciousness/energy/soul comes before any matter, gives birth to, and undergirds, and holds together all things physical. Therefore my belief is that consciousness continues after the physical brain death.”

            I neither agree nor disagree with this contention. It makes a lot of sense to me, (though I tend to think of consciousness as a substance, integral “bits” of information that become organized and ever more complex as the basic process of evolution works on them). However this is just a hypothesis. It’s a hypothesis I’m confident science will solve some day, and I’m content to be patient until that time, rather than engage in a belief that it does in fact work this way or that, and live my life based on a belief that might be (and quite probably is) incorrect.

            It’s great fun, very stimulating and inspirational to consider the possibilities – I just don’t see limiting myself by believing any of it, or anything else for that matter. It seems like a ‘cheat’ to believe rather than know or attempt to know.

  • Awareness

    I pondered over what Neale Donald Walsch wrote above, and before going to bed I decided to open “The Vortex” by Esther and Jerry Hicks 🙂 I found the following:

    We want you to think the thoughts that match what you want until you believe them. And when you think the thoughts that match what you want until you believe them, Universal Forces will give you the proof of your belief. But if you need to see it before you believe it, it cannot come. You have to believe it before you see it.

    What’s a belief?

    A belief is just a thought you keep thinking.”

    So what did we just say? You have to keep thinking the thought until it becomes; you have to keep thinking the thought until you believe it––and when you believe it––it is. It’s so simple. (We are done.) [Fun] So what distracts you from that? Reality. Facts. So what? Everything that you see that you call reality is just coagulated, coalesced, combined thought––a thought that somebody thought long enough.

    When Esther asks, “Abraham, shouldn’t I think about that because it’s true?” we say, all truth is, is something that enough people, or a person, gave enough attention to long enough that it became a thought that they thought about and thought about and thought about and thought about it––until it attracted its equivalent.

    There are all kinds of things in your environment––that you believe––that match what you want. And there are all kinds of things in your environment that you believe that defy what you want. How would you ever sort them out? How do you know the active beliefs within you that serve you well and the active beliefs that are within you that don’t serve you? How do you know the beneficial ones from the detrimental ones? The beneficial beliefs feel better when you think them. The detrimental ones feel worse when you think them.

    “Oh, but Abraham, there are a lot of thoughts I think that I don’t really have much feeling around.”

    Keep thinking them; they’ll get bigger and pretty soon, you’ll know. In other words, that’s the beauty of the Law of Attraction: In the early, subtle stages, you might not be able to feel the difference. But the longer you think them, the more active they become; the more active they become, the more attraction power; the more attraction power, the more obvious the results. Just like you knew it would be . . . . This is the perfect environment for a creator to create, and you knew it when you came.” by Abraham (SOURCE ENERGY!) channeled by Esther Hicks 🙂

    Bless ALL 🙂

  • John Jung

    Neale, I would express my concerns here, but I have the same concerns that Patrick Gannon has already expressed so well. All that I can add is my “vote”, so that maybe you will give them just a little more consideration.

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      John….I keep asking Patrick, and now you….What would this look like to you? You say I should give these concerns “just a little more consideration.” I am going to ask you directly, what would it look like for me to do that? I cannot UN-publish the books. And I am not imaging that you think I should never have published them. So what, then, would you have me do with regard to these “concerns”? I believe that I have already said that I would never suggest that the things Patrick mentions could never, ever happen. Somebody could, in fact — after I have left my present physical body — try to turn the CWG messages into doctrine and dogma. What, then, would be your point right now, John? What would you have me do about that, other than state in all of my books themselves (which I have done over and over again) and in virtually every major article I have written and speech I have given that CWG is not meant to be turned into dogma, or a new religion. So other than that, what would it look like to you for me to give these concerns more consideration?

      I keep asking this (I’ve asked Patrick three times now what his point, then, is as it relates to me, and I can’t seem to get an answer), and I’ll continue asking it so long as people keep bringing up this concern. Your point in bringing it up? You would have me do….what, exactly?

      • Gina

        Neale, what you can do is do what you can and let it rest. Remember: you cannot take responsibility for how well another will receive the message. Just endeavor to ne true to yourself. Do not waste your precious time on this earth either figuring out stuff or minding opposition. Better spend your time creating what you envision than waste it on minding what could go wrong. Collect evidence of how it is working, whats supportive, and how you already have done enough in this matter. Collect that data.

      • Gina

        Every time I see a post like this, and it being dragged on like this, I feel heavy and deflated. Don’t blog about this anymore, please!

        • Awareness

          From my understanding of the teachings of Abraham (SOURCE ENERGY!), here is the “secret”:

          “Negative emotion” within you means you are holding a thought about a situation/event which your source (inner being) does not hold 🙂

          “Negative emotion within you means you are holding a thought about a situation/event which the source (inner being) within you does not agree with 🙂 The “negative emotion” you feel is your indicator of disagreement between the “physical you” and the “Non physical YOU” 🙂 In essence it is a disagreement between you and YOU 🙂 It is a disagreement between your broader (infinite) perspective and your physical mind perspective 🙂

          Feeling “good” means that your current thought about a situation/event agrees with that of your broader inner being source 🙂

          The way I see it “negative emotion” is a signal to change your thought about the current situation. You always want to be in agreement with your inner being (Who You Really Are) 🙂

          I see the current discussions as leading to even grander understandings and outcomes 🙂
          Bless ALL 🙂

          • Gina

            When you see something you wantand you hold your attention on it and you give birth to a new idea — that new idea literally summons Life Force to itself through you. That’s what that feeling of passion is. But if you give birth to an idea, and as it begins to summon Life Force to itself through you, you begin to doubt it or worry about it or test it… now what happens is you are no longer a match to your own desire. So while it’s doing it’s best to summon Life Force to itself, for the completion of your idea, you are vibrationally out of sync with it now because you’re including opposite vibration within you. So even though it begins to summon, you don’t feel very good in the process because the Energy that is flowing through you is being hindered by the contradictory Energy that is within you. That’s what negative emotion is. Negative emotion is what you feel like when you introduce a lower, slower vibration to a higher, faster frequency. Once you understand what it feels like to summon Energy and what it feels like to summon a lot of Energy and to allow the Energy to flow, once you begin to, through your own trial and error, decipher Energy as you summon it and as you allow it to flow — you will never again receive, by default or by not recognizing, something that you are not wanting.

            If we were standing in your physical shoes, we would not allow or accept or tolerate
            long-standing negative emotion. Instead, we would use negative emotion in the way you all intended. We would feel it and know it for what it is: As an indicator that, in this moment, I have my attention upon something that is not in vibrational harmony with who I really am or with what I am wanting. Not forever, but in this moment. Or for as long as I hold this belief or attitude or attention to this lower vibration. Imagine a room fan blowing air in your direction. It’s quiet. You can’t hear it, but you know it’s on because you can feel the air blowing across your body. Now, stick your pencil in the fan. It would make quite a ruckus. Wouldn’t it? It might even chop your pencil off. Well,that pencil in the fan is what negative emotion is. When you introduce the lower, slower vibration into the higher, faster frequency, the result is a slowing of the Energy that was there before—and when your Energy slows from it’s natural Source-like Vibration, you feel crummy. That’s what negative emotion is. It’s what you feel like when something that you are giving your attention to, and, therefore, something that you are including in your vibration, is now causing you to vibrate differently than you really are.

            -Abraham-Hicks July, Aug, Sept, 1998 — QUARTERLY JOURNAL, VOL 5

          • Awareness

            The Law of Gratitude is Given 😀

            “To Know if Source, Infinite Intelligence, Inner Being, God agrees or disagrees with the thought, word, or action you are involved in––you have only to notice if it feels good or bad.” – “The Vortex” by Esther and Jerry Hicks 😀

            Bless ALL 😀

          • Gina

            …the Law of Attraction, the powerful Law that creates worlds, is amassing all cooperative places, people, events, things: All things necessary to fulfill what you been asking for are being drawn by this powerful vortex of Attraction.

             The question we want to put to you is: Are you cooperating?Are you cooperating with your own desire?
            “No, I’m bummed that I don’t have it.”
            Are you a vibrational match to your lover?
            “No, I’m mad at the one  I’ve got.”
            Are you a vibrational match to the well being that you’re asking for?
            “No, no, I’ve joined an online chat group and we complain. [Fun] We complain all day about how bad it is…… No, I am in my human form, the one uncooperative component of my creation.”
             So, what happens to your creation? Do others get it? No, they’ve got their own going. 
            “So, will my creation go away?”
             No, it’ll just gets bigger.

            Contrast really isn’t about something going wrong.

            We want you to reach the place where you are willing … just willing… determined… not just determined… eager to let go of the need of control of things that are uncontrollable—like anybody else is doing— and give your your undivided attention to the only thing you can control, which is how you feel in any given circumstance. In other words, we want you to leave this gathering saying, “I’ve decided that I’m going to take life as it comes, and I’m going to do the best that I can do in the midst of what I’m doing.”

            Nothing ever goes wrong, because every piece of contrast no matter what how wrong it seems to be is always helping you to clarify what it is you do want and that’s the thing that we want you to remember most of all is the contrast no matter how it looks in any moment is contributing mightily to your expansion and the things that you call things going wrong in your life experience are actually only the distance between the things that are so right and your current perspective about it.

            – “The Vortex” by Esther and Jerry Hicks

          • hempwise

            Thanks Gina so resonates with my understanding .The vibration is affecting reality can you explain scientifically the process involved in this energy exchange .
            We could do with some understanding on the processes involved in this .How our thoughts as if by magic create our on the ground reality and experience .Think only positive thoughts one says, do what you can to be of a higher consciousness .Put your attention towards your intention .Do not let the outer reality which you judge to be negative effect your inner reality .To be a master you have to practice detachment .
            The secret as some have called it can be used for individual success and riches but its in collective mastery that the planet evolves and renders itself sustainable .
            The problem is we have to understand how in actual reality this all works and disseminate the information far and wide .Science has to open up the space of possibility that there is something that it doesn’t understand about how life works the understanding of which will change everything !!!

            Namaste seekers of wisdom and truth .

        • mewabe

          Why do you feel heavy and deflated?
          This is just a conversation. If you think Patrick is missing something in his understanding of Neale’s messages, then Neale can explain what that is (and I think he has to a large extent). If Patrick still raises some interesting points, then they would be worth discussing.
          I personally do not think Neale can be responsible for the future.

          I think beliefs are mental tools that can be useful. But beyond all beliefs is soul knowing. That’s what we should all aim for. That’s not what Patrick is talking about though, he apparently wants scientific proof. I am not sure that it would make any difference, because evolution comes from soul knowledge, not exclusively mind knowledge.

          • Gina

            I feel disappointed to see the author of CwG learning nothing from what he brought forth. All the while quoting and re-quoting the material, and being accused of turning it into scripture for quoting, I see not much of its wisdom is internalized and utilized by him, as the books are often fond of saying, actually, factually, functionally. Just a couple points CwG repeatedly say that he seems to miss; 1.We are creating, not discovering, our individual and collective future, with every thought, word , and deed. In this time-space continuum, all possibilities exist. It’s just a matter of which picture we look at—what we pay attention to. We look at something, some probabilistic future event that gives us the dread, don’t give it a second thought. There’s no getting to the bottom and see who’s right in this. This is not a debate tournament. This is an inclusion-based universe. The creation switch is always on. The more you give attention to something the bigger and stronger it gets. It sticks to your consciousness like a tar baby whether you are kindly explaining your position or feeling chagrined and vehemently defending. 2. Always, be concerned with, and start with, yourself. Don’t worry about what others think of you. Your obsession with the other is what hinders you most in relationship. (In this case, with his readers.) Everyone is the sole and sovereign creator of their reality. You cannot take responsibility of their destiny—even if they are terribly misled by CwG and turn into some kind of sociopath later on. 3. True communication is only possible when love is present. People looking in from outside don’t know you. In this sense, and from the sense that the folks here making the accusations don’t seem to have really read the books, nor gotten the message, the critics don’t really know. They don’t count. They are just in a critical mood. It’s like the reviews on Yelp of your regular go-to pet-store, restaurant, or dry cleaner. You know it’s always the not-regular, shop-around, fickle customers who happen to be in a grumpy mood that leave a bad review. Those businesses and customers who know each other like a member of your family, that grew up, and are getting old with you , don’t get or leave a review. Those mom and pop stores you’ve been going to for years, they don’t need objective criteria (which are not so objective after all) by which to decide. They just intimately know, and love and support each other and look past whatever occasional glitches.

          • mewabe

            Good points.
            We are all human, with our limitations and imperfections. We are all imperfect. All we can do is appreciate each other for the gifts we are able exchange, and leave the rest, as it doesn’t really matter…all limitations are temporary, as are those of young children.

            I have tried to do this. I never agree 100% with any author, and I have expressed my views here, but always with the appreciation of what Neale has given and is still giving to those who have been lost in dogma: an open door to freedom. His messages are very valuable and quite necessary in a world that is so confused and darkened by very limited thoughts.

            I am not sure what Patrick is seeking here, in these debates. Only he can answer, and only he can find his own path, as do all of us. I have conversed with him, but have gotten nowhere but in circles, as he seems intend on demonstrating that he is right, even and occasionally at the price of self-contradiction.

            I understand his anger towards religion, and his deeper search for the “truth”, but what I see in him is that he does not trust himself, his inner guidance (perhaps because he felt betrayed by religion after trusting it, or perhaps because religion teaches not to trust your own heart), which might be why he is looking for external, so-called objective “proofs”.

            But I always welcome challenges, when they are honest. We sometimes learn more from disagreements than from agreements. If anything, we learn about ourselves and what makes us tick, or it can help clarify our thinking process and strengthen our ability to communicate.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “I have conversed with him, but have gotten nowhere but in circles, as he seems intend on demonstrating that he is right, even and occasionally at the price of self-contradiction.”

            I would appreciate an example of this.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Why can’t scientific proof include “soul knowing”? I have said in other posts that I would like to see science give more credence to subjective data, and not focus just on objective data.

            Let’s say you want to know what happens if you release a certain pathogen on the city of New Orleans. You can’t perform an objective experiment for obvious reasons, as many people would die. Instead you perform other tests in the lab and these provide subjective evidence of what is likely to happen. After a series of tests, in which you make predictions and test results, you can begin to draw reliable conclusions people can base decisions on.

            If hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands, of people are tested for psi effects, each test by itself is subjective, but if many experiments combined deliver similar results, and if predictions can be made, tested and confirmed by many subjective tests, then conclusions can be drawn that are still “scientific proof” based on “soul knowing.”

            Tom Campbell calls his book “MY Big TOE” meaning his own personal ‘theory of everything,’ and he invites everyone to come up with their own TOE based on their own personal “soul knowing.” It’s one reason I started meditating. If people follow his suggestions, they are in fact performing subjective experiments and if enough people have the same “soul knowing” then things will start to change – no beliefs required; and indeed, strongly discouraged.

      • Patrick Gannon

        From my perspective you’re intentionally missing my concerns; but let’s try again. We’ve spoken of several concerns, and it’s odd that some others seem to understand where I’m coming from while you don’t. Among the things we’ve discussed, in no particular order:

        Are belief systems good or bad; you say yes, I say no. This is a great forum for discussing this sort of question, by the way. We don’t have to agree.

        Is the New Age God (and this is not just you, but the entire New Age movement) creating a new religion and if so, is that a good thing or not? You say this is not intended, but then ask a couple times, if that did happen whether it would really be so bad, leaving a rather mixed message, and giving some of us the impression that perhaps a new religion based on CWG is exactly what you’d like to have happen.

        We’ve discussed whether the message about what God is, is confusing, as you frequently use language in your posts and newsletters that paints God as essentially another Abrahamic being, just a lot nicer, but then you adamantly claim this is not what you mean. The point is – your message has become confusing to some of us.

        Saying you believe in Jesus’ miracles and resurrections; well, it just comes across to me, as an upgraded version of Christianity, and yet the Abrahamic religions, Christianity in particular, are responsible for the Old Cultural story you detest and want so badly to replace. I can’t speak for others, but I doubt there are very many of us here who believe Jesus walked on water, cured people of epilepsy by casting out demons, or actually rose from the dead in a physical body. If you understand the use of crucifixion by the Romans, you know the open tomb story is bogus. It’s primarily Christian fundamentalists who believe that stuff; as even moderates are slowly coming to the realization that these are myths created by the oral traditions that developed in the several decades before anything was written down. Remember these are primitive, superstitious people who lived in a time when gods were everywhere and did all sorts of amazing things, but we don’t think all those pagan gods were real. It shows how deep Christian indoctrination is, that as an adult you and many others still believe these myths. I had a hard time shaking Hell; I understand.

