An Open Letter to Our World

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

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

The questions are important because they invite us to ponder some of the most self-damaging ideas about God ever embraced by our species.  For example, the statement that…God determines what is Right and Wrong.

We have already said that when it comes to deciding what is “good” and “evil,” millions of people—indeed, entire societies and cultures—have used as their basis an understanding of what the God in whom they believe is said to have announced, declared, commanded, and demanded.

This is also true of the larger and more nuanced labels of right and wrong. In the end, most of the world’s people have taken it on faith that God is the defining and deciding authority regarding appropriate and inappropriate human behavior. Indeed, the civil laws of many countries and jurisdictions are rooted in this view.

Now comes The Great What If . . .

What if concepts such as right and wrong do not even exist in the Mind of God? What if there are no such delineations or definitions in Ultimate Reality?

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. And let us be clear. This goes past the simple, gross motor-movement definitions of “good” and “evil.” This gets down to the most delicate shadings of human thought, words, and behavior.

Billions of the world’s people would suddenly be rudderless on what they have created to be a stormy sea of human experience without what they presume to be God’s guidelines on what is right and wrong in many subtle areas. We pretty much know about “good” and “evil.” But is, for instance, falling in love with the “wrong” person at the “wrong” time intrinsically “good” or “evil”? Is cheating on one’s income tax “good” or “evil” if one believes that the government is using it for “bad” things?

People around the world now base much of their individual behavior, as well as the decisions and actions of their clan, group, or tribe, on the Prominent Public Pronouncements of their particular faith tradition about not just the gross motor movements (killing, stealing, etc.) but the more subtle, finer maneuverings of the body human (the little white lie, the discreet affair that presumably hurts no one, etc.).

For Jews and many Christians this Prominent Public Pronouncement is the Ten Commandments. For Muslims, it is the Five Pillars of Islam. For Buddhists, the Noble Eightfold Path and the Five Precepts. For Hindus, the Doctrine of the Fourfold End of Life. For those practicing Kemeticism (a reconstruction of ancient Egyptian religion) there are the 11 Laws. Members of the Bahá’í Faith follow the Kitáb-i-Aqdas (the book of laws of Bahá’u’lláh). Sikhism has the Reht Maryada.

This list goes on.

If suddenly it was made clear that God has no laws—that divinity’s pronouncements and Deity’s revelations contain no commandments, requirements, regulations, rules, instructions, guidelines, precepts, principles, criteria, or behavioral do’s and don’ts of any kind—the rug would be pulled from under most of traditional theology, and not a small amount of global jurisprudence.

If standards for human conduct are not to be based on the demands of our Creator (for the reason that our Creator has made no demands), then our species will have to come up with a new rationale for declaring a certain action, choice, or decision “right,” and another one “wrong.”

If we take “morals”—i.e., the values arising out of our understanding of God’s commands or desires—out of the picture, then the question arises: What shall be the Gold Standard for the deportment of our species?

One thing appears certain about our present standard: the arbitrary labeling of choices and actions as “right” and “wrong” based on seemingly capricious, often varying, and too frequently contradictory interpretations of God’s Law has done more harm than good in far too many instances around the world for that standard to any longer be considered reasonable, or even useful, within an enlightened society.

Once again I refer to the 2014 sentencing of a person to death for her religious choices, as substantiated in Chapter Six, as a striking and immensely sad illustration of this. Yet the search for, and the creation of, a new behavioral standard could lead to massive upheaval in humanity’s social and spiritual communities—which is no doubt why ancient standards are clung to.

Nobody wants to rock the boat. Not even when the boat is sinking. Nobody wants to question the Prior Assumption.

Here, now, is God’s message to the World:

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

In Ultimate Reality there is no such thing as right and wrong. These concepts are human constructions based on a massive misunderstanding of what God wants, and a total lack of comprehension regarding both the reason for, and the purpose of, life itself.

The reason that judgments about right and wrong are not present in the mind of God is that the concepts themselves are based on the condition or the experience of benefit and damage—neither of which exist in Ultimate Reality.

Nothing can be of benefit to That Which Is The Source Of All Benefit. Imagining that something benefits God is like imagining that a penny benefits a billionaire.

Nothing can damage That Which Is The Source Of All That Is. Imagining that something damages God is like imagining that an action story about a little boy who hurt himself and then got better is damaging to the author who wrote it.

Because God cannot be benefited or damaged in any way, the idea of something being right or wrong does not exist in the mind of God.

This idea will not exist in the mind of humans, either, when human beings come to understand that they, also, cannot be benefited or damaged in any way. This is so because human beings are not separate from God.

It is very possible for human beings to experience the illusion of benefit or damage during their physical experience upon the earth, yet this is but the result of their idea about what is occurring.

William Shakespeare put this another way: “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

In other words, we are making it all up. We are defining and deciding what is “good” or “bad,” “right” and “wrong,” depending upon our mood of the moment, given the situation, time, and place.

In Peoria, Illinois prostitution is “wrong.” In Amsterdam, The Netherlands it is a legitimate business, licensed and regulated by the government, and not a small source of tax revenue.

In 1914, living together out of wedlock was considered “wrong.” In 2014 it is considered a good idea before entering into the long-term commitment of marriage, or for older folks seeking companionship in their later years without the legal entanglements of matrimony.

We are making things up as we go along, and we are changing our minds as we go along—yet we get caught up in any given moment imaging that, in this particular moment, what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong.

God has nothing to do with these delineations. They are entirely a product of humanity’s constructions. If God were defining right and wrong, those definitions would remain constant. What is true in Peoria would be true in Amsterdam. What was true in 1914 would be true in 2014. Right and wrong would not be determined by map or calendar.

The question before humanity, then, is not whether God declares something to be right or wrong, but what is it that makes a human being do so?

The observable answer is that human beings have already decided (although few wish to admit it) that they are going to judge every one of their prospective choices or actions as being right or wrong based on whether they believe it will be effective in achieving their goals.

Thus, humans can sanction the state killing someone intentionally, even as humans declare that killing someone intentionally is wrong.

Thus, humans can cheer a Robin Hood tale of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, even as humans assert that stealing is wrong.

Thus, humans can convince themselves that a sexual encounter with another’s mistreated and ignored spouse in the name of love is romantic and understandable, even as humans maintain that adultery is wrong.

In human interactions it turns out that nothing is considered right or wrong absolutely, but that these judgments are made within a particular context.

This is the truth of it on the earth. It would serve us to openly admit this, and then to decisively declare that our new Human Code of Conduct shall be based not on “morals,” or what we have arbitrarily decided that God wants and commands, but rather, on what works and what does not work, given what it is we are trying to do.

If you are trying to win the motorcar race at the Indianapolis 500 Speedway, it would not be “wrong” to drive 175 miles an hour. If you are trying to get to the grocery store in your neighborhood without endangering yourself or others, you may not want to drive that fast. It simply does not work, given what it is you are trying to do. Indeed, there are no doubt traffic signs where you live making it clear that such behavior is prohibited.

There is difficulty and challenge in openly acknowledging and utilizing such a practical measure as the Gold Standard for human behavior, however. (Again, it must be made clear that we already use this standard—it’s actually built into our laws—but we simply don’t freely admit it.) The difficulty is that humanity would then have to admit to itself that our “ Gold Standard” is all over the place, and thus, not a “standard” at all, because we, as a collective, are profoundly unclear about what we are trying to do.

(Example: It’s not okay to “shoot first and ask questions later.” Unless you call it a preemptive strike, using weapons of mass destruction to defend against another nation’s weapons of mass destruction that, it turns out, were not even there. Or “stand your ground,” in which case the thought that you might be in danger—even from having a bag of popcorn or a cell phone thrown in your face in a movie theatre (where, according to “the rules,” you should not even be carrying a gun)—is sufficient defense in a Florida court of law for shooting and killing a man.)

