An Open Letter to Our World
DOES GOD’S LOVE TURN TO
WRATH ON A MOMENT’S NOTICE?

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 for in the immediate future are the ideas found in GOD’S MESSAGE TO THE WORLD: You’ve Got Me All Wrong.  I believe this new book (published last October by Rainbow Ridge Books) places before our species some of the most important “What if” questions that could be contemplated by contemporary society.

The questions are important because they invite us to ponder some of the most self-damaging ideas about God ever embraced by our species.  For example, the statement that,,,
God is vengeful and God’s love can turn to wrath

This is an extension of an earlier belief. Much of the world believes in a God who is a male super-being, who demands obedience, who says we are imperfect because we have not been obedient, and who tells us that in order for us to be in God’s good graces (and thus, eligible for admission into heaven), we must meet certain very specific requirements— and whose love turns to wrath if those requirements are not met.

A search of many of the holy books of the human species produces countless references to “the wrath of God” in many of the world’s religious traditions.

In the Jewish tradition we are told at Nahum 1:2 that “Adonai is a jealous and vengeful God. Adonai avenges; he knows how to be angry. Adonai takes vengeance on his foes and stores up wrath for his enemies.”

In the Christian tradition we are told in John 3:35-36 that, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

In the Islamic traditions we are told at Verse 005:060 about: “. . . those whom Allah has cursed, those upon whom fell the wrath of Allah, those whom Allah turned into monkeys and pigs, and the devotees of the arrogant and the evil. Their plight is the worst; they are the farthest away from the straight path.”

In the Mormon tradition we are told in Mosiah 3:36 of those who “have drunk out of the cup of the wrath of God, which justice could no more deny unto them than it could deny that Adam should fall because of his partaking of the forbidden fruit; therefore, mercy could have claim on them no more forever.”

Things are considered pretty serious when scriptures that we call holy tell us of a Deity that we call merciless. Small wonder that people throughout history have been nervous about offending God. Even Moses was known to have said in a prayer to God: “. . . we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled.” (Psalm 90:7)

Indeed, we are. This idea of God’s merciless anger permeates human considerations of The Divine, and has done so for centuries.

Now comes The Great What If . . .

What if God has never displayed, and never will express or experience, wrath?

Would it make a difference? Does it matter? In the overall scheme of things, would it have any significant impact in our planetary experience?

Yes. Of course it would. It would allow us to believe in a God whose love is unconditional and is never withdrawn for any reason at all—and certainly not for our beliefs.

This, in turn, would give human beings, at last, an accurate model of the true nature of love, and a wonderful example of how to love one other. Right now many humans use their understanding of how God loves us as their model of how they should love one another.

Accepting the notion that God’s love is unconditional would mean that a display of human wrath for any reason could no longer rely for its justification on the teaching that God has brought His wrath to bear on humanity time and time again. (You will recall that the Bible indicates that over two million people were killed at the hand or the command of God.)

At the level of individual life partnerships and romantic relationships, a new way of loving each other would have a demonstrable basis if humans were not told over and over again about God’s wrath. That new basis would be God’s unconditional love. What a model we would finally have! Someone who loves us no matter what.

Fear, too, would leave the human heart forever if we thought that the experience of love—whether the love of another human being or the love of God—was forever.

If we thought that God had no wrath, little children could go to bed no longer having to worry about what will happen if they don’t live until morning. The prayer, “Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray to God my soul to keep. If I should die before I wake, I pray to God my soul to take . . .” could be changed to: “Now I lay me down to sleep, I know that God my soul will keep. And if I die before I wake, I know that God my soul will take.”

If we thought that God expresses no wrath, billions of adults could go to bed no longer feeling the urge to beg Mary, the mother of Jesus, to “pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.”

Thus, Supplication Theology would be replaced by Application Theology.

Supplication Theology is a theology in which we are placed in the position of a supplicant, continually asking God, begging God, entreating with God for one thing or another.

Application Theology is a theology in which we apply in our lives what we know to be true about our relationship to God: that God lives in us, through us, as us, and that the qualities of divinity are ours to apply in our daily lives, including wisdom, clarity, knowledge, creativity, power, abundance, compassion, patience, understanding, needlessness, peace, and love.

Now here is God’s message to the world:

God has been telling us from the very beginning, and it is becoming more clear to us every day, that humanity’s Ancient Cultural Story about God’s wrath is plainly and simply inaccurate.

It is okay now to remove this ancient teaching from our current story, and stop telling this to ourselves and to our children. The fact is that God has no reason to experience or express wrath. When you are everything, have everything, created everything, experience everything, and can express everything that you wish to express, what can there be to be filled with rage about?
 When you want nothing, need nothing, require nothing, demand nothing, and command nothing, what can there be for you to feel betrayed about?

Finally, when there is nothing else in existence except You, who is there for you to be rageful with? Whom shall you punish? Shall the right hand slap the left?

The idea of a wrathful God rests on a notion that God cares what you do or don’t do as one of billions of creatures in one of billions of moments on one of billions of planets in one of billions of sectors of a cosmos that is one billion trillion times the size of your home star. And not only that God cares, but that God cares so much as to be deeply wounded and grievously offended if your behavior does not live up to what is expected—nay, commanded—of you.

That would be akin to saying that you are concerned with one grain of sand out of all the grains of sand on all the beaches in all the world. You may love the sand and all its grains because they are part of the wonder and beauty of all the world’s beaches, but you certainly wouldn’t be filled with wrath if one of those grains was not reflecting the sunlight the way it was designed to. And you certainly wouldn’t be furious if you knew that this was but a temporary condition in any event, lasting no more than a nanosecond in the eternal span of that grain of sand’s existence.

The idea of a wrathful God not only depends upon our acceptance of the thought that God has a preference in the matter of our behaviors, but also on the notion that all of our behaviors and all of their consequences have not already taken place.

A wrathful deity can only be considered within totally artificial constructs of space and time. Yet in the universal Here/Now, God cannot become wrathful based on something that has just happened, but would have to always be wrathful based on all the things with which God is said to disagree, since everything that has ever happened, is happening now, and ever will happen is occurring simultaneously in the eternal and singular moment of Evernow.

It is true that God is always being something in Evernow, but “wrath” is not it. God is Love, eternal and unchanging.

Not wrath. Love.
Love unconditional.
The Essential Essence. The Prime Force. The Pure Energy. The Singular Element. The Only Thing There Is.


To gravitate toward this new and revolutionary holding of the Divine Reality and the Deity experience, one would have to release oneself from the notion that God is a creature of moods, whose temperament depends on what is happening at a particular time on a particular day in a particular life in a particular place on a particular planet in a particular solar system of a particular galaxy within a particular quadrant of a particular universe.
To help you move to this new and revolutionary holding, remember this always:

God is Love, eternal and unchanging. Not wrath. Love. Love unconditional.

There is a third notion we must deal with. It is the stubborn belief that there is something called “divine justice,” which can be violated, or that divine perfection can somehow be irrevocably marred, by a single event in the single life of . . . here we go again . . . a single being on a single planet in a single solar system of a single galaxy within a single quadrant of a single universe.

We are told by some religions that it is this violation or marring that God finds intolerable and unacceptable, and which must therefore be rectified and reconciled. Yet God tells us (as opposed to what religions tell us) that perfection can’t be marred, because perfection is the natural state of things and the everlasting condition and reality.

In truth, no one thing is better than another, but all things are simply what they are: reflections of a perfectly functioning universe in a perfectly demonstrating manifestation of a perfectly existing reality, one thing leading inexorably to another in a never-ending process called evolution.

How can any and every reality be perfect? Simple. If no one and nothing requires anything or something other than What Is. And this is the natural state of things.

In Ultimate Reality that which is divine requires and desires nothing other than What Is, for the very good reason that What Is is the sum total of all possibilities, all events, all circumstances, all conditions, all experiences, and all expressions of life in any and all forms, all at once.

A rainy day is no less perfect than a sunny day, for it is the rainy day that makes the glory of the sunny day joyful, and the heat of the sunny day that makes the cooling of the rainy day welcome.

It is the mistake on her multiplication tables at age nine that produces the mathematical genius teaching advanced calculus at MIT at age thirty-four.

And yes, it is even the horror of the worst of human experiences that has given birth to the best of our species’ expressions as we evolve across the decades, centuries, and millennia.

Across the span of all existence, one circumstance or event produces, eventually, an awareness that authors another circumstance or event, and the master lives life without judgment or condemnation of that process, nor of any person or occurrence that is part of it, but rather, sees the grander mosaic.

“Justice” and “perfection” are human constructions created within the context of relative values. The idea of divine justice depends upon a preceding idea that some things are “right” and some things are “wrong” in the mind of God. Yet such an idea does not exist in the realm of the spiritual, which is also a realm of the Absolute, where everything is experi- enced Here/Now, and the only energy is Absolute Love.

Every spiritual master knows this, which is why all spiritual masters have said, each in their own way: Judge not, and neither condemn. You have already heard this message before here—and you will hear it again before these proceedings are concluded—for it rests at the heart of everything the human race is invited to embrace in its new understanding of God.

The question is, does “judge not, and neither condemn” apply as well to God?

The answer that most religionists have given us is, no. Humans are not to judge, but God is expected to judge.

Yet is this how everything is really supposed to work? And if so, why? How did it get to be this way?

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:
  • Mateia Andrei

    I have a problem with god Neal. If god is all knowing then God know what i choose to experience in my life.
    If god is all powerful then god certainly can help since i have requested help.
    Also if i request help in direct form, not how you have putted in CwG “by the next song your hear the next … “, since its a way im confortable with and i experience it as a efficent way.
    And lastly if god loves me he/she/it will respond knowing that it is my will to experince life in this particular way and since she loves me she will help me faster then the blink of an eye.
    So in the end my question is why havent i been instantly helped by god ?
    And just to be clear the law of attraction and whatever other laws are in place i find them ineffective since they have been since humanity existed and has a whole species we have failed to have a utopia.
    So im saying to god screw the rules you are god lets do things another way.
    So why hasn’t god instatly answered.I ls it because the whole of life doesn’t desire for me to live the way i choose as “the one who wakes up in the castle”. In that cause i will have to leave this universe to be in a alternate universe so that i can be free of you and experience exactly what i have chosen long ago. Please respond

    • Awareness

      You create your own reality 🙂 You don’t even NEED a “separate God” 🙂 Why? Because you and God are ONE. There is NO SEPARATION between you and God 🙂 If there is anything that it would serve you to “believe”, then I suggest you “believe” that you are the creator of YOU and that you do not even NEED a “separate God”. For the simple reason that you are God itself 🙂 Remember there is only “ONE ENTITY” in the “room” 🙂

      God (YOU) is pretty clever 🙂 God (YOU) is the ultimate “ventriloquist” 🙂

      The entire universe is composed of one thing, acting differently. Your scientists are now calling this one thing the basic energy of life, manifesting as minuscule “superstrings” vibrating at different speeds.

      The variations in these vibrations produce the variations in the physical matter that makes up all things in the universe. I also said that you were composed of the same thing. Now once you know this, and once you know that “matter” shows up differently depending on the differing vibrations of these superstrings, all you have left to figure out in order to create the physical reality that you desire is how to make the superstrings vibrate the way you choose.

      It is the speed and pattern of the vibration of the strings that creates particular physical manifestations. Okay, so what makes their vibration quicken or lessen?

      What makes their frequency higher or lower? You do. All of you. With your thoughts, your words, and your actions. The things you think, the things you say, and the things you do, send out a “vibe” from the center of your being.

      Thoughts are nothing more than vibrations. They can be measured, as you know. Words are vibrations of your vocal cords. Actions are your whole physical body vibrating in one way or another. These vibrations form particular patterns and obtain particular frequencies, and these fluctuations produce particular kinds of disturbances in the energy pattern that is Life Itself.

      Such disturbances are nothing more than patterned and changing movements of the invisible superstrings, and it is these varying vibrations that produce varying physical matter. This is the alchemy of life!

      You can alter “life’s frequency” by what you are thinking, saying, or doing, thus producing changes in the energy pattern that is “you,” and in the energy that “you” emit and send into the world. The changes in the energy field inside and around you produce new localized fluctuations in the larger Space/Time Continuum within which you exist, and that is what causes the new physical effects of your life.

      What kinds of thoughts, words, and actions produce the most beneficial frequencies? Well, of course you know the answer. Positive thoughts, words, and actions produce the most beneficial frequencies in the superstring vibrations, or energy patterns, of life. Meditation or prayer is a high form of energy alteration. Visualizing what you desire is a high form of energy manipulation.

      Speaking your word is a high form of energy adjustment. Such activities alter the vibration of the superstrings that make up you and everything around you.” – Neale Donald Walsch 🙂

      Bless ALL 🙂

      • hempwise

        Nice Awareness thanks for the reminder from Home with God !

        • Mateia Andrei

          He/her described primitive tools that have achieved nothing and are obsolete. Im looking for real tools not some obsolete words.

          • hempwise

            Whats primitive about being in a happy state and not letting the outside world get you down 24/7 .

          • Mateia Andrei

            I will use a powerful image in order for you to understand what i’m refering to i hope the forum will understand.
            I chop off your hand how will you kepping your positive attitude help you regrow your hand ?
            Not that i would really do such a thing just to make you understand that NDW speaks so much and does really so little to impact the people. You know he wrote so many books but you know what ? Afterhis 3 CwG books he should have made just a book called How to have your own conversations with god and be done with it.

          • GH Annie

            Neale has always recommended we have our own conversations with God. In fact, he’s said that God is speaking with us all the time. Have you ever tried listening?

            Much Love and Many Blessings,
            ~Annie

          • Mateia Andrei

            I know that. Its how CwG stars. Have i tried listening ?
            There is no trie there is only do? I have done that everyday. But no voice stars speaking outside me or inside me.

