An interesting question:

I consider no message more important to the future of humanity, and therefore to the teaching of our children, than the four-word statement that the world was given in the first chapter of the first book in the 3,000+ page Conversations with God series…

We are all one.

But what does We Are All One mean?
To me the CWG message that We Are All One means exactly what it says. The conversation elaborates, telling us that “All Things are One Thing. There is only One Thing, and all things are part of the One Thing there is.”

This means that we are One with each other, One with all of Life, and One with God. There is no other way to interpret it, as I see it.

CWG is telling us that you are me and I am you; that we are part and parcel of Everything. We are intermingled as differing energy forms in a Larger Form that includes All That Is. And so, we are not only One with each other, but One with the Earth and every living thing upon it. One, as well, with the Universe. And, as I’ve already said, One with that Divine Essence that we call God.

The implications of this for the human race are staggering. If we believed this was true, everything in our lives would change. Everything in our religions, in our politics, in our economics, in our education, and in our social constructions. And everything in our personal lives as well.

In our religions we would see the end of their seemingly endless competitions for human souls. Religions would stop insisting on portraying themselves as the One and Only Path to God. They would assist us on our own personal path, but they would not claim to be The Path. And they would cease using Fear as the chief tool in their arsenal.

They would stop teaching that unless we follow their doctrines, we are going to spend eternity in the everlasting fires of hell. They would be a source of comfort and guidance, of ever-present help, and of strength in times of need. Thus, religion would serve its highest purpose and its grandest function.

In our politics we would see the end of hidden agendas, and of power plays, and of the demonization of those with opposing points of view. Political parties would stop claiming that their way was the only way. And they would work together to find solutions to the most pressing problems, and to move society forward by seeking common ground.

They would seek to blend the most workable of their ideas with the most workable of the ideas of their opponents. Thus, politics would serve its highest purpose and its grandest function.

In our economics we would see the end of Bigger-Better-More as the international yardstick of Success. We would create a New Bottom Line, in which “maximum productivity” was redefined, and in which our endless drive for profits-profits-profits was replaced with a sense of awe and wonder in the universe, a reverence for all of life, and a dedication to creating a world in which each person can live in dignity, with basic needs being met. Thus, economics would serve its highest purpose and its grandest function.

In our education we would see the end of propaganda substituting for history, and of subject-driven curricula, where emphasis is placed on memorization of facts, rather than on the fundamental concepts of life which we want our children to understand: awareness, honesty, responsibility.

We would see a democratic school in which children have as much to say about what they are to learn and how they will learn it as teachers, and in which we do not use the environment to pour knowledge into children, but to draw wisdom out of them. Thus, education would serve its highest purpose and its grandest function.

What “We Are All One” does not mean
We Are All One does not mean that what’s mine is yours and what’s yours is mine. Not in the ordinarily understood human sense of those words. The concept of Oneness does not eliminate the possibility of personal possessions or individual expressions.

We may find ourselves experiencing a higher level of desire than ever before to share our personal possessions with others when we realize that there really are no “others,” only and merely Additional Versions of the Self—yet we are not required to give our possessions away, nor are we authorized to take another’s possessions from them.

Each human expression of the Divine may experience itself exactly the way it chooses—and what we gather and what we share becomes a striking aspect of that individual expression.

We Are All One also does not mean that we are all the same, or that we do not have a personal and singular and very specific identity. The Parable of the Snowflake, which first appeared in the book The Only Thing That Matters (Emnin Books, 2012, distributed by Hay House), explains this for children in a wonderful way.

I offer it for your reading here…

Once upon a time there was a snowflake. It’s name was Sara. Sara the Snowflake had a brother named Sam. Sam the Snowflake.

Sara and Sam both lived a good life—but they feared for the day that they would die, melting away into the nothingness. Then one day the Snow Angel appeared to both of them. “A snowflake is eternal. Did you know that?” the Angel said, and then the Angel explained:

“The very first snowflakes in the history of the world are the snowflakes that are falling today. They fall from the sky as highly individualized physicalizations. There are no two snowflakes alike. There never have been, in all the history of snowflakes.

“The flakes are awesomely beautiful in their individual design. No one who watches them falling from the heavens can fail to see their exquisite splendor. People run outside when snowflakes fall, beholding their breathtaking magnificence.