This entire concept of moral “right” and moral “wrong” will be explored in crisp terms later in this text. Stay tuned for that. For now, know that our standards of behavior are all over the place because most of the members of our species are completely confused about Who We Are (our true identity as sentient beings) and Why We Are Here (the real reason for life, and the purpose of individual and collective experience).

And this is because humanity is totally mistaken about the reality, function, purpose, and nature of God.

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:
  • Philip Smith

    I hope more people share this view. I want to see this world change for the better. I have gained a whole new perspective on reality thanks to your books Mr. Walsch. I am glad you were open to being used by God to bless others.

  • Neale,

    I’ve known for a long time that rules and laws are arbitrary. My father gave a large donation to the church back in the 70’s after having lived with my mother 18 years and her bearing them seven children. With that exchange of cash and a signature, we seven kids became bastards in the eyes of the church, and my father was allowed to marry his second wife (whom he got pregnant while she was a nun, no less) with the blessings of the church. He was also able to “jump to the front of the line” when he decided to adopt by making a large donation to the adoption agency.

    I also grew up in the times when Title IX (equality for girl’s and boy’s athletics) was supposed to be the law, but was only enforced when there was a complaint, and even then it took years to actually get anyone official to do anything about it. In my case, our District’s Athletics Supervisor determined that equality could only be achieved by no longer having any “co-ed” teams because that “always put the girls at a physical disadvantage when competing for positions.” This “logic” meant in reality that girls had to stop playing baseball, soccer, and basketball until the District could afford coaches for the girl’s teams. And, when the time came that “coaches” were hired, the girls were switched to playing softball instead of baseball, and field hockey instead of soccer as there “were no appropriate leagues nearby” in which the girls could participate. The so-called “coaches” that were hired were laughable. I had, in turn for the swim team, a PE teacher who never taught swimming, an elementary school swimming instructor from another District, and a dance teacher paired with a remedial reading teacher who tried to run the team from a book published the same year I was born. Meanwhile, the men’s team had a certified swim coach who had volunteered at no pay to coach the women’s team, but was told that would be “inappropriate,” even though he’d coached the co-ed team for years.

    There is, I believe, within every religion, faith tradition, and even in some cultures, some version of “The Golden Rule.” Maybe that should be our starting point. And our stopping point, as well.


  • politics

    What about this thought that you are sending, right or wrong?

  • Some thoughts while reading the above:

    So let’s say it’s not God’s demands or requirements on good or evil. But now it is thrown in the court of humanity. Either way we are stuck with making a decision of some sort/s.

    As I see it, the gold standard is, has been set.
    “Do unto others as you’d have them do unto you.” Therein lies the answer & solution if we but heed it.

    Many people (not all) get that there are many shades of grays in life & not simply black & white or good or bad. Decisions can at times simply be very difficult what ever way a decision is made. They call it. Catch 22.

    Teens & 20/30 somethings living much in social media (which has tremendous value) have it seems, a much harder time reading & comprehending longer blogs/essays that are not a few sentences at most & a few paragraphs at most on other rarer occasions.

    Free will is the definition to do as we please including bad or disastrous results/outcomes. Bad/disastrous results & outcomes will continue until we out grow them, or simply tire of them.

    “In human interactions it turns out that nothing is considered right or wrong absolutely, but that these judgments are made within a particular context.

    This is the truth of it on the earth. It would serve us to openly admit this, and then to decisively declare that our new Human Code of Conduct shall be based not on “morals,” or what we have arbitrarily decided that God wants and commands, but rather, on what works and what does not work, given what it is we are trying to do.”

    To this I say Amen!

    “The difficulty is that humanity would then have to admit to itself that our “ Gold Standard” is all over the place, and thus, not a “standard” at all, because we, as a collective, are profoundly unclear about what we are trying to do.” Great point!

  • Patrick Gannon

    “What if concepts such as right and wrong do not even exist in the Mind of God? What if there are no such delineations or definitions in Ultimate Reality?”

    What if there is no “Mind of God” (why is “mind” capitalized?) because there simply is no God?

    This question is every bit as legitimate as the one Neale asks. He presupposes God, and claims we have God all wrong, but what if there is no God in the first place? Isn’t that the real question? Since there’s no evidence of any supernatural being we refer to as God, asking if we have him wrong, seems a bit superfluous, much like asking if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for our morals. In any event, the questions and issues Neale raises are exactly the same. If we accept that there is no God, we still have to figure out where our morals come from – and the most likely answer to that is not God – it’s evolution. Science.

    • politics

      Evolution thinks? Hmm…

      • Patrick Gannon

        No, evolution does not think. Evolution is a process based on natural selection. The idea, as I understand it, is that if you exhibited traits like compassion, you had a better chance of getting a mate, being protected by being part of the group, and thus passing on your genes. Those who did not exhibit what would later be referred to as “moral” behavior, had less chance of survival.

        We know that there are characteristics that get passed on by genetics. There are symbiotic relationships that develop between different species, such as little fish that clean the gills of larger fish who could eat them, but don’t. We as humans appear to have evolved similar symbiotic relationships with each other.

        There is also the familial relationship that evolved in some species but not others. Some species have offspring and have nothing further to do with them, while others nurture and protect them. This apparently is an evolved trait, that came about as the result of natural selection. Early humans who didn’t care for their kids, died out. I think researchers suggest a couple other examples of characteristics that we evolved, which account for our idea of “moral” behavior, but those are the two I remember right now.

        • [WARNING: Long post.]


          I’m not sure where you live, and I know that has a great deal to do with this topic as it paints our worldview.

          I live in a large metropolitan area in the Midwest of the United States. In our city, especially in certain communities, to show compassion would be considered a sign of weakness. Chances are, one would not only not be protected by the group, but they would probably be harassed or shunned, either of which would result in the group deciding that individual should go out and fend for themselves. The rest of the group, if they were not already aware, would learn that compassion is a sign of weakness and would not be tolerated.

          If, however, each individual in that same group had an understanding that we are all of God, Divine in our own right as all people would be considered so, and interconnected with everyone and everything in all of Creation, compassion would come naturally as we would know that when we help another, we are helping ourselves (what we give to another we also receive), and helping the collective of all of Creation, or God.

          The same could be said about your belief that humans naturally create symbiotic relationships. It may well be that I have a symbiotic relationship with the grocer, with whom I exchange currency for food (most often to the benefit of the grocer and of detriment to my finances). That doesn’t mean that it comes naturally in the neighborhood in which I find myself. In fact, I would be seen as a pushover, and might even be seen as having more than I need if I shared with someone who had less than I. That might cause some to attack me or break into my home looking for the excess.

          If, however, each individual in that neighborhood had an understanding that we are all of God, Divine in our own right as all people would be considered so, and interconnected with everyone and everything in all of Creation, then ensuring we each had enough food to sustain each of us would come naturally because we would understand that when one of us suffers, then all people and all of Creation suffers. God would, I believe, understand our suffering, but rather than suffering with or for us, would teach us a different way where we need not suffer.

          I can say with certainty that not all humans who have children and then abandon them have been “evolved” out of our species. Too often there are stories of dead newborns found in dumpsters, vacant lots, and alleyways. Which is worse—abandoning them entirely or keeping them but abandoning them emotionally so that they’re certain they are both unwanted and unloved? And it goes much, much deeper than that, in every state of this “great land” of ours. It’s one of America’s dirty little secrets that we verbally and physically abuse many of our children, force them to conduct sexual acts within the family or with strangers, that we lock our children in their rooms which, besides the isolation and lack of social interaction, could mean death if the house catches fire.