          • GH Annie

            Matei Andrei,

            What makes you so sure that God would talk to you in voice only? A conversation with God can consist of feelings, or of sudden inspirations, or what another person says to you that may, on the surface, have little meaning at the time but later on takes on new significance, or an animal that stops in your path long enough for you to avoid being struck by a car that is out of control… A conversation with God does not always come in the form of words whispered in your mind or heard inside your head. If you open yourself up to other forms of communication, you may find God having a conversation with you as God chooses to have it, not as you do

            Much Love and Many Blessings,
            ~Annie

          • Mateia Andrei

            > Implying that I choose God to speak with me.
            The only thing that would happen is abook titled how to use the advance technology i send you will appear out of thin with the technology. I will read the book then proceed to building whatever i choose.

          • Stephen mills

            Advanced technology without advanced thought leads to demise Mateia when Humanity raises its conciousness and increases its reverence for life and holds that as Prime value then I believe the technological advances that are coming will be used for the highest purpose and for the good of all !

            We are a very primitive species and a very young species with some high level technology but according to our astrophysisist most of it is still crude barely capable of getting us out of our own atmosphere .We are a long way off of getting people to live on mars and come back safely let alone getting to the next star system .

            First I believe we have to get things working in our own backyard see life as interconnected and everything as being alive !

            Have you read the book Talking to Extratarrestials ? Interesting and helpfull as well .

            The universe is in no hurry for us to uncover it’s secrets life proceeds through the process of life and when humanity has the wisdom to implement its higher understandings we might get somewhere .

          • Mateia Andrei

            You know what you keep living on this planet cause if a functional spaceship could take me lightyears away from this planet we wouldn’t be even having this conversation. I would be long gone preferably far away from here as i could.

      • Mateia Andrei

        You just described primitive tools that have achieved nothing and are obsolete. Im looking for real tools not some obsolete words.

        • Awareness

          “Mateia Andrei”, Are you saying that String Theory from Physics is “primitive”??

          “Miraculously, the baseball-sized tumor visible on the sonogram began to shrink as the practitioners surrounding the patient chanted a simple phrase. In just under three minutes, the “inoperable, terminal, incurable” cancer had simply disappeared.

          A miracle? Or simply a technology we don’t yet understand?

          As one might expect, this was not a scene from Western medical care. The rare video showed a routine healing in a medicineless hospital formerly active in Beijing. Presented during a joint conference in Phoenix by N.Y. Times best-selling author Gregg Braden and renowned cellular biologist, Dr. Bruce H. Lipton, it offered the captivated audience a taste of the secrets of the Quantum Field.

          Braden and Lipton’s research in their respective scientific disciplines has resulted in a pair of treasure maps leading to the same chest of spiritual riches. The deepest mysteries of religion and spirituality have, for the most part, eluded Western seekers. But in a surprise ending, it is science that comes to the rescue.

          Gregg Braden: Each one of us already knows this language. It is a nonverbal language; there are no words or other outward expressions. Everyone has everything they need to create joy and abundance and health in their lives every day. What scientists are finding is precisely what ancient texts tell us, the language this Field recognizes is the language of human feeling and human emotion. It does not take every person in the world expressing the same feeling to create an effect.

          The studies show that a relatively few number of people with a focused intention have tremendous leverage in terms of affecting how our reality is responding, both in our bodies and in our world.
          One famous example was a research project done during the Israeli-Lebanese war in the early 1980’s. In this study, people who had been trained to feel the feeling of peace in their bodies were positioned in war-torn areas in the Middle East.

          When they were intentionally feeling peace during specific windows of time, it changed the level of violence happening in the area around them in statistically significant ways. Crime, hospital emergency room activity, and traffic accidents declined, and terrorist activities stopped altogether. And when the practitioners stopped, then all those activities reversed.

          Since these practitioners had been trained by Maharishi in TM techniques, this phenomenon became known as the Maharishi Effect.

          And the results were so clear-cut that the researchers were able to determine the exact percentage of a population needed to create this effect. That amount is the square root of 1% of a given population. So, when that critical mass of practitioners participated, the threshold opened up and we began to see the effects. Obviously, the more people who participate, the faster we are going to see those effects. The square root of 1% is just 100 people per million, or only about 8,000 in the current world population of 6.5 billion. That is all it takes to make the difference.
          Whether we are talking about one woman’s healing in the video of the dissolving tumor, or about healing between nations — as different as they seem from one another — the principal and the effect are the same.” – “A Romp through the Quantum Field (Part 1) with Gregg Braden and Dr. Bruce Lipton” By Meryl Ann Butler 🙂

          I suggest you go and check out the following:

          Alexander, C. N.; Abou Nader, T. M.; Cavanaugh, K. L.; Davies, J. L.; Dillbeck, M. C.; Kfoury, R. J.; And Orme-Johnson, D. W. The effect of the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field on the war in Lebanon: A time series analysis of the influence of international and national coherence creating assemblies. Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield, Iowa, U.S.A., and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A., 1984. Collected Papers v4.335. Published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 32, No. 4, December 1988, pgs. 776-812.

          One more thing “Mateia Andrei”, is Quantum Physics also “primitive”??

          Bless ALL 🙂

          • Mateia Andrei

            One more thing “Mateia Andrei”, is Quantum Physics also “primitive”??

            I’m not a quantum physicist so i cannot says if your sources are hogwash or real but i can say this “the language this Field recognizes is the language of human feeling and human emotion” using logic it means that you would need to control your emotion like a police state control its people so by your very own definition this technology is primitive and worthless. Let me give you a true technology one that will certainly be in the future.
            Nanomachines that can self replicate,self heal and self sustain themselves capable of manipulating atomic particules and build everything that has been invented or will be invented. Capable to read its instructors brain patterns and create everything one desires out of thin air. Now that is a true technology. Super intelligent microscpic factories if you will.
            If god is loving all knowing and all powerful why don’t we have this technology right here and now and provide us with a Instructional Manual for Dummies ?

          • Awareness

            “Mateia Andrei” wrote: “this technology is primitive and worthless.”

            You are saying that your emotional guidance system is “worthless”??

            You do not wish to control how you feel? Are you saying that you do not care about how you feel? If you care about how you feel then the way I see it, you would prefer to control it than not 🙂 It can be your first nature 🙂

            “Mateia Andrei” wrote: “If god is loving all knowing and all powerful why don’t we have this technology right here and now”.

            The description of God you gave above applies to you also 🙂 God is not something outside of you. Did you not understand what I said in my previous message to you? You are not separate from God (God is also you) 🙂 Everything is ONE 🙂 You have the God power to manifest everything you desire. Your power is no less than that of God (You and ALL OF US) 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

          • Mateia Andrei

            “You are saying that your emotional guidance system is “worthless”??”

            If I had a penny every time that was true i would own every material possesion possible.

            “You do not wish to control how you feel? Are you saying that you do not care about how you feel?”

            Why would i want to control what i feel that would be a time waster. I prefer to use logic over feelings everytime. I also prefer to control my experience of life over my feeling based on logic and reason.

            ” You have the God power to manifest everything you desire. ”

            Good i will jump out of a window see if i fly.

            “You can present questions regarding the future to Cosmic Awareness via It’s interpreter Will Berlinghof”

            Only a fool would require a third party to things that should be instant and efortlessly.

          • mewabe

            Have you ever asked yourself WHY you cannot trust your emotions and feelings?

            A person who is aligned and integrated (meaning that the heart, mind, spirit and body function as ONE in perfect alignment and without any conflicts or confusion) can trust his or her feelings and emotions as a perfect guidance system…and hit bull’s eye every time.

            I suggest you explore your own inner conflicts and attempt to understand them. This takes perfect honesty and great courage but it can be done…

            As far as the super human experience you seek and describe in your responses to Awareness, it might be possible in the future, but again I suggest that you start your journey where you stand rather than where you want to be. If you cannot trust your feelings and emotions, you stand in confusion, and confusion will remain your foundation as long as you do not address your own inner conflicts. Who would want to build anything on a faulty foundation?

          • Mateia Andrei

            “Have you ever asked yourself WHY you cannot trust your emotions and feelings?”

            I have never said this what i said was “>”You are saying that your emotional guidance system is “worthless”??”

            If I had a penny every time that was true i would own every material possesion possible.”

            Which means that means that every time i used my emotions they have been proven unreliable and obsolete.

            “Who would want to build anything on a faulty foundation?”

            Every human invention has had this reason as its root cause. We aren’t good at memorizing so we invented ink and paper. Your reasoning fails.

          • mewabe

            “Which means that means that every time i used my emotions they have been proven unreliable and obsolete.”

            Have you asked yourself WHY your emotions have been proven unreliable?

            Total objectivity, or reason totally devoid of emotional content or totally free of the bias of personal experience, unconscious feelings (especially unconscious feelings), future expectations and subjective perceptions is impossible. You cannot detach yourself from your feelings anymore than you can detach yourself from your own mind. To believe otherwise is to believe in modern myths. And to achieve such would be to become a perfect neurotic, which might be the ultimate goal of our contemporary civilization after all.

            I am not out to debate you in a competitive contest. You might have learnt this useless trick in high school, but you will figure out sooner or later that it is a total waste of time. I am only trying to shed some light in your corner.

            If you can use some of my thoughts, do so, if not, look elsewhere.
            I sincerely hope you find what you think you need and what you believe are lacking.

          • Mateia Andrei

            “I sincerely hope you find what you think you need and what you believe are lacking.”
            Advance nanobots that do my whim instanly. Then everything else will be obsolete.

          • mewabe

            Why do you think you need your whims satisfied instantly?

          • Mateia Andrei

            I choose so. The end

          • Awareness

            “Mateia Andrei” wrote: “Only a fool would require a third party to do things that should be instant and efortlessly.”

            Now you are presenting a contradiction in what you want. I suggest you make up your mind 🙂

            It was you “Mateia Andrei” who wrote: “If god is all powerful then god certainly can help since i have requested help.” 🙂

            So by your own words you have said that you requested help from “god” 🙂 By your “separation” definition that would be a “third party” 🙂 Is it not?

            God (YOU and US) is ALL OF LIFE and can answer your request through it’s many forms 🙂 Be open to LIFE (God, YOU and US) as it speaks to you 🙂 Use your HEART for confirmation with integrity 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

          • Awareness

            “Mateia Andrei” wrote: “create everything one desires out of thin air. Now that is a true technology. Super intelligent microscpic factories if you will.”

            Regarding “instant manifestation” out of thin air I felt inspired to suggest to you telephone sessions with the energy Cosmic Awareness (GREAT SPIRIT! GREAT AWARENESS!) 🙂

            You can present questions regarding the future to Cosmic Awareness via It’s interpreter Will Berlinghof 🙂 Cosmic Awareness has an eternal perspective 🙂 Send an email to will.berlinghof@bigpond.com to arrange a session 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

          • Awareness

            In the Light of this, I feel inspired to suggest the creation of a Group called “The Guardians” 🙂 This Group will consist at any given period of at least the square of 1% of the Earth population. Those that are part of this Group will be trained to have the feeling of peace and abundance, and their work is to sustain that state (peace and abundance) at all times 🙂 Additional people can volunteer to be trained to have the feeling of peace and abundance and be part of “The Guardians” Group 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

  • mewabe

    Humans have modeled their idea of God after their own parents. Parents have loved heir children on conditions for thousands of years, demanding that they conform to their own personal demands as well as to the rules and demands of their particular cultures and societies.

    For a child to refuse to submit and conform to parental demands, rules and discipline is to most likely invite and suffer “consequences”, the most drastic and painful of which is rejection.

    Primitive minds have projected this ancient and deeply incrusted psychological and emotional script unto the persona of a Divine “father”.

    It is rather clear and simple when you see it this way.

    I doubt that we will be able to change and heal our relationship to the Divine globally, and conceive of the Divine differently, until we heal our relationships to ourselves and each other, particularly the child/parent relationship, which actually shapes how our brain develops and functions (or doesn’t).

  • Patrick Gannon

    What difference is there if the concept of “God” is simply eliminated, instead of saying we’ve got God all wrong? Why do we need a God in the first place? If what Is is what IS, that’s what it IS with or without God, as best I can figure.

    The saying goes that God is in everything, part of everything – all that IS. Well 1 + 1 = 2 and (1+God) + (1+God) still equals 2; there’s no difference in the end result. God adds nothing of value or usefulness to the equation.

    Our understanding of Bible God and Qur’an God – two of the ones that we don’t like much, is supposedly handed down to man, from God, by revelation at various times in history; yet this column decries that revelation as being badly flawed, and as the work of fallible humans. So was there really any revelation? Why couldn’t God get it right the first time? Why couldn’t he choose scribes who would put the right words down describing a nice, pleasant feminine being instead of the masculine, wrathful monster he is depicted as being? If the mythical Moses received a revelation, and then had to ask God why he was such a dick in Psalm 90, was his revelation wrong? If he’s asking why God loves suffering so much, then shouldn’t we expect that this is what God told him in the first place?

    [Of course it must be pointed out that Moses was most likely a mythical figure from earlier Canaanite paganism. There is no historical or archaeological evidence to support that he or his key accomplishment – the Exodus – ever took place in any way, shape or form as described in the bible. He is said to have lived around 1350 BCE and to have written the first books of the bible, but scholars largely agree that these books were written 700 or 800 years after he supposedly lived. We know this in part because the old books refer to domesticated camels which didn’t happen in the region till the 900’s BCE].

    Isn’t it more likely that there simply aren’t any real revelations? Before we start accepting new revelations, it would be good to understand how a true revelation from God became so contorted in the first place. Why was he/she/it incapable of getting it right the first time? Why should we have any confidence that he/she/it got it right this time? The conduit is still a fallible human being.

