Another big question…
DOES GOD APPRECIATE US
FOR SUFFERING IN SILENCE?

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 book (published 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 honors self-sacrifice, long-suffering (preferably in silence), and martyrdom.

There is an idea about God, shared by many, many people in the world, that God is pleased when human beings make a personal sacrifice—and that the bigger the sacrifice, the more pleased God is.

God’s pleasure, we are told, comes from knowing that we are “putting others first,” even in the face of great personal emotional, physical, or financial loss.

In addition, God is said to reward the long-suffering— particularly when we suffer in silence. Complaining about some circumstance or condition besmirches and lessens the value that has been gained through the suffering itself. So to gain optimal value in heaven, keep your suffering to yourself. That’s been the basic message.

When I was a child, the nuns in our parochial school told us, if we fell and got hurt, to “offer it up to God.”

Martyrdom in any form was, we were taught, the highest form of suffering, for which we were accorded a special place in heaven. And martyrdom for God was the highest of the highest, garnering the greatest reward: sainthood.

I am not the only person to have gotten these messages. They have lived long, primarily (but not exclusively) in the Christian tradition. Now comes The Great What If . . .

What if God does not offer a special reward in heaven for any particular behavior—and, in fact, wants us to know that self-sacrifice and suffering do not have to be part of the human experience?

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, it surely would. Billions of people across the globe would stop seeing self-sacrifice and long-suffering as qualifications for the highest honors in heaven.

This shift in understanding would eliminate an enormous amount of human sadness and loss produced by self-induced behaviors generated by people who think that they are pleas- ing God by displeasing themselves.

In addition, invalidating “martyrdom for God” as “automatic passage” into heaven would mean that ending one’s life in order to kill scores of innocent people would lose its spiritual credentials—making it impossible for the trainers of terrorists to promise young male suicide bombers that they will be rewarded with everlasting joy and twenty-two black-eyed virgins in paradise if they will just go out and blow themselves up in public places.

The biggest change that would occur if humans were certain that self-sacrifice, long-suffering, and martyrdom not only brought no special reward from God, but that God says that none of this even needs to be part of the human experience, is that people would begin to ask, “Why, then, is it so normal?”

The answer to that question is so huge that, if it were shared and lived widely, it would transform life for our species forever.

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 according higher honors to the soul for self-sacrifice, long-suffering, and martyrdom is plainly and simply inaccurate.

It is okay now to remove this ancient teaching from our current story, and to stop telling this to ourselves and to our children.

Self-sacrifice is never necessary, suffering need not be a common part of human life, and martyrdom “for God” does not earn anyone a special place or the highest honors in paradise.

What is called “self-sacrifice” is the result of an assessment by a human being that something they are choosing to do is producing loss or self-injury in some way.

What is called “suffering” is the direct result of an assessment by a human being that something they are experiencing they should not be experiencing.

What is called “martyrdom for God” is the result of an assessment by a human being that something they are doing that is producing enormous self-injury (perhaps even death) pleases God because of this, and will therefore generate rewards in heaven proportionate to, and in recompense for, the injury experienced on the earth.

All of these assessments are inaccurate.

Looking at these concepts one by one, we see that it may be perfectly normal within our present human understanding to think that when one is doing something for another at great inconvenience, and especially at great emotional, physical, or financial loss, one is “sacrificing the self for another.” Yet such a mental holding is both inaccurate and self-serving.

Yes, rather than self-sacrificing, it is self-serving.

The truth is that no one does anything they don’t want to do. It sometimes serves us, however, to do exactly what we want to do, and then to tell ourselves (and others) that we “had no choice,” or that we did it “at great personal sacrifice.” In this way, we can feel self-satisfied and victimized at the same time.

Everything that human beings do willfully they do at their own choice, of their own volition. It is true that some people feel that certain things have to be done, or that there really is no choice when one is under duress—and within the context of humanity’s extremely limited comprehension, such a view might be understandable. But in reality, even “duress” is just a fancy word meaning “a situation in which I am confronted with a condition I do not consciously desire, or an outcome that—for my own good reasons— I seek to avoid.”

Yet when you consciously sidestep a condition you do not desire, you are serving yourself. And if you seek to avoid something for your own good reasons, then when you avoid it you are once again clearly serving yourself. This does not mean that your reasons are not good, it merely means that the goodness of your reasons does not make them less self-serving. Indeed, just the opposite is true.

(The better is your reason for doing or not doing something, the more self-serving it is—obviously.)

Yet we have been trained to think that anything that is self-serving is “bad,” and so we would much rather say that we “had no choice” than to say that we indeed had a choice, and took the option that we chose because it felt best to us—and thus, served us.

Even the decision to do something for another at great personal inconvenience or loss falls into that category, or you can be assured that it wouldn’t be done. There is some reason that a person makes the decision to do something extraordinary for another, even at their own expense or risk.

Perhaps the reason is that it makes them feel good. Perhaps the reason is that it brings them a direct experience of the kind of person they see themselves being, or wish to be. Perhaps the reason is that it allows them to feel true to a life principle they’ve committed to live by, or to an obligation they genuinely feel, or to a promise they have made.

All of these reasons, and many more that one could come up with, serve the ultimate interest of the self. And there is nothing wrong with this. What is not beneficial is serving the self, then telling oneself (and others) that one is not doing so.

We see, then, that true self-sacrifice is not possible, but faux self-sacrifice is, within the limited framework of most human understanding. Yet our larger awareness—the awareness   of the Soul—tells us exactly why we do everything . . . and the reason always serves the agenda of the doer, thus is always self-serving. Further, it ought to be. It is intended to be. For the purpose of life itself is to allow us to “show up” in every moment as the grandest version of the greatest vision ever we held about Who We Are.

When we become clear about this we eliminate the possibility of harboring anger or resentment toward anyone else regarding anything we have ever done for them, may now be doing, or may think that we “have to do.”

We can no longer feel victimized by another, nor even by our own choices, but are invited to claim our place as the powerful sentient being that we are, clearly seeing all the options and outcomes before us in any given moment, and clearly choosing the ones that we see serving us in the best way.

What we may be missing here—an insight that would turn everything around for us if we saw it clearly—is that all self-service is service to the whole. It may take a deeper level of thinking for all members of a species to “get” this, but all members of all species eventually do. Ultimately, at a certain point in the evolutionary development of a species, this becomes crystal clear:

All self-service is service to the whole.

There are multiple reasons this is true, as will become apparent before this narrative is concluded. The lens of humanity’s understanding is clouded, at best, and totally obscured in our worst moments, due to the extraordinarily young age of our species. Our immaturity is revealed and demonstrated when, upon encountering severe physical or emotional pain, we feel that “this should not be happening,” and that its occurrence is somehow a “violation” of the human contract. A reversal of this single assessment can eliminate “suffering” from the human experience.

While such a change of mind does not erase the pain, it transmutes it, turning it into something that can be encountered with a higher degree of even peaceful acceptance, and certainly with a great deal less—if any—objection or opposition.

It is objection or opposition that creates the brittle rigidity that produces suffering—and prolongs it. For it is as Conversations with God tells us: What you resist, persists, and what you look at, disappears. That is, it ceases to have its illusory form.

A classic example of this can be a woman in childbirth. She is in pain, but if she relinquishes any opposition to it, she can reduce—and often completely eliminate—”suffering.” She can even, by this device, reduce the pain itself.

There are those who understand this very well, and who see pain as a natural part of every birthing process. Not just the birthing of a baby, but even the emerging of a new and greater aspect of the Self.

In children we often call these experiences “growing pains.” They are precisely the same in adults.

Fair enough, some may concede, but must these “growing pains” continue throughout one’s entire life? Is there to be no relief, ever, from this ongoing and ever-visited experience? Is the human journey to be an endless rush through tiny valleys of happiness to the next mountain of physical or emotional pain?

No. It does not need to be this way. Tiny valleys of happiness can turn into expansive plains of joy. The scales of life need not be heavily tipped toward emotional or physical discomfort—and even if certain physical pain is chronic, the abandonment or prohibition of joy is not a required accompaniment to that condition.

Many people who experience chronic physical pain have nevertheless found joy and happiness to be the prevalent circumstance of their life. Persons encountering ongoing emotional pain have likewise discovered that there are effective ways to ameliorate that condition and that they need not automatically forfeit delight, pleasure, and merriment in their lives.

It is quite amazing to observe the degree to which a non-combative, non-oppositional attitude toward pain can begin to immunize a person to the worst ravages of it. A person’s subjective, or inner, decision can and does affect a person’s objective, or outer, experience. There is not a psychologist in the world who would disagree with that.

Metaphysics goes one step further. It says that a person’s interior holding of an event can actually change the event itself. In other words, a positive attitude about any negative occurrence can actually transmogrify the occurrence itself—even as it is occurring.

How is this possible?

It is possible because everything in life is energy. And energy affects energy. It is a phenomenon that impacts upon itself. Science observes this through quantum physics, which posits that nothing that is observed in unaffected by the observer. This is pure science, not hocus-pocus.

So let’s highlight this intriguing statement once again here, so that you can get the full impact of it: A person’s subjective, or inner, decision can and does affect a person’s objective, or outer, experience.

It is within this context that the statement is made that long-suffering need not be part of the human condition. Not only does God not specifically reward it, God promises that it is not even necessary.

As well, it should be made clear that affecting one’s own happiness in an irreversible way—to say nothing of ending one’s life—through an act that is labeled “martyrdom for God” is not something for which God offers a special reward. The act of taking the lives of others along with one’s own as the very point of such “martyrdom” likewise will not, and will never, be rewarded with special honors or special treatment in paradise.

Persons who imagine that by killing themselves in an act of terrorism that kills others they will earn a unique, distinct, and exclusive “payoff ” in the afterlife will find that no such unique payoff is waiting.

Unlike on the earth, everyone is treated exactly alike in heaven. No one is raised higher, nor placed lower, than anyone else, no matter what they have or have not done during their physical life, and the wonders of the afterlife are not merit awards that are earned.

To put this simply: heaven is not a meritocracy. The joys of the spiritual realm—as with the joys of the physical realm—are the gifts of life itself, joyously created and freely given to all by God.

The doctrine of a God who parcels out rewards in heaven based on the quality and the content of one’s “performance” on the earth reduces the whole of life’s magnificent process to the monotonous mechanics of a mundane meritocracy.

As well, such a dogma makes a muddle of the concept of reincarnation, for if one’s particular status in heaven is a “reward” for exemplary behavior on the earth, that status would have to be revised with each succeeding incarnation—raising the almost silly question: Does one’s “standing” go up or down based on the “achievements” or “failures” of one’s most recent physicalization? No.

Heaven is not a meritocracy.

It is time to let go of our notion of a God who admires, honors, and rewards self-sacrifice more than self-service, long-suffering more than lifelong joy, and martyrdom more than merry-making.

We have lived long enough with our childish concept of a God who has gone so far as to say that even music and dancing is “bad,” that sex without the intention of procreation is lustful and bestial, that glorious self-celebration is worth less than continuous self-denial, and that the foregoing of some of the grandest joys of our oh-so-short life on the earth is what earns us the grandest joys of everlasting life in paradise.

We have lived long enough with our childish idea of a God who lays down “rules” for human behavior that dictate what we may or may not eat, may or may not wear, may or may not say, and may or may not believe. These jejune and puerile theological constructions have nothing to do with Ultimate Reality.

Or, as one observer wryly put it: “No more Jonah and the Whale.”

 

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:
  • Awareness

    I was touched strongly by the “high energy” and “high vibration” of this video on youtube (titled “Bashar – Tú eres la Creación Infinita”) of BASHAR’s speech (channeled by Darryl Anka) that I decided to share it’s transcript below:

    “We would have you understand that the flame that you are burns eternally and shall never go out no matter how bright you allow yourself to become. We shall have you understand that you exist now and always shall and you always have, because now is the only time and the only place and the only existence there is and always has been and ever shall be.

    You are eternal. You are infinite. You are spirit. You are body. You are mind. You are heart. You are soul. You are an idea, you are an expression, you are a thought, you are a dream of the Infinite creation. But that is reality. And all reality is couched within your dream. You contain it all; you are the whole expression in your own individualized way. You are the matrix; the matrix is you. You are everything; everything comes from you. Everything gives birth to you, as you reinforce the existence of everything and everyone.