          If, however everyone in all the States knew they were all of God, Divine in their own right as all would be considered so, and interconnected with everyone and everything in all of Creation, not only would parents understand that to have a child is a great gift, would be supported by their own extended families, but supported by the community as well because to abandon or harm a child means an abandonment of that great gift—which would then be cared for by another family member or someone in the community. God would, I believe, understand the suffering of both the child being abandoned, neglected, or abused, and the suffering of the family that abandoned, neglected, or abused the child (otherwise it would not do so because it is against the “natural order”), but would show us another way in which no parent ever endure the kind of pain that would cause them to act against that natural order and do so.

          There are many, many things we don’t understand about genetics and “natural selection.” We do know, however, that Bipolar Disorder is, at least partially, handed down through the family’s genes. Some would consider this a “bad” thing and might want to require the sterilization of that person when they reached the age where they could become a parent, thus removing it from future generations. And yet, some of our greatest artists have had Bipolar Disorder. Many believe van Gough had the chemical imbalance that is at the root of Bipolar Disorder. Would he have been as creative as he was without the disorder that kept him going for days without sleep, causing hallucinations that may have informed his art? Would any of his offspring have also lost that advantage in the creative areas of society?

          Should a fetus, when it is found to have Down’s Syndrome, be required to be aborted in order to not be a burden on their family, a drain on society, and to remove Down’s Syndrome from the species homo sapien? What of the love that mother may have had with their child which, for her, may have far outweighed the burdens? What of the child’s gifts to the world, which we would never know because it had been killed in the womb?

          What if science really does find a link between genetics and being homosexual? Should we then require all pregnant females to undergo an invasive procedure to determine if the fetus they are carrying has that “homosexual genetic marker”? What then? Will she, too, be forced to have the gift of that child forcibly taken from her and killed?

          Who would make such decisions as science delves ever deeper into knowledge of the genes that make us who we are? Who would decide, for all of humanity, what is to be considered of benefit to the species? Even more, who would decide which traits, genetic or not, are of such detriment to the species that we have the right to “cull the herd” by forceful killings of fetuses, toddlers, school age children, and adults who either have a condition or character trait, or might pass on such a condition or character trait?

          I’ll take my chances with the God of my Knowing. (You may doubt the existence of God, but I do not.) I’d take that God over the fallibility of the human species any day. Because, when it’s all said and done, even repeatable experiments with repeatable outcomes have been and always will be affected by the observers. After all, science has proven it to be so.


          • Patrick Gannon

            Annie: “I’m not sure where you live, and I know that has a great deal to do with this topic as it paints our worldview.

            No, where I live has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic. Evolution is something that occurs over very long periods of time. Those who support the idea that our morals and ethics are essentially genetic in nature would argue that these traits arose slowly over hundreds of thousands of years. We are of course in the process of continuing to evolve, so what we are doing now will indeed contribute to what we become in the future, but what we are now is a product of our evolutionary past.

            Annie: “If, however, each individual in that same group had an understanding that we are all of God”

            Your statement confirms that we do not now have an understanding that we are all of God. Where would this understanding come from? Since we don’t have this understanding, wouldn’t that mean God has done a poor job of invoking this understanding?

            “The same could be said about your belief that humans naturally create symbiotic relationships.”

            This is not my “belief.” Annie – you do this frequently. You put words in my mouth that I did not say. It’s a clever and deceitful way to debate, I grant that. It does not meet my “highest vision” of myself, so I don’t use this technique, which I find many “believers” frequently utilize. I intentionally did not use the word “belief” and I’m pretty sure you know that.

            To spark discussion, I decided to share the hypothesis of some researchers who propose an evolutionary basis for morals, as an alternative to the idea that our morals come from an unproven God of some sort. I find the idea to be interesting and worthy of further research, but it’s not my proposal, and until proven I will not “believe” in it. Of course if it is proven, I will have no need to “believe” in it. At this point, I think it’s a rational, reasonable, logical explanation for who and what we are and how we act as human beings.

            Annie: “I can say with certainty that not al l humans who have children and then abandon them have been “evolved” out of our species.”

            You go off at some length to point out exceptions to what appear to be evolutionary developments such as symbiosis, familial relationships, altruism, indeed, the golden rule; and that of course is a valid observation. The process of evolution is ongoing and we as a species are very early in the process. Pointing out exceptions makes it seem like you think evolution is all finished and that what you see is what you get, now and forever, amen. Well, that’s not the case at all. It’s an ongoing process, that in the case of our species has barely started (and may get cut short by extinction).

            Evolution explains to me, better than anything else, why the world is the way it is. “If however” as you repeat, there really is a God, then It has been silent, or It is responsible for all that you find reprehensible since It didn’t invoke us with this understanding of “oneness” and It failed to provide us with any empirical evidence of Itself, or this oneness (which if valid should be testable, but for which useful evidence remains elusive).

            We may indeed all be linked in ways beyond our atomic makeup – such as consciousness; but this is still unknown. Research continues. I remain skeptically open minded.

            You took the discussion down an interesting path by asking if we should cull “defectives” from the herd and how we would decide what was and was not “defective.” This is surely a topic that our society is in the midst of dealing with and we’ll need to talk about it a lot more. We are apparently the first species to arise here that has the ability to intentionally mold and shape its future evolution. Where this will take us is unknown. Back in the dawn of human history, such defectives were quickly culled by nature, but we are changing the playing field and a great many children who would have died only a hundred years ago, not to mention 10,000 years ago or 200,000 years ago, will survive and pass on their genes. This could be weakening our species as a whole as defectives that nature once culled, now reproduce and pass along their undesirable genes.

            Annie you raised another very good point. Who decides? You said that you would trust “God” to decide, but I don’t see God anywhere. We the people will decide how to deal with this important question. To me, the concept of God complicates the issue, rather than simplifying it. When it comes to the Abrahamic God, heaven is supposed to be the most wonderful thing imaginable. It’s what we’re all here to strive for… how come nobody is interested in going? How come we don’t celebrate with joy when someone dies? Why don’t we celebrate the passage of aborted fetuses that get to go straight to heaven without having to come here and suffer first (jealousy perhaps)? I sometimes wonder if most Abrahamic believers, really believe in heaven. And then there’s New Age God where nothing matters. It just doesn’t matter. If bad stuff happens, it’s supposed to; you asked it to happen so you can learn or experience and continue to enhance your soul or some such idea. In either case, culling defectives should be seen as sending that “soul” directly to heaven, hallelujah; or sending them back home to pick another life; no harm done.

            I don’t know the answers to these questions, but God is not here to tell us, and God’s “messengers” never seem to bring evidence with them. We’re going to have to figure it out on our own, and if we survive extinction we may have millions of years to work on it. From a practical standpoint, I’m not crazy about culling defectives, but preventing them from procreating may be in the best interests of our species since nature isn’t doing it anymore (well actually we are part of nature, so if we do it, it’s still nature).

            I can make no sense of most of your last paragraph. Rather than basing your decisions on what you know to be proven true, it seems you are going to base them on what you believe – even though you used the word “knowing” when in fact neither you nor anyone else can know because there is no empirical evidence. You say you’ll take your chances with “God” rather than the infallible human race, but you just spent several paragraphs telling me, more or less, that we are all God. Didn’t you you speak of “understanding that we are all of God?” That is certainly Neale’s conjecture.

            The bit about repeatable experiments and observers seems, perhaps, to veer into quantum mechanics, but with no actual point being made that I can discern. I don’t understand what point you are trying to make, but please don’t get into quantum woo like Deepak Chopra who has been embarrassed in debates by real physicists.

          • Patrick,

            I did not say that where you live affects the many years of evolution our species has undergone. I said it affects your worldview, meaning your perspective on who we now are as a species and which traits have or have not either survived our evolutionary process thus far.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I don’t see how where I live has anything to do with my worldview in the context of this discussion. For the intents and purposes of this and similar discussions I “live” on the internet. My physical location doesn’t matter in the least to my “worldview.”