    We’re asked to believe words from another fallible human who claims to have received revelations as did Moses and the other fallible prophets and messengers:
    ” Now here is God’s message to the world: God has been telling us from the very beginning, and it is becoming more clear to us every day, that humanity’s Ancient Cultural Story about God’s wrath is plainly and simply inaccurate.” Well if that’s the case, why did he reveal an entirely different revelation to Moses? It’s hard to see how God has been telling us from the very beginning that she’s a nice god. Why do we need a new story? Why can’t we eliminate the old story and do away with the fear that way, instead of insisting that revelation to Moses and other prophets was real, but they all lied to us? Maybe it’s time for a Cultural Story that does not need revelations or gods…

    What if instead of being a wrathful god, there simply wasn’t any god at all? Would that be so bad? We could still lose all the fear, and we wouldn’t have to give up evolving our consciousness by getting caught in belief traps – by believing in things that may not exist.

    • GH Annie

      “Application Theology is a theology in which we apply in our lives what we know to be true about our relationship to God: that God lives in us, through us, as us, and that the qualities of divinity are ours to apply in our daily lives, including wisdom, clarity, knowledge, creativity, power, abundance, compassion, patience, understanding, needlessness, peace, and love.”

      Personally, I don’t think I’d care much for an existence without any understanding of this relationship I have with God, or a world where these qualities didn’t exist.

      Much Love and Many Blessings,
      ~Annie

      • Patrick Gannon

        “God” is not necessary for these qualities to exist and be exercised by people. I am an agnostic, but that does not in any way prevent me from having “wisdom, clarity, knowledge, creativity, power, abundance, compassion, patience, understanding, needlessness, peace, and love.” Nor does it prevent atheists or even believers of other faiths and other gods, from exercising and enjoying these qualities.

        “Application Theology” is something Neale apparently made up, as I find no reference to it elsewhere. Neale continues to insist that he’s not starting a new religion, but it often seems to me that he likes to take his dogma out for a walk. The “New Spirituality” religion has it’s own “Application Theology.”

        • GH Annie

          Patrick,

          Your personal dislike for Neale is showing. It is usually when one runs out of rational arguments that one turns to name calling.

          I don’t believe anyone here has tried to force you to believe as some of us do, which is in a purposeful life as a unique expression of the All That Is, or God, and therefore a connection with all of existence. Some of us also believe that Neal did have a conversation with God, even if he were talking to himself because we believe in the Oneness of life. If you are happy being an agnostic, why do you come to this site? To me, it appears that you are not only agnostic, but anti-CWG, anti-Neale and anti-God.

          If you are living and can live a life that provides those things an Application Theology does for others of us, why keep coming here to repeatedly state your agnostic views and belief in science rather than Spirituality? Why do you find a need to repeatedly say you believe Neale didn’t talk to God, and that you believe he is trying to start a new religion?

          I don’t understand your purpose in visit this website, unless it is that you like to argue and repeat your own beliefs. You are welcome to have those beliefs. Why do you consider others unwelcome to have our own?

          Much Love and Many Blessings,
          ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            Annie, please check the url for this site. It’s called “The Global Conversation.” I choose to participate in the conversation. The forum invites a variety of viewpoints. Your attempt to stifle the conversation because it questions your beliefs, seems contrary to its purpose, and rather selfish to boot.

            I “evolved” from being a CWG believer/evangelist, to “New Spirituality” skeptic. Perhaps there are others who have similar concerns – not so much about the advice and ideas of CWG, as about the implementation by promoting unnecessary beliefs and creating a new religion, which despite Neale’s denials, seems very apparent to me, based on his columns, newsletters and posts. All I’m doing is sharing ideas that you are welcome to question – but please note that it is you who is making the conversation personal. I’d prefer to stick to issues.

            What I read between the lines from your comments is the same thing I read from fundamentalist Christians who do not want to have their beliefs questioned, who do not want to get off their lazy butts and THINK for themselves. Beliefs close the mind and create hostility to others who don’t share those beliefs. I thank you for helping to prove my point.

            The real question is – if you are not prepared to have your beliefs questioned, then why are you participating in a global conversation that is dedicated to doing exactly that?

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            I question my beliefs regularly, as I consider it a valuable exercise, where you refuse to even see your unquestioning belief in the God named Science as a belief. And I think very often, and well actually, considering I have a genius level IQ. I’m neither a blind, nor ignorant, follower being led astray by some charismatic leader whose ideas make no sense.

            It’s you who keeps making this personal—against Neale himself. Not his written thoughts or even the columns presented, but by continually insisting you understand his motives, despite appearances and by “reading between the lines.” It’s you who keeps saying that you’re doing so, instead of taking things at face value. And it’s you who, even when quoting Neale, manages to ignore specific parts, as in your repeated quoting of Neale’s reply regarding people seeing God as an Abrahamic God, only nicer, when he replies that he hopes this is one way (emphasis added, so you can’t avoid seeing it again) he hopes people see God.

            And it’s you who stifles the conversation by repeating your same thoughts, over and over, even though they admittedly come from your beliefs about Neale’s motives, from your reading between the lines, and from your interpretation of appearances, rather than from fact.

            If anyone here resembles a fundamentalist, it’s you, because you have decided Neale is wrong and you are right, and refuse to see any evidence that contradicts your belief in the Almighty Science, even personal experiences which Science Itself says are unavoidable because the experimentor always influences the outcome of the experiment.

            It begs to be asked, since what you continue to say comes from conjecture and not fact, what have you personally got against Neale and his message that makes you try so hard to turn us all into converts of the Almighty Science?

            Many Blessings and Much Love,
            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            I’m sure Neale appreciates you coming to his defense. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            Neale and I have never had a conversation about anything I have ever written on this site, not here or on his other sites or by email or by phone or in person (just to be clear). I’ve no clue how he feels about what I post.

            The brevity of your reply and your choosing to not answer the question I asked only leads me to believe I have struck a nerve.

            Much Love and Many Blessings,
            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            No nerves struck. I just have better things to do than engage in personality conflicts. I’m more interested in larger issues. Your posts, particularly the last one are all about what you think about “me.” I don’t really care what you think about me, so there’s no sense discussing it further. Good bye.

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            My post was not directly about you, but about your motives. It was an observation of the habits you have shown regularly on this site. And motives being questioned is much more fair than making assumptions, both of which you regularly do here. If it’s not fair game for me to question your motives, then it’s not fair game for you to question Neal’s, or anyone else’s.

            Much Love and Many Blessings,
            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            I was going to ignore you, Annie, but you made a statement I must respond to…

            YES, it’s fair to question Neale’s motives. It’s not only fair, it’s necessary. When someone claims to be a messenger, i.e. a prophet of God, that person should expect to be challenged at every point along the path. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence as the saying goes.

            As for my motives, please note that I don’t make a living holding conversations here by advertising and selling books, tapes, programs and seminars as a result of claiming to have spoken with God. In fact the time here takes away from my business sometimes. All religions including the “New Spirituality” as Neale has named it, should be questioned and challenged, just as he questions the legacy religions he hopes to replace.

            My motives are really none of your business Annie, but I converse here for a variety of reasons, the most important of which is to test ideas and see if others can knock them down. In this way, I learn new things and I exercise my intellect and improve myself. If along that path others find value in my ideas, or more importantly provide insights that lead me to change my ideas, then so much the better.

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            Neale has claimed to be no more, or less, than any other human being, clearly and repeatedly stating that we are all capable of having our own conversations with God. He has not, to my knowledge, ever declared himself to be a “prophet,” as you refer to him. He has not claimed to be “extraordinary,” as you put it.

            Your motives are relevant, just as are mine and Neale’s and everyone else here, as they color what we share as we participate in an ongoing conversation. The fact that Neale does not profit from this website is also relevant. The fact that Neale profits from other avenues is simply indicative of the value people find in what he has to say.

            The fact that you have a problem with his making a living from his other avenues makes your own statement that the most important reason you participate here “is to test ideas and see if others can knock them down” suspect.

            The fact that society, and apparently you, believe that people who have valuable things to say about Spirituality shouldn’t make a profit is indicative, in my opinion, of part of the problem with society’s priorities.

            Much Love and Many Blessings,
            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            “Neale has claimed to be no more, or less, than any other human being,”

            Nonsense. He has claimed that God spoke to him and ordained (my word) him as a messenger – and that makes him a self-proclaimed prophet. (Prophet: a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God). Are Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jonah, Amos, and all the other prophets plain old ordinary human beings, or are they somehow special? In whatever sense they are special human beings – so too does Neale claim to be special. How many other human beings call themselves messengers of God as he does? Whether he claims it overtly or not is irrelevant – it’s clear that he’s claiming to have special revelation and that makes him “more” than other human beings that God doesn’t speak to. I guess it pays to note at this juncture that Jim Jones, Charles Manson, David Koresh and others have claimed God spoke to them, so he’s not unique, but he’s part of a small group whom God chose to speak with. Neale may be just as delusional as they were – and possibly as delusional as Jesus may have been – or maybe none of them were delusional including Jones, Koresh and Manson; God might actually be the monster he’s described to be in the bible. There’s no way for us to know at this point; so believing any of it makes no sense to me. I once believed that God spoke with him. Now I’m pretty sure he was talking to himself and letting a stream of consciousness go from mind to paper based on his past knowledge, experience, education, perceptions, beliefs, etc. I have the same experience he claims. Sometimes I look at words coming out of my fingers and filling the screen and it seems like I’m not sure where they are coming from – but I don’t claim God is directing my fingers – I suspect that my ‘awareness’ or “attention schema” is simply idle or elsewhere, while a process in the brain goes on autopilot, without the awareness portion of my mind constantly overlooking it. If Neale had stuck to philosophy instead of turning this into religion, I wouldn’t have so much difficulty with it. There is much of value in what he has written. I use the parts that have value for me.

            “The fact that Neale doesnot profit from this website is also relevant.”

            Nonsense. He does profit from it. The website advertises his books and programs. Many of his columns specifically pitch his latest books. It’s a marketing tool. The CWG Foundation is a non-profit organization which means that like religions it gets special tax breaks. It functions, as best I can tell, just like any church. I would tax all churches including Neale’s. The pews in his church are in the internet, but it’s a church (biblically, an “assembly”) all the same. They are all selling an intangible product like insurance.

            “The fact that you have a problem with his making a living from his other avenues makes your own statement that the most important reason you participate here “is to test ideas and see if others can knock them down” suspect.”

            Nonsense again. One of my ideas is that Neale is promoting a new religion that operates just like other religions insofar as it’s at least partly about filling coffers. I put that idea out there to see what came of it. Neale was rather upset that I questioned his motives, and his defensiveness was very “telling” to me. When people get that defensive, it’s usually a sign that you’ve hit a sore point. I put the idea out there to see if it would be knocked down. I’m now more convinced than before that I am not on the wrong track.

            Neale is selling an intangible product just like the Vatican, the local Mosque, Jewish Temple, Southern Baptist church, and your local palm, tarot and crystal ball reading psychic. The product has value to some people who apparently need others to tell them what to believe because they can’t “think” on their own, so people in vast numbers “buy” the product through donations, programs, tapes, seminars, etc. The big televangelists do the same thing Neale does, only on a larger, more profitable scale, and like him, their churches enjoy tax breaks the rest of us have to cover by paying higher taxes; so here in the US, we all subsidize all religions whether we want to or not. I think tax breaks for religions (and spiritualists like Neale who want to avoid the word “religion” but still enjoy its benefits) should be held unconstitutional and eliminated.

            “The fact that society, and apparently you, believe that people who have valuable things to say about Spirituality shouldn’t make a profit is indicative, in my opinion, of part of the problem with society’s priorities.”

            Did I say that? I’m OK with them making a profit for selling an intangible product – just be up front about it as the insurance companies are. Spiritualists are selling an intangible product – some might call it hope, others might call it something else – but just like insurance, it’s an intangible product and it should be understood that it’s a business, and it should pay taxes. I have no problem at all with Neale or any other person making a profit by selling people something they want, even if what they want is not necessarily good for them – like fast food or religion. I would try to convince people that fast food, religion and beliefs are not good for them, but ultimately if people want to put their hard-earned money in the pockets of those who are actually hurting them – so be it. Everyone is entitled to be foolish even though the overall effect is probably bad for our society. Let’s just not pretend that they are somehow “special” because their product description is a bit outside the norm.

            Now, can we note that once again Annie, you’ve turned away from the original topic in order to attempt to nit-pick and grill me, just like my Southern Baptist friends do when debating. How about if we turn back to the original question – why do we need God in the first place? Do you have an opinion on my original post, or do you just want to attack me? Are you capable of sticking to an issue and discussing it, or must it always devolve into going after the one who raised the issue as the fundies always do? When I debate fundies and tie them up in knots with their own scriptures, they go after me instead of staying on topic. It’s inevitable. It is people who are so invested in their personal beliefs that they can’t even discuss issues – but have to make it personal, that tells me I am right to be concerned. You’ve made no attempt to try and convince me that God is necessary – none at all. Do you have any thoughts on that subject or are you just going to go through my post and try to nit pick it again? Can you pull that genius IQ off the shelf and see what you can do with it to address the topic at hand – “Why is God even necessary?”

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            You have said that you’ve read, and even “evangelized, ” the messages in CWG. Yet you are not getting, or are purposely avoiding, one of the main points: Neale’s conversation with God was not unique or exceptional because we are all capable of having our own conversations with God. By your definition, we are all prophets.

            For me, God has value. That is because I define God as the All That Is. Every atom, every multiverse, evert alternate reality. Even you are an individual and unique expression of God, as I see It. Without God, therefore, there would be nothing. Literally, no thing would exist because there is no existence outside of All There Is. God is Existence Itself.

            Now, the original topic, rather than the one you would have it be, is whether God’s Love would suddenly turn into to God’s Wrath, and whether God would judge and condemn. I do not believe so, because it would serve no purpose. That would be like being angry with your arm, which is part of your body. What purpose would that serve? None. Except for maybe releasing some emotional energy if you have an issue with your arm. Then it would serve a good purpose—the release of pent up emotions. But it wouldn’t change what your arm does. And having pent up emotions is a long way from judging and condemning.

            I believe that people have created a “god” that first loves but then feels wrath, and judges and condemns, to justify the actions y people who do so, some with impunity and without just cause.