    All That Is, the infinite creation, the fabric of existence CHOSE YOU; chose that you should exist; chose you — CONSCIOUSLY! chose you. You are in that way therefore BLESSED, and we would have you understand that simply because of the fact that you exist, you are blessed. For you are created out of divine material, out of divine light. You are the infinite creator. And your existence was a conscious decision, a conscious thing, a conscious choice. Act in like manner. Be of like mind. Respect yourselves. Love yourselves UNCONDITIONALLY. For out of unconditional love were you created and out of unconditional love shall you create anything you desire.

    BEGIN to feel the energy of your interlinking with all thought forms, all consciousness, all civilizations, all eyes, all ideas, all mind, all hearts, all souls, all spirit is one. And you are one within that sea, within that pool. Know that you are the fabric and the essence of the galactic energy. Not one of you, in that sense — can be removed from the matrix without the collapse of the entire structure.

    You are integral in that way; you are essential in that way, and we would have you understand that because you are interconnected in this way, because everything you do has impact within the entirety of creation — that you deserve to exist in this way and you deserve to be the fullest individual you can imagine yourself to be; that you deserve to manifest all the things you can conceive of; that you deserve the existence you have been given or it would not have been granted to you; that you deserve all the love you can imagine because love is what you are made out of; that you deserve all the light that you can create in your life because light is what you are made out of.

    FEEL in the beating of you heart that it keeps pace with the rhythm and the pulse of the spinning of all the galaxies, of the fabric of existence itself, of the universal Heart of Infinite Creation, for you all beat within that heart and NOT A ONE OF YOU is outside the Heart of All That Is. You are the blood and the life force of God itself. It is your force and your life as well. You are it, and it is you.

    Out of your dreams, be born.
    Out of your heart, be alive.
    Out of your soul, be light.

    For you are nothing else.” 🙂

    Bless ALL 🙂

  • Patrick Gannon

    Once again – what would be the difference in the “what if” question, if there was no God? None at all as best I can tell.

    Most likely we act as we do because we are the product of millions of years of evolution and this is what we have evolved to be. Neale says, “Everything that human beings do willfully they do at their own choice, of their own volition.” That may or may not be so. Whether we actually have free will or not is hotly debated. Recent, repeatable experiments indicate that the physical brain knows what decision we are going to make before we are consciously aware of having made it. We could simply be the sum of our genes and whatever they condition us to do as a result of millions of years of evolution; or we could be part of a simulation, or we could exist in one or more realities, etc.. We don’t know and neither does Neale. He almost always speaks in absolutes, something that should immediately be suspect to the open minded, yet skeptical reader. If you take note, you’ll see that people who truly are knowledgeable in a subject, constantly phrase their words to admit uncertainty, while those with ignorance in the matter, tend to speak freely on subjects about which they know little or nothing. All clergy for example.

    Neale says: “Science observes this through quantum physics, which posits that nothing that is observed in unaffected by the observer. This is pure science, not hocus-pocus.” Actually it is hocus-pocus. Science does not yet understand quantum mechanics in full and of course not being a theoretical physicist, neither does Neale. There are any number of compelling explanations and arguments you can find on the web if you look, that refute Neale’s assertion. If in fact, the observer can affect outcomes then prove it. Hold a global experiment in which thousands of people affect the outcome of a random number generator, for example. The usurping of quantum physics by the likes of Walsch and Chopra when neither has any expertise in the subject is very disturbing and does a disservice to the lazy, foolish and ignorant who are all too willing to jump on easy answers from the prophets, while avoiding the hard work necessary to understand the subject. Fundies do the same thing with evolution. There are videos out there of Chopra being humiliated by “real” theoretical physicists. Walsch, in my view is attempting to cherry picking science in the same way a fundamentalist cherry picks the bible.

    He says, “A person’s subjective, or inner, decision can and does affect a person’s objective, or outer, experience.” What if that subjective inner decision is being made by the brain, and the person’s objective or “outer experience” is an illusion generated by the brain that we call conscious self awareness? The science seems to indicate that this is how it works. It may turn out that there really is no free will; that the brain is the ship and we – our awareness or consciousness – are mere illusory passengers. The point is – we don’t know yet. If we come to the realization that the brain is in control, then a certain amount of empathy for the unwelcome actions of so many people would have to be considered. It may turn out that we – our conscious awareness – truly aren’t responsible for our actions, and that our free-will awareness is an illusion. Sam Harris in his short book “Free Will” offers a compelling argument worth reading. For now, we don’t know for sure, but the evidence seems to lead to the brain and our genetic makeup as being what we really are, or may be – mechanized carriers for evolving genes. We’ll figure it out in time, but we should be prepared for the distinct possibility that we won’t like the answers.

    It’s not just time to “let go of our notion of a God who admires, honors, and rewards self-sacrifice more than self-service, long-suffering more than lifelong joy, and martyrdom more than merry-making,” it’s time to let go of the notion of God in its entirety – or at least to begin by accepting that we don’t know if there is a god and all the Neale Walsch’s in the world, don’t know either. Letting go of the “notion of God” is, in my viewpoint, where we need to go in order to face a truth every single one of us knows; and that is: WE DON’T KNOW. Stop creating internal conflicts in yourself by insisting that you believe whatever Neale or anyone else tells you to believe. Don’t allow other people to fill you with their beliefs.

    • Awareness

      Thanks for your post 🙂

      “Patrick Gannon” wrote: “Stop creating internal conflicts in yourself by insisting that you believe whatever Neale or anyone else tells you to believe. Don’t allow other people to fill you with their beliefs”

      I note though that Neale Donald Walsch’s book “Conversations with God” agrees and tells us not to believe a word it says (I have repeatedly posted quotes from the book indicating this). Neale’s “Conversations with God” tells us to “think” for ourselves and to go within for answers 🙂

      Cosmic Awareness (GREAT SPIRIT! GREAT AWARENESS!) also agrees and asks us to believe nothing and QUESTION everything 🙂

      BASHAR (channeled by Darryl Anka) also agrees as follows:

      Allow us to begin with a suggestion, if you wish, a favor… alright? The favor I will ask and what can be considered as a model of any interaction we have with you will be to PLEASE—PLEASE—DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING I SAY just because I said it. Understand?

      This is all about self-empowerment; it’s all about your recognition of your ability to create the lives you wish to create. We are more than willing to share with you, to interact with you and to play with you. But remember that you, us, all beings are teachers and learners; equals in that way. We have our own perspectives and we simply function as mirrors to reflect to you the things you already know within you. To show you, to allow you to be aware of certain ideas, perspectives and methodologies—which you can then decide if they represent what you prefer. Or you can decide if you do not prefer them; it is up to you. You decide if these ideas are useful in helping create the reality you prefer. These ideas and explorations are not “the final word” on anything, nor do they claim to be. We are only sharing our perspectives, our perceptions. However, this information has a purpose to it, in the sense of giving you certain tools to allow you to change your reality in the way that you want; to allow you to become familiar with these tools and get to know that they can work for you very quickly. These ideas, if you choose to apply them, can elevate you, can integrate you beyond the need for pain. Because all pain is resistance; separation from your natural self. You can always create for yourself whatever it is you prefer; you do not need us or to be in contact with us to do so. For quite some time many of you have been exploring and investigating concepts of expansion, concepts of growth, concepts that you label “new age” or “higher consciousness” ideas. Many of you have been exploring these ideas in many different ways; you do not have to have used that terminology to have explored these ideas. It is about finding your true self, about who and what you really are all about—not what others think you ought to be, not what others think you should be, not what others think you should not be. But what you know in your heart you can be, what you know in your heart you wish and desire to be…and then fulfilling that reality.” 🙂

      I recall an interview where Darryl Anka mentions BASHAR speaking with “real” physicists and them coming away happy 🙂

      Bless ALL 🙂

      • Patrick Gannon

        “Bashar is a multi-dimensional extra-terrestrial being who speaks through channel Darryl Anka from what we perceive as the future.”

        And we’re supposed to believe this? An alien from the future? Oh look! There’s BigFoot outside my window waving at the UFO which just landed on my lawn. Oh no, I think they want to perform sexual experiments on me. Gotta run!

        • Awareness

          “PLEASE—PLEASE—DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING I SAY just because I said it. Understand?” by BASHAR (channeled by Darryl Anka) 🙂

          Bless ALL 🙂

          • Patrick Gannon

            If you’re going to post silliness like this, then have the guts to take a position on it.

          • Awareness

            Lets put it this way, you don’t have to read my posts 🙂 Find something that makes you happy 🙂 I am happy with my style of participation on this site 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

          • Patrick Gannon

            So you’re irrelevant. You’re basically a troll. Got it. I shall go back to ignoring you, assuming we survive “Wave X” over the next few days. ROTFLMAO

          • Awareness

            And a reminder for you 🙂

            “Judge NOT and neither condemn, for you know not why a thing occurs, nor to what end”. “And remember you this: that which you condemn will condemn you, and that which you judge, YOU WILL ONE DAY BECOME“. “Rather, seek to change those things-or support others who are changing those things-which no longer reflect your highest sense of Who you Are”. “Yet, BLESS ALL-for ALL is the creation of God, through life living, and that is the HIGHEST CREATION” – “Conversations with God” by Neale Donald Walsch 🙂

            I need nothing from you, you go your way and I go mine 🙂
            Bless ALL 🙂

    • Patrick Gannon

      I’d like to update my comment regarding Neale’s “definition” of quantum mechanics. What I object to is speaking in absolutes. The notion itself may not be hocus-pocus, but using it in this way is. If he had said that some scientists, or even, ‘an increasing number of scientists,’ are researching the role of the “observer” to our perceived reality, that would be true. The expression he used is one that Neale apparently coined, as I can’t find anything close to that particular expression from any scientific source. He’s passing off as true, something that as yet can only be believed. It may be more like the observer and the observed are both part of a simulation; hence the “observer” may be as nebulous as that which is observed.

      More and more it looks like we are a simulation running in a holographic universe where notions of self-awareness and free will are illusions. The basic component may be something we refer to as “consciousness” and we may be individuations of it, but the question of whether our memories and self-awareness can survive without the brain, is very much open to question.

      • I n the end, nothing can be proven—only believed. Even science requires belief.

        • Patrick Gannon

          I agree with that, but there are degrees of proof, and eventually you reach a point such as with germ theory, gravitation, cosmology, evolution, etc. where the room for belief gets very small, because we only believe what we don’t know and we keep learning more, so there’s less and less room for belief to be necessary. What empirical evidence about “god” have we been accumulating to support that hypothesis?

          More on Neale’s quantum mechanics quote. I’ve read those couple paragraphs a dozen times, and still struggle with them, because it’s not necessarily untrue, but it’s also incomplete and the relevance is not spelled out clearly. In quantum mechanics to “observe” means to measure. Neale seems to be proposing that if we just have enough positive mental energy we can stop cancers dead in their tracks and heal our OCD and depression, and essentially says, if I read him right, that quantum mechanics proves this. I don’t see the connection. I need it spelled out more clearly; otherwise it’s just scientism, using terms out of context or incompletely. I don’t know a single mainstream scientist who has said that quantum mechanics proves we can use our consciousness to affect matter, or anything remotely like that. That seems to be what he’s insinuating, and if so, I see that as hocus pocus.

          In any event, if we assume it’s true, then what it also says to me, is that if you can’t do this; if you can’t leverage your energy to control some other energy, it’s because you’re weak, or you didn’t try hard enough, or you’re a loser. It says, you have this capability, but your character is not strong enough to let you exercise it (hmm – but buy the program or attend the seminar!). It’s like the religious people who avoid medical care for their kids and pray, and when the kid dies, the minister says they didn’t pray hard enough, or didn’t have a strong enough faith. How is that any different from what Neale is saying here?

          On the other hand, most people should like the materialist alternative, because most people don’t want to take personal responsibility for themselves, and it may turn out in the long run that they really aren’t – that their “genes” are in charge, and our bodies are the mechanisms by which they continue to evolve.

          Science doesn’t ask us to believe this or anything else. Science will simply work to find out the truth. Science starts by admitting ignorance, then seeks truth. Religions (including the New Spirituality) don’t do that, do they? Religion claims truth, then seeks the ignorant to sell it to.

          • Ever hear the phrase, “methinks thou dost protest too much?”

            Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            Methinks most people don’t like to have their beliefs questioned. It reminds them of what they really know.

          • What I really know , through my own personal experiences and investigations, is that (a) God exists, (b) God communicates with people, as God has communicated with me, (c) Souls exist, as I have experienced the vastness of my own, and (d) we are all literally connected through the energy of which we all consist, making all of us One, verified through my empathic experiences, having felt the energy of other living things, among them people, animals, plants, earth, wind, water, and fire.