            It’s not all that pertinent to the discussion, I would have let it pass, but you were adamant, “I know that has a great deal to do with this topic…” No it doesn’t. I just wanted to make that point. Sorry I confused it by launching into a discussion about evolutionary timeframes – should have inserted a line/paragraph first.

        • mewabe

          Patrick, I have to challenge your statement concerning natural evolution favorizing “moral” behavior through greater chances at survival for the “moral” person. This is very unrealistic, and characteristic of some researchers rose-colored vision of society (or of a vision tainted by ideology and by a desire to preserve the status quo).

          Have you looked at society lately? Have you noticed that the rich gets richer and that poverty is expending under the seemingly unstoppable leadership of the rich and powerful? How is this “moral” or compassionate?

          It seems to me that the war-like, cut-throat, dog eat dog human competition that characterizes business as usual in much of the world, particularly in richer nations where the rewards of success are much greater, propels those who possess a pragmatic and rather flexible form of “morality” to the very top of society and to control and power.
          By pragmatic, I mean that these individuals are often extremely ruthless, frequently dishonest, without empathy for the less fortunate and always ready to take advantage of the weak and to savagely exploit the poor or ignorant, and possessing a greater percentage of psychopathic or sociopathic traits than the general population, not surprisingly.

          Whenever what we define as survival implies extreme, battlefield-like competition, when it means that for some to win many must fail, that for some to be filthy rich many must be very poor and readily exploitable, that for a few to be on top most must be below, and that for a few to dominate, to have power and control, most must submit, be passive and subservient, where exactly is the “morality”, and where is the “evolution” when human behavior still mimics that of alpha and beta apes?

          • Patrick Gannon

            Mewabe, thanks for your comments.

            If we (most of us) did not develop what we refer to as a sense of morality, a sense of right and wrong, a sense of the golden rule, from evolution, then where did it come from?

            We have to take notice that evolution is not responsible for just one trait, and of course there can be competing traits that arise as a product of evolution. You have spoken of a segment of society that you disapprove of because it displays tendencies toward power, authority, violence, greed, etc. These tendencies arose as well, as part of evolution, and in fact may go back much further than our human ancestry to the primates we evolved from. What we call “morality” is probably a rather recent trait that seems to have come about as the result of evolution.

            There’s a TV show called “What Would You Do” in which people are presented with scenarios in a candid-camera sort of way in which their reactions to certain scenarios are recorded. In the majority of cases, people do what most of us would consider to be the ‘right thing.’ I agree with something Neale points out when he talks about not stopping to think when you pass a poor person with their hand out for help. In WWYD, the same thing happens. If people stop and think, they sometimes decide not to get involved, or to ignore the scenario and walk away; but most people, if they don’t stop to think, instinctively (or so it seems) do what most of us would consider to be the right or best thing to help a fellow human being. Where does this come from? How did this sense of altruism arise within (most of) us? How else can it be empirically explained besides evolution?

            The researchers who propose that this ‘morality’ is a product of evolution suggest that looking out for those in your local group enhances your chances for successfully passing on your genes, along with others in the group who act the same way. It’s a positive evolutionary trait for the good of the group as a whole. If you didn’t have this trait 100,000 years ago, you may have been shoved out of the group and your survival became more difficult, and thus reduced the chances that your genes would survive.

            At the same time, there is no denying that the person who takes advantage of the ‘goodness’ of others also has an evolutionary advantage. He can grab the most goodies, impress his will upon the others, use force to get what he wants and indeed those genes get passed along as well. So there is a balancing act that apparently continues to play out. If we lose the sense of morality we’ve (perhaps) evolved, then we all become cutthroat and ruthless and our chances for evolutionary progress, not to mention survival itself may become questionable. It seems to me that everything you mention can be explained by the process of evolution.

            We are a very young species. Many of the species that came before us existed for many millions of years, while modern man has only been around a few hundred thousand years. We are in the very early stages of evolution. What is different about us, is that we have the ability to intentionally modify our evolutionary path if we choose to do so. How, when and if we should go about that is the subject that should be on our agendas as we continue to evolve. Remember the process of evolution is not concerned with good and bad – only with survival.

          • mewabe

            Do you really believe that either “moral” traits or ruthlessness are a matter of genes, and are passed on through genes? Seriously?

          • Patrick Gannon

            No, Mewabe; as I have tried to make abundantly clear, I do not BELIEVE in this or anything else if I can help it. It is my contention that a primary problem with our society is the concept of belief.

            What I THINK, is that it is a logical conjecture, and one with mounting evidence. I could provide some sources, but this site won’t let you include links to other sites. I understand why Neale does this given that in the first iteration of TGC, there were contributors who would post long lists of links about conspiracy theories and other baseless nonsense having little or nothing to do with the topic at hand. However, the inability to easily provide sources for one’s proposals is at times inconvenient.

            By way of example, an article in Scientific American discusses a paper in which it found that moral decision making was influenced by different forms of a single gene. The study had to do with the concept of “foreseen harm” such as a condition where you have the ability to throw a switch and direct a train to hit either 5 individuals or 1 individual. It seems that Serotonin comes from a long and short form of a particular gene. They identified groups of people with each form of the gene to see what if any effect it had on the moral decisions they made – and indeed a difference was found to exist. People’s moral decisions indeed correlated with the version of the gene they had.

            Personally I think it’s a combination of nature and nurture – some of it is inherited and some of it is a result of our upbringing. Some researchers suggest that there is a sort of “group” or “culture” genetic makeup that leads different cultures to behave in ways that are morally different. Here in the west, most of us find the idea of killing someone for apostasy (leaving your religion) to be abhorrent, but in other cultures it seems to be accepted much more matter of factly. Killing for apostasy is not seen as immoral. This might indicate that different genetic traits arise in different groups as a result of natural selection, just as they do in individuals.

            As always, continued research is far superior to engaging in beliief because we don’t know the answer yet. I maintain that when we “believe” something we set up an internal conflict because deep in our brain or consciousness, we really know that we don’t know, and this internal conflict in so many billions of people manifests itself in the societies that we see today. Again, this is a proposal – not a belief.

          • mewabe

            Proposing that something “might” be the cause of something is indeed just that, a proposal, not a fact.

            I have no interest in discussing what many scientists and researchers propose or theorize, as many are still looking through the distorting lens of pure materialism at this time. It is possible that some traits be passed through genes (as well as through nurturing obviously), but it does not make these genes the primary cause of such trait, as the origin of everything according to my own knowledge is consciousness.

            As I expressed in my answer above to your other comment, I have personal and direct knowledge and on going proof. I understand that you do not, and are therefore seeking some answers. I would encourage you to study yourself, know yourself…the primary answers to consciousness are within your own. Are you afraid that you might delude yourself as you deluded yourself with religious and new age dogmas previously?

          • Patrick Gannon

            Mewabe, I don’t see you as arrogant, and don’t understand why you think I might. The more likely proposal is that I might think you are delusional, but I keep an open mind since I don’t know this to be true. I think you and I would have a good time chatting in person.

            Actually, not all scientists are “looking through the distorting lens of pure materialism.” I recently watched a panel hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson with some of the leading theoretical physicists, and their opinions and ideas are widespread and intriguing. Concepts such as multiverses, holographic universes, virtual realities, etc. are making the rounds in the scientific community at the highest levels. What I like most about them is that they all refrain from beliefs and continue to seek evidence for their theories. More and more it appears possible that we are in a virtual reality – but some intelligence would (probably) have had to create it and that idea makes the scientists uncomfortable, but they can’t reject it out of hand.

            You do ask a fair question. Am I “afraid that you might delude yourself again as you deluded yourself with religious and then new age dogmas previously?” There may be something to that, but I didn’t stay deluded with the New Age nonsense for long, once I learned how to think rather than believe. I began questioning religion at a young age, but fear kept me from throwing off the beliefs. I no longer have that fear, and simply seek truth at this point. New Age fear is much less pronounced – we get punished by having to keep coming back here if we screw up – is the only thing I find fearful about it; otherwise it’s all roses and stardust designed to make us feel good and buy stuff like seminars, crystals, books, tapes, pyramids in order to enrich a few, just like religion.