        What would I have you do? LOL. Do whatever you want, but if you have any concerns about the issues being raised here, then some possible suggestions:

        Focus on the ONEness message, living to one’s highest vision of one’s self, and try to stay away from language that paints God as a deity – a super person, a being with wants, needs and desires. Exercise great care in referring to your books as though they are holy scripture; i.e. “according to CWG….” or “CWG tells us…” “God told me in our conversation…” You said lots of people do this with their books, but I don’t see it in other writers; and in any event your material is different because it claims to come from divine revelation. It comes across to me, and apparently to others, that you are quoting CWG as though it was scripture; and in order for it to be scripture it means people have to believe God actually spoke to you and the greatest likelihood is that the stream of consciousness that produced CWG came from within yourself based on your own personal experiences, beliefs, perceptions and knowledge. I sometimes start typing and words flow out of my fingers appearing on the screen before me, as though written by someone else, but I know it comes out of me, though I could easily say the words flow from God and that they deserve greater consideration as a result. They don’t. They are my words, and the words of CWG are your words.

        Lose the “hostility to the other” which has come to define Christianity in the eyes of many. Stop attacking conservatives or atheists or any other specific group in your columns. You can’t speak of Oneness and highest vision and then attack other groups without looking a bit hypocritical. That was perhaps the straw that broke my back. I’m an agnostic, but you gave atheists a hard time in a column a couple months ago, and they have nothing to do with the Old Cultural Story you detest so much – they want to get rid of that story too. The problem, I think is that you want to replace old beliefs with your new beliefs and maybe see them as competition, because they don’t need any beliefs at all. The bad guys, so to speak, those responsible for the Old Cultural Story remaining in effect, are fundamentalists of all flavors in all religions, but you defended Morton the fundy, whose beliefs are responsible for the Old Cultural Story. Atheists don’t want to stone gays, fundies do.

        Most of all, try to give some thought to the idea that beliefs are a poor substitute for knowledge, and understand that those who replace one set of beliefs with another are cheating themselves, and indeed hiding from themselves. The goal should be to try and get away from our belief traps. I know you don’t buy that, but at least think about it. Read “My Big TOE” by Tom Campbell. A lot of you’ll really like, but he has a lot to say about beliefs that everyone should think about – including the scientific community.

        The key point, I think is that the feedback you are getting here, should tell you that you should maybe stop; sit back and consider if you are getting across the message that you think you are. I imagine that you’re taken aback by all this, but I applaud you for not just spiking or ignoring it. It shows that you are concerned about how your message is being received and perceived. You’re more defensive than I thought you’d be, particularly when I questioned financial motives (religion and finance go hand in hand); but you’ve attempted to deal with the issues I’ve raised in a pretty honest, if not always convincing, fashion. That’s great.

        To be honest, I thought I’d be torn limb from limb by contributors here for questioning you; but that turned out not to be the case – you should ask yourself why that is. A lot of the discussion on this forum over the years, I would classify as mamby pamby Kumbaya discussions full of sweetness and little or no real meat. When asking, “Where’s the beef?”, I think we finally got there. Say the word, and I’ll go away – but if nothing else, perhaps my questions and comments will lead to some introspection and provide some assistance in the way you frame your message moving forward.

        I hope this helps clarify my concerns.

      • John Jung

        Neale, you just took the first step.
        On March 22, in IS IT REALLY POSSIBLE THAT GOD DOES NOT EVEN EXIST, you wrote “For example, after the idea that God is to be feared, I believe that the second most damaging notion that some humans hold about God is the thought that God might not even exist. Why this is damaging is that it stops all atheists and many agnostics from using God’s power, even as the whole of humanity seeks to work collaboratively to create the life we all say we want for everyone on this planet.”

        The next step that I suggest is to stop writing things like this until you reach a higher level of awareness. In order to not lead your large following into a box canyon, you really need to better understand belief, love, and this power that you mentioned. When you gain this understanding you will no longer fear atheists and agnostics. Not only that, you may realize that you are one of us.

        • John Jung

          Neale, I wanted to add one more point, but I couldn’t find the source until this morning. I have been told that in CwG, book 1 you wrote “God’s greatest moment is the moment you realize you need no God.” If this quote is correct, why are you so concerned about atheists and agnostics? Granted, just not believing in God has no direct corolation with awareness, but at least it is not an impediment like belief can be. What evidence have you that an agnostic is not more aware then you or I?

      • Awareness

        What satisfies me very much about “Conversations with God” is the following:

        1. There is no FEAR in the messages.
        2. No Judgement or invitation to pass judgement on the Self or “Others”.
        3. No Punishment.

        I remember the feeling of RELIEF and Gratitude when I first listened to “Conversations with God” audio books on youtube 🙂 Thank you Blessed Neale Donald Walsch 🙂

        I suggest Neale Donald Walsch that you be satisfied that those three points I listed above apply to your messages. In contrast (this is not a judgement), organised religion is full of fear, judgement, condemnation and punishment (both physical and psychological) 🙂 Of course, I also suggest that you never retire, and that you keep on asking questions 🙂 And as “Communion with God” states:

        “Self-creation never ends” 🙂

        These series of books have led me to greater and greater expansion of my consciousness. In this journey starting with your series of books, I have discovered other wonderful teachers like yourself such as BASHAR (channeled by Darryl Anka), Abraham (channeled by Esther Hicks), SETH (channeled by Jane Roberts), Eckhart Tolle, Cosmic Awareness (interpreted by Will Berlinghof), ALAJE the Pleiadian etc 🙂

        I continue to reference your books as well as those of other consciousness teachers daily at every opportunity 🙂

        Bless ALL 🙂

        • Patrick Gannon

          Mr. Awareness, you said regarding CWG:

          “1. There is no FEAR in the messages.2. No Judgement or invitation to pass judgement on the Self or “Others”.
          3. No Punishment.”

          Read Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. You’ll get an entirely different outlook, and none of them will have fear, judgement or punishment either.

          Sidebar – A thought occurs to me… Actually there is a little fear in CWG, particularly if you really don’t want reincarnation sticking you back here again and again. Some people find that thought to be horrifying and might think of it as punishment due to judgement either by the self or by some other entity.

          • Gina

            You display a strong tendency to take things out of their context and put them to other’s mouth as you see suited. CWG say to the effect of us earth-bound and reincarnation-prone, but also say nothing fearful, nothing negative, in the afterlife. No such thing as punishment, just an eternal soul journey of experiencing and knowing and being. Choosing to return to earth or not is entirely voluntary. I copy and paste this book passage not because you should agree with them, but because you shouldn’t distort the material yourself while giving admonition about others distorting them in some unknown future.

            18 rememberances about death
            The First Remembrance: Dying is something you do for you.

            The Second Remembrance: You are the cause of your own death. This is always true, no matter where, or how, you die.

            The Third Remembrance: You cannot die against your will.

            The Fourth Remembrance: No path back Home is better than any other path.

            The Fifth Remembrance: Death is never a tragedy. It is always a gift.

            The Sixth Remembrance: You and God are one. There is no separation between you.

            The Seventh Remembrance: Death does not exist.

            The Eighth Remembrance: You cannot change Ultimate Reality, but you can change your experience of it.

            The Ninth Remembrance: It is the desire of All That Is to Know Itself in its own Experience. This is the reason for all of Life.

            The Tenth Remembrance: Life is eternal.

            The Eleventh Remembrance: The timing and the circumstances of death are always perfect.

            The Twelfth Remembrance: The death of every person always serves the agenda of every other person who is aware of it. That is why they are aware of it. Therefore, no death (and no life) is ever “wasted.” No one ever dies “in vain.”

            The Thirteenth Remembrance: Birth and death are the same thing.

            The Fourteenth Remembrance: You are continually in the act of creation, in life and in death.

            The Fifteenth Remembrance: There is no such thing as the end of evolution.

            The Sixteenth Remembrance: Death is reversible.

            The Seventeenth Remembrance: In death you will be greeted by all of your loved ones–those who have died before you and those who will die after you.

            The Eighteenth Remembrance: Free Choice is the act of pure creation, the signature of God, and your gift, your glory, and your power forever and ever.

            —Home with God; in a life that never ends

            P.S. My emphasis on the last rememberance. Nothing can be fearful that you chose freely. 🙂

          • Patrick Gannon

            Gina, please allow me to edit my post a little bit, since I evidently didn’t word it well enough to be understood. How’s this:

            “Actually some people including myself have experienced a little fear reading CWG, particularly if you really don’t want reincarnation sticking you back here again and again. Some people find that thought to be horrifying and might think of it as punishment due to judgement either by the self or by some other entity.”

            Is that better? I attribute the fear to the perception of the reader, rather than to the material itself.

            Note as well that I referred to the book mentioned by Mr. Awareness – CWG; and not to “Home with God.” Who is taking things out of context?

            Please keep in mind that those Remembrances aren’t necessarily true – they are only beliefs until proven otherwise. The “Home with God” material seems to come in large part from books such as Dr. Michael Newton’s “Journey of Souls” and is based on regression sessions with fallible human beings, and Journey at least, does not contain much if anything in the way of real evidence to support what comes out of Newton’s regression sessions with his patients. I’m not saying it’s bogus – but I’m not taking it as truth either; and as I’ve said again and again, it’s better to keep an open skeptical mind and keep working at this stuff till we know what is and what isn’t true.

          • Gina

            I’m hesitant to maintain a wretched argument, but I continue to set the record straight.
            •The Simpson’s is potentially fearful in the eye of the perceiver. One might perceive that its sarcasm and caricature are a very true depiction of the real world, and our real world is so empty and mundane and flippant and sarcastic.
            •By CWG, Neale and readers often mean the 9 books in the series written in the dialogue form between God and Neale. Not just in format, but also in content, the books following the trilogy are an reiteration and expansion, and so are similar.
            • Even in the trilogy there isn’t saying that we return to physicality out of anything other than our own volition and desire. It even goes on to say that some souls choose to return with fully retained consciousness and their identity in the spiritual realm for purposes of assistance. How freer can it be than to be able to choose the degree of partial amnesia when reincarnating?
            •Apart from whether or not I believe them, there is little solid stuff in there to cause fear to arise.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I think you made my point that fear is in the eye of the perceiver. I simply pointed out that some people are fearful of the message of reincarnation – I know this for a fact because a lady wrote in on Neale’s weekend newsletter regarding this. It was quite some time ago – perhaps a year; but she expressed fear as a result of reading CWG. If memory serves, the subject may have been discussed in this forum as well, some time back.

            I’m not claiming that there’s any intent on the part of CWG to provoke fear; or that it’s warranted, I just pointed out that it can and does create fear for some people. I often shudder at the idea of having to go through life again. Enough is enough.

            To be honest, I was just having a little fun pointing out leading atheist authors Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and others also wrote books that include no fear, judgment or punishment. As I wrote that post I recalled the element of fear from CWG that we are discussing. I wasn’t trying to make a big point; just making an observation.

            When I refer to CWG, I refer to book One more than anything else. I’ve read the entire trilogy and a handful of other books. The trilogy is an example of where dogma could creep in. If I recall (and it’s been years since I read it), in book 2 or 3, Neale proposes that nobody should be allowed to become so rich as some people are today. The number $25M sticks in my head, though it could be the wrong number and I’m not going to look for it now – but the idea, if I recall correctly, was that anything over that number should be forfeited back to the government as nobody deserves or needs that much money. There are discussions about income redistribution and the communist manifesto and much that is political in nature. From my perspective, Neale clearly has, or had, Socialist leanings which he uses CWG “beliefs” to promote. Such things could easily become dogma – and adjusted by church authorities in some future New Age Religion that uses CWG as its holy scriptures. Much of books 2 and 3, if I recall were expressions of Neale’s liberal political viewpoints – the kind of stuff from which dogma can easily arise.

            I absolutely agree with your last line – there is little solid stuff in there to cause fear to arise – and that’s because it’s all based on personal beliefs and has little that is solid to back it up. We’re asked to accept it based on belief. I think that’s detrimental to personal development. Others need not share my opinion. Many of the “Home with God” view of things come squarely out of works by other authors, and I’m willing to bet that Dr. Michael Newton’s books played a significant role in the development of Neale’s ideas. People who don’t read a lot may think Neale originated all this stuff, but I would have to question that since I’ve seen most everything in CWG expressed before – I think Neale admits that there’s nothing “new” there. What he did, was a good job of pulling these various ideas together in a convincing fashion to present a consolidated story. That doesn’t mean it’s right or wrong though, just that we should understand that the material all comes from fallible humans and is therefore subject to possible, if not probable, error.

            I’m not saying that what HwG proposes is incorrect – it may very well be correct or at least partially so – but we’re asked to accept it based on belief. I’ve had enough of belief. Show me the beef. Show me the evidence. These ideas are testable. If enough people are regressed and can provide evidence of things that took place in past lives that can be verified, that will give more credence to what is said to take place in LBL or lives between lives. Accumulation of such evidence will do far more to convince me, than being asked to believe it because Neale says God told him that’s how it works.

            The Univ of VA has a dept that researches such things, but we don’t seem to hear much from them – they researched the story about the kid who said he died in an fighter jet crash in WW2; and it’s a convincing story, (but one that still has holes as in the ABC report on TV they left out the fact that the kid, while very young, but still highly impressionable, spent quite some time in a WW2 museum and was fascinated by the planes), but it’s only a very small start. Get a load of subjective evidence, preferably with no holes in the story, and belief will not be required – or at least much less so. On the other hand, if we discover that it’s all the work of some process of the brain and arises from the brain as basically a delusion, and that it’s not real, then we won’t have wasted more time fooling ourselves and hiding from ourselves with beliefs, instead of facing and seeking the truth head on.

            I once did a regression session myself and the facilitator kept pushing, and pushing because I wasn’t coming up with anything; then a story began to assemble in my head and I relayed what I’m pretty sure my mind was just concocting under pressure to come up with something. It was a very interesting experience, but I came away unconvinced that it was “real.” There was no way to verify what I was coming up with as it went way back in time.

          • Stephen mills

            Book 2 states that an arbitrary figure perhaps $25 million could be kept for individual purposes but one could earn unlimited amount but anything above this arbitrary figure 60 % of which would go to charity’s of your choice and the remainder to the world wide compensation system benefitting all humankind .This would be a reflection of a consciousness shift not a diktat .

            This is a reflection of oneness and we are all in it together understanding .Living in community cannot be forced you cannot legislate morality .Sharing has to come from the heart not socialist programmes when we reach a higher consciousness this will come as a result of this awareness . I think one of the biggest problems we have is the gap between rich and poor which is growing .The current system can only solve this through war and suffering but at least now we have another way .

          • Patrick Gannon

            Thanks for refreshing my memory. I do remember that now.

            If we are all ONE, that implies a group consciousness, right? That’s testable. Imagine if 10,000 people discovered that working together they could make a clock stop. How powerful would that be?

            On the other hand, what if it didn’t miss a beat? That’s the risk, isn’t it? How would people react to failure?

          • Stephen mills

            Have you looked at Lynn Mctagart and her book the Intention Experiment she blends Science (Cutting Edge) and Spirituality quoting lots of Scientst on the way .

            I remember a quote life reveals life through the process of life .I get that it means small moves for humanity with jumps every now and then ,are we going to jump soon or fall back as could happen with our technology being far ahead of our Spiritual development ,because we fail to implement these understandings .This has happened before ,

          • Patrick Gannon

            I have not read her books, but I researched her a little and have an issue with her credibility given that she’s a rabid anti-vaxxer. The Wikipedia page about her is not very complimentary; not that I “believe” everything Wikipedia says, but it’s often a good starting point.

            It does seem however that she is conducting some experiments, and I’m interested in learning more about that, so maybe I’ll read her book – but I’ll probably skip the one about vaccines. A recent study I read about briefly just recently (and did not confirm sources), indicated that the measles vaccine, not only prevents measles but gives a boost to your immune system…

          • Stephen mills

            She’s looking,trying ,discovering ,questioning ,searching ,god loves a try’er .Perhaps not everything is spot on but persistence has its own rewards .

            Hemp boosts your immune system but Western Doctors would not prescribe it they do not even know what it is that’s the sad reality !