            What do you know? Apparently nothing whatsoever as nothing can meet your standard of proof.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Annie, thanks for sharing. Based on my understanding of the word, you cannot “know” that God exists, because God cannot be proven. I can’t prove God doesn’t exist either. The point is – we don’t know. Telling yourself that you “know” God exists, when this is really an unsupported belief, sets up internal conflict (I propose) in your brain; because your brain knows that there’s no proof for God.

            What you “know” as God communicating with you, is again belief in my view. There is no empirical evidence to confirm that God communicated with you. You can’t prove it to me or anyone else, can you? It’s a belief. You could very well be delusional. I leave open the possibility that “God” actually communicated with you, but for everyone else, this must be treated as belief not truth, because it’s not provable (thus far). No matter how fervently you believe that God communicated with you, there’s every possibility – indeed probability – that you simply dreamed or imagined it, or misinterpreted it. Happens all the time.

            What is a soul? That could simply be a word that means life. Life on our planet apparently exists (unless all this is a simulation). I can’t debate whether a soul exists till I know what you mean by that. Consciousness? Is that the soul? It could be – but then again consciousness seems to emerge from the brain. We don’t know. Therefore if you associate the soul with consciousness, then you can’t prove it exists, or what it is, because we don’t know yet.

            I’m actually going to agree with you on the last point, though not in the same way. We are of course, all interconnected at the atomic level; we’re all made of the same stuff, and stuff is energy. It’s a cool concept but it doesn’t prove anything about the existence or non-existence of God. As for your empathy and feelings – sure of course you experienced that. Those were your perceptions. That doesn’t prove anything except that you had particularly memorable or vivid or emotional perceptions. So what? So have I. It doesn’t prove God exists.

            What do I know? Practically nothing. You got that right. When it comes to understanding the great mysteries, the more I learn, the more I understand that I know almost nothing and never will. What do I know? I prefer the term “think” to “know” because I am coming to understand that I can’t even begin to know what I don’t know. Given that, I think that believing something that can’t be proven is lying to myself; even if I really like the belief. What I know, I guess, is that I’m trying to be honest and not lie to myself, and inviting others to consider doing the same. It’s not the easy path.

            Standard of proof – simple: beyond a reasonable doubt. I am convinced that the earth goes around the sun, even though personal perception would lead us to believe that the opposite is true. I have seen enough evidence to convince me that the earth circles the sun. Though I leave a tiny crack open for the possibility that this is all an illusion or something to that effect, for all intents and purposes I know that the earth circles the sun in this physical matter reality. I don’t need to believe it. Give me that kind of evidence for God – beyond a reasonable doubt – anything else is potentially harmful as an internal conflicting belief, in my opinion.

          • God, and my experiences, are known experientially. Just because you discount experience, even repeatable experience, doesn’t mean the rest of the world does.

            Annie

          • Know :
            (1) be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
            (2) informal: be clued in, savvy.
            (3) have knowledge or information concerning.
            (4) formal: be cognizant of
            (5) be absolutely certain or sure about something.
            (6) have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with.
            (7) have a good command of (a subject or language).
            (8) recognize (someone or something).
            (9) be familiar or acquainted with (something).
            (10) have personal experience of (an emotion or situation).
            (11) regard or perceive as having a specified characteristic.
            (12) give (someone or something) a particular name or title.
            (13) be able to distinguish one person or thing from (another).

            Google 9/16/15

          • Patrick Gannon

            We’re not aware of God through observation, inquiry or information. We have no direct knowledge or information regarding God. No evidence exists for a direct meeting with God in this physical matter reality.

            In general, I agree with and abide by the definition of “know” as you have listed it – particularly number 5. If you are not absolutely sure of something, then you can only believe it.

          • Gee, how did I know you’d focus on #5?

            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            You “knew” because I’ve provided extensive evidence that makes it a logical prediction. You didn’t guess. You didn’t have to “believe” it.

            I said earlier that knowing meant, beyond reasonable doubt. I’ve spoken again and again about empirical evidence, observation, experiment, documentation, etc. I think that what I’ve written would lead an aware observer to know that #5 was what I mean by the word “know,” within the context of our discussion. It wasn’t necessary to “believe” that I would lean towards #5, there was practically a certainty that I would; just as there’s near certainty that the sun will reappear tomorrow morning. None of that certainty exists for God or an afterlife.

            That’s what to “know” means.

          • WRONG! I knew because it was the only definition that contained the term “absolutely certain,” which is far from reasonable doubt. And, it’s the truth you keep hiding from yourself in all your fancy words: you only believe in that which is absolutely certain.

            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            I disagree that ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘absolutely certain’ are far from each other. And given that nothing is “absolutely certain” it follows that I don’t believe anything – which is where I started. Thank you for finally agreeing that I don’t hold beliefs despite your continued accusations to that effect.

            In any event, “God” in the theistic sense is neither “absolutely certain” or “beyond reasonable doubt.”

          • Patrick Gannon

            You mentioned above that 95% of people believe in a higher power. I submit that an even higher percentage of people believed that the earth was flat; it was the center of the universe and the sun went around it. All those people were delusional. They were wrong. Every day I “experience” the sun moving across the horizon as though it is going around the earth – my “experience” is incorrect. The sun is not going around the earth.

          • Actually, you’re beating a dead horse with the couple of paragraphs about quantum physics. Over and over and over again.

            A.

          • Sorry, but I missed this earlier:

            You said, “In any event, if we assume it’s true, then what it also says to me, is that if you can’t do this; if you can’t leverage your energy to control some other energy, it’s because you’re weak, or you didn’t try hard enough, or you’re a loser. It says, you have this capability, but your character is not strong enough to let you exercise it (hmm – but buy the program or attend the seminar!). It’s like the religious people who avoid medical care for their kids and pray, and when the kid dies, the minister says they didn’t pray hard enough, or didn’t have a strong enough faith. How is that any different from what Neale is saying here?” (Patrick Gannon)

            There’s what’s been bothering me all along, with most of your “logic.” There’s a huge leap between what Neale has said and “then what that also says to [you].” That’s only what that says to you. Not to anyone else.

            But you are asking us to follow you in your folly by continuing your argument. I have seen no proof provided by you that Neale believes “if you can’t leverage your energy…” that the reason is for any of the negative reasons you’ve listed, and it’s one’s ancient beliefs that get in the way of one’s learning how to do so, which we inherently know how to do. That’s all Neale has said is all we need do. There’s no blame and negativity in not knowing.

            I knew it bothered me, and there were reasons I have felt that there’s some kind of leap you would ask us to take, but I couldn’t pin it down. Now I know what it is: you ask us to believe your starting points in your arguments.

            No thanks.

            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            No I have never asked you to believe anything, Annie, I have only suggested that people question the beliefs that Neale (or anyone for that matter) preaches about. He has repeatedly said we have to change our beliefs. I have proposed again and again, that perhaps we should not focus on changing beliefs, but instead question whether belief itself is a good or potentially harmful (as I propose). Although you have done very little to respond to that hypothesis, it’s clear to me, that you agree with Neale that beliefs (and in particular his beliefs) are something we should accept or at least not question. I disagree and I’m entitled to my opinion and I’m sorry that it annoys you so much that I disagree with Neale, but that’s your problem, not mine. .

            I disagree that there’s a huge leap between what Neale says and how I interpret it. I’ve been reading the man’s books for years now. I know his message and material pretty well. I can even pick out the material that he got from other people. I’m pretty confident that much of “Home with God” comes right out of Dr Newton’s “Journey of Souls.” Some of his material comes from Robert Heinlein. He’s a businessman selling “belief” as his product. Some of the beliefs may be his, some, it seems to me, he got from other people. I don’t think he really has anything original to say. To me it appears that he mostly wrapped up other works in a different package.

            I confess that I’ve read your post a few times, and I’m not sure what you’re saying. You seem to be attempting to deny me the right to disagree and voice my own opinion. You seem to be saying that I have no right to read his material and come to a different conclusion than you. Well tough beans. Deal with it.

            I don’t think I said that Neale believes that if you can’t leverage your energy the reason is for any of the reasons I’ve listed. Of course he doesn’t believe that. That is what I am proposing. He may or may not see the problem the whole Law of Attraction thing creates. If you fail to attract that which you desire and you’re doing your utmost to “believe” properly, and you still don’t get it, then what is the average person to think? When I was unable to achieve out-of-body experiences after numerous attempts, I was left with three possibilities: 1) It’s my fault. I’m not doing it right. There’s something wrong with me. 2) This is not possible. The people who claim that it is are delusional. 3) It may be possible, and I have not yet achieved it, and 4) the scientific evidence indicating that it can be manually induced by stimulating the brain properly indicates that it’s not the experience it seems to be in the first place.

            These options, and there may be others, are what people are left with when they follow Neale and other New Ager’s instructions for what we’re really discussing here, which is the Law of Attraction. Debunking the LOA is not something I initiated. There are many people who have proposed exactly what I said – that the LOA is dangerous because it can make people feel like failures. Having had my own personal experience, I am compelled to agree that this is a legitimate concern, and much as you may disagree, it is my right to hold this opinion and express it. Just ‘google’ “debunking the law of attraction” and you’ll find a lot more than what I have offered; but then people who believe things seldom seek out information that challenges their beliefs, do they?

            Annie, why do you care so much that I disagree with Neale’s approach? Why is this so personal to you? I can’t help but wonder if you’re drawn to my arguments because, you see the logic in them. Perhaps you don’t want to admit that my points are valid because it stresses your belief system, but at the same time, you’re intelligent enough to understand that I may be on to something and you can’t tear yourself away from the argument. I wonder if maybe you want me to convince you that beliefs are mental traps, because deep down you already know it.

          • Patrick,

            You said, “… although you have done very little to respond to that hypothesis, it’s clear to me, that you agree with Neale that beliefs (and in particular his beliefs) are something we should accept or at least not question. ” (Patrick Gannon)

            Untrue. Several articles back, we debated the entire thing. I’m merely choosing not to debate it all over again and make these comments fit your agenda or what you believe the topic should be. And there’s a big difference between “something we should accept”and something we may accept.

            That’s part of what I believe you misinterpret about both Neale and his writings. I see no forcing on Neale’s part. And I’m quite familiar with the books and other articles by Neale. Been reading them for 20 years.

            You also misinterpret my passion for the topic as complete and utter agreement with everything he’s ever said. I retain my own right to interpret what is being shared. To imply I’m some kind of blind faith or literalist groupie of Neale’s is nearly an insult, if I didn’t take into account who said it.

            Don’t worry about my feelings. I’ve faced far tougher challenges than you, starting young and continuing on.

            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            Don’t play the martyr, Annie. It’s my perception (which I am entitled to hold and you are entitled to disagree with), that you have spent more time trying to needle away at me personally, rather than discussing the issue of belief. I don’t recall you ever questioning Neale’s beliefs and message and am pleased that you aren’t in complete and utter agreement with him, though I don’t recall accusing you of that. I’d love to hear more about the areas in which you disagree or question him. I certainly don’t remember accusing you of having “blind faith” or being a “literalist groupie.” If you could please quote me the passages where I said that, I would appreciate it – but we both know you use this tactic, just like fundies, to accuse the debater of things he/she never said in order to attempt to malign the character of the opponent. You even sneaked in a personal insult with that ” if I didn’t take into account who said it” comment. Such a “Christian” thing to do. (sarcasm).

            I don’t recall using the word “forcing” and if I did, I would change that (provide quote please?) but Neale presents his beliefs from a position of authority, invoking God as his source. This is very powerful for people inclined to believe in such things. You can’t “force” someone to believe something, and I don’t think I ever said otherwise, but he sure tries hard to convince us to do so.

            I’m pretty sure that if I was to start searching it wouldn’t take long to find Neale proposing what we “should” accept, versus what we “may” accept; but it’s not worth the hassle. He offers up his message as though it was being preached from the pulpit. In my viewpoint, he’s telling us what we “should” accept, even if from time to time, he gives himself an “out” by saying otherwise.

          • Patrick,

            In my perception (which I am entitled to have), this column is not about what Patrick Gannon chooses the topic to be. It is about the column provided, in this case about whether or not God prefers our suffering in silence.