            And yes, I do look to study myself, to know myself. I meditate almost every day, but alas I have had no experiences that I could point to as any sort of evidence for otherworldly existence – or none that would hold up to scrutiny. We all have dreams and visions, but these appear to be the products of the brain.

            Lately I’ve been thinking about something Sam Harris spoke about. When we meditate one thing we can do is look for the source of the thoughts that bubble up into our minds – but, he suggests, when we look for the “I” that is looking for these thoughts, the self disappears. I’m playing with this…

    • God can neither be proven or disproven. We are left with out own personal concepts & that which feels best to us is how we live & define the creator.

      • Patrick Gannon

        Agreed, and deep inside we know this. We know that God cannot be proven. We know that we don’t know; yet some of us, many of us, “believe” in some unproven God, whether a product of the bible, the Qur’an or Neale’s new age god. I propose that this sets up an internal conflict in our consciousness. We know that we don’t know, but we lie to ourselves through believing that we do know. How can this be psychologically healthy?

  • mewabe

    “In other words, we are making it all up.”

    Yes, no doubt! I would put it another way, but it would be too crass for this site. Every concept we create is a slight of hand. Humanity has an extraordinary ability for denial and for fooling itself and putting itself in a mental trance, detached from reality. Yes, thoughts and beliefs have the power of drugs. We have created the illusion of freedom, the illusion of morality, the illusion of justice, the illusion of equality, even the illusion of care, and above all the illusion of righteousness, which is frequently wrapped in a holy book and in a flag, and in the name of which we persecute and kill with great abandon.

    Where there is no understanding, rules and laws take the place of understanding.
    Where there is no love, morality takes the place of love.
    Whenever the heart is closed, so is the mind, and a closed mind is a fearful mind that seeks to create ever more coercive rules based on ever stricter judgments that are rooted in and engendering ever greater fear. And on and on it goes in endless circles…

    If we could look directly into the heart of humanity, past the behaviors, past the mind and its myriads of concepts, what would we see? We would see pain, suffering, longing, desire, love, fear, hope, despair, joy, attachment, shame, happiness and guilt. We would see feelings. Would we understand them from the inside, from within, or would we judge them? Could we address these feelings directly, heart to heart, or would we pick an old dusty Book of Rules off a dusty shelf to sort out the “wrong” feelings from the “right” feelings?

    “Every heart to love will come, but like a refugee”
    Leonard Cohen

    • Patrick Gannon

      Actually it may be our brains that are “making it all up.” Repeatable experiments are showing that the human brain makes decisions before the conscious “I” becomes aware that it has made a decision. This implies that free will and the sense of self are illusions. If evidence continues to grow to support this concept, the overthrowing of the concept of self and free will dwarf the concept of evolution in terms of the turmoil it will bring to religion.

      Depending on the decisions to be made, researchers monitoring the brain can predict what decision someone will make 300 – 700 ms before the subject himself makes (or thinks she makes) the decision. In some cases, predictions can be made as much as several seconds before the consciousness is aware of it. This site doesn’t let you post links, but if you google something like “experiment shows brain makes decision before consciousness is aware of it” you’ll get a number of sources.

      Given this, the idea that we are all living in a virtual reality as agents or players, as in a computer game with advanced programming in which the players can exercise some autonomy, becomes rather interesting.

      • mewabe

        The subconscious and unconscious parts of the brain are also part of the self. We are not consciously aware of growing our own hair, or we do not consciously control our digestive process or our heart beats, or growing from an infant to an adult, or making split second decision on an unconscious level, yet this does not mean that the body or the brain is a machine, it means that the actual self is greater than what we think or believe, that it is much greater than what we identify with, which is mostly the neo-cortex.

        Many scientist have this prior assumption that the body is a machine. They consequently examine the brain as they would examine a very complex instrument, and try to prove their prior assumption, that the body is indeed a machine and that self-identity or “consciousness” is a by-product of this machine, This is the Cartesian worldview, seeing the universe as a machine, a very limited, narrow, obsolete and misleading worldview.

        Yes, the ordinary sense of self is an illusion, that’s what spiritual schools have taught for thousands of years. But it is not an illusion in the way scientists imply, which is that the brain is an instrument and that we are controlled by this instrument. The ordinary sense of self is an illusion because it is too limited, not because it is not limited enough.

        The most important aim of the spiritual journey towards awakening and liberation (and what some would call “mastery”) is to integrate the conscious, unconscious and subconscious as much as possible (or put in a more old-fashioned way integrate the heart, mind, body and spirit), so as to come to truly know the real Self. Granted, this is not an easy journey.

        • Patrick Gannon

          Mewabe, aren’t you exhibiting the same confirmation bias that you accuse many scientists of having? You write in absolute terms as though you have the answers to consciousness – but of course you don’t. Nobody does. Yet.

          How do you account for the mounting evidence that the brain makes decisions before the conscious self becomes aware of having made the decision?

          I am still open to the idea of a basic unit of digital information as the source of consciousness and all that IS – but this and other theories about consciousness remain unproven. I struggle to explain to myself (to my brain?), how it can be that consciousness is in control when the brain is making decisions we aren’t yet consciously aware of. More and more it appears that consciousness is an emergent quality of the brain and when the brain goes – the consciousness goes with it. This isn’t necessarily bad. It simply means that if this is all I get, then I should make the most of it. In all honesty, the New Age idea of continuous reincarnations as we attempt to learn or experience, in order to evolve our soul/consciousness is really off-putting for me. The more I consider that possibility, the less Iike it.

          • mewabe

            I hate to say this and perhaps sound quite arrogant to you, but I do have absolute knowledge that consciousness exists independently of the physical brain, through psychic means. I can actually contact the “spirit” world and people who are very much alive in that world anytime I want, get any answer I want about almost anything, and these answers are always proven correct (it is quite a blessing for which I am very grateful and which has helped me in times of trouble, but I do not abuse it, as I prefer whenever possible to rely on my own faculties, such as intuition and judgment…some people I knew in the past began to depend heavily on me, because I was accurate, for answers on relatively trivial matters, and I had to stop providing such help as it was not healthy for them and amounted to abusing a gift and preventing them from maturing and learning their own lessons).

            I have no interest in changing your beliefs Patrick, you have to follow your own journey and make your own discoveries, the only thing I can offer you is to remind you to keep your mind open and not follow scientific dogma as you once followed religious dogma and then new age dogma. This could be a pattern of yours, as you are obviously a seeker of truth but seem to run to outside “authorities” rather than trust your own inner knowledge and inner guidance, which we all have.

            This last comment by the way is not from psychic knowledge, just pure speculation…I do not intrude psychically on other people’s lives unless specifically asked, and even then only when it is appropriate.

            And now, you have a choice, to believe that I am totally insane, rather deluded, or correct in my statements about psychic abilities and my knowledge of consciousness. I have put you in a rather uncomfortable position, but it was not my aim. my aim is to, once again, remind you: keep your mind open.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Why would I feel like I’m in an uncomfortable position? That is not at all the case. Once again, I must most strenuously object to your assertion that I “believe” these things. I do try hard to have an open mind – that’s why I question things and look at as many possibilities as I can. To say that I “believe” these things and then in the next breath say that “you are obviously a seeker of truth,” is a direct contradiction. If I believed that I had the answers there would be no need to be an “obvious seeker of truth,” because I would believe that I already have that truth – and that would put roadblocks in the path of my personal development.