            I have read all her books interesting stuff but take from it what you want as always ?

            Catch the vibe .

          • Patrick Gannon

            I remember when I first read Dan Brown’s “Lost Symbol” and first heard of the Noetic Institute. I did a little research and was very interested in what they were doing.

            I just checked the results of a few of the experiments on the web page, and by and large it looks like inconclusive or marginal results in the tests I reviewed. Not sure I would have selected those particular tests. I’d go for something like influencing particles to go through one or the other sides of a double-slit experiment or affecting a random number generator. Try to minimize the variables.

            However this is exactly what I’d like to see more of, and on a far larger scale, and under the observation or direction of an “impartial” director.

          • Gina

            Yes. Everything is potentially dangerous if you are afraid. When my brother was 3 or 4 yrs old, he was pee in the pants afraid of a fictitious character in a TV commercial. It looked like the big bird in Sesame Street. I discover to my surprise that many toddlers are horrified rather than delighted, by big stuffed animal toys with those big round plastic eyes, not just my brother when he was little. It’s left to wonder why something that was, by the maker’s assessments, created assembling the components kids would love and be comforted by—big, fluffy cushion, bright color, soft texture, big, harmless doe eyes, would frighten them!

            Everything can potentially turn into dogma. However dogma is in the realm of the collective unconscious. Even then, dogma evolves. And our collective future is up to our collective consciousness.

            If spiritual messengers talk only about inconsequential, politically neutral, non-controversial, dead horse ideas, what good do they do? What’s the point of all their platitudes? Yes, CWG have many political views. Why, the income cap is nothing compared to the suggestions about dress and decorum. It suggests we walk in the nude and eliminate prisons and become vegetarian. Slowly but surely, though, what first appear as radical political movements come to fruition thanks to the evolution of our collective consciousness. We legalize Marijuana and same-sex marriage and eliminate death penalty. There are more obvious benefits in these social changes than detriments.

            Keep being the open minded skeptic, yet be more upbeat. We are not neutral bystanders, but conscious molder of energy and participants in deciding our future. Trying to be so objective and not involved just renders your vibrational vote null.

          • Gina

            I believe in reincarnation. Past life regression, not so much. I don’t believe there is the exact consciousness- bundle to clump of body- mass correlation we could then retrieve on-demand. 😀

          • Patrick Gannon

            Good advice, regarding being more upbeat. I go into a certain “mode” when I’m challenged or debating, not out of any fear or hostility, but because I’m focusing hard, trying not to screw up what I’m trying to say any more than necessary. Since I think this particular discussion and topic is winding down, I’ll work on that.

            Changing topics a bit – I agree with your social program for the most part; but I struggle with the death penalty. Let’s assume that CWG is correct and that following this, we go “home” for a soul fix. It strikes me as a greater crime against man’s nature to lock him up in a cell for the rest of his life, than to simply send him home to get back in line, should he want to try again. Something in me says, that keeping people alive in cages is more horrible than putting them down, so to speak. If my dog went nuts and started biting people or something, I would have to choose whether to put him down or to put him in a cage till he died. I’d put him down with a clear conscience and feel pretty sure that I was doing the right thing.

            In any event, at a minimum, I think if we’re going to give people life sentences in a cage, that we should give them the right to “opt out” when and if they want to do so, and send themselves home, preferably in a physician assisted, clean and painless way.

            I struggle with this though. Your thoughts?

          • Gina

            Life imprisonment and death penalty are the same in their coercion, and inefficiency to deter crime, to heal the offenders, to make the society safer. It’s a revolutionary idea to give the inmates the choice between life sentence and death penalty. It brings in another issue of euthanasia, though. I don’t think legalization of euthanasia will happen faster than the abrogation of involuntary incarceration. In other words, we are so hung up on this death thing that we’d rather eliminate prisons than to allow anyone a doctor assisted death, much less allow those offenders that easy and gracious transition.

          • Awareness

            “Patrick Gannon” wrote: “I’m not saying that what HwG proposes is incorrect – it may very well be correct or at least partially so – but we’re asked to accept it based on belief.”

            Who asked us to accept “Conversations with God” based on belief? Is it Neale Donald Walsch or GOD in “Conversations with God”?

            Please provide your source for that claim and give an exact quote 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

          • Patrick Gannon

            HwG = Home with God.

            This entire discussion has been primarily about beliefs. NDW says we need to replace the old cultural story (a set of beliefs) with a new cultural story (a new set of beliefs). I disagree. Hence the discussion.

            A quick search for a HwG quote that speaks to this (as I don’t have time to go page through my own copy right now) yields this gem from Neale:

            “There are those who say that seeing is believing. I am telling you that believing is seeing.” NDW in HwG

            I disagree.

            If you had read the entire discussion, far below this post you would have found Neale saying this:

            “But the Mind alone, without connecting with the Soul, is not designed to be able to hold the “knowing” of everything. So some things seem to have to be taken on faith. Some things — things that we can’t seem to know directly, from experience or observation — wind up being things we “believe”, based on someone else’s observation or experience. That does not seem to be an unreasonable way to proceed through life, and I reject the categorical statement that believing something is the most limiting thing a human being can do.”

            I completely disagree with him. I think believing things based on someone else’s observation or experience is not conducive to our personal development. I see it as cheating ourselves – hence this very long discussion.

          • Awareness

            Whatever you do, do not believe what is said here.”

            Do not believe a single thing I say. Listen to what I say, then believe what your heart tells you is true. For it is in your heart where your wisdom lies, and in your heart where your truth dwells”

            “And please, do not tell others that unless THEY believe what is in YOUR mind, I am going to condemn them.” – “Home with God” by Neale Donald Walsch 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

          • Patrick Gannon

            Thank you. I’m not sure how applicable that is to the discussion at hand, but no matter. This could get to be a bit like debating with fundies, throwing bible quotes back and forth at each other. There’s always something in scripture for both sides. That’s actually another issue we’ve discussed in these past couple threads – is CWG being treated as religious scripture? By quoting from it in this way, that to me is exactly the way its being treated – as scripture; as though the words are somehow “holy.” It would be very difficult to go quote mining in a physics book and find conflicting and contradictory statements that you could throw back and forth at each other, but this is usually rather easy to do with scripture.

            The point is that Neale was pretty adamant in saying that the Old Cultural Story is based on old beliefs, and it needs to be replaced by a New Cultural Story with new beliefs. I would propose that the New Cultural Story not be based on any beliefs, but on whatever we can know; and to keep an open skeptical mind about that which we don’t YET know.

          • hempwise

            Because Beliefs create behaviors if you want something to change ,change the belief and then the behavior will change automatically .We are looking at changing the direction of our own Evolution and trying to speed this process up .Why because our old beliefs are the reason it is SO SLOW .

          • Patrick Gannon

            Why is it necessary to change the belief? Why not just eliminate it? I am able to function quite well as an agnostic without any beliefs. I don’t stone gays, or tell women what they can do with their bodies, or pretend that I know what happens when we die; and I seem to manage my life rather well.

            I agree that the old beliefs are holding us back – I just see no need to replace them with more beliefs that may be every bit as nonsensical as what we believed in the first place. We just don’t know, and we’re lying to ourselves to pretend that we do; and I don’t think that’s conducive to our development. Would it be conducive to our evolution if we stopped believing in Bible God and replaced him with belief in magic and trolls and fairies and pink unicorns?

          • hempwise

            It’s about what works depending on what we choose to be or do as a species .What about something that functions to bring benefit .

            Could the belief that we are all one not help ? Even science says we are all star stuff anyway .The Stars made our eyes so they could see themselves .

          • Patrick Gannon

            Ah, but what science says is not based on belief. We’re pretty sure we know how the larger molecules were formed in the nucleus of stars, that are the building blocks of our physical universe including our bodies. This is not based on belief, but on knowledge.

            It may turn out in time that we are also ONE by virtue of particle entanglement, and that every particle is entangled in some sense with every other particle since everything is thought to have come from a single thing at the Big Bang; but if proven true, this will not be based on belief, but on observation, experimentation, making predictions and confirming results; i.e. the scientific method. There’s no need to believe, and if you believe, you may end up wrong, as most beliefs eventually end up being proven wrong.

            How do you discriminate actual truth tellers from those who only “believe” they are telling the truth? Here’s how Thomas Campbell puts it: “By now, you may be wondering if there is such a thing as good belief. I can best answer that question with another question. Is there such a thing as good ignorance – is there any situation where ignorance is better, more valuable, than knowledge? If there is, then wherever and whenever ignorance is best, that is where you will find a good belief. In the short-term and in the little picture you might find some advantages to ignorance in a few special cases. Ignorance is perhaps not so bad if the problem is of little significance and of minimal importance, or one you can do nothing about. If you arc trying to trick, use, or manipulate others to your advantage, their ignorance is always very helpful.

            In the long run and in the Big Picture, if you are not trying to manipulate others and your ego is small, ignorance has little to no value. If the issues are significant, the stakes high, or the outcome important to you, then ignorance and belief will leave you vulnerable and looking like an ostrich with its head in the sand. In substantive matters of long-term significance, there is no good belief. “

          • Awareness

            The quote is applicable in that the God (SELF) in “Home with God” itself says not to believe anything it says 🙂 The God (SELF) in “Home with God” says to rely on yourself (that is to follow your own HEART:) “Patrick Gannon” I think that is clear enough. The book itself is saying not to believe it. It is saying to rely on yourself 🙂 Is that not clear enough for you?

            I say again, is the book itself saying to you to rely on yourself NOT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU? 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

          • Patrick Gannon

            NO; I GUESS IT IS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR ME; and sarcastically yelling with CAPs is unnecessary. Using CAPs to emphasize a point is one thing, but you’re trying to insult and humiliate me to score personal points. Please put a gold star on your forehead and tell everyone you won, and enjoy the rest of your day.

            Mr. Awareness, why does Neale say we need to change our beliefs and exchange the Old Cultural Story with a New Cultural story that is based on a different set of beliefs? This discussion has not been about the specifics of HwG, this discussion has been about whether we should have beliefs. Please read the last paragraph, and in particular the last couple sentences of Neale’s column above.

            Is Neale being contradictory, in saying in HwG that we don’t need to believe anything it says, and in his posts here, indicating that we need to have a new belief system to replace the old? He starts off HwG by stating that it is the literal word of God: “This is the word-for-word transcription of a holy conversation. It is a conversation with God
            about being Home with God.” Aren’t we being asked to take a HUGE leap of faith to believe that? If not, why bother saying it?

            Isn’t the entire CWG/HwG series all about believing? Are we not asked to “believe” what is written there, based on Neale’s assertion that it is the word of God? The word “believe” appears 103 times in HwG. Why bother writing it, if he didn’t want it to be believed?

            Many Christians say that the bible is the “word of God” based primarily on the words of the forger who wrote 2 Timothy 3:16 who said “all scripture is god-breathed.” He was pretending to be Paul when he wrote that, and he was actually referring to the OT scripture since the NT had not yet been assembled; but his words are nothing compared with Neale’s assertion that the words in his book come directly from God. And we’re asked to believe that, are we not?

          • Awareness

            “Patrick Gannon” wrote: “NO; I GUESS IT IS NOT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR ME; and sarcastically yelling with CAPs is unnecessary. Using CAPs to emphasize a point is one thing, but you’re trying to insult and humiliate me to score personal points.”

            In order for you to have written what is quoted above, you have to believe a certain thing to be “true” 🙂 You are assuming something to be “true” 🙂 I suggest that you not assume things. Seek to know instead 🙂 I write in capital letters or bold in order to emphasize a point 🙂 Don’t you see the smile at the end? The following quote is useful for you to consider:

            “If you believe, in very simple terms, that people mean you well, and will treat you kindly, they will. And, if you believe that the world is against you, then so it will be in your experience.” by SETH (GREAT SPIRIT!) 🙂 (Notice I always capitalize GREAT SPIRIT!) 🙂

            As for “winning”, I have NO NEED for you to agree/disagree with what I say. I am here merely enjoying sharing and exchanging ideas. So “winning” does not apply 🙂

            According to my understanding of the “Conversations with God”, we are not asked to believe in it 🙂 Instead as I have repeatedly demonstrated to you with quotes from the book itself, we are asked to look within for answers 🙂 We are asked to follow our HEART (natural guidance system) 🙂

            The guidance you are getting is to follow your heart.

            Listen to your soul. Hear your self. Even when I present you with an option, an idea, a point of view, you are under no obligation to accept that as your own. If you disagree, then disagree. That is the whole point of this exercise. The idea wasn’t for you to substitute your dependency on everything and everyone else with a dependency on this book. The idea was to cause you to think. To think for your self.” – “Conversations with God” by Neale Donald Walsch 🙂

            I qoute again:

            The guidance you are getting is to follow your heart.”

            Do you see this “Patrick Gannon”? 🙂

            As for Neale Donald Walsch’s view that we acquire new beliefs, you will have to take it up further with him 🙂 I am referencing the “God” (SELF) view in “Conversations with God” 🙂

            The way I see it, following the HEART is about feeling not words 🙂 However, I do not NEED you to see this.

            I sense you may agree with Eckhart Tolle who teaches living in the NOW 🙂 Living in the NOW requires no beliefs. You release all thoughts about past, present and future and simply be present 🙂 I suggest you read the book “The Power of Now” by Eckhart Tolle (if you haven’t already) 🙂

            “As soon as you honor the present moment, all unhappiness and struggle dissolve, and life begins to flow with joy and ease. When you act out the present-moment awareness, whatever you do becomes imbued with a sense of quality, care, and love even the most simple action.” – “The Power of Now: A Guide to Spiritual Enlightenment” by Eckhart Tolle 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            I won’t pull it quote out of the Closet materials, since this appears to you to support the materials becoming just more dogma. How about this quote instead:

            “I think believing things based on someone else’s observation or experience is not conducive to our personal development. I see it as cheating ourselves… ”

            Accordingly, then, one should not pick up a book about new scie

          • Patrick Gannon

            Annie, you are very good at getting me to qualify my statements. I didn’t express that as well as I could have. How about…

            ‘I think that believing things which are not known to be true, based on someone else’s observation or experience is not conducive to our personal development.’

            This would apply as well to a science book that is examining a theory or hypothesis, as opposed to a book that was stating well known facts – like the earth going around the sun, rather than the other way around. Even then, scientists keep an open mind and continue to use the word “theory” in the event new data indicates that the previous ideas were wrong or need to be modified. There isn’t any such self-corrective capability in religious beliefs, for example.

            I’ve struggled through books about string theory, space/time, quantum mechanics and consciousness written by scientists and backed with at least some evidence; but I do not “believe” these books, since the final answers to these subjects are still unknown. A key differentiator is that the scientists whose books I have read will almost always, if not always, admit what they can only surmise and do not know for fact. Neale didn’t call his book “Theory of Conversations with God.” Even if the book says here and there that we should not believe; it’s clear that we are supposed to take his word for it and believe it based on his claim that “God” gave him this information. I believed that might be at least partly true for a while, but I’m past that now. The book has great advice and excellent philosophical questions, but to believe it actually came from “God” outside of Neale’s mind, is to turn it into religious scripture.

            Tom Campbell, who I have mentioned a couple times here, would say that “knowing” NPRM (non physical matter reality) is personal and subjective, and that it can only be known by the individual through personal experience. He would agree that we should not believe this NPRM exists simply because someone else, including himself, claims to “know” it. Some here in this forum claim to have psi capabilities and experiences. I am open mindedly skeptical with regard to these claims. It doesn’t mean I think the claims are wrong or that I think the people who make these claims are lying or deluded – it just means that one should not believe it, until one experiences it personally; and if one is being totally honest with him/herself, they would still have to be skeptical and question whether they were delusional or imagining things – as did Robert Monroe in his book about OBEs, one of the first written on the subject. He went at it using scientific methodology as best he could with what can only be a subjective experience.

            If I could have an OBE, visit you, see what you are doing, what you are wearing, who you are talking to, etc. and then call you after the OBE and confirm that these observations, which I would have no other way of knowing, were accurate, and repeat this experience multiple times – that would begin to convince me; but it would be foolish and short sighted for me to assume these things are true and to believe them, even if people I know and trust claim them, because truth, I think, has to be experienced – at least truth of this sort.