“As they land, they merge with one another. People call a huge collection of them on the ground simply ‘snow.’ They don’t say, ‘Look at that big pile of snowflakes.’ They say, ‘Look at that mountain of snow.’ They see all the individual snowflakes as One. And indeed, the snowflakes are One with One Another.”

The Angel went on…

“Soon the sun comes out and the snow melts, each flake disappearing, one by one. They don’t, of course, disappear at all. They simply change form. Now they are water, rippling together in a sparkling puddle or flowing together in a little stream.

“The sun continues to work its magic, and soon the water itself disappears. Or seems to. Actually, it, too, simply changes form. It evaporates, rising into the air as invisible vapors and gathering there in such concentration that they are visible again—as clouds.

“As more and more vapors gather, the clouds become heavy with their moisture. Soon, once again, the moisture falls, raining down upon the earth. And if the temperature is just right, the falling rain turns into snowflakes again—no two snowflakes alike. Ever. In the history of snowflakes.”

Sara and Sam were never so happy in their entire lives. Suddenly, everything was what you might call . . . crystal clear.

And so, in the snow we see the Cycle of Life and the Story of You.

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:
  • Neale,

    I like your “what if” columns, and this is the most important of all. Or, of All.

    I think on some level, I’ve always felt the interweaving of all Life, including the Earth herself. I experienced it at so many levels, heard about it from so many different types of people, at so many times in my life.

    My grandmother passed on to the girls in my generation some of that feeling of connectedness and “wildness” that had been passed down through generations of Haus Fraus, or germanic Wise Women (often, farmer’s wives), many of whom were burned as witches. I grew up with her recipes for poultices and salves and teas and inhalants. I learned about roots and herbs and fragrances whenever any of us seven kids was seriously sick.

    She taught us to never harvest more than one needed from Nature, whenever possible planting more than one needed and sharing those harvests freely with one’s neighbors. She told us stories about our “maternalineage,” or female ancestors, that made them come alive for us, connecting us with ancient wisdom. (This, because we were raised in a conservative Roman Catholic tradition, was thought of as “just passing on old family recipes” to fit through a religious loophole.)

    Then there were the Girl Scout camp outs that got me out of the city and away from its lights, and the multitude of stars in the night sky that made me gasp in awe every year. They felt near enough to reach out and touch, and they took my breath away. I quickly learned the constellations, and remember the excitement of getting my first telescope. And we were taught how to navigate by the stars in case we ever got lost.

    Then there was also the contrast between those things and the nightmarish, alcoholic, abusive family on my father’s side, my father included. Surviving that childhood cost me a lot.

    It isolated me because a friend might want to come to my house, which was at first against my father’s rules, then later an unspoken rule because of my mother’s alcoholism. If I let anyone in too close, I might slip and they would figure out the family secrets—considered to be the worst possible sin against family and with the worst imaginable threats looming if one committed it.

    But survive it I did, and it made a part of me that’s tough as steel because I had to be. If I hadn’t been stronger-willed than he, then he would have broken me beyond repair, or killed me. But it was he who broke in the end, and the experience of his own madness scared him out of the house. Literally. That was the best thing that could have happened.

    And yet there’s a part of me that’s soft as a ball of fluffy cotton candy and melts with Love and Understanding and Empathy and Compassion for those who are hurting and lonely like I had been. And that I allow myself to be that vulnerable has been more than worth having the best of me attracting the best in others. I’ve been so grateful for that gift and the people it’s drawn into my life, including my current closer-than-sisters friend.

    There is also a category of experiences I can only call spiritual because they’re beyond what we’re used to focusing on, and there are many dimensions of understanding that science has only just begun to theorize about. I’ve received information from “that still, small voice” that showed I was, on a psychic level, tied to my sister, my Mama, my granny and great grandmother. And even the best of friends that I learned to let in. Sudden knowledge that I can’t account for within the binds of mainstream science. Confirmation of all of it.

    Why, then, would I not trust that same still, small voice when it speaks to me about spiritual matters?

    The spiritual does matter. Trusting that inner knowing when I experience it, and trusting that I’ve drawn to myself the same level of what I put out there—that trust matters. Letting it all burst forth into me so that I may be a light for others matters. Being made of the same sub quantum energy of all of Creation that connects us with our neighbors, makes everyone our neighbor, and even makes our neighbors us—that matters. Quite literally.