            I don’t believe that God has pent up emotions, however, as I don’t “humanize” God as some do. I see God as the energy that makes everything, and is everything. Even science is coming nearer and nearer to the conclusion that all of existence in our physical reality is energy, vibrating at different speeds. The slower the speed, the more dense the energy, which then clumps together to make forms. I happen to also call that energy Love and Joy and Life and Consciousness.

            In my point of view, then, God is all things because God is the Energy Itself that creates, and is, All Thngs—the All That Is. The All That Is would have no purpose in judging and condemning because It would simply be judging and condemning a part of Itself.

            Much Love and Many Blessings,
            ~Annie

            P. S. (If, and I quote, “when people get that defensive, it’s usually a sign that you’ve hit a sore point,” I must have really hit one of yours.)

          • Patrick Gannon

            Wow Annie. You finally commented on an issue rather than go after me personally (even though you still have to get in little jabs, don’t you?). LOL. I apologize for my jab at you for boasting about your IQ, but I’d had about enough.

            When I referred to the original topic, I meant the topic of my post which leads this particular thread, because that is what you commented on. Neale proposed that God is not full of wrath and need not be feared, and I asked why we needed the concept of God to begin with – what does it bring to the party? How does the concept of God unify rather than divide us? If Neale’s purpose was to say that we don’t need to fear God, then my question was and is – why do we need God in the first place? That was my point. You responded by quoting a passage about “Application Theology” and as I interpreted your response, you were insinuating that one must share your concept of God in order to have a variety of good qualities as a human being. I disputed that a belief in God was necessary to have those good human qualities, and I simply pointed out that there is no such thing as “application theology” as best I can tell (google it and you get nothing), and then you went off on a rampage against me. I’m glad we’re back on topic. I’d be happy to discuss the real issues. As for sore points, feel free to take it that way if it makes you feel better, but I try to respond to anyone who converses with me out of politeness, if nothing else. So back to the topic at hand, if you really want to discuss it….

            What is the difference between how you describe God and how one would describe “life,” for example? Or perhaps consciousness? Or maybe strings (as in string theory)? All there is with regard to life, is essentially based on carbon molecules as far as we know at this point. Carbon is made of smaller elements, and yes, matter = energy, but what is the value in using the word “God” which comes with so much horrid baggage? How does it help us to have this concept which if “God is all there Is” means nothing specific that I can put my finger on. What we know today about all there IS, is that there are ever smaller particles and sub-particles that make up our universe. That’s all we know. Calling these sub-particles “God” only confuses the picture.

            Most people don’t think of “God” in the terms you used, as they see a supreme “being” or super-human, so when Neale used the term “God” in his books, it was inevitable that more conflict and separation would arise from yet another version of God. I have read reviews of Neale’s books by Christians who blast him for his depiction of God and for not sticking to the bible as the only valid source to understand God. Using the term God seems highly counterproductive and divisive to me; so I ask again – why do we need the concept of God in the first place? Why can’t we just accept that we don’t know the answers yet, and work towards finding them, rather than choosing to believe something that may have no foundation in reality?

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            I have reread Neale’s column above, and our exchange in the comments. In doing so, I intentionality set out to: take words at their face value; do no reading between the lines; make no assumptions based on my own personal beliefs or belief system; make no conjecture based on my personal history with any particular faith, belief system, spirituality, or religion; use no indication of emotion as indicative of hidden agendas or motives; and not guess about anyone’s purpose with evidence to the contrary or otherwise.

            In his column, Neale observes that much of the world’s religious, or “holy,” scripture paints a picture of a super powerful, male Being who has wants and needs He requires us to fulfill. It is in our not doing so that this Being then becomes angry and full of merciless wrath.

            Neale then asks, as he does with 17 questions he considers vital in changing the world’s current image of God, what Neale calls “the great ‘what if’ question” for this topic: “What if God has never displayed, and never will express or experience, wrath? Would it make a difference? Does it matter? In the overall scheme of things, would it have any significant impact in our planetary experience?”

            Neale then points out the ways he believes the world would change if these thoughts were believed true. He indicates that it would change us from the position of a supplicant, always begging for the forgiveness and mercy of this Being out of the fear of His wrath, to that of an applicant, applying the example of this Being’s unconditional, unending love to all of our own relationships. Neale also points out how that could change not only our image of this Being, but change our world.

            Neale states his reasons for believing our ancient thoughts are mistaken: “When You are everything, have everything, created everything, experience everything, and can express everything that You wish to express, what can there be to be filled with rage about? When You want nothing, need nothing, require nothing, demand nothing, and command nothing, what can there be for You to feel betrayed about? Finally, when there is nothing else in existence except You, who is there for you to be rageful with? Whom shall you punish? Shall the right hand slap the left?”

            Neale goes on to point out that in order for the ancient equation to work, this Being would have to be subject to our limitations of space/time, rather than its own reality beyond those limitations. Neale also points out that “divine justice,” or the possibility that perfection could be marred, also relies on this Being seeing things as right or wrong, placing us in the same place of supplication.

            Neale then finishes the column by asking if things are really supposed to work this way, and how it is that it came to be so.

            Staying on point, Neale has already answered your question. With a belief in a God that loves unendingly and unconditionally, we would mirror this Divinity (as humans are wont to do), loving others in our own lives unendingly and unconditionally. Without that Divine example, human beings wouldn’t necessarily love at all, but rather have a silent contract where we agree to fulfill each other’s wants and needs, thereby “making” our other happy (doomed from the start, in my opinion). As our personal partnerships would be a reflection of our parent’s relationship, our opinion of which psychologists tell us we would form by age seven, we would not only not love, but certainly not love endlessly or unconditionally.

            For myself, I am a believer in recycling, reusing, reclaiming, and reforming. Rather than giving up on or throwing out the idea of a Divine Being because others have previously assigned to It definitions that make no sense, I would prefer to reclaim God, both the term and the Divine Being, and return It to what I believe is Its rightful place. I believe this place is in us, as us, and for us as both an example of how we can continue our existence instead of our extinction, and as a reminder that we are also Divine Beings: larger and greater and deeper than we generally acknowledge, and as eternal and unconditionally loving as our Creator, in whose image and likeness we were made.

            I hope that now you will be satisfied that I answered your question

            Much Love and Many Blessings,
            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            “Staying on point, Neale has already answered your question.”

            No, he hasn’t. Not in the least. My question was – why is God necessary to begin with? Neale presupposes that there is a God. All I did was add another “What if” question to Neale’s list, because he didn’t include it: What if there is no God? Why is God, or the concept of God, needed at all? Neale’s goal seems to be to remove fear, which I am in favor of. He proposes to do this by redefining God, while I ask why we don’t just eliminate God to accomplish the same thing. Neale assumes and presupposes that God exists, so he does not even touch on the possibility that there is no God. So, I’m afraid Neale has not answered my question.

            Next: Have YOU answered my question?

            Your answer, as I understand it, is that God is necessary because YOU think God is necessary. OK. That’s an answer. Not a very satisfactory answer for me, but it’s an answer. What it seems you are saying is that what YOU want is what matters. You said: “I would prefer to reclaim God, both the term and the Divine Being, and return It to what I believe is Its rightful place.” What YOU believe is the “rightful place” is what the rest of us should therefore agree with – right? I should live my life based on what Annie believes???

            You are entitled to attempt to “reclaim God,” but there are a lot of other religionists who are going to vociferously disagree that you have “reclaimed” the correct interpretation of God. The very concept of God arose from primitive people who invented wrathful Gods, so the rightful place is actually what those who invented the concept said it was – not what you say it is. Their interpretation of God comes from their “holy scriptures” and they will not accept that Neale’s “holy scriptures” replace the old ones and nor should they or anyone else, without some sort of real evidence that it’s actually the word of God and not a man talking to himself. Since Neale tells us the old “holy scriptures” are wrong, I asked what reason we had to believe that the new “holy scriptures” are accurate. If God couldn’t properly communicate it before, what reason do we have to think he communicated it correctly this time? The very concept of God as I said before, brings dissention, disagreement, contention, argument, separation, divisiveness, hate, extremism, etc.; and for this reason, I asked – Why is God necessary? That is not a question that Neale discusses in his post.

            You said, ” Without that Divine example, human beings wouldn’t necessarily love at all, but rather have a silent contract where we agree to fulfill each other’s wants and needs, thereby “making” our other happy (doomed from the start, in my opinion).” I’m not sure I understand this, but I think it gets to the “Application Theology” thing we discussed above in which you seem to assume that without a belief in God people cannot have “wisdom, clarity, knowledge, creativity, power, abundance, compassion, patience, understanding, needlessness, peace, and love.” And that’s simply not true. Agnostics and atheists have all these qualities (and certainly often seem to have much more in terms of wisdom and knowledge!).

            You refer repeatedly to God as a “being” as does Neale from time to time, though at the same time he sometimes describes a God that is not a being. He’s a bit contradictory with regard to how he refers to God in my view. “Being” has a couple meanings: 1. present participle of be. 2. existence. 3. the nature or essence of a person. Which of these definitions is how you think of God? Most people of course use the term as the description of some sort of super human being; so once again there is going to be disagreement about the nature of God. All “God” does, it seems to me, is divide and separate people because many people apparently feel just like YOU do: that THEY get to define what God is. This has led to thousands of religious denominations, sects and cults. So once again, I ask – Why is God even necessary? I think we will be better off without the concept, and you haven’t given me anything to even budge me from that stance; rather you have confirmed – at least to me – the very problem that the concept of God gives us in the first place. I thank you for finally addressing my question, but I find your answer to be wholly unsatisfactory.

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            Thank you for acknowledging that I addressed and answered your question. My purpose wasn’t to “satisfy” you. I knew from the start that you would disagree with whatever I wrote because you are blatantly anti-God. And I cannot answer for anyone but myself, or I really would be imposing my will onto others.

            Much Love and Many Blessings,
            ~Annie

    • GH Annie

      BTW, (1+God) + (1+God) = 2+God.

      ~Annie

      • Patrick Gannon

        What do you end up with that’s tangible? 1 + 1 = 2. God makes no difference to the end result. The answer is the same with or without God. I could just as easily say (1+pink unicorn) + (1+pink unicorn) and I still just get “2” as a result that has value and usefulness. Even if God is on both sides of the equation, if god does not affect the equation, then god is just a meaningless variable.

        • GH Annie

          Patrick,

          (1 + pink unicorn) + (1 + pink unicorn)= 2 + 2 pink unicorns. And, just because you find no value in pink unicorns doesn’t mean that there is no value in pink unicorns. It simply means that you find no value in pink unicorns. Others might well find value in pink unicorns… and even God.

          Much Love and Many Blessings,
          ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            So you believe in pink unicorns? OK then.

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            Wow. Your ability to misinterpret and read things into what’s written, sometimes apparently on purpose, never ceases to amaze me. Actually, at the time I wrote the entry, I was thinking back to when my niece was young and very much into the “My Little Pony” series.

            Much Love and Many Blessings,
            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            Annie, you seemed to insinuate that there was a value in pink unicorns. In order for pink unicorns to have a value, do they have to be real? If not, if they still have value as an imaginary thing, then I would have to draw the conclusion that you feel God has value as an imaginary thing too. Following this trail of logic, I come to the conclusion that you have conceded that God is imaginary or you have maintained that pink unicorns are real. Which is it?

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            Wow. All in one post, you have assumed an insinuation, drawn a conclusion, determined who it is that needs psychiatric care, followed a trail of made-up “logic,” drawn another conclusion, assumed someone else made a concession based on that “logic,” determined “imaginary things” (those things which cannot be seen) can have no value, decided that the childhood story of Santa leads to psychiatric problems, jumped to the conclusion that if a child believes in Santa she or he must believe in all imaginary things including “boogeyman and monsters”… And you’re the one that brought up pink unicorns in the first place.

            I’m just too stunned to respond sensibly to such a post, especially from a man who has claimed to be a proponent of science.

            Much Love and Many Blessings,
            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            ROTFLMAO. Since when did you respond sensibly to one of my posts? Annie do you have a dictionary in the house? Please go to it and look up the word “sarcasm.” You know I felt badly at first about having a little fun at your expense, but seeing how badly you’ve wasted your gift of a “genius IQ” I really have very little sympathy remaining. I’m finished wit you, Annie. I won’t be responding to you anymore. As we used to say when we were kids. “It’s been real; and it’s been fun; but it hasn’t been real fun!”

          • GH Annie

            Patrick,

            First, my mentioning my IQ was not a boast, but a statement of fact that felt necessary as you kept implying that I was unable to question my beliefs. When have I answered a question of yours sensibly? Scroll down and reread my reply to your question. I don’t consider a reasonable dialogue to be a waste of my time or my intelligence. You are the one who would not let this part of the dialogue end with my explanation that I was thinking of my niece’s interest in “My Fair Pony” as a child. With the way you have displayed the traits I pointed out above in a number of our conversations, how was I to know you were being sarcastic? What kind of reply did you expect to get, posting as you did? That’s why I stated I was too stunned to reply.

            Much Love and Many Blessings,
            ~Annie

  • Awareness

    Neale Donald Walsch wrote: “The question is, does “judge not, and neither condemn” apply as well to God?” 🙂

    YES it applies to God as well 🙂 For the simple reason that there is NO SEPARATION between God (US) and ALL OF LIFE 🙂 For if God were to “judge” any part of LIFE as “bad”, it would be the same as God “judging itself” as being “bad” also 🙂 What would be the point of that? The answer is obvious, it would be pointless. It would be pointless for God to “punish” itself when it is the only “thing” there is 🙂

    Bless ALL 🙂

  • mewabe

    Chris Hedges: America’s Mania for Positive Thinking and Denial of Reality Will Be Our Downfall

    The ridiculous positivism, the belief that we are headed toward some glorious future, defies reality.