            I have never sought to be a martyr, dying for the cause. I also never said you called me anything. I said you implied it. And I quote again: “… it’s clear to me, that you agree with Neale that beliefs (and in particular his beliefs) are something we should accept or at least not question. ” (Patrick Gannon)

            Also: “You even sneaked in a personal insult with that ‘if I didn’t take into account who said it’ comment.” (Patrick Gannon) If you choose to take what I wrote as a personal insult, that’s up to you. Or, are you now also reading my emotions and attaching them to my words, as well as my motives?

            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            It’s probably best that we stop communicating with each other. I raise a point (which is clearly related to the column at hand), and you have no interest in discussing it, but only in discussing my personal character. I already know I’m an arrogant a$$hole, so there’s nothing you can tell me about myself that I don’t already know. I’m finished responding to any of your comments, unless you make points that pertain to the subject at hand. Bye bye.

          • Excellent idea.

            I hope this means you’ll be able to put more of your attention on the subject of the column rather than your own personal agenda.

            ~Annie

    • Oh, Patrick. *sigh*

      Once again your double-standard for your own opinions and any requirement of proof, compared to any claim of Neale’s and a higher degree of proof required by you is blatantly shown in your comments.

      Please indicate what proof you you have found that “most likely we act as we do because we are the product of millions of years of evolution and this is what we have evolved to be” that is stronger, more backed up by scientific proofs, or more believed by scientists (and by that, I mean mainstream scientists, not the fringe ones you prefer) than Neale’s assertion that science indicates that “nothing that is observed is unaffected by the observer.”

      This bit of scientific proof isn’t “cherry-picked” as you propose, but like many scientific and mathematical proofs, can and does stand alone.

      It’s you who brings smoke and mirrors, or “hocus-pocus” to the conversation by requiring Neale to meet a standard your own scientists cannot meet.

      The “wizard’s curtain” is opened, and the inequality is revealed.

      ~Annie

      • Patrick Gannon

        No, the higher degree of proof falls on Neale because he’s telling you to believe something. I’m not. I’m telling you to question everything – including anything I might suggest. Anyone who claims to be a messenger from God should be doubly scrutinized.

        I’ve been reading a fair amount about the role of genes in evolution. I subscribe to scientific journals and keep reading stories of growing evidence that the evolution of our genes plays a huge role in who we are. Nobody, not even materialists and determinists really likes the idea that we aren’t in charge, but the evidence keeps growing…. We may be far more pre-programmed than we’d like to believe. The closer you look at it, the more it looks like we (and other organisms) are just carriers for our genes, and in the grand scheme of things, it’s our genes that may really be in charge, not us (whatever “us” is). It’s not just nature, there’s nurture too; but nature plays a huge role.

        Neale says we act as we do because we believe in the wrong God, and if we believe in his God, everything will be just fine. That’s the same thing (the mythical) Moses, Paul and Mohammed said. My question is – why should we believe in anybody’s God? There may be a god, but believing it won’t change it. There either is or isn’t, but since we don’t know, we shouldn’t set up internal conflicts in our brains by telling ourselves we do know – in my opinion.

        • There you go again, Patrick. I asked a very specific question, and you completely avoided it.

          Again, what scientific proof by mainstream scientists is there that we are any more a product of our genes that is more reliable than the scientific proofs offered that nothing observed is unaffected by the observer. (Which, BTW, would include the observation of our genes.)

          Annie

          PS (And you really ought to stop misquoting Neale, which I believe you do on purpose.)

          • Patrick Gannon

            Read about the ‘selfish gene theory’ and then get back to me.

            Not sure how I misquoted Neale. Examples? Some time ago I provided a direct quote out of CwG1 where he calls himself a “messenger.” Is that what you refer to? Please look it up yourself.

            What has been proven over and over again is that small particles act like waves unless or until they are measured (observed), in which case the wave is said to collapse and the particle acts like a particle again. We don’t know if the measurement affects the experiment, though the double eraser experiment would seem to show that it doesn’t, but nobody understands it. We’re measuring particles with other particles – photons – what the eye or measuring device use, and we don’t know for sure whether those photons affect the experiment, though all attempts are being made to determine this conclusively. At any rate, how does that prove one can use his or her own personal energy to affect other matter (which is made of energy) at the command of the individual as Neale seems to suggest? All it proves is that when you run that experiment, you get those results. You can attempt to draw conclusions from it, and some of that conjecture might turn out to be correct, but Neale’s claim seems to be far broader than what can be conjectured from this phenomenon based on the current understanding.

    • Et tu, Patrick?

      “If you take note, you’ll see that people who truly are knowledgeable in a subject, constantly phrase their words to admit uncertainty, while those with ignorance in the matter, tend to speak freely on subjects about which they know little or nothing.”

      “Most likely we act as we do because we are the product of millions of years of evolution and this is what we have evolved to be.”

      “Science does not yet understand quantum mechanics in full and of course not being a theoretical physicist, neither does Neale. ”

      “The usurping of quantum physics by the likes of Walsch and Chopra when neither has any expertise in the subject is very disturbing and does a disservice to the lazy, foolish and ignorant who are all too willing to jump on easy answers from the prophets, while avoiding the hard work necessary to understand the subject. Fundies do the same thing with evolution.”

      “… it’s time to let go of the notion of God in its entirety.”

      “Don’t allow other people to fill you with their beliefs.”

      Isn’t that all you do is paraphrase the ideas of others, put in your head? Hmmm? At least those who believe in One thing are consistent.

      Annie

      • Patrick Gannon

        Annie I don’t get your point. I work hard not to speak in absolutes, though I may err from time to time. I expressed a couple opinions – that is what this blog is for, isn’t it? What you’ve done is what other religionists do. You stopped debating the subject and went after me. The subject is belief. The subject I raised is whether there is any difference in Neale’s dialogue if we assume that there is no god at all versus what he suggests, which is that we’ve got God all wrong – we need to believe in his version of god. In this post, you don’t address that at all – you attack me. This is a common tactic of religionists. Attack away, if it makes you feel good; but at least admit to yourself that you’re avoiding the main topic and I can see right through that. No more tit for tat here. I’m done unless you raise issues pertinent to the subject at hand. You don’t like me because I question the common wisdom – fine. So does Neale. Keep that in mind.

        • You choose not to get my point. And you attack Neale as much as I attack you, so what’s your point?

          You claim Neale and others like him fill our heads with unproven nonsense. You tell us to “stop creating internal conflicts in yourself by insisting that you believe whatever Neale or anyone else tells you to believe. Don’t allow other people to fill you with their beliefs.”

          Then you go on and on with statements of your own beliefs that are phrased as certainties. That was the purpose of the list of quotes of things you shared, and the truth you refuse to see, which is that you are just as much guilty of trying to fill people’s minds with beliefs as is anyone else here. Even more so, you are determined for some reason to prove Neale “wrong,” no matter what it is that he says.

          Blunt enough for even you to get it?

          Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            Neale puts himself out there. It’s part of being a public figure – particularly one who claims to be a messenger from God. If you think I’m hard on him, you should browse around the web and see what fundamentalist Christians say about him. We’ve had a few here, point out that he’s the devil; a false god, an anti-Christ. I’m pretty generous by comparison. I actually agree conceptually with a great deal of what he proposes. I still use arguments I got from CwG to debate fundies. There’s some good stuff in there, and if he had called it Conversations with Life or something else and kept God out of it – it might not have sold as well, but at least the ideas could have been legitimately treated philosophically rather than religiously or theologically.

            My argument, which you continue to ignore, is that what he proposes is as yet unprovable and unknowable and to say otherwise is to lie to ourselves. I propose that his approach of pushing his beliefs and ideas authoritatively through religious means (once you bring God into it, it’s religious like it or not), is counterproductive to the mental health of the individuals who accept it, and to society as a whole as a result of so many of it’s members being afflicted with internal mental conflict and cognitive dissonance. Please note the use of the words, “I propose.” I’m not telling anyone to believe this. I’m not saying I know this.

            I can’t prove this; I propose it as a question. However I see it everywhere I look. It may end up that we are better off lying to ourselves because the truth is too difficult to grasp; because we’re still too weak and immature as a species to face our ignorance. I don’t know. It is the question that I pose. It’s the opinions of others I seek. Annie, you don’t seem to have anything to offer, you’re simply mad that I question Neale. I get that, but I won’t stop because you don’t like it.

            Here’s the difference between us from my perspective. Neale tells us he knows. He says we need to believe what he says about God, because what we believe about God now is wrong. The messengers before him were wrong or their message was corrupted, and now we have to believe something else. Neale is making a truth claim based on a higher authority for whom no evidence exists. Neale must defend this when questioned. It’s a burden he bit off when he decided to be God’s messenger. The burden of proof is on him. If he tells us pink unicorns and fairies exist, then the burden of proof is on him, as I see no empirical evidence for God, pink unicorns or fairies.

            Now, I am not making a truth claim; I am asking a question. I put it out as a proposal – is belief in God good or bad – is essentially what it boils down to. I propose that it is bad and I laid out some reasons why I think this may be valid. This is my opinion. I do not speak from a place of truth. I do not tell you that God told me to tell you this is true. I do not put it out there in absolute terms as though I know that it is true – or I try not to. There’s a big difference between us. I’m being philosophical, he’s being theological and religious.

            You’re right. I’m being hard on him. I am questioning the basic premise that he and all other religionists bring to the table – that we have to believe the right thing, and that always means believing what the religionist with whom you are conversing tells you to believe. I don’t see Neale as any different from any other faith-based public figure. I would question the pope much more harshly if I had the opportunity to do so. At least what Neale tells us to believe doesn’t result in the deaths of thousands of children year in and year out through starvation and disease. Some “religions” are definitely worse than others in my view.

          • Oh, Patrick. Where to begin. I guess at the beginning. And, please, let me be direct enough that you can’t avoid it, as you have obviously done in the past.

            It doesn’t matter to me what others call or have called Neale. It doesn’t matter to me that you believe “the ideas” would have sat better with you without God in the picture (though how that’s possible eludes me, as the ideas were God’s, channeled through Neale–and before you even go there, the belief that We Are All One would mean that “the ideas” came from God even if they came from Neale’s unconscious or subconscious mind because everything is One, and the same).

            The “argument” you believe I choose to ignore is that “what [Neale] proposes is as yet unprovable and unknowable and to say otherwise is to lie to ourselves.” I disagree that, first, I have avoided this issue as I have previously stated my own beliefs and the experiences that reinforce them so much that I finally stopped repeating them to avoid boring others with my repetition.

            Second, I disagree that “what [Neale] proposes” is “unknowable.” You may place no value on experiential (rather than experimental) proof, but there are plenty of other people on the planet who do consider it enough proof for themselves. I’m not sure any of them care whether it’s enough for you. I don’t think that I and others are “lying to ourselves” because we believe in our own repeated and repeatable experiences, and the words Neale was given to explain those experiences and bring them to light.

            “I propose that his approach of pushing his beliefs and ideas authoritatively through religious means (once you bring God into it, it’s religious like it or not), is counterproductive to the mental health of the individuals who accept it, and to society as a whole as a result of so many of it’s members being afflicted with internal mental conflict and cognitive dissonance.” Wow. What a wonder-filled sentence. That needs at least a paragraph of its own.

            First, “bringing God into it” makes it Spiritual, not Religious. Religion generally consists of a public statement of belief in one and the same (and only) things believed in by the rest of the members of a formal group. Spirituality, on the other hand, requires no formal statement of agreement, or even a formal group. Religion consists of dogma used by the members, often recited or performed at specific times of the day or season, without fail and without variation. Spirituality allows for the individual expression of one’s beliefs, and requires no formal verbiage be recited nor song sung nor dance steps taken at any particular time. Religion often requires the use of an intercessory between a believer and God. Spirituality denies the need for such an intercessory, believing that humans are good enough to approach Divinity themselves. In fact, some Spiritual people even believe that they are Divine themselves. I do. *gasp*

            Second, Neale hasn’t and doesn’t “push his beliefs and ideas authoritatively” on anyone. If you knew anything at all about “the ideas,” you’d know that one of them has from the beginning been “Ours is not a better way. Ours is merely another way.” Neale is emphatically opposed to the forcing of ideas, Spiritual or otherwise, on anyone. It is the forcing of ideology on others that many, including Neale, believes has been the cause of most, if not all, of the wars humankind has endured.