            As I said above, there is no self-correction in religion. Is Neale going to release an upgraded version of CWG1 in which he drops the reference to the mythical Moses given that nobody in the mainstream scientific, historical or archaeological community thinks there was an actual Exodus as described in the bible? Moses is most probably a reference to a Pagan entity who was “borrowed” by Judaism. Neale says for example:

            “You are, as Moses was, an earnest seeker. Moses too, as do you now, stood before Me, begging for answers. “Oh, God of My Fathers,” he called. “God of my God, deign to show me. Give me a sign, that I may tell my people! How can we know that we are chosen?”

            And I came to Moses, even as I have come to you now, with a divine covenant—an everlasting promise—a sure and certain commitment. “How can I be sure?” Moses asked plaintively. “Because I have told you so,” I said. “You have the Word of God.”

            Aside from the fact that Bible God kept tweaking the Covenant, and adding additional conditions, when I first read that, I knew that Neale was still under the influence of his childhood religious indoctrination because the chance that there was an actual “Moses” as described in the bible, is extremely small. However Neale believes, or at least did at one time, that Moses was real. Is he going to release an edited version of CWG1 in which he removes this reference to a mythical person? Probably not – but science would do so as part of the built in mechanism to make adjustments based on new knowledge.

            What is troubling about the reference to Moses, for example, in CWG is that the message is – ‘you should believe this because I, “God” told you so.’ The clear implication is that since CWG is also from “God” you should believe it as well. But Moses, according to mainstream scholarship, is a myth.

            If you dissect the Exodus story, it’s ridiculous on its face, not to mention that after centuries of searching, not a single shard of pottery, spear tip, shield, wagon wheel, or anything else has ever been found to support the story. The bible says the Hebrews had 600,000 fighting men, but Egypt the superpower of the day had 100,000 fighting men, the largest army in history to that point – and yet they held the Israelites captive? Yeah, right. If you take the 2 – 3 million people who were supposed to have left Egypt (600,000 fighting men plus families, foreigners and livestock), and lined them up heel to toe, it would take more than one line to fill the distance from Cairo to Jerusalem, and yet they failed to leave a single trace, even though the bible tells us of places where they spent a lot of time? The only way that’s true is if the pillar of smoke and fire that accompanied them was a giant vacuum cleaner. The story is a myth and all the Abrahamic religions (of which CWG is an offshoot) grew out of that myth.

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            I have your longer reply. It was sent to me through Disqus when it originally posted. I’m sorry it’s not showing up here.

            You regularly make a point of connecting CwG materials to what you call the Abrahamic religions. I find myself wondering why that is so. I mean, one reference to Moses? C’mon. But, I’ll let that go. It’s just curiosity.

            Here is what I believe, based on information provided in books, classes, and television shows that were written, taught, and produced by biblical scholars, historians, archeologists, scientists, cosmologists, quantum physicists, and others, as well as from my own personal experiences and my own God-given mind.

            It makes no difference to me in the larger scheme of things that I either accept or not the theories that the bible is the literal word of God, or actual history. I believe the ancient rulers who most likely had it first written down probably had an agenda. Rulers often do.

            The books of Moses, or the Jewish Talmud, were most likely written (or ordered to be written) by the Hasmoneans(sp?), who were trying, as rulers often do, to justify their right to rule “their” land. The society at that time had been influenced by Greek rule and, like the Greeks, they wrote what was understood in their time and society to be mythological.

            I personally believe that the “fundamentalists” or “literalists” of today take it much more literally than did those who first wrote and read it. So, you don’t have to waste your time with me trying to convince me that the OT’s God is literarilly real. For me, Neale could use the term “cultural mythology” and it wouldn’t bother me.

            The question for me is whether there is value in the stories regardless of whether they were literally or historically true, or even if they were pure myth. For myself, I think there was probably much more value to the ancient world than there is for me, living here and now, in 2015. But, all that’s really besides the point, too.

            I find more relevance in some of the Jesus sayings in the NT and recovered gospels than I do the OT. Not many, to be honest, but some. I find the most intriguing to be Jesus’ answer when questioned about the most important command from God. Jesus’ answer usually reads something like: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul; and the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.”

            Fascinating, really. The connecting phrase of the second being “like” the first raises up so many possibilities. As does loving someone else “as” yourself. That one goes along with treating others as if they were you. There’s also one in the gospel of Thomas, which is something along the lines of “Split a piece of wood and you will see me; lift a rock and I will be there.” (I may have that backwards.)

            The birth stories, the miracles, maybe even much of the crucifixion story, is, for me personally, just so much fluff. Not one of the discovered gospels, sanctioned or not, has been found written in Aramaic, the language spoken in the Galilee Valley at the time. There’s no “gospel of Jesus” that he himself wrote that’s yet been found.

            I find some value in the recovered gnostic gospels, mostly through their proof that gospels were also written by women, and there was an obvious power struggle between the “beloved disciple,” Mary Magdalena (and it was probably Miriam) and Peter, “the rock” who showed much more doubt than “doubting Thomas” ever did. But, again, for me that’s still not the point.

            What you keep ignoring in all of your comments, arguments, suggestions, and replies is the very foundation of what archeologists, historians, scholars, teachers and the like all agree on. In fact, the only thing that they seem to agree on. As does Neale.

            In the beginning, there was nothing but Creator. Call it God, or Awareness, or Consciousness, or The Ineffable Light, or The Holy Whatchamacallit. There was nothing else. No other thing existed. Therefore, all that has come into existence in the past, currently exists, and will ever exist in the future must necessarily be made of this same Holy Unmaterial. No even the Almighty can create something from nothing, so The All used itself for Its manifestations.

            If the God in CwG was named God, or actually was God, or if it was Neale’s subconscious or unconscious mind, or a delusion (which is, after all, just an alternate reality), or an invisible faery whispering in his ear, it wouldn’t matter to me because it’s all the same Ineffable Stuff. It’s all from the same Origin. The same Source. But I digress yet again.

            The question is again (and always is) for me, is there value in what was written? I find that, for me personally, there is. And I believe, due to the number of sales, visitors to all of the various websites and groups, the interest in the courses offered, and the lively conversations taking place all over the world about what was written, that many others found personal value in it as well.

            I’ll even take it a step further. I find that there is value to both secular and religious societies all over the planet. I believe that, if people decided to take seriously the Five Steps to Peace and the 1,000 Words That Could Change the World, our entire existence would be filled with more joy, more peace, more compassion, and less starvation, less ruination of the planet, less of a gap between the haves and have-nots, and less disagreement about God.

            Of course, those are my personal beliefs. And I am finding that they serve me well. And this is so, despite the fact that I have chronic pain conditions which are progressive and for which there are no cures, and despite mental health issues including one that’s been in the DSM for years yet most psych people don’t believe in, and despite the low income of a Social Security Disability benefit and the ever-growing cost of the mandatory Medicare premium, and despite my not being able to afford all the meds my doc wants to see me on, and despite more than one sleep disorder so that I rarely get more than two hours in before I wake and am up at least two hours before I get another hour or so (until I collapse around every two weeks into round-the-clock sleep for a good 24 hours, waking only for bodily needs and meds), and despite the stigma attached to most of the above…

            Despite everything, if my first chosen conscious thought is, “I unconditionally love the ONEness of existence, of which I am a much larger part than what can be seen in this physical realm, and which part is eternally and fully alive!” then I have a better day than when I forget to make this choice.

            It’s not an affirmation so much as it’s the unlocking of a door to the Unmanifested. I find myself on those days more than who I usually am. I have more patience and compassion. I have sudden insights and access to knowledge of things I had not previously known. I feel less pain, depression and anxiety, and more comfortable with others and myself. My meditations are glorious experiences that bring me great Joy.

            So I find that, through applying some of the CwG material, my life has been changed in significant, positive ways. Because of the Joy it brings me, everyone I know, or have known over the past 20 years, has heard about CwG from me.

            Now we find ourselves in a time when it is probable that people who see the United States as enemies have already or soon will have the makings of nuclear weapons. We also find ourselves in a time when the scales have fallen from many people’s eyes about the condition of the United States, including our own citizens. We lost our AAA international financial rating, meaning we have to lower what it costs to import to America, and open more doors to trade to make up the financial difference.

            For the first time, Americans have become aware that Americans are dying from starvation and from lack of affordable medical care. People are having to face reality head-on because it’s happening to their friends, and their coworkers, and their families.

            Should we all sit around and wait for science to come up with the big answers about consciousness and whether people are as entangled as atoms are? Or should we act on what we already know, that every single thing is made of, part of, has the characteristics of, is connected with the One Thing that pre-existed all other things? That we ARE our neighbors. That the EARTH is holy and sacred. That we are ALL connected through and by and with THE ONE THING that some call God or Awareness or Consciousness.

            Wouldn’t it change how we treat each other? Wouldn’t it change how we define what “life” is? Wouldn’t it change our societies? Wouldn’t it change how we treat nature?

            I believe that it would. And I believe that it would be far more effective a belief than sitting around for science to come up with its next belief.

            Blessings,
            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            Hi Annie. It’s pretty clear to me that Neale was heavily influenced by his Catholic indoctrination, (as was I). You asked about Moses and the influence of the Abrahamic traditions. The word Moses occurs in CWG1 six times, but Neale speaks of Jesus frequently – mentioning him 21 times in CWG1, and he mentions Buddha four times and Krishna twice. Whether Krishna was a real person is still debated. (The historicity of Jesus is pretty well confirmed). Interestingly Neale does not mention the Prophet Muhammad a single time, in CWG1. It appears that his target market is Christians. If you go to one of the posts that began this long exchange, you’ll find this:

            I said: “I’m sure many people see the “God” you describe as a being like the Abrahamic god is understood to be – only nicer.

            Neale said: [i hope that this is one way they see God, yes. I sure do.]

            Neale has made it clear in earlier posts that he believes in the miracles and resurrection of Jesus – which I think are extremely unlikely, nearing the point of impossibility. He seems to think Moses was a real person and the Exodus was a real event, and that has to call into question the credibility of the “God” who didn’t correct him, just as Jesus failed to correct Paul when he believed Adam was a real person. As for Jesus’ resurrection the empty tomb story in the NT must be a home-spun fable by the oral tradition that arose after he was killed. The Romans left people on crosses to rot and then threw the bodies in a common grave. That was considered to be one of the most humiliating ways to die at that time, according to several scholars who have written about the practice and history of the time. With regard to the resurrection, someone probably had a vision (i.e. a waking or sleeping “dream”), and they told their friend, who told a friend, who told his wife, who told her neighbor, etc. and in due course he was resurrected bodily from the grave in the same way that Elvis is still alive. That Pontius Pilate, one of the most vicious governors of all time (so bad that Rome recalled him) would make an exception – well that defies rational verisimilitude.

            As an aside – with regard to Buddha, it is interesting that he did not teach the concept of “god” or “creator.” From Wikipedia: “Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity, refused to endorse many views on creation and stated that questions on the origin of the world are not ultimately useful for ending suffering.” There are countless religions and countless gods around the world, but Neale’s God is very Abrahamic in nature – just nicer. He’s a product of his indoctrination, and so too are his books in my opinion. The Abrahamic religions are only responsible for about 1/2 of the world’s population, and Neale ignores the rest with only a tip of the hat to Buddha, who didn’t teach his “Creator” philosophy, and Krishna who may have been mythical, but who believed in many gods.

            I agree that the myths and stories (the historical part is badly flawed or imaginary) of the bible did mean more to the people of that time and were probably not taken as literally by them as ignorant fundamentalists do today. The bible in large part is no longer relevant to us today; but it continues to hold us back and to justify terrible behavior because it is referred to as “holy scripture.” The same applies to the Qur’an. As long as the mainstream clerics insist that these old texts are “inspired” or “holy” then those who commit what most of us would refer to as “evil” acts are actually righteous individuals; doing exactly what the “holy” texts tell them to do. Once you make those texts “holy” and turn them into “scripture” as “revelations” from God, all bets are off.

            CWG1 speaks of killing in Chapter 9, and just as Christians pull passages out of context in the bible to justify themselves, there are passages in CWG that could be used in the same way – in this example, perhaps against Muslims as an immediate threat, if some future “New Spirituality” religion makes it so and influences our government as fundamental Christianity has influenced our current government.

            You mentioned one of Jesus’ most famous sayings. You hear it more and more these days from moderate or progressive Christians who are trying to shy away from the rest of the pre-medieval stuff in the NT like eternal torment and the crude, sexist, primitive garbage in the OT. You said: “Jesus’ answer usually reads something like: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, and all your soul; and the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself.”

            I have a lot of trouble with the first part of this. The second part is not at all like the first part. Bible God was so horrible, that He had to command that His subjects love him. He even had it (mythically) engraved in stone tablets. What parent has to command their child to love them? Even when the angry child retorts, “I hate you, daddy,” you cannot command that they love you. You cannot command anyone to love someone else. This commandment is stupid in my opinion, and points out just how bad this God dude must be if He has to command that His creation love Him. The second part alone has great value, and I think that it alone should be the “greatest commandment.” But that kind of eliminates the religious aspects, doesn’t it? We can’t have that!

            Annie you said: “What you keep ignoring in all of your comments, arguments, suggestions, and replies is the very foundation of what archeologists, historians, scholars, teachers and the like all agree on.” I respectfully disagree that I have ignored anything, and note that I have attempted to respond to the posts directed to me. I also respectfully disagree that archaeologists, historians, scholars, teachers and the like “all” agree on anything.

            You go on to a description of what YOU think preceded the Big Bang; but that is just your belief. Take Lawrence Krauss, an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who is Foundation Professor of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University and director of its Origins Project. In his book “A Universe from Nothing” he provides a theory about how our universe may have come into existence out of “nothing” (where the word “nothing” is much of the topic of discussion), but essentially quantum mechanics tells us everything is probabilities, and it was simply probable that it would happen in time (and maybe happened many times – there may be many universes). In any event, this is unsettled business. We may never know – it may be beyond our capacity to know, just as it is beyond the comprehension of an intestinal bacterium to understand how it’s food comes to it every day. On the other hand, we may figure it out, so I will withhold beliefs and simply admit I don’t know. Believing that some deity started it all (who started the deity?) is likely to keep one from pondering other possibilities that may have a greater likelihood of being accurate.

            You go on to mention the value in Neale’s books and I have not disputed that value. I have mentioned many times that I like the message of ONEness, even if it’s limited to the fact that we all come from the same stardust. I love the concept of examining the idea of “highest vision,” and much more. I just want to see it treated as philosophy rather than religion; and it is very difficult not to treat it as religion because after all, Neale claims it is a revelation direct from God and that he is God’s messenger just like prophets of old.

            In his newsletter this past weekend he was evangelising his new “religion.” Someone wrote in asking about how long it took a major “religion,” Christianity to catch on. So the topic is religion. Neale went on to evangelise his “New Spirituality” religion (because again – the topic was religion and he was contrasting his new religion with the old), which he predicts will catch on like wildfire in the coming decades. Yet while evangelizing a new religion, he adamantly denies that he’s producing a new religion. Very confusing. We must be playing word games, because it’s clear to me that is exactly what he has in mind – a new religion; and in time, it will have it’s own orthodoxy and dogma and if it prevails, it will separate and divide as have all other religions because it’s based on what is believed, rather than what is known. He treats his books as though they were holy scripture, and that is very troubling to me. It’s how I feel, and I’ve learned to respect my feelings, when coupled with real knowledge, because I’ve learned over the years that I’m right more often than I’m wrong. My point here is to share those concerns so others might consider them and perhaps pay a little closer attention to what is being said and how it’s being said – or discard it and stick with what you believe, which may slow the evolution of your consciousness, regardless of whether that consciousness is something temporary or something eternal.

            You mention that if everyone followed all his “steps” (and Neale is always giving us endless lists of things that often strike me as orthodoxical and dogmatic), that the world would be a better place. Perhaps so, but all we really have to do is follow the second part of Jesus’ message to treat others as we would be treated ourselves. It’s all pretty simple, when it comes right down to it.

            Why is there such interest in his books? Well for one, it’s become evident that the Abrahamic religions have some serious flaws and problems and they create bigger problems than they solve, so people need something new to believe because most people are too lazy to think for themselves, or too scared to look within themselves for answers, so they turn to others, as they have throughout history for someone else to tell them what to believe. In my case, I was a “believer” and even an “evangelist” for the CWG message for some time as it afforded me a stepping stone out of the fear of Christianity; but I didn’t stop thinking once I got started, and in time that resulted in recognizing that CWG was another offshoot of Christianity; and for all it’s feel-good message, it wasn’t the truth with a capital T; and that meant I was cheating myself, and others with my evangelising. Perhaps that was what drove me to start this whole discussion – a little guilt over spreading beliefs I know longer believe in as I came to realization that I really don’t know and that it was self deception to pretend that I did.