    “Those who cling to the myth of human progress, who believe that the world inevitably moves toward a higher material and moral state, are held captive by power. Only those who accept the very real possibility of dystopia, of the rise of a ruthless corporate totalitarianism, buttressed by the most terrifying security and surveillance apparatus in
    human history, are likely to carry out the self-sacrifice necessary for revolt.

    The yearning for positivism that pervades our corporate culture ignores human nature and human history. But to challenge it, to state the obvious fact that things are getting worse, and may soon get much worse, is to be tossed out of the circle of magical thinking that defines American and much of Western culture.”

    Amen.

    • tunconscious or unconscious. That the LOA law of attraction is the link to it all.

      As of now we have the fullest control of our interior reality & can create to whatever degree we can our own personal heaven & be that influence to others. The exterior world of the collective is the other factor that blends itself into our experience as well with both intended & unintended results.

      I like to see we are in the age of exposure. The exposure of corporate & government power is being exposed daily & more so than anytime in history.

      Our greatest asset & power is the understanding & using the LOA.

      • The above makes no sense two thirds of the first part have been erased & I can’t edit or erase the above. This has happened b4 so I can’t respond & you will have to pardon the above, unless I can edit or erase later.

        • mewabe

          Too bad I would have looked forward to your response…
          I know I was generalizing and making blanket statements (as was Chris Hedges). but only to make a point that I think has some validity…

          • Maybe I’ll redo it over the weekend if a slot of time opens. 🙂

    • Patrick Gannon

      What an interesting conjecture – maintaining pessimism in order to keep the focus on just how bad it is and how little time we have to deal with it. That’s basically the idea, right? The ultimate solution that is suggested is revolution. The old Beatles song starts running through my head at that idea.

      I happened to read an article today about the ever-accelerating pace of growth in knowledge and intelligence. The curve ran almost flat with a slow upward drift for hundreds of thousands of years, then began arching upward, and is now poised to go practically vertical according to futurists like Ray Kurzweil (who has a pretty good record). Processing power, memory, quantum mechanics, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence – the growth of these things are off the chart. It doesn’t seem like it, because we’re in the middle of it, but my dad used a slide rule in college, and I used punch cards to enter programs in college, and today my son and I have far more processing power in our smartphones than NASA had to launch the Apollo spacecraft. I did a quick google search to see what was going on 100 years before I was born and got: “Congress approved $30,000 to test camels for military use.” Those were simpler times indeed.

      On the scarier side, when I was born, there were about 2.7 billion people on the planet, and it took hundreds of thousands of years to get to that many. In 1800 there was 1 billion, in 1950 2.5 billion and today, only 65 years later, there are 7 billion. The world’s population more than doubled in my lifetime to date and could triple before I go to the big beyond. During that time, resources have been exploited at unsustainable rates, and of course this continues. Is corporate totalitarianism responsible for this, or simply the greed of humans, a greed that must have provided an evolutionary advantage at one point in our development. The time lapse photos of a virus taking over a petri dish comes to mind. The corporate totalitarianism won’t be around any longer than the rest of us if mankind goes extinct – a very distinct possibility. The tipping point is likely only years or at most a couple decades away.

      All is not lost, yet. We could hit a technological breakthrough, for example in nanotechnology that allows us to eat up all the extra carbon in the air – build food out of carbon – the basic element here. Eliminate the need for fossil fuel. Live forever with nano meds that keep our bodies running. Transfer our consciousness to AI computers.

      Or be eliminated when the AI takes over. The evolutionary dice are flying fast and furious. Some have estimated that in another decade computers will achieve human intelligence and such a computer could within months, weeks, or even hours, improve itself to such a magnitude of intelligence greater than our own that we would be as clams to it.

      One reason I see no sense in wasting time with beliefs is that the pace is so very fast. In the next couple decades I’ll be surprised if we haven’t figured out what consciousness is all about, and with that the whole religion, god, faith and belief thing will be obsolete because we’ll “know.” Believing takes useful energy that can be better spent learning.

      I expect that I will still be alive long enough for phenomenal things to happen, any of which could destroy us or create a utopia. Is it better to be optimistic or pessimistic, or to simply enjoy the ride, whichever way it turns out?

      Beats me. I go back and forth.

      • mewabe

        Books and magazines that popularize scientific daydreams tend to paint the future in rosy utopian brushstrokes.

        I remember being a child and reading how technological and social progress would, within a couple of decades, create utopian conditions whereby populations would be able to work only part time for the same pay or a better pay and enjoy amazing comfort and luxury.

        Instead people are today working 3 jobs at starving wages and living on credit cards.

        Trust me on this, greed always wins when nothing is done to stop it.

        • GH Annie

          Bravo! Encore! Encore!

          There are those of us who understand we are a part of this physical realm, and it is part of us, and we do not see ourselves as lords over it. I personally believe this is but a minute part of Who We Are and Ultimate Reality, but that makes it no less important to me because this is where I find myself to be, here and now. So it is here and now that I seek to open the eyes and minds of others.

          Much Love and Many Blessings,
          ~Annie

          • mewabe

            Thank you Annie…I am glad you feel this way, being part of nature and nature being part of you…and the here and now is the very center of infinity and eternity, always a very good place to be in the natural world 🙂
            In the human world, there are challenges in the here and now, because most of humanity is not aligned with the natural world and with its own nature, yet.

        • Patrick Gannon

          “Books and magazines that popularize scientific daydreams tend to paint the future in rosy utopian brushstrokes.”

          Mewabe, I’m not talking about an article in CES or IFLS or any of the other new agey pseudoscience rags. I referred to Ray Kurzweil, the Dir of Eng. at Google, as one of the sources for information in the article. Look him up; he’s not a trivial person. I’ve discovered you can’t put links here or the post doesn’t display, but you can look up the “AI Revolution” at ‘waitbutwhy’. The “Fermi Paradox” is another good article about the likely reasons we don’t see the cosmos full of alien life; and why it should be teeming with life if past civilizations survived.

          Anyway, back to the main subject, your point (correct me if I’m wrong), seems to be that the ‘be the peace,’ ‘be the love’ sort of message from the new age movement, is ineffective as it provides a similar sort of drugged zombie personality as many “it’s all about Jesus” Christians walk around with, oblivious to the realities of the world around them. In other words, it’s another religion designed to take the focus off of the realities of this world, which is what the greedy corporate rulers want. This seems like a logical conjecture, but I’m not sure how much the corporate rulers are focused on NAG (new age god), as they are too busy leveraging ignorant fundy Christians to empower and enrich them, to give a lot of attention to NAG just yet. But your point, if I have it right, is worth considering.

          The basic problem, it is proposed, is human greed, which I assume you would agree is something that evolved within us as it provided an evolutionary advantage for survival. Those with the most greed, amassed the most resources in order to mate with the best partner and produce the most surviving offspring. So now that we have this evolved trait which helped get us to where we are now, how do we “de-evolve” it, having decided now that it no longer serves the function that once provided evolutionary advantage… or does it still provide evolutionary advantage?

          Will those rich, greedy people be the only ones able to take advantage of these new technologies as they arise in order to maintain an advantage over the rest? At some point, they could develop into a super-human class well above the original homo sapiens. But that would just be evolution doing what it does. Can evolution be “judged?” We are saying that greed is bad, but evolution apparently says otherwise. On the other hand, it has always been feared that new technological advantages would be limited to the upper crust, but historically, advances have always worked their way into the masses as volume reduces costs and increases affordability in a continuing curve.

          The problem is trying to get a revolution going against greedy people, because it takes greedy people to want to take something away from whoever has it now. That there is so much apathy to taking the goods away from the greedy corporate ruling class, means what? That greed is evolving out of our species? If it was, in time the rich dudes would be marginalized as the less greedy would work together and bypass them – something which certainly isn’t happening yet! What we have, perhaps, is evolution trying different paths to see which prevails.

          I’m inclined to support many of the ideals of the new age movement, but I’ll do what I can to rail against turning it into a belief, a faith, a religion. We’ve tried that and see the effects. Time to try something different, like open minded skepticism. I suggest large-scale internet based experiments to see if this group consciousness thing is valid. If it was valid, and the participants recognized the advantage of working as ONE to accomplish a shared goal, the world could start changing pretty quickly. A new belief, a new religion, a new faith, a new cultural story isn’t going to do that – a shared experience in “knowledge” and not another “belief,” is the only thing that I think can do it. And if it’s not possible, then at least we’ll know it.

          If you read the “Fermi Paradox” referred to above, the author proposes that most if not all civilizations run up against a brick wall. Evolution apparently favors greed, at least to a point, since it provides an evolutionary advantage for survival; but this in turn may bring about the demise of any civilization, alien or home-grown, in an inevitable way. Will our society be the one (or one of the very few) that makes it? Probably not – but the signs appear to point to finding out one way or the other within the century, and perhaps within the next decade or two. Hold on, it may be a bumpy ride!

          • mewabe

            I am not sure that greed is or must be part of the survival equation. That could be merely an assumption based on faulty or ideologically biased observation (for example, would a socialist scientist come to that conclusion?)

            In this instance scientific theories serve the dominant status quo. 19th centuries European Empires used Darwin to justify their bloody conquest of Africa and Australia as well as America, as an example, going as far as stating that the native populations were predestined, by nature itself, to “vanish” and that the European mass murderers were merely serving humanity’s greater good by exterminating native populations.

            If you look at Native Americans, who had a tribal consciousness rather than an “every man for himself” type of mindset as the cultural mainstream does, they did very well in a rather harsh North American natural environment while developing generosity as one of their highest social virtues and while sharing their resources and living cooperatively, as least within a single tribe. Greed was frown upon in their cultures, and one of the very first lesson a young child learnt was being encouraged to give away his most prized possession (not forced, their cultures were not authoritarian like Euro-American cultures, but gently encouraged). Generosity was highly honored and publicly and collectively celebrated and the greedy individual was despised and became a sort of outcast.

            Of course you might point out that they did not fare too well under the brutal onslaught of Euro-Americans…but if that’s what the “survival of the fittest” is about, if it means that in order to survive one must loose his humanity and become either a psychopath, a sociopath, a mass murderer and act as a ferocious and merciless beast (and that, in short, describes the actions of white Europeans against Native Americans), then my feeling is that such a survival at any and all costs, and at the cost of your own humanity, is not really desirable.

            You could put a psychopathic killer and a gentle and frail poet or artist or intellectual in the same room, give them a limited amount of food and water, and lock them up, and the “fittest” (the psychopath, the most ruthless) will be the one who will survive every time, of course. But is this evolution or is it devolution?

            Under the merciless leadership of power-driven and greedy maniacs, I would propose that we are devolving. The very top is doing all it can to take us into a new dark age, with soon two economic classes left: the lords and the peons. And the masses are apathetic because they have, for centuries now, been deeply conditioned to believe dominant power and greed are good, and are trained to worship at the altar of power and greed every day by the brainwashing mass media (yes, if television had existed at the time, there would never have been an American revolution).

          • Patrick Gannon

            I’m not sure Darwin was the culprit as much as the church. Most people didn’t begin to give Darwin much credence till well into the 20th century. I think “God’s will” so to speak, had more to do with subjugating other civilizations than “survival of the fittest.”

            I really don’t know enough about the native Americans because most of them were killed off by diseases. If one tribe takes that which belongs to another tribe, that still strikes me as greed.

            I would agree that evolution is not about what is good or best, but what survives and what passes along its traits. Looking at the explosion of knowledge and intelligence, it’s hard to think we’re de-evolving, unless like Thomas Campbell, we speak of whether our consciousness is evolving or devolving. But then we don’t know what consciousness is and whether it evolves.

          • mewabe

            Darwin was not the culprit but some elements, particularly in England, America and Germany, used some of his theories to justify genocide (see the book “Exterminate all the brutes”). Of course so was religion, particularly the conquest of the Philistines supposedly “condoned” by the Judeo-Christian god.

            Many Native Americans were decimated by disease, but that was not the point…the point was that in their encounter with the invader, from the Spaniards in Florida and the southeast to the pilgrims to the California gold rush, the official policy of the Euro-American was genocide, to clear the land of the “Indian problem”. That a few survived is a miracle, and they only did when it proved to costly for the US government to fight them militarily. It is then that treaties were made, which were apparently never intended to be honored by the liars and thieves that governed America then and still do to this day.
            The generosity that Native people cultivated and displayed culturally cannot be argued…do a little research. As an example it was well known among American and European collectors in the late 19th century that all you have to do was tell a native person that you liked some object, and he or she would give it to you right away, even if it was mocassins, a pipe or a shirt that was being worn at the time. Many collectors took advantage of this, needless to say…

            There is no doubt that we have some practical technological and scientific knowledge…I am not so sure about intelligence. An intelligent specie would not destroy the natural habitat upon which it depends for its life. Such a global act would tend to demonstrate, in my opinion, abysmal ignorance and stupidity, not to mention the blind arrogance of a specie that considers itself superior to and above all other life forms, and that has almost totally separated itself from nature, that is to say from real life.

            Judging from what is happening and the choices we are making for the future, I would say that we are not yet civilized…we are technologically advanced barbarians.

          • Patrick Gannon

            There is little in what you say that I disagree with, Mewabe. As I mentioned earlier, the Fermi Paradox questions why our galaxy isn’t teaming with signs of intelligence. It may simply be that all civilizations hit a brick wall and self destruct. The qualities that enable survival of the fittest, don’t necessarily support survival of the species, I suppose. Evolution itself is a blind process, without ethics, morals or judgment; simply plodding on presenting constraints and weeding out that which does not survive the constraints. (Which in our case are often internally created constraints based on beliefs).