            I’m not even sure how to address the fact that you see the 95% of the people who believe in some form of a Higher Power as mentally unbalanced and unable to think clearly. After all, if it is the “pushing [of] beliefs and ideas authoritatively through religious means” that is the cause of the counterproductivity to the health of individuals who accept it (meaning only 5% of humanity is sane), then surely the Roman Catholic Empire… err… I mean Church (and it’s subsequent offshoots), has done far more damage “to society as a whole” than has Neale’s combined books, organizations, websites, educational programs, personal appearances, workshops, endorsements (am I leaving anything out?) “as a result of so many of it’s members being afflicted with internal mental conflict and cognitive dissonance.” The scales are tipped mighty heavily against “The Church.”

            “Please note the use of the words, ‘I propose.’ I’m not telling anyone to believe this. I’m not saying I know this.” So noted. Neale, or for that matter I, don’t tell people that what we believe is what they must believe. I am willing to stand by my convictions and say, “I know this to be true for me.” Whether it is true for anyone else is up to them.

            In a way, Patrick, I truly feel sorry for you, floating around out there amongst all the different ideas that come along, bouncing from one to another while you wait for your Ultimate Truth to be found… no anchor, no sail, no oar, and no rudder. Just the idea that somewhere, something can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

            Meanwhile, some of the rest of us choose to move on to a new paradigm.

            Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            I guess what I can take from that, Annie, is that if you believe a thing, that makes it true; and in some sense that is a valid argument. It makes it true for you or for the believer, but it does not necessarily mean it really is true. YECs believe so strongly that the universe is 6000 years old that for them it is true. For the hijackers who flew into the World Towers, martyrdom in Paradise was the ultimate truth – I think that they honestly believed they were going to Paradise. But did they? Did their believing it was true make it true? Does a YEC (young earth creationist) belief that the world was created in 6 days, mean that it really was created as Genesis describes?

            Believing a thing doesn’t make it so, other than for the person who believes it. Deep inside, I think the brain is getting all discombobulated because, in our examples for instance, the brain knows that there’s no evidence for 72 virgins in paradise, and no evidence that the universe is 6000 years old. You look at the behavior and hostility of these groups of people who hold these beliefs so firmly, and my contention that beliefs conflicting with internal knowledge contributes to their less than desirable attitudes and actions, seems plausible. There seems to be a clear correlation; but whether there’s a causation is the question on the table.

            Your description of God is your own. Everyone has something different. That you believe in God does not make it so, anymore than believing the universe is 6000 years old makes it so. Certainly almost all mainstream religionists would disagree with your interpretation of God, right? Let me know when you have convinced the Judeo-Christian religions that your definition of God is correct and their thousands of years of definition are wrong. Let me know how that goes.

            Regarding experiential evidence, I addressed this earlier. This may make a thing true in the mind of the individual who experiences it, but no one else can accept another person’s subjective testimony as valid. Look at the descriptions of any car accident or robbery and see how witnesses frequently get the facts wrong. The brain takes sensory input and comes up with perceptions, but that doesn’t make them true. The brain gets it wrong with great frequency. I agree that if there is a great deal of subjective evidence that confirms a thing, then this evidence can be given weight and consideration; but we don’t have anywhere near enough subjective evidence for Neale’s God or psi effects, or quantum observation permitting us to affect matter, and so forth. Let’s wait for the evidence to come in; or contribute to providing it. I’ve proposed here that Neale get together with his New Age buddies and organize an internet-wide global experiment to see if thousands of people working together can affect the outcome of a random number generator, or something similar. You don’t see any rush by these New Age folks to do this sort of thing because when the Christian community tried this with prayer, it failed miserably.

            “God” is not required for spirituality, as I understand the word. Atheists experience spirituality all the time. Neil Degrasse Tyson, an avowed agnostic, and Carl Sagan before him, describe the feelings of spirituality they experienced when looking into the cosmos in a way that is as, or even more grandiose than anything any godly religionist has written. God is a product of religion. Once Neale made this story about “God” he took on all the established religions as well as all the agnostics and atheists. He took on everybody. I’m sure he appreciates your defense of him, but I suspect he was a big boy when he made the decision to jump into the fray. Do you think any established, mainstream religion appreciates Neale questioning their common wisdom any more than you like me questioning his?

            I have always struggled with “Ours is not a better way, ours is just another way.” It has never made sense to me. If it’s not better, then why on earth should anyone give it any attention? In sales, having a “me too” product is a tough way to make a living. If my product is not better, how can I possibly expect someone to buy it? You know, as I sit and type this it occurs to me that maybe it is valid. Neale’s way is not a better way. It is just another way – another way to fill people’s heads with beliefs rather than admit the truth of our ignorance. It explains, perhaps, why he only goes so far in criticizing religions, and invokes the pope and Billy Graham in his posts, but is happy to join these other religions in disparaging agnostics and atheists. His column several months ago criticizing agnostics and atheists, was the catalyst for my hypothesis that belief itself is the problem we face.

            When I said Neale pushes his concepts authoritatively, I was referring to the fact that he invokes God. Just as the writer of Timothy in the New Testament, claimed to be writing as Paul, in order to give his words more authority (given Paul had likely died several decades prior), so too, Neale uses his supposed conversation with God to give his words more “authority” than they would otherwise have. He did not have authority, as best I know, from an academic or other standpoint for his philosophical views, so he invoked God, the biggest authority there is (in the minds of many). (It now seems rather calculated to me).

            I’m not sure that it’s still true that 95% of people believe in a higher power, and I don’t know if you mean worldwide or here in the US. That would certainly not be true in some Scandinavian or European countries. What I do know is that the fastest growing “religious” group in America is the “nones.” I find this to be very encouraging.

            Don’t feel sorry for me, Annie. That may make you feel better about yourself, but it does nothing at all for me. I don’t feel your sorrow – it’s your derision and hostility that come through loud and clear – and getting back to my point once again – I think this is because of the internal conflict in your brain. It strikes me as predictable behavior. Anyway, no need to feel sorry for me, I’m having a blast. I’m having the best time of my life.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Forgot to comment on this. Annie you said, “… the ideas were God’s, channeled through Neale–”

            Hmm. Neale may take issue with your phraseology, given the following quotations from his discussion with Kristin in his GOD SAYS WE MUST BEG GOD’S FORGIVENESS column here on Aug 16:

            “…I made it very clear that I did and do not “channel” God….”

            “I can confirm unequivocally that I do not “channel” the one we all identify as God.”

            ” No, I am not a “channel” for God”

            “I am not in any way claiming to be a person who “channels” the one that we call God…”

            He goes on to say he was “inspired” and that he practiced “inspired writing.” Well, I’m “inspired” too. I’m “inspired” by the search for truth and knowledge” rather than a presupposed deity for which or for whom there is no direct evidence.

          • I will admit I used the wrong term when I said “channelled.” I should have used “inspired.” then again, aren’t most revelations about God and humanity and the cosmos inspired? Aren’t scientists inspired in their own work?

            As for the rest you’re merely reiterating what I said: my experiential evidence proves my truth to me, not to anyone else, nor do I expect it to.

            Have you ever tried anything experiential to find your own truth? It certainly doesn’t sound like it. Afraid to try?

            ‘~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            Annie, you say that your experiential evidence proves your truth to you, not to anyone else, nor do you expect it to. That’s great. Neale however does expect others to believe his experiential evidence. Oh, he says from time to time that we all have to decide these things for ourselves, but his occupation is selling his beliefs to others. He repeatedly holds up his books as though they were authoritative scripture, invoking “God” to empower his message. He openly insists that the answer to all our problems is to change our beliefs – to what he believes… just as every religious messenger to come before him. Taking note of the past history of messengers from God telling us to change our old beliefs to their new beliefs, we really must exercise skepticism.

            The very act of living is an experiential means of seeking truth, isn’t it? However, I know what you’re referring to. I started examining meditation and astral projection and such things back in the 70’s. I took up meditation pretty much on a daily basis some years ago; and put in 20 – 30 minutes almost every afternoon. Recently my efforts have been on trying to find the voice in my head. (Well this week, I’m seeking “Wave X” which Mr. Awareness has been kind enough to share – LOL). The closer I get, the more it goes away, till it’s gone. The self goes away. Some say this is evidence of consciousness merging, of being all ONE; however it could just be that the illusion of self goes away because the brain has been placed in a state where it does not have to present an “awareness schema” that provides the (illusory?) sense of self. I’m beginning to understand, I think, why some scientists say that the brain creates awareness and consciousness as an illusion. The little voice in the head certainly does not seem to be in charge.

            It is Neale’s approach – one based on belief, and invoking “God” that concerns me. Thomas Campbell a former NASA physicist writes in his “My Big TOE” trilogy (Theory of Everything), in detail about some of the concepts Neale discusses. His approach is entirely different though. Tom goes on and on and on about not believing what he says, but to “experience” it or remain skeptical. I have not experienced anything like an OBE, or visiting Non Physical Matter Realities for example, thus I must remain skeptical, and Tom would be very disappointed if I believed it based on his word.

            Further, we know how to intentionally instigate OBEs with the proper stimulus, and understand now that it’s a product of the brain. We didn’t know that when Tom was doing his experiments in the 70s. Some people seem to have a natural ability to stimulate their brains in that fashion – I don’t seem to possess that ability. However in controlled research, subjects never see objects placed high on bookshelves, for example. They don’t actually leave their bodies – it’s an illusion that the brain creates.

            It may well be that Tom is delusional; but to his credit, he spent years experimenting in a controlled lab environment, and convinced himself that his experiences are real. I am skeptical. His evidence is all subjective, and thus limited in value. Far more experimentation and research would be required, if all the evidence is to be subjective. Some of Tom’s ideas are starting to be taken more seriously in the science community; for example, the idea that this may all be a simulation. The math and physics suggest that this could be the case.

            I think that one day we will know much more, and till then, to “believe” that which we know we don’t really know, may be detrimental to our mental health. Nobody really wants to talk about that hypothesis, perhaps because it hits too close to home… If it’s true that beliefs set up internal conflicts in our brains and thereby affect our attitudes and behaviors in a harmful way, then it should be an important thing to understand that about ourselves.

            I think this thread is now dead, but I had fun. Always a pleasure to spar with you, Annie.

  • mewabe

    If religious authorities and cultural stories no longer taught the masses that long suffering is somewhat saintly, that self-sacrifice, self-denial are desirable choices, or that karma means that suffering or misfortune are deserved for past life transgressions, what would then keep the said masses from discarding their shackles and rebelling against their exploiters and oppressors, beside brutal force?

    When you remove the ridiculous ideas that has kept humanity subjugated, subservient and easily preyed upon by opportunistic elements for centuries, ideas that still serve as invisible chains, what remains to keep humanity in slavery are visible chains, when the illusion or pretense of freedom no longer applies and forceful, open coercion becomes the norm.

    In other words when you free the mind of the multitudes by dismantling their conditioning, they must then make a choice: to free themselves completely through hopefully non-violent but firm revolutionary action, meaning changing social structures from top to bottom and changing our world from the inside out, or submit to brutal repression. The predatory and authoritarian elements that feed off the people will not grant humanity its freedom willingly , anymore that the Southern US would have willingly granted black slaves their freedom.

    Is humanity ready for change, is it ready to grow up, and does it have a vision of what it will do when it grows up, beside repeating the same mistakes over and over?

    • AMEN, Brother mewabe! Amen, indeed! As usual your hammer hits the nail on the head.

      (((hugs)))
      ~Annie

      • mewabe

        Thank you Annie 🙂
        Hugs to you!

    • Kristen

      Hi there, passing through yet again.
      How do you feel about this below, in a world where humans have dominated man?…..