            I have been very careful to avoid speaking in absolutes, to make it clear that I am open minded and do my best to avoid beliefs, but people who do hold beliefs seem not to understand this or refuse to accept it. As I’ve said, the proposal that evolution and our genes are responsible for our morality and altruism is not a proposal I generated. I see increasing scientific evidence that it may be so, thus I am interested and share that interest here; because I’m interested in what others think about these ideas. (Also, let’s face it, unless someone throws out something controversial, this forum consists primarily of people parroting back CWG dogma in response to whatever the post is about. I think I’ve helped create some more interesting and useful discussions than just telling Neale how wonderful he is for having had what is almost certainly a chat with himself). The idea that holding beliefs sets up internal conflict in the mind which in turn explains the dysfunction of society is not an idea that I specifically got from anyone else, though I’m sure others have come up with the same idea – it’s all part of the cognitive dissonance issue that affects religionists. Nobody has directly refuted this idea yet.

            I am very interested in your personal experiences with consciousness. I find these things to be very interesting and worthy of additional study. Some of the accounts, such as those by Robert Monroe and Thomas Campbell are fascinating and “seem” to have credibility – but we have no repeatable, objective evidence; and until we do, the most responsible thing a human being can do is to keep an open mind. If I were to accept your experiences and believe them without having experienced them myself, I would be doing myself a huge disfavor – just as much as accepting religious beliefs because other people hold them as strongly as you hold your belief(?) in otherworldly spirits. You may be correct, or you may be delusional. (Without direct empirical evidence, it’s a belief to me). In time, I think we’ll know. In the meantime, I think (not believe), that the best thing we can do is avoid believing things we don’t know.

            The biggest bummer from working hard to avoid beliefs is the use of that word in some of my favorite songs such as Journey’s “Don’t Stop Believin'” LOL.

          • mewabe

            Thanks for your thoughtful responses Patrick…
            I would not expect you to believe in the validity of my experiences, it would be foolish on your part (like blind faith). I am very skeptical myself, and had to be given many very specific proofs that psychic communication is possible. I don’t need anymore proofs at this point. But of course I also have many unanswered questions, still. However I don’t want to be given the answer, I want the answers to emerge from within me, from my own insights and understanding. I only use my psychic ability for practical matters, not for the “big” questions.

            Of course you do not know me, and are probably aware that there are many highly suggestible and rather naive and perhaps psychologically imbalanced people out there, especially, sad to say, in the new age or metaphysical community. Many such people turn to what they think is spirituality as a crutch because they are suffering, but their desperation makes them believe just about anything and see “signs” everywhere, for example. There is a childishness about it. I have never looked for “signs”, but very specific answers to very specific questions.

            I will write more later…I have to get back to my deadlines 🙁
            Take care

  • Awareness

    I decided to transcribe the youtube video titled “Neale Donald Walsch Discusses The Emotion Of Fear” (it has 415,173 views so far) 🙂 Well done Neale Donald Walsch 🙂

    “The biggest problem on the planet today is fear. It’s been a problem for a long time but it’s a huge problem now. It’s getting bigger everyday and the reason that fear is a problem ofcourse is that it affects everything. Everything we think say and do, all the decisions and choices we make, all of our reactions, all of our responses, everything that we are experiencing can come from only one of two places. Conversations with God has made that very clear to me, we either coming from Love or we are coming from fear. And my observation is that most people most of the time and myself more than I would like to acknowledge coming from fear. So we have to look at our fears and find out what is fear anyway? What is it all about? What are we afraid of? And what impact is it having on the choices and decisions and the creations for which we have made ourselves responsible. By the way that’s one of the first fears that there is, the fear of being responsible. The fear of placing ourselves in a position of responsibility for all that we are creating.

    So fear is the first aspect of the human experience as I understand it, that we need to work very hard to heal. And I might even say to transform. You transform fear and you transform the world. Lets take a look at what it is that we are afraid of. First of all as I observe it, we are afraid of life itself and so much that goes on in life. We are afraid of life because we are afraid of death. Conversations with God says that all fear ultimately is a fear of death. If you are not afraid to die then you are not afraid to live. But how can you not be afraid to die? Well you can not be afraid to die if you understand what death is and as a result of that understanding, you understand what life is. The wonderful book “Home with God in a life that never ends” explains all this in extraordinary detail. It talks about the moment of our death, the process of death itself and the reason that we are experiencing life as we are on this planet. I would suggest that anybody who wants to know more about this, this particular subject take a good look at that book. It’s very difficult after reading that text to be afraid at any deep level of dying and when that fear goes away as I said that fear of life disappears as well. We are afraid of nothing and no one because and there is a very good reason why, see all fear is based on the idea that we need something. That’s what fear is really. You want to know what fear is defined? The definition of fear is the thought that we are not going to be able to have something we think we need. Its as simple as that. The person who doesn’t need anything has no fear of anything. When I don’t need anything from you I don’t fear you. When I don’t even need my own life in a sense, when I don’t think that I need this particular version of life in this particular physical form then I am not afraid even if you kill me. Then I really don’t need you for anything. I don’t even need you to stop killing me. That creates true FEARLESSNESS and most spiritual masters reside in that place, a place of utter FEARLESSNESS. So when I begin to look at my own fears and begin to feel them and when I have an idea that my fears are starting to how do I say this, overcome me, overpower me almost paralyse me, because all of us have been paralysed by fear at one time or another. Some of us more often than we would like to admit. When I get into that place I take a close look at what do I think I need? What is it that I think I need here? Because that’s what it is. FEAR IS NEED ANNOUNCED. So I look at what am I thinking that I need? And is it possible that I really don’t need that? Could I get along without it? What would happen if I didn’t have that? What would happen if I didn’t receive that? What would happen if what I think I need I didn’t experience or couldn’t experience? See now there are two ways that fear manifests itself, the idea that I will not get what I need, I am not going to receive that or the idea that I am going to lose something that I need or I have it now but I am going to lose it. And thats most often presenting itself in human experience as I observe it in relationships. It presents itself in other ways as well, we have fears around money, fears around power, fears around health and many other items. But more often than not, almost all the fears that I see people experiencing have to do with relationships of one kind or another, and especially those delicate relationships that we call romantic. Intertwinings of the human experience boy oh boy oh boy, first I’m afraid that no ones gonna love me and then I’m afraid that if somebody does I’m going to lose the love. And how I solve that when I do except when I don’t, but how I solve that when I do when I get into a place of what I want to call spiritual health is when I understand who I truly am. And that I actually don’t need the love of another or any other in order to experience who I truly am, in order to experience serenity, peace, joy, happiness. Every time I think that my joy is obtainable or that I am sourced with my joy that my joy comes from some place outside of myself I get into fear. Every time I’m clear the source of my joy does not exist outside of myself but is given to me from me by me my fear disappears. And here is the irony of that I then become much more attractive to people and what I was afraid of that people would walk away from me infact doesn’t happen. The reverse happens, people are attracted to me, because all people are attracted to other people who are firm and strong, not arrogant but AWARE. And reside deep inside of themselves. Because nobody likes to be needed, because if I feel that you need me so much then my next fear will be I can’t give you what you need and that’s why I will lose you, you see. So people who present themselves to the world as serene and peaceful and joyful and innately happy, these are people we say are together, they have it together. These are people who are AWARE that their happiness their joy and their peace comes from within. That’s words we hear from every spiritual master, we hear them in all the spiritual books. But that experience is attainable, we can find it we can go there. And that’s I think the spiritual journey. That’s the path to transformation. That’s the movement away from fear. Someone once said to me that there is a great acronym for fear, Feeling Excited And Ready. Boy I love that I had a great teacher say to me one time years ago, call your fears adventure. What a great thought. So I would like to maybe leave you with that thought for today. Whatever you are afraid of right now realise a couple of things:


    2. If the thing that you are afraid would happen actually did happen you and I would still be here tomorrow. It really would make no difference at all. Unless ofcourse you wouldn’t be here tomorrow in which case it absolutely would make no difference at all.