    What words we choose to call it in the end, or if it’s the spiritual or the scientific path that brings a better understanding of it in the future, doesn’t matter. What matters is that it simply Is. Based on my own personal knowledge and experience, It exists. That ineffable light of memory or myth that was once The Only Thing There Was, whether called Divine or God by any of her many names or Life or the energy of Love or Chi or the sub quantum energy field. I am a unique individuation of It, but even though it appears we are separate, we each consist of It, and the totality of All Creation is It, including us.

    I like the story of the snowflake. It’s one more way to express the idea of Oneness.

    Love, Blessings and Gratitude,

    • Patrick Gannon

      I like the snowflake story too; because it’s scientifically accurate. When we die, our atoms will rejoin the cosmos. Whether our consciousness does so, is unknown (and doubtful, based on current understanding of neurology and consciousness).

  • mewabe

    Mitakuye oyasin…All my relations.

    The idea of separation causes forms of temporary insanity. It is the same idea, taken one step further, that causes people in war to butcher an enemy they perceive to not be human, and to do to such enemy what shouldn’t even be done to an animal.

    Yet many identify strongly with separation and the conflicts it generates, and fear that union or an acknowledgment of oneness will cause them to loose their identity, their individuality, even their power or strength in the case of men. Many men appear to fear that it will “soften” them, make them feminine, as they believe that they derive their strength from struggles and conflicts. This is incidentally why I think it is becoming crucial to redefine masculinity, as patriarchal elements are today calling for global conflicts and creating global mayhem.

    Many fear love and will only allow it with strong “boundaries” and conditions in place.

    The denial of oneness is the denial of a reality that is everywhere evident, to those who have eyes to see. A child can see it. It demonstrates the incredible ability of the human mind to deny reality and induce self-hypnosis and a state of collective trance through ideas and beliefs, no matter how absurd such beliefs.

  • Patrick Gannon

    “If we believed this was true, everything in our lives would change.”

    Would it really? I seriously doubt it. Not if we just “believed” it. I think that real change isn’t going to happen until and unless we “know” rather than “believe.” (Know – meaning beyond reasonable doubt). There was a time, when the entire western world believed in the exact same Catholic god. There was no competition for a long period of time, and that world was stagnant and dark. Positive change and enlightenment came, only when we started to “know” things, thanks to the scientific method, instead of just “believing” things.

    Are we all ONE? Well in some sense, we certainly are:

    “Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in the universe and the universe is in us.”

    ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Is our consciousness part of that ONEness? Stay tuned. We don’t know. Believing it to be so, does not make it so. If we knew, we wouldn’t have to believe. What if our consciousness does not survive our brains? What if we knew that to be the case? How would that change our lives, or would it?

    I stumbled across this comparison of ONEness on a blog site and thought it was pretty interesting…

    Frank Zappa sang:

    Do you know who you are?
    You are what you is
    You is what you am
    A cow don’t make ham
    You ain’t what you’re not
    So see what you got
    You are what you is
    And that’s all it is

    Neale Donald Walsch said:

    You are an Individuation of Deity, a singularization of The Singularity, an aspect of Divinity. You are the Localized Expression of the Universal Presence… You are God… You are in the Realm of the Physical — what has also been called the Realm of the Relative…which is where Experiencing occurs.

    I find that I prefer Zappa’s blunt, straight forward honesty to Walsch’s unsupported, assertion-presented-as-fact litany of capitalized, made up words. There may be no divinity. You may not be God, because either you ain’t HIm, or God simply doesn’t exist, which is far more probable. Invoking the “realm of the physical” seems to assume a “realm of the non-physical,” for which there is no evidence. These words are all assertions and beliefs, not known facts or “laws.” They are spoken authoritatively with the weight of God sitting on Neale’s shoulder and talking into his ear; and yet they have no more evidence for them, than the Bible has for a six day creation, an Exodus, or a resurrection, or the Qur’an for flying horses, and 72 virgins in paradise.

    I really loved the We are All ONE concept, and I still do; but I no longer think it is necessary to bring the supernatural into it. We are all one human race, made of the same star dust, on one tiny little life raft in a far out corner of a hostile universe, struggling to evolve fast and far enough to spread our genes before our life raft is destroyed, as it ultimately shall be. It may be that our real ONEness is in the genes that survive us, rather than in our consciousness.

    • mewabe

      A suggestion: you may to re-examine your belief that the universe is hostile. This is part of the western heritage (western science states that the universe or nature is meaningless and cruel, western-Abrahamic-religions say the physical creation is fallen and preyed upon by a devil that is everywhere lurking in the wilderness). These two beliefs complement each other in the most negative way.