      Our country has an odd feeling today. We have all had it before, its akin to the day Diana and Michael Jackson died, but involves our love for ‘our’ animals. Last time was a few years ago when our beloved Auckland Zoo elephant Kashin died…..she was there my entire life, we all had Kashin moneyboxes from the school banking programme, she saw through 3 generations of kids, we watched her bond with her keeper Andrew on TV shows. She was our pet, as ratepayers we own all the zoos, our animals are all as well cared for as our own pets…and as loved. She passed away with a family of 2million grieving for her, as much as Andrew and her long term companion Burma. Even typing this brings tears to my eyes.
      Today we are feeling it again, but this time its a different feeling. By every ingrained ounce of human behavior we should be greiving, but we are not. This time we we are awash with love, shock, horror and facing the odd feeling of putting feelings for an animal over one of our own. Yesterday our beloved tiger Oz mauled and killed his keeper. Oz is our boy, our favorite boy. We watched his journey from Israel to NZ to get a girlfriend, watched his bond with his Israeli keeper who stayed until he was settled in and our keepers were able to speak to him in Hebrew, we watched him fall in lust at first sight and father twin boys, we watched him play and swim, loving his new life, we grieved and watched as he was moved just over an hour away when his sons were teenagers, we watched him fall in lust again and father twins again this year….we have watched and followed his every move, as loving parents and pet owners do.
      But today is different, petitions and facebook pages started very quickly to save his life…people needed to do something, but it was all pointless, just a voice, for there were never discussions to end his life, he did no wrong, systems failed, but he did not. He will live.
      How do we face that we find we care for an animal more than another person?
      Or do we merely need to accept that we are not number 1, they are, and instinctively we know it, so feel humble and loving in their presence, even knowing that we would never treat murderous humans with such love and compassion, even when those predatory humans may not necessarily know right from wrong, or in a very few, there may be no right and wrong. Yet we allow killing humans freedom, parole and to live amongst us. Like releasing sexual predators loose amongst a world of potential humans? Why? Logically wouldnt we keep them away from a defenseless society, in large enclosures, to keep everyone else safe, as we do with Oz and other dangerous animals. Should we be treating these few humans like the rest of us, when their behaviour is more natural instinctive animal than human?

      Your thoughts??
      Xx

      • mewabe

        Hey Kristen, nice heart-felt comment…

        Here are my thoughts, and I apologize if they sound a little harsh: I do not think we should keep animals prisoners (in zoos or even as pets) for our own selfish gratification, no matter how well they are treated or how much we love them. If people need something furry to hold they should get teddy bears…animals are born free and should remain free, in the wilds….not be tagged, neutered, monitored, leashed, inbred, managed, tortured, culled or exploited to the point of turning psychotic (in most zoos) by neurotic, control-obsessed humans.

        About not killing an animal that has killed a human…I don’t have a black and white answer on this one, it all depends on the practical circumstances. Self-defense comes to mind, but it would have to be true self-defense, not ‘”preventive” self-defense, as is done when people think an animal that has killed a human will make a habit of it and turn it into a hobby. Give an animal a chance…in the wilds. Tigers and other predators do not belong with people.

        However there is a ridiculous trend out there, to think that animals are “innocent” creatures by nature and humans are intrinsically “guilty”. I think that this is irrational. This is how people come to care more for an animal that another person…that’s sick. In the same manner, people care more for a homeless puppy than for a cow that is sent to the slaughterhouse when she can no longer produce milk. That’s completely irrational and fairly sick as well.

        About keeping criminals at bay…until we are able to find a cure for people who are driven to hurt others willfully and repetitively, I do think that these individuals unfortunately need to be kept separate, in order to protect populations. But I really do not think a population should be defenseless. Individuals should be able to defend themselves, and not rely exclusively on a police force that usually only shows up after a crime has been committed, or a justice system that is anything but fair, just and consistent.

        I do not think that criminals display an “animal” or “instinctive” behavior”. Most are mentally ill, meaning that most have suffered early traumas and abuses and are incapable of functioning normally. I don’t think that they deserve hate and eternal condemnation, they need our understanding, but they also need to be separated in order to keep other humans relatively safe, at least until we know how to heal these suffering individuals, who literally live in their own, self-created hell.

        • Quick note: those people who talk (actually listen) to the animals especially dogs/cats/horse etc. Find that pets incarnate to be with humans & love to be and share themselves with humans. Most often if not always, loving being with them & helping them spiritually whether we know it or not.

          • mewabe

            It’s okay for dogs and cats, as long as they have the freedom to come and go and aren’t altered or exploited in any way. The choice to be with humans should be theirs, not ours, and they should remain free to choose, not confined. That would be true love by the way…which never limits but respects or grants freedom.

            An animal on a leash is no longer an animal…it’s a “pet”, a pitiful creature that is almost as alienated from nature as its “master”.

            I am not so sure about horses. Show me a wild horse that willingly walks into a corral and accepts a saddle, bridle and rider without bucking, and I will believe these “animal communicators”.

            Show me an animal that is happy and fulfilled being castrated or neutered, and I will believe these “animal communicators”.

            So far, I can’t.

            I have communicated psychically with animals by the way….and I can tell you that the reproductive instinct in them in very strong and a huge part of their lives. They are not happy at all when this need is not fulfilled.

            I know that many humans, even those who think of themselves as spiritual or psychic, are very self-serving and always find a rationalization to justify humanity’s exploitation or killing of animals.

            Speaking of, the day one of these “animal communicators” shows me a cow, pig, chicken or turkey walking willingly to a slaughterhouse and offering itself to be butchered and turned into a meal, I will believe him or her.

            In the meantime I do not.

            (The scream of pigs in slaughterhouses can be so horrendous they have actually been used in horror movies such as The Shining. This does not sound like animals willingly offering themselves to be eaten out of love for their human relatives.)

          • “I have communicated psychically with animals by the way….and I can tell you that the reproductive instinct in them in very strong and a huge part of their lives. They are not happy at all when this need is not fulfilled, no matter how many fluffy pillows they get to lay on while munching on treats and watching Animal Planet.”

            Just to answer one question. Animal communicators have received info that many animals dogs & cats, horses etc. are actually relieved not to have the mating instinct in them that is so controlling.

            Also, too, that some (not all) cats like to be feral even if it means a much shorter life span. There is no once size all answer to this. My communication is that what they say is always surprising & different from what is expected from our end.

            Animals can take on suffering for a larger end just like humans do. It’s all individual. Again no one answer is correct.

  • sue

    does it really matter? I was born knowing love was what I was. I have been disheartened many times but always come back to it. I believe that as a soul (or whatever you call our energy self) no matter whether we question things or not we keep learning about our own abilities and never go backward, so we can only progress. I would prefer that we all live in love so I try to live by sending love to all hoping it will be received by whoever needs it.

  • Awareness

    “That which is coming is that which has long been underway. That this Awareness will not go into great detail, but It will highlight some very relevant points.

    It will start by highlighting that event that has been underway for several months that many are aware of, that which is called “Wave X”. That “Wave X” represents and holds within it the energy of higher consciousness, of that which this Awareness would call Divine Consciousness. It is approaching this planet, Planet Earth, Gaia, for the purpose of shifting consciousness, of breaking the strangle-hold that has been on the planet for so long by a select few, extraterrestrial ones and those that serve them.

    That the ones in power know this, and that there have been attempts to divert this “Wave”, notably the firing up of the Cern Hadron Collider, which was meant to send a beam that would split this “Wave”, divert this “wave”. This attempt failed. Therefore, those in power are faced with having to take another course of action. That course of action is to rather create the New World Order, that which has been striven for and driven for and towards for so long.

    That there will be an attempt in this week coming, through the auspices of the organization known as the United Nations to present an agenda that is allegedly for the benefit of humanity. This agenda will be known by a title such as “Agenda 2030”.

    That the Pope will also be arriving to address the UN Council in this time period. Indeed, his will be an address that is meant to fire up humanity so that they come together to assist and help those who are underprivileged, the impoverished, the poor, those who have the greatest needs. He will of course be seen as the Great Spiritual Leader who is trying to spark human responsibility towards this. That this will occur on the 23rd of September, and that this will be followed a few days later on the 25th with this agenda of action that will be presented to the member countries of the United States and the world in the United States, at the UN Council, to create a plan of action.

    Needless to say, this plan of action, this agenda is already drawn up, and while it may seem to be a document of great significance, highlighting the need to come together to help those who have the greatest need and to help the environment and the sustainability of the environment, its true purpose is something completely different. It is the public declaration finally and at last of the true purpose of the New World Order. That the many who have so long worked diligently to bring the planet and to bring humanity to this point, must finally declare this publicly, and it will be so. This is the true intent and purpose of this new “Agenda 2030”.

    That this is all within this week coming. This is so that the minds and the attention, and the beliefs of humanity can be misdirected. If they could not divert the “Wave” that would hit and cause many to awaken, then it is at least their hope, their intent and their plan to capture the minds and divert them, misdirect them, as is the usual way of things, as they have always done.

    That the energies of this week will be quite extreme and for many who are sensitive to energy, that they may find this a challenging week, especially on the 27th of September when this Wave of Divine Consciousness engulfs the world, the planet itself.

    That this week is a week to be reflective, to listen deeply to those who present the plan of New World Order, One World Governance, One World Government. That this is a week unlike any week ever, and that the potency and power can be used for good or ill, depending on how one looks at things, how one acts or reacts, what one believes in.

    This Awareness would ask all to be aware at this time that this extraordinary event is indeed coming, is indeed almost here. That those in power, in their desperation, will try many things to misdirect attention and focus so that they, those who might be affected will not look upward, will not look inward, but rather will follow the calling of those who have so long misled and deceived. That it is a time for choice: to choose the highest and the most positive, or to believe the liars and deceivers and to be misled down a garden path.

    That this week coming is a week of greatest importance for all.”

    “That this Awareness would end by simply saying the week ahead will be unlike any that has yet been. Many will never even understand or recognize this while it is happening, but many will certainly be affected and feel something is different. This something is the arrival of that spiritual consciousness that has ratcheted everything up to the next notch. Know this and work with this, and know also that this is part of that which is the Divine Plan, and that it is time to bring down the pyramid. It is time to dethrone those pretenders who have so long manipulated and controlled humanity. It is time for humanity to really and truly start its long journey back to its own former glory, its own true state of being, that it is the time and the time is NOW.” by Cosmic Awareness (GREAT SPIRIT! GREAT AWARENESS!) 🙂

    Bless ALL 🙂

    • Patrick Gannon

      Mr. Awareness, Will Berlinghof – Is this you?

      “Q-This is the 20th of September 2015. Will Berlinghof is the Voice of Cosmic Awareness and Callista is the energizer and questioner. Welcome Awareness. This coming week is going to be a very significant one for earth humans. We would like you to just outline a few points for us today so that we can be prepared for what is coming. Thank you.”

      Thanks for the warning. I’ll head to the supermarket so I can augment my tin foil hat. It’s such a convenient prediction. If we don’t have this overwhelming wave of cosmic awareness and spirituality, then we can blame it on CERN shooting a beam at the fulcrum of the incoming Wave X, blah, blah, blah… I would love to see some evidence to indicate that CERN is trying to shoot down some Wave X thing. That’s the most ridiculous thing I think I’ve ever heard. You can’t posit something like that without evidence. I’m calling you out. Prove it.

      I hope someone leaves you a trail of carrots so you can find your way out of the rabbit hole you’ve fallen into. If I find myself overcome with waves of divine consciousness 6 days from now, I’ll apologize for ridiculing you; or I’ll credit my tinfoil hat, or I’ll credit CERN for blasting the wave into pieces. I have a physicist friend who has been to CERN. He apparently failed to educate me about their ulterior motives.

      I wonder if Neale realizes that you cut/paste material from your own website into his forum. Isn’t that just a little dishonest?

      • Awareness

        “Patrick Gannon”, well well this is interesting and in some ways very funny 😀

        You have presented yourself as I observe it as highly questioning and “needing” of “hard” evidence 🙂 However, in this case it appears you did not even bother to contact Will Berlinghof to verify whether it was him that posted the message on this site. I will confirm now that I am not the entity named Will Berlinghof 🙂

        Are you now going to claim that I am also the following entities? (I have posted their messages on this site in the past also):

        1. Darryl Anka (Channeler for BASHAR),
        2. Neale Donald Walsch.
        3. Esther Hicks (Channeler for Abraham Source Energy)
        4. Eckhart Tolle (Author of the Power of Now).
        5. ALAJE the pleiadian.
        6. Jane Roberts (Channeler for SETH).

        I challenge you now to email Will Berlinghof and ask him whether or not he posted the above message on Neale Donald Walsch’s website. I guarantee you that the answer will be a NO 🙂 To get you started quickly, I will provide you his email which is will.berlinghof@bigpond.com 🙂

        “Patrick Gannon” wrote: “I wonder if Neale realizes that you cut/paste material from your own website into his forum. Isn’t that just a little dishonest?”

        LOL you seem so sure there. Where is your “evidence” for that statement?? And a suggestion for you “Patrick Gannon”, never assume anything and never judge. Seek to KNOW instead 🙂

        And it is OK to copy and paste from other sources as long as you acknowledge who they are. And even Neale Donald Walsch invites us to do so. I will quote below:

        “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.” 🙂

        Bless ALL 🙂

        • Patrick Gannon

          OK, so if you’re not Will Berlinghof, is this his material or yours? You don’t give credit to anyone, as far as I can see, in the post above about Wave X and all that nonsense. It appears that you cut/pasted this material from the Rainbow Phoenix site without acknowledging the true author, whether that be Mr. Cosmic Awareness, or his apparent alter ego, Will Berlinghof. Did you not plagiarize his material? I don’t see where you gave any credit to the author, which it seems you are admitting is not you.