            The question I think about is, what exactly is being evolved? If we are purely physical entities, and consciousness is an emergent quality that goes away when we croak, then it’s only our physical matter that is evolved. That may imply improving our consciousness as the brain matter continues to evolve, but the life of the consciousness, like the brain, would be limited. On the other hand, if consciousness is the actual thing that is being evolved, perhaps because the physical matter is really just a virtual reality, then one would have to ask why the consciousness of the ‘brutal’ European stock, came out on top of the more highly evolved consciousness of some native stocks? It would seem that the higher consciousness lost the evolutionary battle – at least in this PMR (physical matter reality). However if consciousness survives this PMR, then the act of being wiped out may have served a greater purpose for the consciousness of the so-called victims. We speak of them as being wiped out, but if consciousness really does survive death, then of course they were not wiped out, and may in fact be more highly evolved individuations of consciousness. What if it is those individuations that are now playing the role of corporate tyrant in order to create evolutionary constraints for the rest of us to test ourselves against – in the same way that CWG suggests Hitler may have been playing a role to benefit the rest of society by teaching us about ourselves?

            As for those natives, they’re either dead and gone or they aren’t. If they’re dead and gone, then we will be too one day, and thus nothing really matters except to follow the advice of Ecclesiastes to enjoy our work, our families, our friends and to eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. If their consciousness lived on, then we’ve no need to grieve for them.

            If we are part of the whole; if consciousness is one ‘thing’ of which we are individuated portions, then raising the consciousness of one part, should raise the whole – and conversely if one stock is devolving, that in turn holds back the whole. That appears to be where we are now in this PMR, but at the same time, there’s a small chance that something unequivocal could happen at the crossroads in front of us. Holding out hope for a savior, whether it’s Jesus, a new age self-proclaimed prophet or scientific advance, is probably not the best strategy, so what do we do?

            The question on the table is: what’s the right approach to enhance and improve the evolution of consciousness, if we assume that it has properties outside of matter? The approach espoused by the “New Spirituality” is based on beliefs. Believing is a trap for an evolving consciousness. It must evolve itself by knowing and doing, and probably does not progress much through believing, as beliefs set up internal conflicts simply because a belief is something you don’t know. It’s an internal, self imposed constraint. The suggestions and ideas of CWG, living to one’s highest vision, embracing love, joy, etc. are very practical ways for individuals to reduce the entropy for their individuated consciousness, thereby creating energy for useful production. (That doesn’t mean building cities – it means building relationships). I’ve become pretty well convinced that believing is a waste of time, and counter productive to individual evolution, but improving one’s self, lifting one’s self by the bootstraps, benefits the whole. In any group, nothing ever gets better unless at least one member of the group improves him/herself. Evolving one’s consciousness in a direction that reduces entropy means seeking to be love.

            Revolution on the other hand, is about discord, violence, pushing apart, increasing entropy and reducing energy for useful production (building relationships). While revolution might result in an evolutionary advantage for some within the PMR world, if there is an NPMR (non physical matter reality) where higher levels of consciousness are extant, the overall effects of the hate and discord will be negative for the whole. Within the greater consciousness, entropy will increase and perhaps the greater consciousness seeing that we are another evolutionary dead end will allegorically flush our petri dish down the toilet. If consciousness is a quality that does not emerge from matter, then the most likely scenario for our being here is to see what works and what does not work towards evolving consciousness of the whole to states of lower entropy, i.e. more love. And you’re right, it appears that we’re failing miserably – but will a revolution fix that?

            In my opinion, if consciousness really is something outside of matter, and if this group consciousness concept is real, then it should be testable. If enough people gathered together to prove to themselves that it worked, I think the effect could be earth-shattering. The problem is we don’t “know.” Many believe, and maybe a handful “know,” but the masses don’t know. If the masses could prove it to themselves, such that they had knowing rather than believing, we could choose what to fix and fix it instantly. Neale wants us to believe in his new religion, which I won’t do, but I can still take advice and ideas from his books. He speaks of ending hunger overnight if we just decided to do it. Knowing that we could do it by performing a series of experiments that proves it to ourselves, could make such ideas feasible.

            On the other hand, we have to face the probability that it won’t work; that either consciousness is an emergent quality, or for some other reason it simply won’t be tested in our PMR. Without that “knowing,” I have a hard time seeing us get past the brick wall that awaits us. If we don’t figure out how to “know” that this consciousness thing is real and learn what we can do with it, then we’re probably sunk. If consciousness is simply emergent to begin with, then we’re probably sunk. I suspect that only by discovering whether it’s real and whether we can “know” it, can we take the evolutionary step that will let us continue as a species.

            We have had “Global Oneness Days” and other such events, but I would like to see all these new age people get together with researchers in universities and institutes that study these things and come up with a large-scale internet experiment and then advertise the crap out of it. Aim to get millions of people to participate and affect the output of a random number generator, for example. What would you think if you were staring at your PC focusing on a particular number along with a million other people, and the machine began cranking out that number at a rate well beyond random chance? What would that tell every single participant? “Holy crap. Look what WE did!” Wouldn’t you want to scale it up and see what else you could do?

            But it will quite probably fail, because consciousness is quite probably an emergent quality, and how will the participants and organizers deal with that? I suggest that the absence of any such experiments to date is a result of that fear; because most of these new age people don’t “know” it themselves either, but only “believe” it, just like religionists. However if we gave it a shot and failed, at least we could move forward based on what we “know” rather than what we “believe.” We can then party to the end and take our own lives to avoid the suffering as the whole thing collapses, and there will be no ramifications, because consciousness is dead.

            On the other hand, if we “knew” that this life was all there was, and that we didn’t have this mystical afterlife to save us when we screw up here, would we work harder to keep from destroying this place? I don’t know, but I suspect that knowing is going to be better than believing whichever way it turns out.

            I enjoy these discussions that give me an opportunity to think about all this. This is kind of interesting, because I write things down, almost seeing the words show up on the screen before they are in my mind, and then I read them and ask myself if that’s what I really think, and sometimes I leave it, and sometimes I edit it. The trick, I think, is to keep on thinking and not get stuck in belief traps.

          • mewabe

            Thank you for your answer and the thoughts you put into it…

            I understand the desire to address the world problems at the level of “soul” or “consciousness”, or “spiritually”. I have always followed this path. But I don’t think it is even necessary at this stage.

            At this stage, all we need to do is change the perception of who and what we are. And to do this, all we need to do is get rid of our centuries old cultural conditioning and cultural and religious myths.

            Our cultural conditioning tell us that we are separate individuals, struggling to survive and make it in a mostly adversarial, hostile, competitive and dangerous world. It also tells us that we must deffer to authority (either that of a God and/or of a government or any institution), because we are not capable of governing ourselves and do the “right” thing without coercion, without fear of the law or other punishing “consequence”.

            All of this garbage originates from our upbringing, as this is how most parents train their children…to obey and submit to parental authority, and later to school authorities that train us to compete against one another to prepare us for the “harsh” reality of the world.

            Again, Native Americans did not live this way, so it is possible for a human being to have a totally different worldview.

            It is possible, for a human being, to understand that cooperation works better than competition; that we are not separate but are all connected to all things, all forms of life and to each other. Science tells us this…observing nature and its ecosystems demonstrates this…to understand this, we don’t even have to address the idea of soul or consciousness. Our interconnectedness and interdependence is at least as much a practical, physical fact as it is spiritual, and we don’t even have to believe in any God or even in consciousness to know this, this is something we could all agree on, in theory.

            In theory, it should be very easy to understand, even for a child, that the idea and perception of separation breeds fear, and that fear is at the root of our needs to conquer, dominate and control each other, our natural environment, and all life. It should be easy to understand that an adversarial approach to life engenders difficulties and chaos, the kinds that are seen on a battlefield, and that are seen in our societies and world. All of this should be very clear and plain to see, if we were not so confused and blinded by cultural and religious myths, and so psychologically conditioned by our early upbringings.

            Keeping with practicality, the world is in the grip of those who seek power other others, and who might be relatively psychopathic, and definitively predatory. How do they control us? Mostly by controlling energy.

            Energy is what fuels our societies, at every level. Make energy scarce and limit its supply, and you are on top of the world, playing with it as one plays checkers.

            We have all the technologies we need, today, at least in theory (and we could develop them very rapidly) to end world hunger, to make war obsolete, to provide education and health care for everyone, and to allow everyone to be free and happy. We have energy such as solar, wind and hydrogen, at least in theory, but these remain relatively expensive because of the control the oil companies keep on governments in order to maintain the status quo. So these do not get mass produced…instead oil companies get subsidies.

            Cheap energy (when oil was kind of cheap) is presumably what fueled the rapid growth of America and of its middle class. almost free energy (such as hydrogen or any other type) would free the world very quickly.

            All we have to ask ourselves, without going into “conspiracy theories”, is: who and what does an unfree world profit?
            At the personal level we can ask ourselves why we are letting predatory psychopaths and sociopaths control the world, which brings us back to conditioning.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “At this stage, all we need to do is change the perception of who and what we are. And to do this, all we need to do is get rid of our centuries old cultural conditioning and cultural and religious myths.”

            You say we could agree to do this, “in theory,” but there’s a lot of distance between that theory and any practical application – barring some unforeseen circumstance which knocks some sense into us. Wishing won’t make it so. Revolution won’t make it so either, in my opinion. That’s just history repeating itself and a new set of tyrants will step in to fill the void. If the change isn’t from bottom up, any change won’t last long.

            How do you propose to do this? I agree wholeheartedly that we need to change the cultural conditioning, but unless there is some sort of consciousness system of which we are all a part, that we can discover and “know,” how can we possibly change perceptions of who and what we are? Beliefs just cover up a lack of knowledge. They don’t tell us who and what we are, so I agree with you that no belief in God is necessary, but if there’s nothing linking us outside of physical matter as carbon based units, what hope is there that we would ever come together? All that remains at that point is pure intellect in which smart people decide for us and somehow have the power to impose their decisions. That’s not very likely unless technology comes to the aid of a particular group and provides them with the power to impose this new cultural conditioning. How well do you think that would be received by a population in which intellect appears not to be very evenly distributed! (grin). However you speak of it as cultural “conditioning” and things that are adaptable to being “conditioned” tend not to be high on the IQ ladder.

            How are you going to impose a new method of conditioning on the next generation? Who gets to decide what that conditioning will be? A calamity could do it. The resources dry up and billions of people die, and the survivors go back to living off the land like the natives – but that’s a pretty harsh way to impose new cultural conditioning (though I think it’s rather likely something like this will come to pass).

            I still think we have to settle the consciousness thing. I keep coming back to that. That will tell us whether it is realistic to expect anything beyond this existence or not. Knowing that we can then move on. Not knowing it keeps us muddled and running around in circles stuck in belief traps that take us nowhere.

          • mewabe

            I do not believe in imposing anything, in any form of coercion…But I do think that the natural environment will teach us the lessons we need.

            I was just making a point that the way children are raised has a lot to do with our religious beliefs in an authoritarian God (and in our practice of conditional love and coercion) and in our submissiveness towards authority.

            I was also making a point that our interconnectedness and interdependence are very obvious practical and physical realities. You ask how do we open humanity’s eyes to such an obvious reality? I don’t know…we can plant seeds, ideas, but nature will remind us, probably in a very rough manner, of such connection. Right now we are living in global illusion, and this illusion will end with global disasters.

            I understand your desire to explore consciousness, and I actually agree…but do we, at this stage, really have to go to the unseen when we cannot even see what is in front of us, in the physical, such as the oneness of all life?

          • Patrick Gannon

            “….nature will remind us, probably in a very rough manner, of such connection. Right now we are living in global illusion, and this illusion will end with global disasters.”

            I absolutely agree. I think however that our only hope to avoid the catastrophe’s that loom on the near horizon are to go to the unseen and try to see it so we know if it’s really there or not. It will either give us all something in common besides our carbon makeup, or it will not. Either way, we’ll know, and can make more informed decisions about how to move forward.

            Nobody ever embraces my ideas for large scale internet tests of group consciousness. I wonder why… Fear of finding out that the unseen isn’t there?

          • mewabe

            About the experiment, like with everything else when you have an idea you have to make it happen yourself, contacting some open-minded people who, being free of any agenda, would be able to organize and monitor such an experiment objectively (hopefully). Let me know if you ever do and I will be glad to participate…

            But for such an experiment to have an impact on humanity, it would need to have massive, global coverage, and some elements, in the religious, atheist and even the scientific community, could oppose such information. Change always invite resistance and opposition.

            I have personally conducted individual experiments with someone who was 3000 miles away.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Yeah, I’m not sure how to go about it. I don’t really have the contacts to put something like that into action. I’m not sure how massive or global it would have to be to start. If you start small, and have success, then you build on that and make larger experiments with more people joining in as they see the rising excitement and interest of the original participants. I suspect it would take a series of tests, each larger than the last, each more closely scrutinized by skeptics; but if the phenomenon is real, it should be testable.

            I would be interested in learning of your experiments. Have you ever read Robert Monroe’s “Journey’s Out of the Body”? I liked the way he attempted to quantify and qualify his experiences, rather than just ask others to believe him.

          • mewabe

            The results of my very limited experiments (3 times, about half an hour each) were not “statistically significant” as some would put it, although I got some interesting results (for example drawing a number or letter and causing the other person to draw the same number or letter at the same time…or causing the person to move a certain way). I should do more of this…
            I use “psychic” powers when I need help and to help others when requested…overall I actually prefer to use my own intuition though. There is a difference…when I use psychic powers I ask an entity I trust for help, but my intuition is my own, and I prefer to develop my own “antennas” (and that’s where the Twilight Zone series musical theme comes in, can you hear it?)

          • Patrick Gannon

            Very interesting. Read Monroe’s book. I think you’ll like it. He kept a log by his bed and anytime he took a ‘trip’ he would document all he could remember about it, then the next day he would call or visit to check for things that would confirm his perceptions. I don’t know if such abilities are “real” and of course they are necessarily very subjective, but if they are real, it is in the doing, being, and knowing, and not in the “believing” that we will learn and evolve.

          • mewabe

            Thank you, I will check out this book!

  • mewabe

    “DOES GOD’S LOVE TURN TO WRATH ON A MOMENT’S NOTICE?”
    If that was the case, the presence we call God would not just be a judgmental or irascible being, he or she might be suffering from BPD…borderline personality disorder.