      There is no scientific evidence proving the concept of a hostile universe…such is a chosen perception that is at the very origin of our destruction of the natural environment, because generating an antagonistic, adversarial attitude towards nature and a desire to conquer life by just about any mean.

      I am inviting you to think about it a little deeper.

      • Patrick Gannon

        Thanks Mewabe. When I used the word “hostile” I was referring to the ability to support life. There is no air in space. Most planets we’ve discovered do not have atmospheres or temperatures or water or other materials that would support our type of life – so in this respect, the universe is most undoubtedly hostile – at least to our kind of life.

        I think I understand what you are proposing though. I think you are proposing that the universe is somehow alive and has consciousness. That is not what I was referring to, nor do I think it very likely that the universe is “alive” (alert, active, animated) as opposed to dead, or that it has any sort of consciousness. I don’t rule it out, but probably wouldn’t give it much thought without some sort of objective evidence. I bought into the idea a decade or so ago being a fan of Duane Elgin’s “Living Universe,” but having learned more about consciousness, I’m far less convinced that the universe is alive. If anything, I think there’s a greater likelihood that it’s a simulation of some sort – which of course opens the door to – ‘was the simulation designed or did it evolve somehow?’

        When it comes to the universe, we’d have to begin by defining what we mean by “alive” and/or “conscious” and then work on coming up with ways to test the hypothesis. I think at this point, it probably makes more sense to work on studying our own consciousness, because we all think we know what that is – at a minimum it is the ability to state that we have it. Once we figure out how our consciousness works, that can be applied to the larger scale of the universe, or eliminated as the case may be.

        • mewabe

          Yes, space may appear “hostile” to us because we do not belong in space. That’s obvious. But it is not a matter of hostility but of a life form being adapted to its environment. There may be other forms of life in environments that are totally different in other galaxies. We do not belong at the bottom of the ocean either.

          However many have expended this concept of a “hostile” universe to the earth itself, to nature. That’s what I was addressing. That is what is extremely destructive because it generates an antagonistic attitude and leads to the brutal “conquest” of nature by almost any mean.

          We do not even have to address the question of consciousness to observe that our natural earthly environment is not hostile but life sustaining. It may at time be dangerous, and require the exercise of judgment, but it is not hostile to life. And it is not “fallen” either.

          The understanding that all life is interconnected and interdependent (“all life is one”) would lead to the very basic understanding that we do to the earth, we eventually do to ourselves.

          In other words we eventually suffer the consequences of our action towards the natural environment…something most politicians fake having a problem comprehending while filling their pockets with contributions from the polluting military-industrial-corporate complex.

          Another way to put it would be to say that toxic ideas (such as the ideas of separation from nature and from all life) ultimately find their way into our own bodies in the form of toxic chemicals, pollution, radioactivity, etc.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Mewabe, I can’t fully agree with you that nature is not hostile. Most animals probably leave this life while being eaten alive. Watch the show “Naked and Afraid.” Nature is inherently far more hostile than kind and nurturing.

            Living in nature sounds wonderful, organic and complete until you are picking ticks out of your crotch, freezing to death, watching your wife die in childbirth and commiserating over your kid’s mangled arm that you have no way to repair. Evolution is not about what is good, but about what survives. If the environment was not hostile, there would have been no need for natural selection to help some survive while others perished in anguish.

            I’m not contesting your point that we treat our planet poorly – but because nature is hostile, your suggestion above that we will be “drastically stopped and corrected (and should I say humbled?) by nature itself.”, seems to confirm that indeed nature is hostile. In fact, we could remove the word “nature” and replace it with “God” and you’d have agreement with a great many Christians.

            I may be wrong, but I don’t think the answers to solving our current dilemma are going to come from so-called spiritual gurus with New Age business models telling us what we should believe. Instead, I think we need to treat it as a scientific problem that should be addressed logically using the scientific method – as indeed some people are trying to do.

          • mewabe

            For every danger or problem encountered in a natural environment, nature also provides a cure. Using these requires intelligence and knowledge. According to eye witnesses, some of them reluctant to admit the truth because Christian and believing Native people were ignorant, superticious primitives, Native Americans were, in the 19th century, often able to cure people American doctors had given up helping, feeling these cases were hopeless.