          Your post starts with quotation marks: “That which is coming is.. and ends with quotation marks at …. greatest importance for all.” You did not provide any acknowledgment for the author of this material and indeed, without that, it is clear plagiarism. Not a very “aware” and spiritual thing to do, if you ask me.

          You will note that I started my post with a question – asking if you were Will Berlinghof. I sought to “know.” I have no interest in communicating with him, and will take your word that you aren’t him. I will however ask why you didn’t give credit to the real author; assuming that is Berlinghof. Aside from copying (or plagiarizing) the works of others, do you have any original thoughts of your own?

          • Awareness

            And you ended your post with I quote you again “Patrick Gannon” as follows:

            “Patrick Gannon” wrote: “I wonder if Neale realizes that you cut/paste material from your own website into his forum. Isn’t that just a little dishonest?”

            In the above you made a clear statement saying “I wonder if Neale realizes that you cut/paste material from your own website into his forum.” For your information if you do not know that already, I do not own any website 🙂

            By that statement you have not applied the same standard of “knowing”/”evidence” that you demand of Neale Donald Walsch and others to yourself. You should I suggest apply the same standard to yourself 🙂

            I also ended the quote from Cosmic Awareness (GREAT SPIRIT! GREAT AWARENESS!) with “by Cosmic Awareness” 🙂 That gives credit to the ultimate source of the message. If you ask Will Berlinghof, he will tell you the message comes from Cosmic Awareness also. So even Will Berlinghof will tell you that 🙂 Therefore, I am satisfied that I have given credit to the ultimate source of the message. I will continue to use Cosmic Awareness 🙂 I do not care if you agree with this or not and neither does Cosmic Awareness 🙂 Infact I do not need you to believe anything 🙂

            “This Awareness indicates It doesn’t need or want any particular recognition or worship; It is simply there. It is here, It is there, It is everywhere present for entities to use. It is within them: Each master, each teacher, each god is composed of vibrations and frequencies from this Awareness, of this Awareness, whether they recognize or not, and it doesn’t really matter, and it isn’t worth arguing about.

            This Awareness indicates that It does wish to make clear that because an Interpreter is interpreting from Cosmic Awareness, does not mean that his or her interpretations are unquestionable or absolutely right in all cases for much can be lost in the interpretation.

            That is why this Awareness suggests entities to question everything, even this Awareness, not to believe anything, but to question, explore, doubt and discover for yourself what is the truth. Cosmic Awareness only indicates and suggests.” by Cosmic Awareness (GREAT SPIRIT! GREAT AWARENESS!) 🙂

            It also appears from your comments that you do not know much about the Cosmic Awareness material 🙂 Rainbow-phoenix website is not the only source of Cosmic Awareness material, infact there is a website called “Cosmic Awareness Communications” (cosmicawareness(dot)org) 🙂 I invite you to go check it out, do a google search 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

          • Patrick Gannon

            I will give you the benefit of the doubt – but you did a poor job of crediting Berlinghof – that is Mr. “Cosmic Awareness’ real name, right? The way you’ve used quotations, it appears that only the last paragraph is credited to him. My perception, which is why I asked the question in the first place, was that you were the author and since it originated on another site, it wasn’t a big step to come to that conclusion. Thank you for clearing it up. I should have worded my accusation about copying from another website more carefully.

            Put yourself in my situation. I find an outrageous post and google part of it. It turns out to be a guy named Berlinghof who posted it on another site. Since you did not give Berlinghof credit for the post, it was logical, I think, for me to assume that’s who wrote it, and that you were he. Given that your name is ‘Awareness,’ and the other dude is ‘Cosmic Awareness,’ there’s plenty of confusion possible there. In any event, I did ask to confirm who wrote it.

            The lesson for both is to try and be more clear in both of our posts. However, having discussed and disposed of this – are we really supposed to take seriously a suggestion that CERN is sending a beam to disrupt Wave X which is supposed to launch a New World Order? You’ve somewhat adequately confirmed that you were not the author of your post, and just barely credited the author through his pseudonym ‘Cosmic Awareness’ so now let me ask you. Do you really believe this stuff? If not, why post it without expressing an opinion on the matter? If so, what leads you to this conclusion?

            I would need to see some evidence before wasting any time studying Mr. Cosmic Awareness, Will Berlinghof or whatever his name is. I would much rather spend my time reading about the discoveries being made by CERN than some claptrap about them shooting down Wave X thingies. Besides, I can’t take people seriously who speak of themselves in such superfluous terms; as though holding themselves in superiority above others, which is why I usually ignore you; but the Wave X thing was just too much to let go.

          • Awareness

            I will explain it this way, Cosmic Awareness is to Will Berlinghof what GOD is to Neale Donald Walsch 🙂 Are you going to ask Neale Donald Walsch whether GOD is his real name? Although given what “conversations with God” says, it would not be inaccurate in a “spiritual sense” 🙂 Since we are all ONE. We are ALL Cosmic Awareness and we are ALL GOD 🙂

            I am delighted to put the name of Cosmic Awareness (GOD) after every quote from it 🙂 I will update my previous posts on this thread now to reflect this with RELISH 🙂 Thank you for the suggestion 🙂

            Also note that there is nothing “wrong” or “right” in any of this. There is only what works and what does not work given where we say we wish to go. Given that I accept that I am Creator (includes ALL) and that whatever I experience is according to my choices (at all levels) then I am doing always an excellent job 🙂 Because in all cases my choices are fulfilled 🙂

            I acknowledge that you did ask to confirm who the source of the Cosmic Awareness message was and that is commendable 🙂 However, you also did clearly state that I “cut/paste material” from my own website (I have no website of any kind) onto Neale’s forum. That has to also be acknowledged. The lesson there is first to ask whether or not I have a website 🙂 Apply equal standards to ALL including (and this is very important) the SELF 🙂 Bear in mind “Patrick Gannon” that I have no judgement in any of this 🙂

            Now about “CERN” and “Wave X” I submitted the message from Cosmic Awareness to stimulate thought and discussion and not necessarily to be believed 🙂 If you wish to obtain more information on “Wave X”, google “Dr. Simon Atkins wave x” (I am not asking you to believe or not to believe what he says) 🙂

            I am here merely enjoying sharing and exchanging thoughts and ideas whether it be mine or from other sources (Neale’s site allows this) 🙂

            Great I encourage you to read and question the “discoveries being made by CERN” 🙂 Infact the GOD in “Conversations with God” encourages the scientific method 🙂

            The only way to move forward on this is to ask yourself, “What would happen if everything I thought was ‘wrong’ was actually ‘right’?” Every great scientist knows about this. When what a scientist does is not working, a scientist sets aside all of the assumptions and starts over. All great discoveries have been made from a willingness, and ability, to not be right. And that’s what’s needed here.” – “Conversations with God” by Neale Donald Walsch 🙂

            And Cosmic Awareness (GREAT SPIRIT! GREAT AWARENESS! GOD!) encourages the sharing of technology 🙂

            Regarding “superiority”, I agree with the following quotation from Eckhart Tolle:

            “In essence, you are neither inferior nor superior to anyone. True self-esteem and true humility arise out of that realization. In the eyes of the ego, self-esteem and humility are contradictory. In truth, they are one and the same.” – ” A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose” by Eckhart Tolle 🙂

            Happy science “Patrick Gannon” 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

          • Patrick Gannon

            Time to let this thread go, but I’ll part with a comment from a post in a “Rightscoop” article some time ago, in which Atkins said Hurricane Irene was overhyped (which may indeed have been the case). He predicted landfall at Cat 1 and that’s what it was. Let’s see if he predicts the Wave X effects! Anyway here’s the comment. I can’t vouch for it’s validity, but I can find nothing about this man’s credentials so far.

            “Dr Simon Atkins PhD is a complete fraud, his Phd is from a degree mill shut down in Alabama. Clayton College of Natrual Health, was an unacredited school, which didn’t have a license in Alabama and only could have mail course and no resident of Alabama. He is now trying to get a Doctorate degree from the Indian Board of Alternative Medicines, Kolkata, India. He made have made a good guess but they reported the same on the weather channel. And yes I do have a proper Meteorlogy degree from a real university. Biometeoelectromagnetics is a field of study he created and got a PhD from a non-accredited university. On his website which apparently you didn’t look at he stated he will even, “get you a earthquake prediction for your wedding day” hardly a something I would figure as a major constultant would be doing! I did a web search he is the only one in the world with this degree.”

            Again – I can’t confirm this assessment. I’m bothered that a degreed meteorologist can’t spell the name of his own profession correctly, though it appears to be a typo on his part. However I checked on Clayton College, and the commentor is correct about it being an unaccredited school. His credibility, or lack thereof, is certainly a fair topic for discussion.

            One final note – You mention that Neale allows people to cut/paste material from other sites here. I would suggest to Neale that he adopt a policy that most of the discussion groups I belong to on FaceBook insist on… and that is, you can’t just dump an article or meme and then leave. If you post something you have to comment on it, present a position and then be prepared to discuss the topic with others who respond. Failure to comply gets you kicked out of the group. I suggest such a policy here.

            I guess it really depends on what Walsch’s real intent is for this forum. If he intends that his columns be the sole topic of conversation, then dumping Wave X predictions is probably out of line. On the other hand, if it’s simply to promote conversation on a wide array of subjects, then blast away – but show some fortitude; take a position. Do you think we will see the kind of catastrophic events this guy has predicted in the next few days? 6.9 earthquake in CA and 9 in Iraq? I found that in an article, while researching this guy. Is the world going to transform in an obvious way in the next few days? Is CERN going to shoot down the Wave X? Curious minds want to know your position on this, since you were the one who brought it to our attention. I predict that he’s full of crap, but his followers will forget that his predictions didn’t pan out, since they have some kind of belief sickness infecting them like a virus.

            This may be a character flaw of my own, but I will always struggle to take seriously someone who pretentiously calls him/herself “Cosmic Awareness” or “This Awareness,” or some other silliness. Sorry, but I just find that to be supercilious, pretentious, pompous and arrogant. (I’m OK with arrogant. I’m arrogant; but I’m also honest about who I am). That may or may not be the way you intend it – but that’s how it comes across to me. I invite you to join the rest of humanity down here in the slums and use a real identity, or at least fake one in which you pretend to be a real person.

            OK, one more question. Where do you access the editing tools that let you use “bold” or “italic” text, for example? Or do you compose your posts using another editor, and the format/font pastes OK here? I can’t find any editing/formatting tools in the forum, so I’m curious how some of you do this.

          • We are using HTML to use the highlighting techniques. Down and dirty: Commands are placed between brackets: To begin to bold something, use a b. For italics use an i. For underlining, a u. To stop, place both a slash / and then the same command in the brackets: /b or /i or /u

          • Awareness

            Thank you Spiritual_Annie 🙂
            Bless ALL 🙂

          • You’re welcome, Awareness. <3

          • Patrick Gannon

            Thanks Annie. I have no experience editing with html.

            test

          • Well, it looks like you got it. BTW, they can be combined: bi and /bi, etc. Wouldn’t use often. I only use for one sentence that I want to stand alone.

            There are a host of commands, but those are the basics used here.

            ~Annie

          • Awareness

            Hmmm thats interesting, another source describes Dr Simon Atkins this way:

            “Dr. Simon Atkins is a climate economist, disaster risk forecaster, doctor of bioelectromagnetics and natural health, a corporate strategist in planetary and solar threats on business continuity, a scientific truth advocate, and a spiritual pacifist.

            Born in Rugby, England on May 13, 1969, Simon’s father made a pivotal decision to move the family to New York in 1980. After Simon got his B.Sc. in Atmospheric Sciences from Ivy-League Cornell University, he accepted a position at Weathernews Japan and swiftly moved to right outside Tokyo in 1991. Then in 1993 he went to Finland to attain an International MBA. It was at that point that the seed of Advanced Forecasting Corporation began.” – by SKYAIA

            On his linked profile I found that Dr Simon Atkins has the following qualifications (not saying that you should believe or not believe it):

            – M.Sc. in Oceanography (coursework only): University of East Anglia, UK
            – B.Sc. in Atmospheric Sciences: Cornell University, USA

            Regarding Cornell University, I found the following from it’s website:

            “Cornell has been ranked the 11th best university in the world by the Center for World University Rankings (CWUR), which publishes the only global university ranking that measures the quality of education, training of students and prestige of faculty members and quality of their research without using surveys and university data submissions.” – dated July 16 2014

            “Eight graduate engineering areas at Cornell are ranked in the top 10 in U.S. News and World Report’s 2016 “Best Graduate Schools” report, released March 10.”