    Another demonstration of the fact that we made God in the image of humans and their numerous neurosis.

    • My point too is, that the old testament God is a god made in man’s image. The new testament is more man made in God’s image. Huge monumental difference.

      • mewabe

        Definitively…although I am not so sure about the New Testament being really closer to describing who or what God is. Let’s just say it’s an improved version from the old testament. But who is to say what or who God is? Who really knows?

        Those who believe in rules and punishment say God is the ruler and the punisher. Those who believe in love and freedom say God is love and freedom. It seems we give God attributes according to our very own personal needs, doesn’t it? That’s why so many see God as a daddy.

        I tend to feel that the Divine is everything…all life and beyond. And that includes what, from our limited perceptions, we call “good” and what we call “bad” (for example, the prey and the predator…the life-giving mist and the destructive storm…birth and death…etc.)

        As long as we give what many call God human attributes (such as saying God is love), that God becomes a person. And that is another very limited perception with which I do not identify in any way, which is why I never accepted any old religion or new theology that did this, that made the Divine as a person (a super being with extraordinary qualities, but nevertheless still a person).

        Of course, the Divine being everything, it can take on the qualities of a person for those who cannot relate to the more expanded version…but my point is that to cling to the idea of God as a personal super being is to remain very limited.

        • Yes, agree, & Neale’s newest book speaks to this & how God is not a super being.

          “I tend to feel that the Divine is everything…all life and beyond. And that includes what, from our limited perceptions, we call “good” and what we call “bad” (for example, the prey and the predator…the life-giving mist and the destructive storm…birth and death…the solid and the void…the form and the formless…etc.)”

          I don’t disagree here, but would add: That prey animals like mice & rabbits are highly revered in the animal world because they give their lives so easily. They (the animals) know the game & how it’s played more than we do.

          Still, they reflect the primitiveness of the collective thought & as we move toward enlightenment (when ever that happens) they will reflect more of the Biblical lion laying down with the lamb. But for now, we need to simply to create a galactic size compassion infusion into humanity. To break the deep spell of hate & condemnation.

          As for the new testament. I’m referring to Jesus sermon on the mound mostly. Here, surprisingly, the church allowed, it seems, his real (or imagined) teachings to go unfiltered & sneak into a narrow-minded church theology. Heck, reincarnation was a christian belief until the church took it out.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Unfiltered? In a most critical way, the sermon on the mount was filtered. Matthew’s sermon on the mount validates the OT and all of its 613 frequently ridiculous laws:

            “17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”

            This sermon to a Jewish audience that was very much invested in the OT law was highly problematic to a new Christian church that wanted to do away with the old faith, so Christianity defined ‘I come not to abolish the law’ to mean, ‘I came to abolish the law.’ It’s laughable, but most Christians buy it and believe it, because they’re afraid not to believe what they are told to believe. Why are they so afraid? Because Jesus is not the “good news.”

            In the old days, in the OT, when you died, you were dead. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Stick a fork in you, you were done. Everyone, good and bad alike went to the grave and were unconscious in Sheol (later translated as Hell), and for most of the OT, that’s where you remain till the end of time. By the time you get to Daniel, the concept of a ‘final judgment’ starts to creep in, with the idea that at some point you will be brought back, and judged for what you did and then will either go to paradise (which referred not to heaven where God lives, but rather to a restored garden of Eden paradise on earth), or if you were evil, you would simply be destroyed. There’s some logic behind the evolving Jewish belief. The OT says God punishes you here and now for your sins, or he punishes your offspring “to the third and fourth generation.” As time went by, Jews realized that this was not always the case. The bad guy amassed riches that were passed to his offspring and indeed evil seemed to be rewarded; so they had to come up with the concept of a final judgment where the bad got their comeuppance. This was an evolving and much discussed idea even during Jesus’ time.

            Along comes Jesus and Christianity, and the game changes dramatically. Now we have to believe the right things about Jesus. If we don’t believe the right things, we go to eternal torment in Hell. (The bible doesn’t really say there’s a Hell when you use the original words, but over time Christianity made sure Hell was created, and boy was that a useful tool!). Now, thanks to Jesus, you aren’t punished for your deeds, or not only for your deeds as the Catholics still want to make sure you’re punished for that too, but more importantly, you are punished eternally for what you believed or failed to believe. In the OT you would just be destroyed if you were bad, but now you suffer eternal punishment simply for not believing the right thing, so how has our condition improved? How is Jesus the good news? Sheol sounds pretty good because there’s no way to know exactly what the right thing to believe might be – after all thousands of Christian denominations disagree with each other. Christianity has turned Jesus into a far more miserable being than his dad ever was.

            This is part of my problem with turning the “New Spirituality” as Neale calls it, into a new religion based on beliefs. Neale believes Jesus was really some sort of advanced being who walked on water and rose from the dead, etc. but actually Jesus was a Jew, and he believed that you should not eat pork or shellfish, wear mixed clothing and should obey all of the other 613 OT laws, else “ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” We’re still picking and choosing what we want to do with Jesus. I say, let him be. He was just another in a line of failed Messiahs… We don’t need another new religion. We need to get rid of the religions we have and stop believing things we can’t prove, and deal with life as it is.

          • Some good points, let me clarify. Love your enemies, do good to them that curse you etc.

            I’m not that attached to my own opinions that I can’t amend them. But I do feel it interesting that certain things got in that to me were less filtered in the NT.

            I believer Jesus really lived. If this is inaccurate & down the line it’s proven false, no big whoop, because the truths that speak to us are what matters.

            New Spirituality does not depend on any one book or books, Neale’s or otherwise. As Neale has said repeatedly. “Ours is not a better way but a different or another way.”

            We get to choose what our truth is, based on our experience, not from another.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Marko, I think Jesus lived too – as another failed Messiah. There were several at the time and they all ended up like Jesus did. The major difference is that someone had a vision or dream after he died, and they told a friend who told a friend, etc. etc. and that in time morphed into a new religion. Jesus appeared to be a leader of the downtrodden, taking on the establishment – the Jewish clergy – who were in cahoots with the Romans to screw over the poor. How much Jesus actually claimed to be divine, and what he meant by that is very much open to interpretation as the various gospels don’t agree with each other on those points.

            My problem is Neale’s insistence that we need to change our beliefs. I would argue instead that we need to stop believing and actually seek knowledge.

            I never really understood that line about ‘ours is not a better way, but only a different way.’ If something isn’t better, why bother changing the path one is already on? I’m in sales, and the “me too” sales approach is the worst way to try to win a deal. You have to have a differentiator that makes you better, or you’re out of the game. Neale offers a number of differentiators. His much nicer, far more feminine god is definitely an improvement over the old god, so why say things like ‘ours is just another way’? The thing is – I think that’s what I finally realized. The “New Spirituality” is just another way – just another religion based on beliefs, and beliefs are an admission of lack of knowledge. It’s based on the same old tired idea that we need to believe what someone else tells us to believe because we’re too stupid or lazy to think for ourselves.

            I’m also a little edgy about the idea that we get to “choose” what our truth is. To me that means we get to choose what we believe, and if one chooses to limit themselves by believing things rather than knowing them – that is, of course, their prerogative. To me, Truth is not something one chooses. A thing is either true or it is not true. If you have your truth and I have my truth, then one or both of us is wrong. At least that’s how I see it.

          • mewabe

            Check out John Trudell’s videos, he makes exactly the same point about belief.
            I totally agree that believing is an admission of ignorance, of a lack of knowledge. It may be a temporarily useful tool in the absence of knowledge to make life work (more or less), but the problem is that belief takes the place of knowledge, and in the mind of the believer often makes knowledge appear unnecessary or even unwanted and dangerous, as such knowledge threatens beliefs, and all the social, cultural and religious institutions that are rooted in such beliefs, not to mention that knowledge can totally invalidate a life lived according to false beliefs.

            As an example, look at the reluctance many people have in admitting that their own government is corrupt. The knowledge of such corruption is much resisted because people need to believe in their government, or else their lives fall apart…for instance, how could a family deal with the fact that their son or daughter died in war for Wall Street? Instead they desperately cling to the belief that such sacrifice occurred in the name of freedom and democracy, and that it was noble and good.

            That’s just one example of how beliefs and myths make the unbearable seemingly bearable for the multitudes, who must live in denial in order to function in a messed up world.

            Knowledge always takes courage…and many do not have this courage and would rather cling to myths, beliefs and fairy tales. That’s why the exploiters and predators at the top of society have such an easy way at it, because the bolder their lies and the more outrageous and damaging their actions, the more difficult it is for ordinary people to come to term with them.

            False beliefs, denial and numbness rule our world because much of its reality is unbearable for most.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Well said, Mewabe. Not much I can add to that.

            I struggle a bit with your point about the military. Our soldier’s individual sacrifices are noble and good in my opinion because the “intent” of those putting their lives on the line is to do good. The intent of those who pull their strings and abuse that trust is another matter altogether – but “We the People” are responsible for allowing that to happen. Our failure is not their failure.

          • mewabe

            I agree, many who serve in the military do believe in what they are doing. The point I was making is that their survivers would not be able to deal with the truth of how they have been manipulated (knowledge), so they must cling to such beliefs for their own sanity.

          • ” If something isn’t better, why bother changing the path one is already on?”

            Well is rock better than jazz, chocolate than vanilla? Most people be they into New Spirituality or Christianity cherry pick what seems best for them. To me that’s simply being eclectic in what we choose as our truth.

            For me what serves us best is understanding the LOA or law of attraction. The senior law of the universe. Get a handle on that & most other things will fall into place.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Hmm. I see your point, but I’m still not sure it makes sense to me, as it assumes that all paths are a matter of taste and lead to the same place eventually. That may or may not be accurate as the paths are so very different. Buddhism is nothing like Christianity, is nothing like Hinduism, is nothing like “New Spirituality,” etc. In many ways they directly contradict each other. All of these paths compete with each other for converts and cash, so trying to determine which is “better” is certainly what I’d look at. If I had to choose, it’s clear that some of the paths are demented and I want nothing to do with them. Walsch must believe that the path he is trying to blaze through the woods is better than the other options, else why bother cutting a new path? If he thinks all paths lead to the same place, why bother? It’s a nice little phrase – ‘our way is not a better way, but just another way’ but the fact that he’s trying to provide another way implies to me that he thinks it’s better than the others, otherwise he’s wasting his time. The current column is all about how much better his way is than the old way.

            Even if none of the paths goes anywhere, for sure some are worse than others. None of them may be the right path, or perhaps (though I doubt it), all of them may be the right path. Or perhaps one path is far more direct than another. Given that all these paths lead into the forest and there’s no way to know which if any of them gets to a destination, it seems like throwing dice to figure out which is best, unless one studies them all and determines that one path holds more promise than another, and so far I don’t see that. We’re not talking about a taste for music or ice cream; we’re talking about a path to gnosis.

            I guess I kind of see it like this – all these different winding paths lead into the dark forest and I can’t see where any of them are going or if any of them are going to take me to my destination because all of them are based on beliefs. However there is another path, and it is straight and sure, but until recently it has progressed very slowly. The path of knowledge, based on scientific discovery is being cut into the forest, at an ever accelerating rate, and I have more confidence that it will lead somewhere useful, while the others could wander around in the darkness forever, leaving me stranded. Am I better to choose one of the winding paths that leads who knows where, or to wait for a real path to be cut through the forest that takes me closer to my destination? I’m all for adventure, but I don’t want to get lost in the forest on a path that leads nowhere as I blindly follow a path of belief rather than a path of knowledge.

            I’m going to wait for the “better” path, or if I had skills, so to speak, as some people like Mewabe claim to have – I would blaze my own path and see if I can use knowledge rather than belief, testing rather than faith, experimentation and observation rather than someone else’s belief, to see where the path goes and learn for myself whether I am on the right track.

            I’m not crazy about the idea of “choosing our truth.” We can choose what we believe, but truth is truth, and there’s no choosing it. It’s either true or it isn’t. Choosing something and telling ourselves that it’s true is misleading ourselves if we don’t actually know it to be true. And right now, we don’t know what’s true. We don’t have enough information yet. But we’re getting there.

            I have as yet to be convinced that there is anything to the LOA that is outside of my brain. I can certainly see that if I raise the level of attention in my brain – if I get it to focus on a particular thing – the focus is generally going to take me in that direction. To some degree this just means taking personal responsibility for my actions. I don’t know if this is something that takes place internally in my brain, or if it is something outside the brain that is tied into the universe. I’m inclined to think it comes from my brain, but I don’t discount either possibility.

            I think it’s possible that we are constructed of something like consciousness in a big virtual reality game – but I must remain skeptical and open minded until that path is cut through the forest so I know for sure, or at least have a much better idea than I do now. I’m really skeptical of the LOA because I know from experience that if I’m constantly thinking about something positive, or something negative, my brain which runs the rest of me, is going to create attention schemas that help direct my actions. I think this whole LOA thing is just a matter of actively and consciously taking personal responsibility for our actions.

            Given the ever accelerating rate of change, and growth in knowledge, I may live long enough to learn more about what really is and my offspring will likely know much more. I’m not a very patient person, but I don’t see that there’s a lot of choice but to be patient if one is going to go down a path of knowledge rather than a path of belief that may lead nowhere.

          • I really appreciate the energy you put into your post replies here. I’m afraid I just don’t have the time (at the moment) to respond in depth.

            However, what feels right to you? CwG says feelings are the language of the soul.

            Are some paths more direct? A short cut?

            Well I’d say yes, & for me CwG is one of them. If it’s not for you, you go where you most resonate.

            As for the LOA again I see it in action all the time in my life & others. I think it undergirds the code of life. But that’s just me.

            What resonates is where you go. If you are not sure, well like I’ve done, I simply play, experiment & have fun to see what works & plays out best in my life.

          • gaioniam

            failed Messiah? Wow Where did you get that?