            You mention a string of ailments and personal challenges, and I pass along my consideration and consolations, but what you describe getting out of CWG could also be called “mindfulness.” The idea is to focus on something (usually the breathe) other than whatever else is running through your head. We teach this to certain units in the military now and should teach it to all kids in school in my view. No gods or religion or CWG books are required to learn how to do this. It was immensely valuable for me to learn this technique and stop letting other people use my brain rent-free. Neale discusses this technique at least somewhere in his books, and again this is an example of good value – but believing in Neale’s god, or anyone else’s god, isn’t required for it to work. It’s a matter of training your brain.

            I agree with your concerns about the state of America – but I have to ask – how much of that can be traced back to religions which separate and divide us from each other? By referring to his “God” Neale guaranteed that he would add to that separation and division because religions always have a problem with any “God” besides their own. If he had called it “Conversations with Life” or something like that, and left out all the references to what is very much just a dressed up version of the Abrahamic God, I would find more value in his works. I think he diluted the message by insisting on getting so much of his childhood indoctrination into the books.

            You said: “Or should we act on what we already know, that every single thing is made of, part of, has the characteristics of, is connected with the One Thing that pre-existed all other things?” We do not “already know” this. You and others simply believe it. You may be correct, but you don’t know it. By believing that you know it, you stop seeking real truth since you believe you already have it – and that, in my opinion, is not conducive to personal development. You’re hiding from the hard work of seeking truth, to wallow instead in comfortable but meaningless beliefs. We do not understand consciousness, but we’re working on it, so it can’t hurt to be patient and see what we figure out. You have to be brave and consider the distinct 50/50 possibility that consciousness emerges from matter – from the brain, and that when the matter dies the consciousness dies, the lights go out and that’s the end of it. Would that be so bad? Why are we so afraid of that possibility?

            You should not “believe” anything I say, either. I’m apparently getting senile, as the reason I thought my post was deleted was because I had another, older, globalconversation window open and went looking for my post in the old window where it didn’t exist! Duh.

            I’ll keep responding as long as (most) people want to converse, but I think we’ve beat this to death. My views are out there, and nothing has been said here to make me seriously question them – and that was my original intent – to put my ideas up for evaluation and criticism. I appreciate all the comments and challenges.

          • if I rembember right, about reincarnation it says, after “death” you decide, whether you want to come back or stay wherever you decide to be. Remember, you have your free will as your present and you can use it any time. I do not really see, where is the problem. If I would be you, I would just read over the books from the beginning, careful, sentence for sentence. For my part, every sentence was clear. in my heart. no doubt. not a single one. and no more questions about nothing. have a great time!

          • Patrick Gannon

            Wow – that is almost word for word what a Southern Baptist fundamentalist friend of mine said to me. “Pat, if I were you, I would just read over the New Testament, from the beginning, careful, sentence for sentence.” She went on to tell me how every sentence was clear to her and in her heart she had absolutely no doubts – not a single one. Why is her belief system wrong, and yours correct?

            Why should CWG be given more weight than the bible? In suggesting that I read it again, aren’t you suggesting that I treat it as scripture? You seem to be supporting my point that CWG is becoming a religion and the CWG material is the new bible, the new scripture, and people should just believe in it, since it’s the word of God as channeled through a man; (funny that revelation from God always comes from a male, isn’t it?).

            You say “if I remember right , about reincarnation “it” says….” This implies to me that you’ve turned “it,” meaning one of the CWG books, into something you seem to feel should be taken as absolute truth? Because Home With God (HwG) says something about reincarnation, it must be true? Is that correct? If Neale said it, it must be true, because GOD told him so, right? Never forget that God also spoke to David Koresh, Charles Manson and Jim Jones, among others. Funny, but all sorts of people were told things by God in the bible which Neale’s God now says are wrong. Why should we believe Neale and not the prophets of old?

            There is, as yet, no way to know; so it’s my position that we should not “believe” anything if we want to be honest with ourselves. I don’t know if reincarnation is a fact, or if we get a choice as to whether or not to return, or if it’s punishment or karma, or if it’s a way to continue to develop our soul, or if we just end our existence – the point is; nobody knows, or at least nobody can prove it, and it’s self defeating to simply believe what feels good to us. My approach is to seek the knowledge – study regression techniques and see if objective evidence can be obtained by proving certain events that subjects claim, and for which they could have no prior knowledge, actually happened. Gather enough of that kind of data, and then we can speak intelligently and honestly about the subject – till then, you might as well believe in talking snakes and donkeys, global floods, burning bushes, walking on water, and physical resurrections; all of which is no different than believing that pink unicorns eat the bean plants in my garden at night.

          • Awareness

            I am aware that there are other sources without fear, judgement and punishment 🙂 If you have been following my posts on this website from the very early days you will have seen me quote some of these sources. You can click on my disqus profile where I have well over 400 comments and you will see those sources being quoted. Below are three of these sources (I invite you to check them out further) without FEAR, Judgement, Condemnation and Punishment:

            1. Abraham (SOURCE ENERGY!) channeled by Esther Hicks.
            2. BASHAR channeled by Darryl Anka.
            3. The GROUP (GREAT SPIRIT!) channeled by Steve Rother.

            “Conversations with God” has also indicated that there are other sources. The GOD (remember this is the same as the SELF) in “Conversations with God” says that it speaks to everyone through many ways via many sources 🙂 “Conversations with God” does not claim to be the ONLY and FINAL source without FEAR, Judgement, Condemnation and Punishment. Importantly “Conversations with God” invites you to look within your SELF for the Highest Source (Your HEART) and to filter any “external” information through your own HEART 🙂 I invite you not to assume things. Look for the highest meanings possible 🙂

            “Patrick Gannon” wrote: “Actually there is a little fear in CWG, particularly if you really don’t want reincarnation sticking you back here again and again”.

            You claim to have read “Conversations with God”, yet it appears you have not understood its meaning 🙂

            “No, there is no such thing as karmic debt—not in the sense that you mean in this question. A debt is something that must or should be repaid.

            You are not obligated to do anything.”

            Nothing is ever required. You are, as always you have ever been, a being of free choice.” – “Conversations with God” by Neale Donald Walsch 🙂

            “Patrick Gannon”, are you “tired” of the “illusion”?

            “Always remember: The Illusion is not something you are enduring, it is something you are choosing.

            You do not have to live the Illusion if you do not choose to.

            You are here because you wish to be. If you did not so wish, it would not so be.

            Yet know that the Illusion in which you live is being cre­ated by you, not for you by someone else.

            Human beings who do not wish to take responsibility for the life they are experiencing say that God has created it, and that they have no choice except to endure it.

            Yet I tell you that the world you live in is the way it is be­cause that is the way you have chosen it to be. When you no longer wish the world to be the way it is, you will change it.” – “Communion with God” by Neale Donald Walsch 🙂

            This to me is as clear as night and day “Patrick Gannon” 🙂 I invite you to look to your OWN HEART (the source of all sources) with integrity for confirmation 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

  • Andres

    I would dare to ask a question: what if our cultural story has a tendency to believe in a clockwork universe, an Abrahamic idea of a world created by a male deity based on rules (Moses anyone?)? This would assume that every thing that happens in this universe must comply with a rule…and certainly many things do. What what if a big chunk of everything that IS, does not follow rules? What if it’s fickle? What if it cannot be tested on a lab and independently verified? Does it not exist? Science keeps claiming that it will eventually find out all the rules and eventually know everything about everything. Maybe it’s right, but it all remains just a leap of faith. In other words, a belief. In the meantime -and until science figures out what this experience of life on this planet is about- it’s all a very big leap of faith. It’s all belief. Tough luck Patrick. That is why Neale is right to assume that his books might one day be misinterpeted and made into dogma. It happened to all teachers and masters throughout history. What is the alternative?

    • Patrick Gannon

      Please find my exchange with Gina regarding science. I think it was in the column before this one. Science has a built-in mechanism to deal with belief and faith; religion does not.

      Neale is not the person who raised the issue of whether his books might one day be converted into dogma; I did.

      • Andres

        That is the problem. The “system” provided by science can only account for things that comply to rules, phenomenon that can be replicated by experimentation. What if most things in life do not behave according to rules? Do they fail to exist? Science claims to be foolproof. Looks like blind arrogance to me.

        • Patrick Gannon

          Well, I see it the other way. Scientists are always trying to prove each other wrong, come up with a new theory that replaces the current model, and achieve fame and glory through doing so. The scientific process mandates that they keep working to explain that which is unknown. Sure some of them are believers in the commonly accepted wisdom, and sure I agree with you that many think that since their space/time tools only work in this reality, that there is no other reality (and they may or may not be correct) – but there are always other researchers questioning the common wisdom, and if their works provide evidence and predictive results, then sooner or later science will come to a new understanding.

          This is not at all the case with religious beliefs. People who believe things insist that they are right, that only their belief is the “appropriate” one, and seldom examine things that question their beliefs. As we’ve seen, when people do question their beliefs (for Christians – start by reading the entire bible as a good way to begin), this often leads to losing the belief and turning to atheism or agnosticism as was the case with me.

          There is no built-in mechanism to test religious beliefs as there is in science. The only way religious belief changes is revelation through fallible (and for some reason, always male) humans. Hmm. Well, I’ll agree that if attendance, and therefore revenue is falling off, religions will start looking at how to alter things to try and keep the pews and coffers filled; and in that way, some small changes may take place, not so much in the beliefs, as in the way in which they are enforced or given attention.

          Is there any mechanism in place, to go back and alter the “holy scriptures” that say it is an abomination for a man to lie with another man, as with a woman, or that it’s sinful to mix wool and fiber in clothing, or to eat shellfish or pork, or work on the Sabbath, or have sex while menstruating? No, there is not. At best, such rules are ignored, but they sit there, and mainstream religion insists the words are “holy” and thus fundies are justified, indeed righteous, in following the instructions from these “holy” texts to discriminate or even kill others who don’t share their world view. In science, however, when something is discovered, indeed the texts do change. The sun stopped going around the earth quite some time ago – just check any elementary science book.

          Sure some scientists are blindly arrogant, but compare the number of those believers with the blindly arrogant religious believers and there’s no contest.

          The thing is, science is reaching out and seeking new avenues to explain that which is unknown. String theory isn’t panning out as expected and a new idea – Biocentrism, put forth by world-famous scientist Robert Lanza, suggests that the answers lie in biology – life and consciousness, rather than in math and physics. He’s an amazingly gifted scientist who suggests that life created the universe and not the other way around.

          Another scientist, former NASA physicist Tom Campbell proposes that consciousness is the basic unit of information that is driven by the basic evolutionary process to organize into ever more complex forms; and he too proposes that there is much more than the space/time physical matter reality that we perceive. These guys and others are part of the scientific method; which again, has no equivalent in religion/belief. They are struggling with the mainstream, and their views are on the fringe, so the burden of proof is on them – as it should be. As we know, however, great discoveries often come from the fringe. At the same time that they are putting forth new theories, mainstream scientists such as Graziano, are illustrating in a very convincing manner, how the brain manufactures awareness, which implies that consciousness emerges from matter. We just don’t know yet, and it’s foolish (in my opinion) to believe either side, and far better to keep an open mind and see what develops.

          There is no need to “believe” in the “religion” of New Age God or CWG, as these ideas are in front of science, and rather than believe and learn one day that said beliefs were wrong – as has been the case with religious beliefs since the beginning of time, I think it’s only logical that we should keep open, skeptical minds and wait to see what they find out. In my opinion, ideas such as CWG proposes should be discussed as philosophical ideas, and NOT as beliefs with a rising level of religiosity in which the internet becomes the church.

          Nobody wants to discuss this – but if New Agers really “believe” in their ideas about group consciousness, for example – why don’t they test them? Leverage the internet and get thousands of people online to meditate and focus on a random number generator and see if its output can be affected – or see if the results of a double-slit experiment can be affected by the group consciousness of thousands of people focusing at the same time on a particular result. Dean Radin and others have performed such tests on a small scale with inconclusive results; so go big and see what happens. Instead of just “believing,” why not participate and contribute to the science? Use the scientific method to propose, test, observe and document results. If the tests were successful, of course there would be skepticism from the scientific community, but there would be all sorts of interest in expanding the scale of the tests and more scientists would be drawn down another path of discovery that today is too far “out there” to risk a career on. Instead, New Agers, just like legacy religionists, treat science as the enemy; and that’s just plain dumb. The risk of course is that the tests fail, and that risks losing believers; which I think explains the lack of interest in pursuing such experiments.

          • Andres

            Well, before anything I must thank and commend you for writting such a deep and well structured answer. It is comforting to debate with someone who takes his ideas seriously. I will not defend religion, because I agree with you on how religious beliefs have pretty much poisoned our cultural story. What I reason, is that science sometimes seems like nothing more than another Christian heresy, founded on the dogma of a universe simply following rules. Or what you call the “texts”. There is nothing wrong with writting down what “works” (you still haven’t answered Neale’s question about what else is one to do but to express and write down one’s truth, even if it may become someone else’s dogma tomorrow). The problem lies in the fact that the “mechanism” you speak of in science, is based on the idea that rules govern life and the universe. And you don’t need a rocket scientist to know that is not how a lot of things in life are experienced. The dogma part is in thinking that science will eventually figure out all the rules that govern everything. That is just silly blind faith, like believing in Adam and Eve as literal history. The precepts of modern science were created by Christian deists, who believed in a creator that made rules and then sat and watched the universe unfold like a machine. It is my observation and understanding that this is not the nature of all life. That doesn’t mean scientific knowledge is useless. Simply limited to what can be replicated, “verified”‘ in other words, can be relied upon to follow rules and patterns. That which can be tested, because it always behaves in the same fashion and can be written down as “truth” according to the scientific method. I have loved deeply my friend, and yet you will never prove it.
            As I said before, I do not defend religion and even less so the organized kind, but revenue is not just something that contaminates religion. The other Christian heresy – science – very often does the same. It is no secret that good science is expensive to make, scientists and researches must eat, provide for themselves and their families, pay their mortgages (just like people in organized religion do). Trust me, I’ve seen truth manipulated in this way. It happens every day. Maybe we need a 21st century Martin Luther that will shake off the unholy affair between science/corporate/geopolitical interests.
            I share your praise for Campbell, Lanza and even Graziano. In a scientific environment so willing to “burn at the stake” a.k.a. “risk the career” of anyone who deviates from dogma, they are exceedingly brave to propose new ways of understanding reality. Yet, I doubt any of their ideas will be regarded as scientific fact anytime soon. Simply because delving into the nature of conciousness is delving into the undefined, and power structures hate the undefined. In their eyes, this is sleeping with the devil, and it takes a lot of courage to do so. This is why Neale deserves my admiration. After all, we wouldn’t be having this conversation if it weren’t for him.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “This is why Neale deserves my admiration. After all, we wouldn’t be having this conversation if it weren’t for him.”

            Hear, hear. I fully agree that anyone who sponsors intellectual discussion is performing a great service; as do many others in other forums in places like FaceBook.

            “you still haven’t answered Neale’s question about what else is one to do but to express and write down one’s truth, even if it may become someone else’s dogma tomorrow”

            Well, I thought I did. I tried. I have experienced a gradual, but growing unease in the last year or two regarding not so much the CWG material, but the way in which it seemed to me that it was being treated – more and more like religion. Neale denies this and points out correctly that the books say it’s not a religion; nevertheless my perception – which I am entitled to, and one which perhaps other people share – is that it was being treated that way. I’ve already outlined my reasons and won’t repeat them again here. Sometimes what is written in a book isn’t true. The bible says God is good, but if you read the OT, you know that’s nonsense if we define “good” according to Webster and not Christianity.
            If Neale can share his “truths” in books,then surely I can share my “truths” in this open forum as well. That’s what we have here – a contrast of personal truths; which perhaps means there is no truth – only perception, at least as far as the human mind is concerned.

            I recall one of my smartest friends, to whom I sent a CWG CD, saying to me, “I don’t get it. It’s some guy talking to himself.” After a while I began to see it that way too, only he’s talking to himself in public by way of books and CDs, and so too perhaps, I’m talking to myself by way of this shared and open forum in order to help me know myself.