    3. If you can call your fears adventure, you will bring in an energy that will heal the fear, the energy of excitement, the energy of being inspired by life itself because life you see is a process that informs life about life through the process of life itself. If you live your life filled with inspiration and excitement soon there is nothing to be afraid of. And it becomes a great joy it was always intended to be. That’s how I see it. That’s what my Conversations with God told me about fear. I could be wrong ofcourse about all of this … But I don’t think so.” By Neale Donald Walsch 🙂
    Bless ALL 🙂

    • mewabe

      Interesting talk…but:

      Most of humanity’s fears are neurotic, meaning that they are rooted in an unresolved, unhealed, buried and forgotten, hurtful past experience.

      When the hurtful experience is not revisited and healed, a person needs to “talk” himself out of fear. In spiritual terms it is called spiritual work. It is never permanent but becomes a “discipline”, something to work on over and over again, with many daily failures when challenged by real life.

      Trust me on this, as long as something major within you remains buried and unhealed, life WILL challenge you until you face that issue, because life is a perfect mirror not only of your conscious thoughts, beliefs and expectations, but even more importantly of your UNCONSCIOUS.

      Whenever you look out into the outside world, you are interacting with and reacting to what you DO NOT YET KNOW and haven’t acknowledged about yourself. This is how we make life work, so we may know and heal ourselves. We attract what will trigger the emergence of buried, unhealed wounds, so they may be healed. The opportunity for this is greatest in intimate, romantic relationships.

      Healing the original cause of fear causes PERMANENT FEARLESSNESS. No need to work on it. Peace and serenity then are not the outcome of a “spiritual discipline” or “practice”, of an ongoing effort to remain “aware”, but are the natural and spontaneous qualities of a healed psyche.

      And here’s is the key to healing:

      It may be true than an adult has no needs, at the soul level, as every soul is perfect and complete. A CHILD however is by definition emotionally and psychologically needy, for affection, tenderness, security, support. When these needs are not adequately met, and they rarely are, they linger…causing suffering, and causing the unfulfilled child to live within the adult body. That’s neurosis.

      Most often these unresolved needs from childhood are buried and somewhat forgotten, yet they, from a place just below the conscious, drive and dictate, beyond their control or in spite of their best intentions and desires, people’s thoughts, feelings, beliefs and behaviors.

      The adult, when spiritually inclined, might tell herself “I have no needs, I am a perfect soul and I am complete”, while the wounded, unhealed child within says “I hurt and I need”. And it is THIS INNER CHILD who FEARS. It is the inner child who must be healed. When this happens, and ONLY when it happens, the inner child’s needs and the inner child’s fears are resolved, and the adult is free and at peace, permanently and without needing a daily spiritual practice to be so.

      • Awareness

        Interesting mewabe 🙂 So have you resolved these past “buried, unhealed wounds” from “childhood” within YOURSELF to start with?

        Will Berlinghof the present interpreter for Cosmic Awareness (GREAT SPIRIT! GREAT AWARENESS!) offers services to “heal” these past “issues” you are referring to. According to Will’s website at rainbow phoenix:

        “Will has a natural gift to lead his clients on a deep inner journey of self-discovery and self healing. Using techniques he has developed that are based on the information and teaching of Cosmic Awareness, Will’s approach is both innovative and powerful. Due to his natural psychic abilities, Will is able to journey with his clients into the inner realms and thus is able to guide them on their inner quests.

        Will’s main therapeutic approach is Regression Therapy. Using this technique he can regress a client back to any stage of their current lives to redress the early life traumas that may still be affecting the individual in their present life situations.” 🙂
        Bless ALL 🙂

        • mewabe

          I am not sure I believe in regression therapy…but it may work for some people. I think almost everyone needs therapy, or to go on a deep inner journey of healing, as almost everyone is wounded to some degree and has other issues that are buried in the unconscious.

          And yes, I have undergone deep healing…which is why and how I now can clearly see and understand the inner pain and inner fears that plague most people and cause so much suffering in the world.

          Most people hurt others because they are hurting themselves, and do not know what to do with their festering emotional and psychological wounds. Many are not even consciously aware of having them yet these wounds cause them endless suffering and to act out, hurting others. This pretty much resumes the entire history of the world.

          • Awareness

            mewabe, you are pointing out some “issues” (as you see it) at some length. Yet I do not observe in your two replies to me so far an “investment” in presenting the “solution” in order to “balance” your two replies.

            mewabe wrote: “I am not sure I believe in regression therapy…but it may work for some people, at least temporarily”

            So present what you think will work or at least what has worked with you in as much length as you pointed out the “issues”. Otherwise the “slant” of what you have written at least as I observe it appears to lean heavily on the “negative” 🙂

            I am not saying for you not to point out what you see as “issues”, but invest also as much energy in the “solution”. Or at least point in the direction of possible “solutions” at length.

            This reminds me of the following in “Conversations with God” book 1:

            GOD: “Now, having seen the differences between where you are and where you want to be, begin to change—consciously change— your thoughts, words, and actions to match your grandest vision.

            This will require tremendous mental and physical effort. It will entail constant, moment-to-moment monitoring of your every thought, word, and deed. It will involve continued choice-making—consciously. This whole process is a massive move to consciousness. What you will find out if you undertake this challenge is that you’ve spent half your life unconscious. That is to say, unaware on a conscious level of what you are choosing in the way of thoughts, words, and deeds until you experience the aftermath of them. Then, when you experience these results, you deny that your thoughts, words, and deeds had anything to do with them.

            This is a call to stop such unconscious living. It is a challenge to which your soul has called you from the beginning of time.”

            NEALE DONALD WALSCH: “That kind of continual mental monitoring seems as though it might be terribly exhausting— ”

            GOD: “It could be, until it becomes second nature. In fact, it is your second nature. It is your first nature to be unconditionally loving. It is your second nature to choose to express your first nature, your true nature, consciously.” 🙂
            Bless All 🙂

          • mewabe

            I hesitate to actually give you what you call a “solution”, because my intent is not to promote anything specific here (it is not my place) as the “solution” is radically different from what Neale proposes; instead, my intent was to cause others to question, and find the answers deep within themselves.

            I have however pointed to the direction of the solution before, which is deep feeling. But I understand that this is vague and more needs being said.

            Here is a very simple but meaningful quote from Dr. Hannig:
            “The crying, screaming response is something that we as human beings and parts of society, we slowly extinguish that in children…we kill it. And the result of killing that innate expression of feeling and pain is that a person shuts down…they close down.”

            That’s way too simplistic an explanation, and could be very misleading, but it will have to do for now, as I can’t write a book here. If you want more info on what is called deep feeling therapy (that’s the process I undertook), I highly recommend these books:
            Facing The Wolf by Theresa Sheppard Alexander,
            The Biology of Love by Dr.Artur Janov.

            This is radically different from the general direction of the control, suppression and denial of “negative” or unpleasant thoughts, feelings and emotions our cultures promote at every level, including the new age and Neale (I don’t mean to be critical, that’s just a very unfortunate fact).
            And this process is not for the faint of heart. It is a very humbling process overall, so you have to leave your ego at the door, because it causes you to connect with these suppressed feelings from childhood and to express them when they finally come up as they would have been expressed then, sounding therefore like an angry or hurting, crying child. This alone disintegrates the ego or adult sense of self you might have built as a psychological defense over the years, but it sure reconnects you to the very core of who you really are. All that is required is courage and honesty.

            And it does make a lot more sense than monitoring your every thoughts, word and deed until being in total control of yourself becomes your “second nature”. Becoming fully conscious (through therapy) and struggling to be aware (through exercising control) are, once again, two very different propositions, and as far as I am concerned, the control or constant monitoring of your every thought, word and deed is more of the same process of suppression, rather than healthy, necessary and more importantly spontaneous, natural expression.