          • Patrick Gannon

            Gaioniam, if you read the OT, you’ll discover that the Messiah that the Jews expected was nothing like Jesus – not a bit. Their messiah was to be a great political and military leader who would bring the Jews back to great prominence and overthrow all their enemies. Obviously that didn’t happen. Instead, 40 years after Jesus died, the temple in Jerusalem was completely destroyed and the Romans drove the Jews out, while their Messiah was nowhere to be found.

            From the Jewish standpoint (and they are the ones who gave us the concept of a messiah), Jesus was an abject failure. Jesus may have been delusional and thought he was the messiah. Right up to the last, he might have expected Bible God to haul him off that cross, but his last words in the two earliest gospels, Mark and Matthew, “My God, my God. Why have you forsaken me?” indicates that things did not turn out as he anticipated. (Luke and John gave him different last words as the myth grew).

            The Jews did not have the concept of “salvation” from “original sin” that Paul invented in his blueprint for Christianity – though we can’t hold Paul entirely responsible – based on his “visions” (delusions, mushroom induced hallucinations?? ), he thought the end of the world was imminent (as it is said Jesus also predicted) and they were both, of course, completely wrong. (See Matt 16:28 and Matt 24:34). There are many references in Paul. He was so sure that the end was near that he told people they shouldn’t even bother to get married. Given that he was wrong, Paul’s credibility is shot to pieces. It’s more likely that the gospel writers took Paul’s ideas about the end times being near and put words in Jesus’ mouth about returning within a generation, while some still living were yet alive – and blew a big hole in Jesus’ credibility as well.

            The idea that Jesus physically rose from the dead is almost certainly a product of the oral tradition that grew up in a time of pagan gods who did all sorts of fanciful things – like have virgin births, or be sons of gods, for example. None of that is original to Jesus.

            First of all, the empty tomb story (which is different in every gospel), is almost certainly an invention. In those days the Romans left you on that cross till your body rotted, and then they threw you in Gehenna, the town dump – the ultimate insult for a Jew – rather than giving you a decent burial. The idea was to display the criminal, and particularly troublemakers who threatened the state, as a warning to others. There is practically no chance that Pontius Pilot, one of the most brutal governors of the time, would have let Jesus off the cross in a matter of hours rather than weeks or months like everyone else.

            The “resurrection” myth probably started because many people often have “visions” or dreams of loved ones shortly after they die. Someone had a vision, and he told his wife and she told her neighbor, and he told a merchant passing by, and he told… you get the idea… After a couple decades, the oral traditions solidified around the myth, people came to believe it, just as they believed fantastic things about other pagan gods, and Paul built on this to start what would in time become a new religion.

            If Jesus had actually performed miracles, if he had actually risen from the dead, there would have been mention of it in historical documents much closer to the time he actually lived. Such a thing would have been momentous and would have been written about or even challenged by pagans; but there’s no mention of anything like this till decades later, when first Paul and then Mark wrote documents that would in time become part of the NT. It’s a meme. A story that takes on a life of its own. Based on predictions from Daniel, it was anticipated that the time of the messiah and the end of the world was at hand, so great attention would have been paid to anyone who actually performed miracles or rose from the dead. There’s no mention of resurrection until Paul writes 20+ years after Jesus’ death, and no mention of miracles till Mark writes, 40 years after Jesus’ death. The likelihood that these events happened as described approaches zero.

            Have you ever seen children play the “train” game, where you whisper something to the first in line and they repeat it to the next person, etc.? What comes out at the end of the train is almost never what it started with.

            In the absence of any evidence (none of the NT was written by eye witnesses), then the most probable, rather than the least probable is what almost certainly happened. The least probable is a physical resurrection. The most probable is the development of an oral tradition based on a story that got passed along.

            Do you know that most clergy who go to progressive divinity schools like Princeton (but not fundy schools like Liberty) are taught this stuff? They just don’t share it with their sheep because they know it would probably empty the pews and coffers and then how would they pay off those tuition loans! LOL

            So, am I going to Hell?

          • gaioniam

            Lol imagine you writing so long a post that I can barely answer it. I only want to say that wow wee and oh my god. oh my god. oh my god. Let’s see. hmm um um um um um that’s about all i can say. Have a great day whew

          • Patrick Gannon

            I really don’t mind your sarcastic follow-up Gaioniam. I was involved in an intellectual discussion with people who were apparently capable of handling more than 20 words at at time; and the question you asked was not only pertinent to the discussion, but it was a fair and valid question to ask. I made what many believers would consider to be a blasphemous charge that Jesus was a failed messiah, who did not rise from the dead, and nobody challenged me on that until you did.

            For those who can handle more than one twitter post at at time, who might be interested in the topic, I provided a response to support my assertion. If you read it, and it caused you to think for even a moment about the issues I raised, then it was well worth the time spent. If not, perhaps someone else will think about it, and even if nobody reads it, I’m just doing what Neale suggests in one of his last weekly Newsletters, when he said, if you like to write, (as he does), then by all means write. So I did. Thank you for accommodating me.

          • gaioniam

            Sorry Patrick. Last time I tried intellecutual with you here you got mad at me, so ya know, don’t take it personally. If one is not even knowing God is love, God is real then I don’t understand the rewson for being here. NEale claims to be a follower of God but you claim to be agnostic. Agnostics are not really ever going to understand my level of awareness. That’s um um um um whw way way too difficult to ya know even ful with. Sorry. I move on from your responses right here, right now. Have fun with debated or is it arguing. I don’t care for arguing. Thank you for playing. I don’t deal with such academic role playing. It’s way way not my thing. Have fun. Phew

          • Patrick Gannon

            Gaioniam, I’m sorry but I don’t recall the situation in which you say I got “mad” at you. I don’t recall discussing anything with you prior to this, but I’m sorry if you perceived me as “mad” at you. I’m going to guess that this was your perception rather than my intention – but I’d need to see the original discussion and don’t have time to look for it right now.

            As for why I’m here – it’s called a global conversation. I’m conversing. I’m providing an alternate viewpoint on occasion. I’m providing ideas on which to hold meaningful discussions. That seems to me to be in keeping with the concept of the site.

            It might be interesting to see how Neale would respond to your assertion that he is “a follower of God.” If God is all that IS, and Neale, like everyone else is God, then isn’t he just following himself or everything, or nothing at all? What does “a follower of God” mean?

            To be a “follower of Jesus” is, I think most would agree, to be a person who attempts to follow the primary teachings of Jesus; love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, love your enemy, help the poor, and so forth. (Many scholars would point out that Jesus as a devout Jew actually meant these things to apply to Jews and not to Gentiles, but that’s another story). In any event, as an agnostic, there’s no reason I can’t follow those same ideas to the best of my abilities. One doesn’t have to “believe in God” whatever that means, to do and to be good. Agnostics aren’t denying marriage to gays or trying to take away the rights of women. I don’t really “believe” in anything (or try not to), but I do have a bumper sticker on my vehicle that says, “I believe in good.”

            Will you think I’m mad at you, if I point out that I interpret your statement “Agnostics are not really ever going to understand my level of awareness,” as the same sort of condescending arrogance as the fundamentalist Christian who feels sorry for me and wants to pray for me because I’m not “saved”? Do you have any idea how arrogant, condescending, and off-putting it is when people say such things? It’s exactly the same sort of “air of superiority” that fundies exude.

            Now tell me: If a person were truly at a high level of awareness, they really should understand this, shouldn’t they?

          • gaioniam

            Last time we tried to converse, you told me I created too many lines. Well, that is me. I have a lot of lines. As far as “level of awareness” goes, it is Whew and if one is not ready to accept that God is lightbeam, love and quantum movement, then one is not going to understand my posts. You have a way of desiring debate or is it argument. As far as I am concerned, I have had way too much of that in life. Life is more about following the heart and not the head. Your agnosticism means nothing to me. That’s what agnostics believe in. Your level of awareness is such that you might have troulbe understnading quantum physics and levels of awareness in objects. Quantum physics is all about the awareneness of particles. When Neale wrote these CWG books throuigh or is it God wrote through Neale’s hand, there was a movement of some sort. My awareness expressed God as energy moving through my hand. Do you think that is possible? If so, we might dialogue in a manner of speaking. As far as being “arrogant and condescending,” I’m not that at all. I believe it is a bit arrogant to call anyone arrogant, don’t ya think? It kinds of closes down conversation immediatley. Sorry. I don’t see much dialogue going on already. Whew um um um ho ho ho hi hi hi whew sorry. no go po go whew

          • Patrick Gannon

            “too many lines?” Hmm, maybe I was suggesting that you break your responses into paragraphs to make it more readable. I wouldn’t have gotten “mad” over that, but I would probably just skip the post – a long solid wall of text is overwhelming, even to people like me who read a lot. If you want people to read your posts, I think it helps to group ideas into paragraphs which is at least visually more pleasing than a solid wall of text.

            I’m sorry you don’t like my style of discussion. I thought I explained myself a couple posts ago. You asked a fair and valid question in the middle of an intellectual debate/discussion, and I simply carried on with the discussion, by addressing your assertions in some detail. If you didn’t want to discuss/debate/argue, why raise the questions in the first place? You asserted that Jesus was a real messiah and that he rose from the dead, didn’t you? It’s not really fair to jump in and raise such points as you did, then get annoyed when someone responds to them, is it?

            What the heck is “quantum movement?” Who coined that expression? Nothing comes up when I google it. I know as much as most laymen about quantum physics, and it strikes me that the New Age movement is doing the same thing legacy religions do – turning things we don’t fully understand into yet another “God of the Gaps” as an explanation for our ignorance. If we can’t understand it, then it must mean God did it. That’s the way religion works, isn’t it? That’s what we seem to be doing here.

            “God” has been used as the explanation for things primitive people didn’t understand. As time has gone by the role of God has continued to shrink as we explain natural phenomenon and the cosmos and no longer need God to explain things we don’t know yet. Religionists still rely on God for “origins” and “consciousness” and it sounds like our evolving understanding of quantum mechanics, is providing a new “gap” for God to move into – at least until such time as we do understand it. I see the New Age folks latching on to this scientific mystery and taking it as their own, without really understanding what they are talking about.

            In any event, quantum physics is not about the awareness of particles. The interesting thing about quantum mechanics is that probabilities become particles when observed; as scientists put it, “the wave function collapses” and a “wave” of probabilities becomes a particle. The particle is not aware – or I’ve never read of a physicist using that terminology – instead it is the awareness of the observer that seems to make the probability wave turn into a particle. I think you’ve got it a bit backwards. Nobody understands quantum mechanics fully (yet), but that’s no reason to assign it to “God.”

            I think that Neale’s writings contributed to some extent as a “stepping stone” for those trying to get out of contemporary religion without cutting off their Abrahamic and particularly their Christian beliefs, cold turkey. For some people, apparently there is a need to replace one set of beliefs with another in order to find solace and face fears; but some of us get over that hump, transition from believing to thinking, and recognize that replacing one belief with another belief is just replacing one bit of ignorance with another. Net gain is minimal, other than providing a security blanket to move on with personal evolutionary development, by facing fears and dropping beliefs.

            Do I think it’s possible that energy is all there is? Sure it’s not just possible; it’s probable. Mass seems to simply be condensed energy. So is that energy running through your hand? Of course it is. When your hand comes in contact with another object, you don’t actually “touch” the object, the energy fields create a repulsive force. Your vision, hearing, touch, smell, taste – all are electrochemical functions (energy). No god required.

            The question, the root of the matter, in my mind, is, “what is consciousness?” Is it emergent from the brain (condensed energy that appears as matter), or is it something else? I think we’ll know some day.

            As for arrogance, I stand by the charge. In this post, you again assumed an air of superiority that a poor agnostic couldn’t possibly understand quantum mechanics. Perhaps you are not arrogant, but only write that way by accident?

          • gaioniam

            oh dear, You again. Look, I am speaking god Code here. Whew Wow and Whoa Whoa Whoa “Was Jesus”? No. I never said Jesus was. Jesus Is. He just Is the Isness and that, my friend, is I O U no explanation of my psts. I am I am and you are hm hm hm so, let it be. We don’t agree and neve will. Have fun with those whew debates Hi

          • Patrick Gannon

            Hey, you’re the one who initiated the discussion:

            “failed Messiah? Wow Where did you get that? oh yah and you mention the death of jesus. We did hear a rising occurred. Did you forget that little bit?”

            How can you say, “No, I never said Jesus was.”? How could he die and rise if he never was?

            But never mind, we can let it go. After all, I’ve never seen or heard of “god Code.” I speak English. “Whew um um um ho ho ho hi hi hi whew hm hm hm” is not a language I’m familiar with.

          • mewabe

            About primitiveness, I have never truly been able to grasp the fact that in order to live in this world, something must die. Apart from this, I love nature and feel close to it…but I am not so comfortable with the fact that everything eats everything 🙂

          • Animal communicators have repeatedly said that animals leave their body quickly & usually do not suffer.

            Eating is simply redistribution of energy. Consider that carrots, fruit & in some cases yes, animals, are happy to give themselves up for nourishment. We eventually give ourselves up too.

            In a highly advanced enlightened society there is no need to eat. Search “Sun gazing”.

            But I do believe there is a purpose to it all. Just because we don’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not there.

          • mewabe

            I am not sure I agree with animal communicators…this is a bit like scientists who say animals do net feel physical pain, while they torture them in unnecessary and very sadistic laboratory experiments. Humans have the amazing ability to always rationalize their actions (such as that of eating animal flesh).

            I do not believe that animals are happy to be slaughtered. Have you ever heard the screams of pigs in slaughterhouses? Such were used as background noise in some horror movies, to give you an idea of how horrific the sound is.

            Have you seen videos of wild animals being eaten alive in Africa? They do not die quickly, and they do not look like they actually enjoy being a meal to wild dogs or other predators.

            Sun gazing has turned out to be a kind of hoax (i bought the video and watched it).

            This physical environment is a rather primitive place of high contrasts and strong polarities…it fits some among us better than others.

  • stane

    at the moment i wonder about what is the truth about illuminati and their control or lack of it.