            I will confess that this little exercise of mine, is as much for me as for anyone else who cares. It helps me solidify my own ideas, thoughts and concerns so as to be able to express them better to anyone else who might care to discuss such issues.

            I appreciate being challenged. I take contrarian viewpoints sometimes specifically to try and determine what the strongest arguments are on the other side. I think I got what I wanted out of this exchange for the most part. There’s always a little hesitation about making a fool of oneself, but I find that most of the time I walk away feeling like I gave a pretty good account of my position, and that’s how I feel about this exchange. I know I’m verbose and that’s hard for a lot of people in our Twitter-world; but real knowledge takes real effort; and besides, I’m not all that verbose when compared with Neale!!!

            I think anyone who waded through the whole thing had to be challenged, had to think about the points on both sides, and benefited by this exchange which isn’t typical for this forum. So hopefully it was helpful to others – but to be honest, I mostly care that it was helpful to me.

            I’m about ready to drop the whole thing and move on. I try to respond to any posts directed to me, figuring if someone cares enough to want to communicate with me, I should try to reciprocate. I come away from this with an even greater confidence that belief is to be avoided if possible, and that caution should be exercised when entertaining even “feel good” beliefs such as CWG and to seek out those doing the actual work so that we might “know” instead of “believe” whatever the truth turns out to be. For now, for better or worse, it’s science, not religion that is doing the work.

          • Stephen mills

            Hi Patrick I appreciate your questioning it’s always a positive thing .And to be encouraged the way I see it is everyone is a having there own conversation with god all of the time .Neale always encourages people to get in touch with their innermost feelings and find their highest truth what more can one do than that .Spirituality encourages you to find the truth within. Organised Religion tells you it’s truth and encourages you to be believe it verbatim .Therefore CWG is not and can never be another Religion unless you make it so .But you can make anything you want it to be can you not ?

            But what serves you that is the question ? If you choose to move away from Cwg ! Is that not to be encouraged at least you are on the path you want to go ,at least you have considered the material and deeply thought about it ! No one is being hurt or damaged by your choices your eternal life is a given anyway .

            The material as I see it is part of our evolution in conciousness bringing many to new understandings of our purpose and giving us another way of living together on this planet that has huge repercussions for our sustainability and seeks to uncover the real reasons for humanity’s inability to live together in peace and prosper as one .

            If the books resonate’s with the cells in your body and you feel some truth then the books have spoken to you as you ,why did you think you picked them up in the first place .If you just think it’s all hogwash well that’s fine as well it’s all good ! I know when something speaks directly to me is when I feel my body vibrate and I catch the vibe so to speak . I hope you catch your own vibe Patrick I have enjoyed reading your posts and your persistence is refreshing .

            It does question the prior assumption that there is nothing more to know about god and that we are the universes pinnacle achievement !
            ,

          • Patrick Gannon

            Great questions, Stephen. I guess that as part of my personal evolutionary process, I have come more and more to distrust faith and beliefs. I can see how they held me back and how they have held society back. Neale proposes to replace old beliefs with new beliefs; and I can see how that can (maybe) be beneficial to people as a stepping stone; but by way of analogy, is it really better to change from a big lie to a smaller lie if you’re still lying? I suppose it can help, but why lie at all; and so, for the same reason I have to ask, why believe at all?

            The thing is; many of these new age precepts can be studied and tested and it seems silly to me to believe these things when it’s becoming more likely that we’re going to know more in the decades or even century to come about the answers to these mysteries. Is there such a thing as group consciousness? What are OBEs? (Did you know that electrical stimulation in a particular part of the brain consistently produces this experience? That implies that it’s a product of the brain rather than some external consciousness, doesn’t it?). Did people live past lives? Is telepathy possible?

            Consider that there was absolutely no way to test the bible when it was first written over the course of many centuries. They didn’t know about cosmology or geology or archaeology, and certainly not evolution. They thought the stars were holes poked in the sky, and they believed in 6 day creations, global floods, talking snakes and magical gardens, walking on water and resurrections – all that and other mythical stuff they had no way to test. It took thousands of years to be able to test those beliefs and we discovered that most of it was dead wrong. God shrank considerably as we explained away that which had once been attributed to Him.

            Now we have a new belief, admittedly a much nicer belief, but the difference is, we’re not going to have to wait thousands of years to test it. Much of it is actively being researched now, though not nearly at the rate I’d like to see. I would love to see an involvement and participation by the masses to actively participate in this research – I’ve mentioned a couple times, the idea of experiments involving thousands of people on the internet attempting to effect some measurable outcome. I think the lack of response or discussion about this idea is the fear that it won’t work and thus the need to question one’s beliefs; and people don’t like to haul out their beliefs and question them. It’s not an easy thing to do.

            I love the message of ONEness and highest vision that comes from the CWG series, but I think it should be presented as philosophical material rather than in what seems to me to be an ever more religious fashion. (This is my perception. I understand Neale’s denial of it, but it seems that at least some others share this perception). I wish it had been called “Conversations with Life” or something like that – something that didn’t drag up all the baggage of God, which guarantees it will be in conflict with the old beliefs, hindering its progress.

            Why did I pick the books up in the first place? After a discussion with a deacon who quoted bible passages at me calling me a pig and a dog, and which I later realized were really directed to clergy – like him, I read the bible cover to cover a few times; something he’s probably never done. This led to my becoming very angry atheist. My New Agey sister sent me CWG to try and quiet my ranting, I suppose (grin). I “converted” and was a true CWG believer for a few years I suppose, but in another fortuitous event, another friend suggested Tom Campbell’s Big TOE and that headed me off on a more scientific exploration of the precepts of CWG which I found I was far more comfortable with. I knew from the start that particularly in CWG books 2 and 3 that there was material that was purely Walsch, and I knew he was still significantly influenced by his early childhood indoctrination, because of his belief that Moses was a real person, for example. For some time I managed to believe that “God” actually spoke with him and that some of what he was saying came from somewhere outside his own consciousness; so while I say I was a CWG believer, there was always a ‘grain of salt’ that I knew I had to take with CWG. However I do not think it’s all hogwash at all.

            I think there’s a decent probability that there is a ONEness about us that interconnects everything, and that it’s likely consciousness that is responsible for this… but don’t ask me to believe it. Let’s work together and individually to prove it. I continue to meditate regularly and leave open the possibility that I could have experiences that could lead to verifiable data (call someone following an OBE and confirm their clothing, actions, etc. that I would have no prior way of knowing, such as Robert Monroe discusses in his books) and with enough of this kind of subjective data, I would increase the probability that such things are real – based on my own “knowing.” So I’m not closed off to that, nor do I dispute that others may have had this “knowing” while I have not – but their “knowing” is not enough for me believe – and shouldn’t be. Each of us has to do that for him/herself, or perhaps all of us work together to perform large scale experiments that lead to everyone “knowing;” or facing the distinct possibility that the results don’t lead where we hoped they would.

            It takes more time and intellectual focus to learn what Tom offers but a good education always takes a good effort. CWG is pretty easy reading by comparison, though Tom’s material can be followed by anyone willing to put forth a little effort. One of Tom’s big issues is his disdain for scientists who are caught in belief traps – probably more so than religionists who at least admit they are believing. I learned the lesson, and the first thing I did was doubt him, so I started reading more about physics, quantum mechanics, consciousness, etc. to better understand the subject and I sought out competing viewpoints, to try to find the weaknesses in each. In time, I circled back to this place, opening myself to those who would help find the flaws and holes in my ideas, and I guess to see if anyone else shares them. It’s been a great and useful exercise for me.

            I thank everyone who has helped me on my own personal journey, and if I caused anyone else to exercise their intellect for a bit, then great. No applause, just send money. I have no CDs or seminars! LOL.

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            “These guys and others are part of the scientific method; which again, has no equivalent in religion/belief. They are struggling with the mainstream, and their views are on the fringe, so the burden of proof is on them – as it should be. As we know, however, great discoveries often come from the fringe.”

            Wow. I don’t know how I missed this one. What is it you think Neale is doing if not questioning what others say has been “known” for centuries, from the “fringe” of spirituality? (And I mean spirituality, not religion, which you continue to use as if they are interchangeable when they are not.)

            Belief does not necessarily mean one stops questioning, either, as you so often imply. Just because I believe in something doesn’t mean I stop looking and questioning and adding to or subtracting from or more clearly defining my beliefs. Why do you “believe” this is only true of those who “believe” in science?

            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            What proof has Neale offered? He has proposed that God spoke to him and proclaimed him to be a messenger. Prove it. He can’t. It can only be accepted by faith – by believing without evidence. What evidence is there besides taking Neale’s word for it that God spoke to him? There’s no more evidence or proof that God spoke with Neale than there is that Bible God or pink unicorns exist. I remember sending the CWG CD to a friend, who listened to it and told me: “I don’t get it. It’s some guy talking to himself.”

            What experiments in group consciousness have been conducted, suggested, or discussed by CWG to prove this “ONEness” concept? That at least is a testable concept, but I’ve seen nothing to indicate any interest in a scientific approach. No, this is all about believing without evidence, and that’s religion. I have spiritual experiences frequently, and no beliefs are required to do so.

            Neale is not on the “fringe” of spirituality. What he has to say has been said for thousands of years by eastern religions and disciplines. I’m really not sure if he has any original thoughts or ideas. From his writings, I have a good idea of some of the books he’s read in the past that his material likely comes from. It’s odd in CWG that we have an Abrahamic God who is discussing eastern spiritual concepts, and Buddha and Krishna play a distant second fiddle to Jesus who was an apocalyptic evangelical warning people, as did John the Baptist before him, that they better get their act together because the end of times was imminent and Bible God was going to judge everyone. Didn’t happen, did it? Given the dismal failures in prophecy and prediction from Jesus and Paul, the religion should have died after a generation when the end didn’t come.

            If Neale’s books were all about spirituality and he did not refer to his books as though they were holy scripture, I would not disagree with you; but from my perspective, he is turning philosophy and spirituality into religion. He’s even given it a name; the “New Spirituality.” His newsletter this weekend made it very clear that he wants the “New Spirituality” to grow as quickly as Christianity (a religion) did. That happened as quickly as it did, in large part because a Roman emperor made it happen by legitimizing the religion, and another emperor some time down the road, made it the official religion of the empire. If those two events hadn’t occurred it’s unlikely Christianity would have beaten out paganism, and it would have floundered as another weird sect – particularly with all the eating flesh, drinking blood and physical resurrection stuff.

            To “believe” means to accept something as true. Look it up in the dictionary. If a thing is true, why is there any need to continue to seek additional knowledge? That’s the simple, basic premise here.

            If you question your beliefs, that’s a very good thing – but why have them in the first place? If you’re questioning them it’s because you don’t know the truth; otherwise there’d be no need to question them. There would be no reason to keep searching. Fundamentalists don’t question their beliefs, and some scientists don’t either. I’m glad you question your beliefs. Question the beliefs that Neale is proposing as well. Just because they are nicer beliefs doesn’t make them any more true. Look up in this thread the paragraphs I quoted from Thomas Campbell that says: Is there such a thing as a good belief, is the same thing as asking, is there such a thing as a good ignorance?

            I don’t understand your last sentence: “Why do you “believe” this is only true of those who “believe” in science?”

            I don’t “believe” this is only true of those who believe in science. You continue to try and put words in my mouth, and it’s starting to become annoying. There is no such thing as “believing in” science from my perspective. Science is a process designed to discover truth. A process takes input, works on it and generates an output. The process of combustion describes how carbon is combined with oxygen and heat to produce energy. You don’t believe in the process of combustion. It’s a description of how something happens. There are certainly individual scientists who hold beliefs, but science itself is a process. I trust (know) the process of science will produce certain results, just as I trust (know) the process of combustion will produce certain results – but I don’t believe it. To me that doesn’t even make sense.

            Annie, I’ve enjoyed this, but I’m about finished here. You’re trying to nitpick me and put words in my mouth, accuse me of all sorts of things, and generally make me question your “highest vision” of yourself. I’ve changed my wording in a couple posts to be more clear; but this exercise no longer has any value for me, so I think I’m done unless something really meaningful that hasn’t already been covered repeatedly is raised as an issue.

            Good bye.

  • mewabe

    Totally off topic (and with profuse apologies):

    A couple of days ago I wrote this to Andres:
    “It would be so refreshing to see people who profess to love God actually
    respect, honor and love her physical creation, one of which being the
    earth, and to see them demand that the rape and destruction of such a
    beautiful Divine creation ceases immediately.”

    Then today I read this:
    Pope Francis: A Christian who does not protect
    creation ‘does not care about the work of God’ VATICAN CITY (RNS) If
    you are a Christian, protecting the environment is part of your
    identity, not an ideological option, Pope Francis said Monday (Feb. 9).

    I feel refreshed 🙂

    • Patrick Gannon

      Good luck with the conservative Christians….

      “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and SUBDUE it. RULE OVER the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

      Remember for conservative Christians, it’s not about the earth, it’s all about the afterlife. What happens here is of little consequence. Their goal is to get from here to wherever it is that God is (Neale’s words?).

      It usually doesn’t take long to see that the Pope is very good at marketing, but that he has no intention of making any meaningful changes to the orthodoxy or church dogma. Today, at the Vatican, he attacked gay marriage again, once again positioning same-sex marriage as an act of violence, a force that “disfigures” the very institution of marriage. Don’t be fooled by this Pope.

      • mewabe

        I am in agreement with everything you mentioned.

        It is high time that people around the world stop looking at and for leaders (such as the pope) and begin to self-govern. Unfortunately most people no longer have any connection to reality, because they are disconnected from nature and their own nature.

        • Patrick Gannon

          And on that note, I’m taking my friend Mr. Jack Daniels down to the pond to commune with nature as the day winds down. I try to spend at least 20 minutes a day with my private little nature preserve (without Jack!) every afternoon to meditate.

          • mewabe

            “I believe that there is a subtle magnetism in nature, which, if we yield to it, will direct us aright.”
            Henry David Thoreau

          • Andres

            Cheers!

      • be the change you want to see in the world. the world you see is just the reflection of your thoughts???

        • Patrick Gannon

          I’m not sure what your point is, Marion.

          One change I’d like to see in the world, is a dramatic reduction in the number of babies and young children that die every day, year in and year out due to starvation and disease, because of the Catholic rule that requires people refrain from using contraception or face a penalty of eternal punishment. The only way I know to change that is to protest against it and raise awareness.

          Countries such as the Philippines with 100 million people and well on the way to 200 million, have vast numbers of their population stuck in an endless cycle of poverty and deprivation. Their diet is mostly fish and rice, but they are blowing up reefs and killing them by using arsenic to harvest ever decreasing seafood stocks because people are desperate to be fed now.

          The finger of responsibility points squarely at the Catholic Church as the propagator of this evil. This is an organization that would prefer to see children die, or live in extreme poverty than to recognize that the clergy who made this rule against contraception were bone-headed idiots who want to use sex, as the church always has, to keep people living in guilt and fear.

          I don’t know the numbers, but I can’t help wonder how many deaths through starvation and disease the Catholic Church is responsible for as compared with Nazis and Communists for example. If the Catholics aren’t responsible for killing more, they will be eventually, because people keep dying and the nobody from the Vatican seems to give a damn. Oh, they like to talk about their charity and assistance, but isn’t that like the guy who starts a forest fire so he can be a hero helping to put it out?

          As Mewabe said, this is a bit off-topic, but it is an extreme example of just how bad faith and beliefs can be.

          • hempwise

            Great example of why Beliefs have to change my friend because Beliefs create Behaviors . So many religious followers without proper access to education and freedom of thought it’s like a silent genocide by belief .

            Can i use this word to speak about Organised Religion Genocidal by default ….I will use it as its how i feel !
            They even tried to ban condoms in Africa do they want to take over the world and convert everyone to Catholicism could this be the very goal of Organized Religion to convert as many as possible ,sure looks like this in the Philippines.We can see that we have the blind leading the blind . Could be any of main religions as there goal is grow or die .Not change and transcend with Humility and wisdom .

            Liked your post above says it how it is and that has to be commended.

          • mewabe

            “…bone-headed idiots who want to use sex, as the church always has, to keep people living in guilt and fear.”
            So true! (Add shame to guilt and fear).
            I agree with your statements and I like the fact that, unlike so many in the new age crowd who insist on being blindly “positive” (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil), you are not afraid of telling it like it is.