            When you are emotionally and psychologically healthy, you have NOTHING to fear (or monitor and control) about yourself. When you are not, obviously you cannot trust yourself and must exercise some control. I choose complete health, inside and out. These are the key points, and the difference between Neale’s vision and my own.

            I hope this helps…

          • Awareness

            mewabe wrote: “my intent was to cause others to question, to dig deeper, and to find the answers deep within themselves.”

            I agree the answers are within. “Home with God” also says that as follows:

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

            Cosmic Awareness (GREAT SPIRIT! GREAT AWARENESS!) also agrees as follows:

            “This Awareness would add: ALWAYS GO INTO YOUR OWN HEART, to your own truest connection to God Divine and ask to be shown the way.” 🙂

            mewabe wrote: “I just want to make it known that there other approaches that are simpler, more direct and in the long time much healthier and permanently healing.” 🙂

            Thank you mewabe, I would invite you to keep explaining these alternative “solutions” here, there is always more 🙂

            “Ours is not a better way, ours is merely another way.” – Neale Donald Walsch 🙂

            Bless ALL 🙂

      • Kristen

        Bonjour. Nicely put, I understand and agree, but also feel that adults, especially females, never lose their natural inner child. We continue to feel and think the same as adults, except we have learned not to personify it, and that the other party is the one with the problem, not us. Hoarding, OCD, addictions etc are many of the ways these same feelings manifest in adults….in children it manifests internally, in adults with financial, time and freewill freedom, they will always manifest externally on the body and in our lives, and through illness. The main difference is that children do not have the means to say enough is enough, adults do therefore may become reclusive, shut down emotionally, put walls up etc to avoid the same situation over and over again. Its easier, and an odd form of self love to impose boundries and self protective limitations. I am looking forward to the great day when I can cut off the ex forever…the day after the last child support payment….5 months and 5 days…but whos counting?! Isnt that the same behaviour of a child “I hate you and I never want to see or speak to you ever again”?
        It is probably a lot easier for adults to treat themselves well by healing the visible adult manifestations, whilst understanding they may be childhood based. I am very lucky that my only childhood issue was that my sister never played nicely and was too competitive for laid back me….this very quickly evolved into only child syndrome…I have ignored her since I was about 7, and really do act like an only child, in case you didnt notice! Funny how karma works, she would love to be bff’s and hang out. Erm, no thanks.
        The inner child is the same person as the outer adult as we grow separation of any parts of our personalities is unhealthy.

        • mewabe

          Thanks Kristen…I think most people need some from of healing, and I agree the personality should not be separated into different parts but integrated, and this happens when inner wounds are healed…
          Au revoir, take care!

      • mewabe, my friend, the wilderness is not always as empty as it appears. Your words, which I believe express the main unresolved issue that keeps us as and where we are, are heard more than you think. There are Wild Ones who may understand and undertake the healing journey of which you speak because you speak their language—clear and concise, without all the muck of the world outside of the wilderness.
        Love and ((( many hugs )))

        • mewabe

          Thank you Annie, I wish healing would come to all people 🙂
          Love and many hugs to you

    • Leon Jackson

      I absolutely agree with you. Fear is a big problem in this world. One thing I learned from the Conversations With God series is that fear restricts from being who we truly are and accomplishing what we really want to accomplish. Once we let that go, its amazing the things we can do.

  • mewabe

    How shall we then live, without the rather misleading guidance of old and rigid dogmatic beliefs about right and wrong said to originate in teachings from God?
    I understand that Neale will talk next about “doing what works given what we are trying to achieve”.

    But let’s talk about government.

    Any significant change freely undertaken rather than coercively implemented from a top leadership, and whether global or local or both, presupposes that humanity has experienced a transformation of perception, a minimal awakening.

    If we agree on this, that significant change requires a change of mind on humanity’s part, then why should not this engender a complete change of social structures, including
    government? Why keep something whose foundations long ago originated in ignorance and fear?

    You might have noticed, or not, that we are not born free. In the best of cases, such as in nations like the US that, incidentally, still claim to have representative government but that by now have established a powerful oligarchy (according to Jimmy Carter and many other informed individuals), we are still born under a government, not equal to it in power, and under old institutions that we did not actively participate in creating, at least not in this life. I wouldn’t call this being free by any reasonable measure.

    You may also have noticed, or not, that the power and authority of governments keep growing through time, not diminishing, especially after each major war. Governments grow through conflicts, and this alone should make us question their actual nature and validity.

    If you see nothing wrong with such a situation, you then may indeed be ready for a world government and a world culture, in other words uniformity and conformity under the authority of an elected, selected or appointed hierarchy. How could such a system, which would be nothing more than a global expansion of the old system that was rooted in fear and maintained through coercion, fit with a new mindset, a new paradigm, such as the idea that we are not separate and should therefore not be ruled by fear and limitations?

    Government, separation and fear go hand in hand. Have you ever heard the saying “divide and conquer”? Nothing threatens the power and authority of any government and of the elite that invariably controls it more than a united and organized population, and governments fear nothing more, unless the people are “united in war” under such a
    government, which is Orwellian talk for divided in war.

    So if you really believe in the possibility of an awakening for humanity, which could be called revolutionary and evolutionary, why not imagine doing away with obsolete structures and proposing and discussing new forms of self-governance?

    Here is a thought: if we are to actually think and believe that fear should no longer rule the world and that actual freedom originates in love, why not speak of the global social
    transformation such a new worldview could generate, with the end of competition rooted in a belief in scarcity, the end of militarization, nationalism and war, the end of a need for centralized government, power and dominance, and a return to small, independent and self-sustaining, autonomous, peaceful, self-governing local communities ruled by, for example, like-minded people in consensus?

    In other words, if this proposed evolution/revolution is to move us towards becoming respectful of one another, peaceful, loving and free, why would we need the authority and the burdensome might of any large government or bureaucracy? Why couldn’t we intelligently govern ourselves in any manner we sit fit within different yet peacefully coexisting communities? And why not propose such a liberating idea rather than the idea of a world government patterned after the US government as was mentioned somewhere in one of the CWG books, if I remember correctly?

  • Leon Jackson

    I believe the issue is that we have become a society that has been afraid to or either manipulated into not using our own mind. Let me explain, when we were growing up as children, we were taught what was so called right and wrong without even really having a chance to figure out what was so called right or wrong. We are taught to believe that we have to do something in order to have a relationship with God, or for God to speak to us. We are taught that God only speaks to certain people or you have to have a title for you to hear from God. It is believed that if you don’t think the way everyone else does, you are either a outcast, crazy, or just plain weird. But God gave us our own individuals minds to think and figure out what it is that we are trying to do. God speaks to each and everyone of us all the time. The issue is us believing that and knowing that we are worthy to have a daily conversation and relationship with God. The gift of freewill is truly an amazing gift that we shouldn’t be ashamed to use more openly. This is truly a great conversation to be having. Great job Bro. Neale

    • hempwise

      Yes this is what has been taught to a large degree someone else,s beliefs become your beliefs .Watch a child between the ages of zero-six they just repeat whats around them mimicking and learning from observing and repeating .The brain is on automatic its a lot all subconscious programming ,that is why religion says give me the child to the age of seven and i will show you the man !!
      That is why most of the educational programs are run by Governments and Organized religion they are desperate for control and to indoctrinate there minds .No new thinking aloud !
      What did one mirror say to the other mirror it,s all done with people .
      We are all just copying our cultural conditioning the reality is our culture is not your friend it,s killing us and our planet as the latest headline came in we are using 1.6 planets worth of resources every year and we are not slowing down to let the Earth recover and thrive as life does .

      • Leon Jackson

        So true hempwise. I couldn’t have explained it any better than that.

  • Blake

    What public pronouncements are there for Atheist’s? In your words Neale?