            “The engineering categories where Cornell ranks in the top 10 are: biological/agricultural engineering, No. 6; materials science, mechanical engineering and industrial/manufacturing/systems engineering, all at No. 8; civil engineering and computer engineering, No. 9; and environmental/environmental health engineering and electrical/electronic/communications engineering, No. 10. The fields are ranked by engineering school department heads.”

            You know what “Patrick Gannon” I don’t believe you at all 🙂 There are benefits to not believing as Cosmic Awareness suggests repeatedly, because I would not have found the above information if I had simply accepted your message 🙂 I suggest you check with Cornell University if the information is correct regarding Dr Simon Atkins 🙂

            Presently Dr Simon Atkins is the CEO of “Advanced Forecasting Corporation (AFC)” according to that corporation’s website 🙂

            In order to know for sure I suggest that you boldly speak to Dr Simon Atkins on the phone and verify the information you found about him. Allow him to speak for himself. Never pass judgement on another 🙂 If you do not wish to be judged yourself then do not judge another 🙂 To get you started quickly on this, his details are as follows:

            “Advanced Forecasting Corporation [AFC]
            1302 24th Street West, #355
            Billings, MT 59102
            United States of America

            Phone (Inside US):
            Tel: 406-651-5085 Tel: 877-651-5085

            Phone (Outside US):
            Tel: 00-1-406-651-5085 Fax: 00-1-406-651-5001”

            I have chosen the “Awareness” name and I am satisfied with it and will continue with it 🙂 Thank you anyway for your suggestion 🙂

            Given the teachings of “Conversations with God”, I doubt if Neale Donald Walsch will adopt the “restrictive” policy you have suggested 🙂 You don’t have to use this forum if Neale Donald Walsch simply follows his HEART 🙂 I suggest you find something that makes you happy 🙂

            Do a google search for “HTML Text Formatting Elements – W3Schools”, you will find instructions on making text bold at the “w3schools” website 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

          • Patrick Gannon

            Mr. or Ms. Awareness (can you at least tell me your gender?), you said, “You know what “Patrick Gannon” I don’t believe you at all :)”

            That’s cool, but I’m not sure what it is I said that you don’t believe, seeing as you didn’t contradict any of it. I relayed what another source had to say, and indicated some skepticism on my part. That individual, however, didn’t comment on Atkins’ undergrad degree, but on his PhD. Nobody is disputing that he went to Cornell and learned some real science – meteorology. If Atkins was being interviewed regarding Hurricane Irene, I assume he has credentials to be a meteorologist. As best I can tell, nothing you wrote counters the source I located and quoted.

            I already saw his LinkedIn profile, but missed something obvious till you raised my awareness just now. He lists his PhD school as follows:

            Ph.D. in Biometeo Electromagnetics; Energy Medicine: CCNH, USA

            He must be embarrassed to write out what CCNH stands for because it’s Clayton College of Natural Health, an unaccredited diploma mill. Neale doesn’t let you post links here, but there are sources from Wikipedia, Quackwatch and Huffington post for these comments:

            “Quote:The Clayton College of Natural Health was a non-accredited American distance-learning natural health college based in Birmingham, Alabama, offering classes in various forms of alternative medicine. The school was founded in 1980 by Lloyd Clayton Jr. as the American College of Holistic Nutrition. According to its website, the school at one point had more than 25,000 students and graduates. The school and some of its more notable graduates have been the subject of controversy.

            Quote:History and accreditation
            The American College of Holistic Nutrition was founded in 1980 by Lloyd Clayton Jr. In 1997, its name was changed to Clayton College of Natural Health.

            Clayton College of Natural Health never held educational accreditation from any agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. Several state education agencies specifically list Clayton as unaccredited, among them Oregon, Texas, and Maine. Degrees issued by Clayton may not be acceptable to some employers or institutions, and use of degree titles granted by Clayton may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.”

            Further, search as I might, I can’t find anyone talking about “Biometeo Electromagnetics” except Atkins. Thus far, I can’t find any academic program teaching this “subject” or issuing degrees for it.

            In any event until I see if any of his predictions come true in the next few days, I have no interest in talking to the man. I read that he predicted an Atlantic tsunami in late May, early June, 2011. FAIL. His credibility will be tested once again one way or the other over the next 4 or 5 days and I sure wouldn’t put my money on someone who apparently advertises a worthless PhD. Would you? Do you seriously think CERN is directing some kind of beam at some kind of Wave X thingie?

            As for what makes me happy – working to raise consciousness regarding potentially destructive beliefs is high on that list.

          • Awareness

            I am not sure why gender is important to you here, you have previously correctly used “Mr.” when replying to me 🙂 Ofcourse “spiritually” speaking, gender does not matter when we “exit” this “physical vehicle” called our bodies 🙂

            I said “I don’t believe you at all” as a reaffirmation of the suggestion by Cosmic Awareness (GREAT SPIRIT! GREAT AWARENESS!) not to believe anything. But to question everything from ALL sources 🙂 Nothing personal there. It is a suggestion that applies in all cases. This is so that you are always questioning not just accepting what you are told as your “truth” 🙂 Also ensures that your primary guidance is within and not external. Everything must be filtered through your HEART guidance 🙂

            About Dr. Simon Atkin’s predictions, I have no comment except that from a “spiritual” point of view a prediction (as BASHAR indicates) is merely a sensing of the energy at the time the prediction was made. This energy can change. As BASHAR (channelled by Darryl Anka) has indicated, being aware of the prediction itself can change it because we can then choose differently 🙂 So a prediction is not necessarily cast in stone 🙂 As the GROUP (channelled by Steve Rother) indicates, we are living on the planet of “free choice” 🙂 All I can say regarding your questions is simply “we shall see, feel and experience what happens” 🙂

            There is no such thing as a prediction of the future. There is only a sensing of the energy that exists at the time the prediction is made. It’s a sensing of the present energy. And if that energy does not change, then the events that are discussed will come to pass. But energy always changes. Sometimes though, there is a great deal of momentum behind a particular course, a particular path and thus it is unlikely that that energy will change and therefore more probable that the event discussed will come into manifestation.” by BASHAR (channelled by Darryl Anka) 🙂

            “Patrick Gannon” wrote: “As for what makes me happy – working to raise consciousness regarding potentially destructive beliefs is high on that list.” 🙂

            That’s great, our objective in that case is similar, even though our approach to this may be different 🙂

            I see you have learned to make text bold using HTML tags 🙂 That’s great, so this whole discussion has led somewhere 🙂 This reminds me of the following from “Conversations with God”:

            For you know not why a thing occurs, nor to what end

            Bless ALL 🙂

          • Patrick Gannon

            Well if there are no such things as predictions for the future; someone should tell “Dr” Simon Atkins. These are his predictions. Your explanation regarding the viability of predictions provides the perfect excuse – thereby making predictions totally useless. I saw one article from the fake doctor that said Dec. 21, 2012 was postponed because of “time manipulation.” Always an excuse, isn’t there?

            § a resultant change in the pressure field on the planet’s already weakening magnetic shield whereby a higher incidence of seismic activity and extreme weather patterns is likely whereby he specifically forecasts,

            § a 9.0 magnitude earthquake occurring very close to Iran before the end of September that will cause what he calls a ‘planetary threat spin.’

            § a massive volcanic eruption on Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula late this year that will cause dramatic cooling in the Northern Hemisphere this coming winter and more especially the following winter of 2016/17.

            § a 6.9 magnitude earthquake occurring in Northern California before the end of September as a consequence of the continuing drought in Southern California which is recalibrating the tectonic plates as the water tables continue to deplete. He forecasts this with 80% confidence.

            § a major rise in floodings in the US this summer [the recent unprecedented flooding in Texas is one consequent example of this prediction bearing out] with a drought in parts of China [headlines here have been flood-related of late, but as this recent CCTV piece explains drought is certainly being experienced in some
            parts of China.]

            So we’ve got two days left for two earthquakes, one of which will create a “planetary threat spin.” I’m glad I got the extra large roll of tinfoil. Looks like I’m going to need it for my hat to make it through the next two days. LOL

  • Blake

    Excuse me! I don’t want to burst anyones spiritual bubbles. I am sure you are all just brimming over with joy about the up and coming “Great Awareness” and what it might mean for all human beings on Earth and the New Age of Aquarious approaching just around the corner (2150) give or take a decade.

    According to friends of mine and yours, the Great Awareness will not include Humankind at this moment in the here and now. The Great Awareness will and always is meant for the Earths nonhuman beings. We will observe a great transformation in the other living kingdom (Animals, Fish, Reptiles, Birds, bugs, plants, Bacteria and let’s us not forget Viruses and other forms of life that only a very small percentage (About .000000001%) of the human population are akind too.

    Now, my friends said we Humans will observe and some of us and again a very small population will be able to participate in this transformation and my friends point out that our participation will be based on being hosts to the above mentioned life forms. Our observations will inturn offer Humankind with several opportunities to change how we all live and interact with the other forms of life.

    The Great Awareness is not religious but spiritually scientific as my friends tell me will test humanity to its limits, sickness, famine, drought, and global warming are evidence of the transformations now occuring all over the planet. Humanity I am told has very little to do with the environmental changes, although we certainly have contributed to geological transformations through water displacement and over mining of resources and food production for an ever growing human population. My friends remind me that the resources will appear to disappear and the world population will decrease greatly. Of course, it will increase if Humanity decides to expand their consciousness which again is an opportunity to change through our observation of the Great Awareness.

    Just know, and be aware that life on the Earth will continue endlessly always becoming and always being. As your Author Friend has remined you over and over we are all one and what you experience is part of an endless game with no winners or losers. My friends just want to remind you that they and others like them are and will be with you throughout every life you experience.

    Finally, the Great Awareness is when every living thing becomes conscious and sentient in a way we have not experienced since the age of the reptiles.

    Hey! It’s going to be fun!

    Blessings to you all on your journies.

    • Patrick Gannon

      So you’re claiming that Mr. Awareness, (Will Berlinghof I presume?) is wrong? Does this mean CERN is going to destroy Wave X and put an end to a New World Order at this time? I can’t wait to hear you debate Mr. Awareness on this incredulous subject!

      From your explanation, perhaps I can do without upgrading my tinfoil hat for the next week? Well, maybe not. Pastor John Hagee, who leads Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, has predicted that the blood moon on the 28th is a sign from God that something is going to happen to Israel. The nuts are in full bloom this week. I better keep that tinfoil hat handy after all.

      And finally, are you making up a new word? What does “akind” mean: “…of the human population are akind too.” I assume you meant “akin” but the sentence still makes no sense to me.

      What does any of this have to do with having God all wrong? There must be something nutty going on this week, after all, this place has become a looney bin!

    • mewabe

      “Humanity I am told has very little to do with the environmental changes…”
      Are your friends Republicans?

      Seriously, are you not understanding that everything is interrelated and interdependent? That what we sow, we reap? That using the earth as an endless supply of resources and a dumping ground for toxic by-products sooner or later affects the global ecosystem?
      Scientists understand this, as well as truly spiritual individuals. Christians and new age people do not, as they both embrace the irrational notion of limitless growth on a limited planet. Conservatives and business interests pretend not to, as they do not want to have to face responsibility for their destructive actions towards the environment.
      Indeed, many new age followers make ideal bed partners for Republicans or conservative Democrats and for the military-industrial-corporate-banking complex!

  • mewabe

    About pain (whether emotional or physical):

    Observe a very young child. A child does not resist pain, but he or she does not adjust his or her attitude towards it either…he or she does the NATURAL thing: to EXPRESS it (usually by crying), and by doing so he or she RELEASES it.

    Adults have lost the ability to express their feelings directly, simply and spontaneously, because authority figures such as parents and society itself teach them to repress such feelings, to hold them, to deny them, to control them.

    Men in particular are taught not to cry. You will notice that men are also the ones who created such religious dogma about martyrdom. Not a coincidence.

    Repression causes everything to get very complicated and contorted, within individuals and their strange, twisted cultures.