          • hempwise

            Hey i know how you feel about being dropped of on this planet by the galactic cruise ship!
            What about taking a petition straight to the Vatican with a million signatures outlining the issues above .We have to tell them it’s not working anymore heaven it never worked.
            We need to CHALLENGE them and show them that they do not have the authority on God/Life .There mistaken beliefs are dysfunctional fallacies that cannot work in the 21st century .
            Time for another way now ,its called being RESPONSIBLE .

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            And, so…? What have you done to change what it is you don’t want to be in the world? Have you joined together with others to protest against the Catholic Church’s policy of not using condoms so that underdeveloped, over populated countries don’t have children dying by the hour of starvation? Or have you led such a movement against the Catholic Church?

            These are precisely the kind of old beliefs that Neale is proposing we change. He is doing something about it. Are you?

            Blessings,
            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            I speak out in several forums. The one that reaches the most people is probably the weekly “Faith and Values” column that appears in the Richmond Times; or editorial columns and letters in that same paper. I have stirred up my fair share of controversy and discussion.

  • Lloyd Bradsher

    Look through an electron microscope and you see Creator, and look at the Hubble telescope images of the cosmos and you see Creator, and look into the eyes of fellow humans and you see Creator. Creator is Everything we know, so Creator is the Energy that binds ALL together. We are blessed to experience this existence in the physical plane and learn how to Love ALL. I am not responsible for how you may interpret this experience, but I am responsible for how I deal with my own thoughts and experiences. We share our thoughts with others to grow in wisdom and Love, but to judge how others deal with their experiences is an example of how we view our own connection to Creator. Namaste’
    Butch

    • look in the mirror, and you see the creator!

      • Lloyd Bradsher

        So brother what do you do with this wonderful news?

  • Sander Viergevert

    “Rather, what is being offered is an invitation to create a New Cultural Story — not the same thing as a ‘religion’ at all — providing humanity an opportunity to reconfigure its relationship with life, with the Earth, with what some people call ‘God,’ and with each other, such that a ‘religion’ is not even necessary. “

  • Thank you, I take it as my bithday present.

  • Patrick Gannon

    I think we’ve beat it to death and it’s probably time to let this thread to die, but in response to discussion below, I recently posted a quote from another spiritual author far below in this thread, regarding beliefs, and I thought it might make sense to highlight it again.

    The primary subject of this column/thread as proposed by Neale is:

    IF A ONE BELIEF SYSTEM REPLACES ANOTHER, AND THE NEW BELIEFS ARE DEMONSTRABLY MORE BENEFICIAL THAN THE OLD, SHOULD THE NEW BELIEFS NEVERTHELESS BE REJECTED OUT OF HAND BECAUSE THEY ARE ‘BELIEFS’?

    Here is one interesting way of looking at this question as written by Thomas Campbell, author of “My Big TOE,” where TOE = theory of everything.

    “By now, you may be wondering if there is such a thing as good belief. I can best answer that question with another question. Is there such a thing as good ignorance – is there any situation where ignorance is better, more valuable, than knowledge? If there is, then wherever and whenever ignorance is best, that is where you will find a good belief. In the short-term and in the little picture you might find some advantages to ignorance in a few special cases. Ignorance is perhaps not so bad if the problem is of little significance and of minimal importance, or one you can do nothing about. If you are trying to trick, use, or manipulate others to your advantage, their ignorance is always very helpful.

    In the long run and in the Big Picture, if you are not trying to manipulate others and your ego is small, ignorance has little to no value. If the issues are significant, the stakes high, or the outcome important to you, then ignorance and belief will leave you vulnerable and looking like an ostrich with its head in the sand. In substantive matters of long-term significance, there is no good belief.”

    • mewabe

      It is interesting and probably not a coincidence that the Church attempted to oppose knowledge for centuries.

      It is nearly impossible not to have beliefs (for example beliefs about ourselves and about human nature), but they should always be examined and questioned, and discarded when necessary, otherwise they become fixed and rigid and suppress growth, knowledge and even basic intelligence. Nothing is more detrimental than to refuse to question beliefs…any belief.

      Unfortunately, because many beliefs are attached to or serve as essential psychological defenses, they are difficult to shake, and many would rather die than seeing their beliefs/defenses destroyed.

      That’s why many kiil and die for such beliefs, which are rooted in neurosis (do a little research on neurosis and you will understand the nature of such beliefs, which are very widespread, worldwide).

      • Patrick Gannon

        Excellent point.

  • Gina

    Is it even possible to have no beliefs? Is the thought that all beliefs should be rejected not a belief?

    • Patrick Gannon

      “Is the thought that all beliefs should be rejected not a belief?”

      Interesting question. I would answer, “not necessarily.” One can “think” that all beliefs should be rejected because beliefs are a statement of lack of knowledge, and an acknowledgment therefore, of ignorance. That is a logical reason, I think, to reject beliefs.

      A “thought” is not necessarily a belief. I think, with an extremely high degree of probability that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it’s not necessary for me to believe that it will rise; and indeed I will act as though I believe the sun will come up tomorrow, but as mentioned above, ‘knowing that I truly do have control over my beliefs,’ means I don’t have to believe it, and indeed I don’t. For all I know, an unseen asteroid is hurtling to earth and will destroy us before I get up in the morning to see the sun rise again.

      Similarly, I think with a very high degree of confidence that Bible God is mythical, but I don’t know this for a fact, so must leave open the tiniest, most remote possibility that there really is a deity who is genocidal, sexist, racist, homophobic, wrathful, vengeful and jealous of inanimate objects such as idols – but I doubt it! The point is, I don’t know.

      • Gina

        What you think will happen with a high pribability and confidence, but not certainty is a belief just the same as the so called beliefs by blind faith. Little difference we could wretch out is perhaps, they are more observed and agreed upon beleifs?!

        • Patrick Gannon

          “What you think will happen with a high pribability and confidence, but not certainty is a belief just the same as the so called beliefs by blind faith.”

          “Just the same”? Oh, come on – they are hardly the same. For every day of my life I have known the sun to come up the next morning. I have seen evidence of how the solar system works due to research gathered from countless observations from earth and from space. We know the mechanics of how the earth orbits the sun, resulting in a new sunrise every morning, based on one’s position on the planet. The amount of empirical data to support the sun coming up is overwhelming, compared with the data to support, for example, the existence of Neale’s God or anyone else’s God. Believing Jesus physically rose from the dead and knowing that there will be a sunrise tomorrow are not even remotely similar as beliefs.

  • Gina

    One way to do away with beliefs is to live exclusively in a meditative state. Is it possible? Practical? Healthy? Beneficial??
    I think it’s possible, practical, healthy, beneficial to live with improved beleifs.
    I quote an Amazon review of Bruce Lipton’s the Biology of Beleifs. It’s written by a reviewer named . It’s relevant and meats to think about.
    “The Most Important Belief of All…” I say this because this book had a huge impact on my life because it changed one important belief in me that I was always a bit “wishy washy on”: THE KNOWING THAT YOU TRULY DO HAVE CONTROL OVER YOUR BELIEFS! and also how much our thoughts really do affect us on a cellular level.The book really explains this in detail which I think is very important for people who had trouble fully believing it based more on “faith” like I did. That may seem simplistic but I don’t think most people are *really* convinced of this on a deep unconscious level. This book really drove that home for me and it left me with no doubt about it at all. On an intellectual level, I knew this before but it wasn’t internalized because my skepticism (which serves me well in other areas) got in the way. I needed a convincing “show me” and this book did that for me. Again, I previously “knew” this on one level but it wasn’t internalized. A couple of my biology classes in college and grad school would have been *much* more educational if I was exposed to Lipton’s way of explaining cell biology. Instead, the pace was so fast that I crammed and memorized long lists of terms and meanings for weekly quizzes. I now realize I didn’t even understand the basics of the subject.

    • Patrick Gannon

      Interesting. I’ll have to add it to my reading list. Always interested in something that has at least some scientific method behind it.

    • mewabe

      It has been proven that certain beliefs can act as do opiates, causing the release of feel good brain chemicals, which is why so many are so desperately attached to beliefs that make them “happy”, and which cause them to suppress otherwise painful feelings or memories.

      When beliefs are used this way, they are no better than drugs or medications and, in my opinion, an impediment to actual spiritual growth, as such growth implies inner healing rather than inner suppression (suppression is not healing).

      • Gina

        The idea I’m putting forth is using beliefs is a much faster, more efficient way to heal people and the planet than to remove all beliefs.

        • Patrick Gannon

          How well has that worked? Old beliefs have always been replaced by new beliefs. How much have they healed people and the planet?

          • Gina

            Old beliefs that matter haven’t been challenged in a long time. Beleifs were not used in this area, but manipulated by a select few to control and mislead the many Still others are just on default setting , and don’t consciously examine what they believe. It’s to be seen how that works in the critical area of God, life, tje world, people, death and afterlife.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Might be more beneficial to let truth challenge belief and let science figure things out. Belief is based on ignorance, and ignorance replacing ignorance is still ignorance.

        • mewabe

          Speed is not necessarily always good…depth can be better in the long term.

          • Kristen

            Great observation Mewabe. I have learned that anything fast or easy is only for short term gain, generally to pay the bills or provide for now…..short term gain. Anything that requires time, patience, is a challenge or is difficult are the important things in life….they bring long term gain and pave the path for a living based life, rather than mere existance and paying the bills. I think these are the two main paths in life, asY’shua said, always take the hard road….long term gain.
            Hope you are well,
            K
            Xx
            PS your drought is in our news again. So sad for the animals.

          • mewabe

            Yes I agree, and another aspect of speed is that it does take time to achieve the mastery necessary to be fast. But because people in developed nations are short on time, they seek shortcuts (such as becoming a “Reiki master” in one weekend, or a “yoga instructor” after having spent a week vacation in India).

            I know we do not have much time left if we want to save our specie, as the consequences of the destruction of our ecosystems are beginning to hit us hard. I think that’s what Gina was referring to.

            Another thought about time: Americans usually consider themselves the wealthiest people on the planet. They may be in terms of the material stuff they are able to accumulate and then throw away, including paper money. But they are the poorest in terms of time, as they never have enough and must rush through life at neck breaking speed.

            To have no time is to be extremely poor in terms of life…and so is to have no water 🙁

            Hope you are well too (well? I might have to have another one dug…)

          • Kristen

            As well as I could possibly pull off!! Given that I am poor in time, therefore poor in life! Apparently!! Two jobs, studying, working for Judgement day, 4 kids, house, pets, mortgage……but hey, getting all of these out of the way now, the hard slow diligent way surely means I will be wealthy in time one day. When I am in my death/life bed!! But its a choice at this point, later will be for me when all the NOW necessities are gone!

            Americans summed themselves up on the news last night talking about your drought (your fault, your rain dances are crap, since when is the Time Warp a rain dance?)….”authorities have received 244 COMPLAINTS about bears in residential areas seeking food and water”. Erm, am I (or I will allow a rare WE), the only person who thinks this is backwards!! We have had two days of rain, and flash floods in some places. Trade water for fried bread????

            I dont think we should even be thinking about our species, its not just our story, we should be prioritising animals, children and those who do not have independance. Screw the rest of us, choices bring consequences. Adults need to toughen up and get over themselves!!

            Xx

          • mewabe

            I agree…
            Bears in residential areas? Don’t they mean residences in bear and mountain lion and deer territory? How far are we going to push wild animals, as far as they pushed Native Americans?
            By the way I always leave some water out for the deer (and racoons, ground squirrels, wild turkeys, hares, red tail hawks and other birds, etc).
            Slow down a little…smell the skunks (I meant the roses…there is a skunk walking around in my backyard just now).

          • Kristen

            Exactly my point. Where do you get your water from? You would find here so odd, we dont have native animals so Ive never seen the ones you refer to. We just have food farms and zoos! Never seen a turkey, squirrel etc. Hope you and your animal family are all well…..
            Xx
            K

            Subject: Re: Comment on An Open Letter to Our WorldSHOULD NEW BELIEFS BE REJECTEDSIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE BELIEFS?

  • Lloyd Bradsher

    I know thoughts have energy, and they project outwardly a force or vibration that is felt and sensed by others, animals, plants, etc. whatever comes into our sphere of influence. Those thoughts we hold onto can be called beliefs, and they do influence what we create for ourselves to experience. Do I believe the sun will rise again tomorrow, sure, but at some point I also know that it will Supernova and consume all the planets in our solar system, this is a fact based upon observations of other solar systems. So is this observation a belief, or just a thought that will create what we believe to be real?
    We can not only choose beliefs but we can also choose to hold onto thoughts that create happiness and joy or fear and frustration. Where do these thoughts come from? Chemical reactions within our brains, or do they exist without us and we are allowing ourselves to connect to them from time to time by being aware they exist? And if we choose the thoughts we desire, why do we choose them, and what do they do for us? This is the active part of creating our experiences, by choosing the thoughts that we choose to give a place within our existence, we either reject or attract them into our life experience, don’t we?
    When we meet a dog, for example, can we not sense the energy of that animal? Happy, friendly, or fearful and anxious, we sense its energy, and the same is true of the dog sensing us. If we approach this dog with fear and apprehension the dog knows and will react accordingly, and so do we toward the dog. Do I put forth my hand knowing the dog will accept me or do I hide and step aside to protect myself? We treat humans the same way, based upon our prior experiences in life we have learned to fear others or we have found that the majority of them want what we want, acceptance and love.
    Life is our school grounds, and we either cling to what we know and believe to be true or we trust in our senses and understanding to honor the Creator within all existence. We grow in wisdom as we open ourselves to all the possibilities and with our thoughts and beliefs we create the world we most desire. Love and acceptance lifts us up and shows us the best results, while fear and oppression creates separation and strife within and without. We choose, and no one can choose for you, and it is these choices in life that create our experiences of our reality of life. What do you choose? Namaste’
    Butch

    • GH Annie

      Butch,

      “We grow in wisdom as we open ourselves to all the possibilities and with our thoughts and beliefs we create the world we most desire. Love and acceptance lifts us up and shows us the best results, while fear and oppression creates separation and strife within and without. We choose, and no one can choose for you, and it is these choices in life that create our experiences of our reality of life. ”

      An incredibly well put summation. It has been my experience that we always have choices about our own perceptions, which then create our beliefs, and ultimately create our own experience of reality. I can choose to recall a past experience and call it” bad,” thereby creating my present based on that belief. I can recall that same experience and call it “good,” and experience a different perspective on my present. Even more, I can choose to call it neither one, and simply decide who I choose to be in relation to that experience. It’s in this last way that I have the choice to be (as God puts it through Neale) the next grandest version of the greatest vision ever I have of Who I Am, which is always as a Divine spiritual being experiencing a physical existence, creating my present moment, and creating IN my present moment.

      Blessings,
      ~Annie

  • Awareness

    “For those however who have begun their own spiritual journey, who have been asking questions, this time is indeed critical in that it is not simply about observing what is going on and making a choice based on the external events of one’s time and one’s own life, but rather to realize that all that is created in the external is the result of an internal process and internal choices.”

    “That this Awareness has often spoken of the importance of being positive, holding hope and imagining a reality where miraculous and magical things can occur. That for the majority there is no acceptance of the statement by this Awareness and others that you are Creator Beings, that you create your own reality. How could this be so when so many bad things are happening? When the world is in such desperation, where one’s own personal life is a reflection of that which is the negative, that which is the acceptance that it is a bad world and bad things happen to people and that there is no hope or even reason to hope, for all know that “if it seems too good to be true, it probably is not true.”

    But, if one holds this as a fundamental premise that has been indoctrinated into the mindset of humanity itself, and that as you, as an individual in humanity, accept this to be so, then as Creator Beings you will experience this. It will be your reality and this Awareness certainly does not have the right to say it is not true, for those who accept it as their Truth.

    What Awareness is saying is that now, especially now, moving forward from this now, that it is hypercritical to question this premise, this assumption and all others like it. To see that reality does not begin out there and affect you, the individual, but it begins with you, the individual, choosing to believe Truths that will then be reflected out there. That your individual reality becomes a reflection and a creation of the beliefs you hold and if you hold negative beliefs, fearful beliefs, beliefs that have no hope to them, and only the expectation of bad things happening to yourself, your family, your society and your world, then this is indeed what is created.

    If however, despite what is happening “out there”, one can still hold that this does not necessarily mean that the individual, him or herself, will also be tarred with that same dark brush, will experience the bad things in life that everyone else is experiencing, then a situation is created that the reflection of those more positive beliefs can also be manifested and created.”

    “That you can choose timelines of experiences that lead you personally to the manifestations of a most unique and powerful experience either in the Light or in the dark. That the human experiment of separation of Spirit and from Spirit is coming to completion. Seen from the eternal perspective of this Awareness, it is already complete, it is already done and that there are those who have gone forward, who have created a new human experience, a new collective reality, but this is that which from a linear point of view is called the future.

    That this Awareness can see the future, the present, and the past simultaneously, is not how most experience this. But despite this, all humans have the capacity to sense this, to understand at some very deep and powerful level, that they can determine what their future experiences may be, that they can take from their past that which either perpetuates and continues the experiences of the past or to change those past experiences, to even denying past experiences so that the power in the moment can create in the moment that which is the miraculous and the magical, that which is uplifted, that which is the full power of Divinity and Divine Spirit Itself.

    You are Divine Spirit, you are Divine Creator, you are having this experience at this time and the love of the Divine Source is so great that it will allow you to have any experience that you choose. That you have this right above all other rights to choose what you wish to experience, to be what you wish to be.

    That at this time, this critical stage of this passage into the higher consciousness of humanity and into the higher possibilities of humanity, that each must make their own decision, must look at their lives as the reflection of their right to choose and that it is a Divine Right, for you are part of Divine Spirit, you are the spark of Divine Source.

    That during these weeks, months and years that lie ahead in the linear sense of time, that there are strong events that are now emerging and will occur in the weeks and months ahead. During these times when there is much stress, much anxiety, much fear and much terror, remember the truth of your being and the right of your own choices, the right your own Spirit Being to make choices. Choose wisely, for these decisions will affect what lies ahead, but that you must also always remember you are in the moment of your power in the Now, and that this being so gives you always in the moment, the possibility of changing your mind.

    The right to change your mind, the right to change your reality of experiences, for you are Divine Source beings, you are Spirit having this experience in the now, right now, here and now.” by Cosmic Awareness (GREAT SPIRIT! GREAT AWARENESS!) 🙂

    Bless ALL:)

  • John Jung

    All this writing about beliefs is not as benefitual as it would be if each person would give his or her own definition. I think that it is within the definitions that the main differences exist.

    • Patrick Gannon

      Valid point. I’ve primarily been referring to definition (1), while others may be thinking of definition (2):

      be·lief bəˈlēf/
      noun

      1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

      2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

      • Kristen

        Hi Patrick. Read my comment above. You have hit the nail on the head, I think it is time to change dictionaries.
        Hope you are well,
        K

      • John Jung

        Interesting! The definition that I have been using is “to accept something as true with little or no evidence”, but now I can’t find where I found it.

  • mewabe

    Ultimately, we will achieve greater knowledge, along our collective and individual evolutionary path.

    With some knowledge, there is no need for certain beliefs. For example, I do not need to believe that I have two legs, because I know I do (last time I checked anyway).

    But other forms of knowledge are not so clear cut. For example, I might think I know specific things about myself. But this knowledge is highly subjective and based on personal perceptions, and will always remain so. In this case the difference between knowledge and belief is blurred, and both are fluid and always changing, and thankfully so.

    So we may expect that we will, some day, have some sort of “tangible proof” that life after death goes on, and that, consequently, consciousness (or “soul”) is not born of the physical, but exists independently of it. Such knowledge might come to us.

    But our relationship to what we call the divine is different, precisely because it is a relationship, and is, as are all relationships, even to ourselves, wholly rooted in personal perception and subjectivity. There is no “God” outside of us, because the Divine is not and cannot be separate from us. Consequently it cannot be reduced to an outside event, an isolated “fact”, but can only exist and be known within our very own, personal, subjective connection with it.

    And this is all religions get in the way.

    Does this make the existence of the Divine a belief? As much as it makes the existence of love or any other feeling or totally subjective, personal experience a belief. As we change and grow, our beliefs change and expand, and vice-versa.

    When beliefs no longer change, they die, and so do we. To think that any one of us could have all the answers to everything and that we have it all figured out, in spiritual or any other terms, would simply be a temporary error, until we know better and start growing again.

    • GH Annie

      mewabe,

      Very well put. Thank you for putting these thoughts into words that are easily understood, and with which I have struggled.

      Blessings to you, friend,
      ~Annie

      • mewabe

        Thank you Annie 🙂

  • Kristen

    Hi. I really struggle with the words belief and believe getting confused. Even Patricks definition from the dictionary below ‘feels’ incorrect. I personally define believe as being 99% certain something is the truth without being able to prove that last 1% to others which would give your views validity to others. Beliefs are something you CHOOSE to follow, promote, teach or support like faith,blind trust, religion, traditions, fairies Santa, perception based views, new age teachings, placebo effect including faith healing and homeopathy etc.
    I believe in the real God, and I believe Neales God is Satan. Can I prove this to anyone so they can also believe the same as I do…..no. But I do not have any beliefs, humans are smarter than that, I prefer science and proven information.
    In my view the only time so far when the two paths cross is with voodoo, curses and black majic. I dont like these beliefs nor would I want to believe they are true, but unfortunately these negative beliefs of others have huge impacts on others, including myself, so I have no choice to believe in them. As I believe in evil.
    Take care folks,
    K
    Xx

    • GH Annie

      Kristen,

      I find myself confused by your statements.

      If belief is a choice, which you state it is, then how is it that you can be forced to have a belief in something that you would not choose, which you also state? Are other’s beliefs somehow stronger than your own, forcing you to accept the same belief?

      Your statement that you “believe in the real God” isn’t, and in my perspective, can’t be stronger than my own belief in a Divinity that exists in all of the ongoing creation. Your belief that evil exists cannot be stronger than my own belief that evil is a label we choose to assign to something or someone, not as an existence in and of itself. My belief is just that: my belief, which means it is internal and not affected by what is external.

      Are you saying that you can somehow be forced to have a belief in something that you would not choose?

      Blessings,
      ~Annie

      • Kristen

        Hi Annie,
        Sounds like a paradox, I know.
        I am meaning that even when we choose not to personally have a belief in something, once it is proven to us to be a true fact, then I have no choice to believe in it as something factual. Terrorism is another example of this….although we define it as murder, some extremists have a personal belief in rewards for killing infidels. Therefore I must believe in their acts as something real, although not a part of my personal belief system. I will probably convert to Judaism one day though.
        I don’t live in a fairytale world where I can pretend good is stronger than evil at this point, the entire Universe is unbalanced. And I am also not dumb enough to deny the existance of evil…..to knowingly harm or cause the suffering of others when not deliberately inflicting karmic consequences or being cruel to be kind (as doctors and parents sonetimes have to be), is the Universal definition of evil, it does exist, and you can choose not to define sadists, torturers, peodophiles, rapists, animal abusers, hard drug manufacturers etc as evil if you choose not to, but I do. And victims of these evil people need people to be their advocate and fight for consequences on their behalf. Anyone who tells you evil doesnt exist or is perception based, is the epitome of evil, they are manipulating you into not doing your compulsary human duty of actively fighting them. I am a Kabbalist, and everyones progressive journey involves a war against evil. Satan’s good at what he does, he has you fooled. Why dont you ask Neale if he truly believes the one he channells is the Biblical God as he states he is?

        Re your last sentence, no I can never be forced to partake in or support the beliefs of others, but I cannot deny reality so must believe in the truth, whether I like it or not.
        Take care,
        K

        • GH Annie

          Kristen,

          “… you can choose not to define sadists, torturers, peodophiles, rapists, animal abusers, hard drug manufacturers etc as evil if you choose not to, but I do. And victims of these evil people need people to be their advocate and fight for consequences on their behalf. Anyone who tells you evil doesnt exist or is perception based, is the epitome of evil, they are manipulating you into not doing your compulsary human duty of actively fighting them.”

          I am someone who believes that evil does not exist, and I will explain why. I have been a “victim” of a sadistic, narcissistic, bipolar, mentally ill father who beat, tortured, raped, brainwashed, isolated and completely controlled me for the first seven years of my life. And, when I saw myself as his “victim,” I defined him as the epitome of evil. In my early 30’s, I finally found the strength to face my experience head-on in therapy. At the end of this two year intensive therapy, I no longer considered myself to be his “victim,” but rather a “survivor.” Accordingly, I also no longer considered my father himself to be evil, but rather a very sick,

          • Kristen

            Hi Annie,
            Thanks. I do understand that, and accept others think differently BUT consequences still need to take place no matter the ‘excuse’ for abuse.
            I read your story in here a month or so ago, and my heart broke for you. I am a visualiser so see images like a movie as I read everything, and like all victims, I will forever fight my butt off for the child Annie. Everything is set up so victims can move on and start their life once free from abuse, and function through understanding, forgiveness and therapy. BUT innocent little Annie is my client, I am her advocate, and your father will be accountable even if I personally kick his sorry butt myself. With 99% of people now being reincarnated, they have CHOSEN mental health illness etc for whatever reason. This eliminates it as a true reason for evil, and makes it a mere excuse and freewill choice. When my physical body dies, and I shift to another higher realm, I will be dedicating my existance to justice and karma, so that all the Little Annies and victims can fly free and rest in peace and those of us with the strength and know how can make sure ‘evil rots in their own filth in Hell’, well, their idea of Hell anyway. To use religion as his excuse makes it even more appalling, and I am sure will be one of his many ficticious excuses.
            Sorry I was hard on you above, I forgot or didnt realise it was you, too busy and didnt take the time to really notice who I was speaking with.
            You have an amazing inner strength that very few have, so as society, the rest of us need to use whatever strength we can find for all the Little Annies of the world.
            Xx

          • Kristen

            Annie, in addition below, I couldnt respond to your story when you first wrote of it in here, as I had all the images running through my head over and over and had to just stay away. I am eternally grateful to have never been abused myself, but this gift or ungift of intense visualisation allows me to get as close to understanding your experiences as a non victim ever can! A companion gift/ungift is to also be able to get in the head of perpetrators, given to me by Rabbi Y’shua (Jesus) when I asked to trained to testify against perpetrators, similar to a DA in the American legal system. I am highly trained to determine mental health, medical, medicional, drug, evil, ‘animal’ based souls, brainwashing, belief etc based determinations in perpetrators. With your father, once I ploughed through all the issues to get to the core of this anonymous person, his core is that he is just an evil selfish sadist who is too weak and pathetic to deal with his own crap as a majority of people do, and has no true believable valid reasons for anything. I would say a deamon who feeds off the negative energy he can produce in others, choosing the easiest targets he can find. And as a reincarnated soul, you stepped into the Little Annie body to prevent him hurting anyone else, and to protect two siblings from him, since you have many lifetimes experience with his crap and know he cannot possible harm you more than he already had. In fact, the pre-reincarnated you lied on your reincarnation records as an excuse to take another souls place as he would have killed them physically through suicide, and damaged their spirit so much they would cease to exist. My big question to the Universe, is why the heck did they not kill this monster before he went on to breed?!

            Glad you appear to be recovering and are able to detach, too many victims personify the behaviours of others, so forever stay in victim mode, rather than becoming a survivor like yourself, or allowing the Law of Transdence to kick in, giving them the power to dominate evil. You have done both. You should be very very proud of yourself.

            Xx

    • hempwise

      If you prefer science and proven information why do you believe in Satan ?
      Then you say you believe in the real god !
      Non capice ….

      • Kristen

        Because those things are 100% proven facts to me, starting with prophecies. I am an Israelite, the Bible is my families history, with our God. When God wants to prove anything He can. I ask, He answers. Last weeks example, I said I was bored and would love for my shop to be a bit more busy and Id love to play warehouses and distribute boxes for something different. And I want a holiday. The next day for some ‘God reason’ I looked at my industry on an online trading/auction site…..saw a huge shop lot/wholesale business stock due to close soon. Got $10k of stock for $500, and Im having so much fun selling boxes and boxes of stock online. Hardly made a dent in it and have made holiday funds already. This is my life, nothing goes unresponded to, like a normal relationship except they answer with your life, rather than picking up the phone. This is all I know. A bit of a spoiled brat, but because of my choices.
        Satan has also proven himself to me but I ignore idiots and their crap!!
        If you aren’t receptive and dont have a positive relationship with the real God, and The Source then they wont be receptive to you. I have great relationships with both, and its a mental challenge to keep on top of the current fun games. If you want to believe stuff, try The Source, he is responsive to beauty, perfection, collections, dad humour, hipster dressing, the ‘it’ factor, great music etc. Keep spaces a bit as you would if you were a practitioner of feng shui. He may also draw your eyes to things he doesnt like, or you will feel The Sources spirit in your solar plexus, try watching Top Gear UK, this is his humour style. I somehow dont think God will be very responsive to you and its up to you if you use my ideas to invite The Source to prove himself to you personally.
        Hopefully you have proven truths so you believe in something or someone
        Take care,
        K.

        • Stephen mills

          Sounds like you are making it up as you go along ,it’s called make believe .

          • Kristen

            Wow. Ok, now thats up there with odd beliefs……no not believe others if their truths and experiences differ from your own. Ill believe myself into a more exciting fictional story next time.
            K

          • hempwise

            What i meant to say is that your belief that Neales god is satan ,seeing any -thing as negative . Your belief is ok with me but i do not think you have read all his books .Because if you have you would probably come to the conclusion as millions of others have that this path offers more joy,love and understanding than following the old books which are incomplete and can be easily manipulated .
            I agree with the law of attraction and that thoughts of the collective and individual have an effect the world .So your thoughts are helping to create your reality but it’s still make believe .And the universe has no preferred outcome it just says do you want to play again .

          • Kristen

            Hi.
            Its what I believe, not my belief, I don’t think I have any beliefs. Sorry but Id read prophecies about Neales God, mass reincarnation etc before anything else so it all falls into place. Neales God is he of Lawlessness in scripture. I will not forsake all the truths I already know, about The Source, God and my higher Kabbalic Teacher and information just because I may choose to believe some channelled books. I love law, rules, structure, consequences, governments etc so even if I didnt already support what I do,and believe what I do, then CwG is pretty up there with the last things I would affiliate to.
            There is nothing make believe in my world….but again, if I was doing make believe it would be a hell of a lot more interesting.

          • Kristen

            Laughing at myself….I can make you believe me. Go online to Trade Me New Zealand, under crafts, cake decorating find anything headed bulk sale, or I am cakebox1. All the clothes for sale are another ‘God’ given gift, when I said I wanted a preloved clothes shop a year ago, in case you get confused.
            Apologies gracefully accepted. Hahaha.
            Xx

  • Judy Devlin

    My beliefs have never been etched in stone and have changed hundreds of times and I question Anyone who is that stuck with An old outdated nonsensical beliefs especially those written over 2000 years ago.. As I’ve matured, explored, researched and Grown as a human being I progress-move forward. I think we are suppose to get smarter, better and Free-er. And that only comes with constantly changing oneself when things don’t make any sense. BLIND FAITH was a rock group not a mantra. I am sick of Religion. Period- Please catch up:)

  • Lloyd Bradsher

    Everything must evolve, and human intelligence and thus belief systems will continue to evolve as well. As the human consciousness grows, the collective consciousness also grows, and we can observe it all around us, regardless of those that cling onto their old non-defensive, limiting belief systems. As the older generations die off, new ideas are allowed to take hold and push growth forward, and through trial and error, the human consciousness finds it truth, and individually we each find our truth within our own hearts. Religions have restrained so many new thoughts and actions for so long that humanity has finally seen the falseness of its truth, and those who participate have declined at a much quicker rate that ever. The religious right and those with dogmatic, hurtful beliefs are finding much fewer followers and their illusion of power over the masses will diminish and fade away.
    Those that follow will need to stand up and find their own way home, and that is as it must be. Namaste’
    Butch

  • Beliefs are the controller of behavior, but often a belief is not founded on experience; the very nature of the belief system precludes the necessity of experience. A belief may deny the evidence of experience. Belief is motivation by reliance on an assigned version of reality or an assigned version of what might be imagined. Ultimately, the effect introduced by the belief is not a matter of believing versus non-believing. The discord is between believing and learning from experience. The unexamined belief is not worth holding, and the examined belief may not be worth holding, either. Many beliefs, once examined, may prove to have no real value as indicators of UNIVERSAL TRUTH or guides to experience, although they may serve to define identity and confer a sense of belonging.