            I know that you will argue endlessly about these things, and I understand. You need to honor your own truth. But when for example you speak of animals being killed by predators, you miss the fact that there is a latent cooperation between the prey and the predator. It is called natural balance. Otherwise, according to evolution, the prey would eventually grow fangs and claws to fight such predators. But this doesn’t happen.

            My statement that nature will stop and correct civilization has nothing to do with any form of hostility from nature of punishment from a Judeo-Christian God. It has on the other hand everything to do with BALANCE, which is the central law of nature. Yin and yang, Day and night. Male and female. Up and down. When a natural balance is upset, nature corrects itself. Civilization is drastically altering the balance of the global ecosystem, which will cause the ecosystem to drastically re-balance itself, kicking civilization in the groin in the process. There is nothing hostile about it.

            If you do not accept these facts there is another way to look at this. It is called causes and effect. You may have heard of it.
            When you dump poisons into the environment, destroy the oceans, destroy the forests, etc etc, you eventually pay the price, in the form of failing ecosystems. That’s not nature being hostile, that’s humanity reaping what it sowed into the environment. That’s another basic fact that most of the mainstream culture does all it can to deny or ignore.

            As far as ticks, mosquitoes, rattlesnakes, predators, poisonous spiders, frost and viruses, I did not say that nature was not at times dangerous. Living in nature requires vigilance, sharpened senses, and to be attuned to the earth. You do not walk in the “great outdoors” as you would in a shopping mall, and you do not live in nature as you would in your living room.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Mewabe, you’ve taken my post well beyond anything I said. I simply pointed out that nature is hostile. You paint it as this embracing, wonderful, warm and organic thing – but it’s not., It’s deadly. And we’re part of it, and we’re the way we are because we evolved as part of it.

            I must also take issue with your idea that I am “mainstream” and have a “conventional worldview.” That’s total nonsense. How many people think, like me, that belief is not a good thing? Almost none. How many people think that our consciousness is most likely something that emerges from the brain? Aside from the scientific community, almost nobody. I am hardly mainstream. What I am, I hope, is practical and honest with myself and others.

            I’ve really riled up some folks by questioning the concept of belief. That people would be so defensive regarding their beliefs, tells me I’m on the right track.

          • mewabe

            I did not take your post beyond what you said, I actually addressed your subsequent comments about nature specifically. And I originally invited you to question your programming and examine your belief that nature is hostile. Yes, it is nothing but a belief, a conventional one and very mainstream (it is all over the mainstream media), and one that has very negative consequences for the natural environment.

            You are replying here by saying, essentially, that I am wrong and you are right. No, nature is not hostile…yes, nature is deadly. Okay. This is generally where I end a conversation, because it becomes pointless. The intent was to question, exchange or further explore ideas, not to debate to “win” as they teach in competitively driven American high schools.

            Thanks Patrick for the exchange nevertheless…

          • Patrick Gannon

            I think we’re talking past each other, Mewabe. It’s not a belief that nature is hostile – it simply is, based on my understanding of that word, my personal experience, and understanding of evolution. Everything dies eventually and usually in a hostile way. That is not to say that I am against nature. I love nature. I live in the woods. I used to bowhunt a lot and sat in the woods enjoying wildlife for hours and hours on end. I love hiking and on my property, I built a pond on my property that supports all sorts of wildlife (including the raccoon that somehow figures out how to open the box of fish food I occasionally throw out to the fish!). I build piles of brush and leaves as habitat, rather than burning them. I plant clover all over the place to attract insects, birds and other wildlife. But I know, when I stumble across a carcass in the woods, that the animal was the victim of a hostile environment. When I see the remains of a chickadee in a pile of feathers, I know it was the result of a hostile environment, and that a hawk will be able to feed its offspring. I know with the weak acorn harvest this year, that a rough winter will be very hostile to wildlife that depends on that to get through the winter.

            I can only guess that we have different ideas of what “hostile” means. Nature is unfriendly and antagonistic much of the time, and that is the definition of “hostile.”

            I think perhaps we just have a different idea of what “hostile” means with regard to nature.

          • mewabe

            I applaud you for caring about the wildlife…
            Your perception of nature is that it is hostile and deadly. Am I wrong to think that you believe that my perception of nature is that it is gentle, fuzzy, soft, cute and paradise like? I think these two perceptions are extreme and incomplete.

            What I like and understand about nature is its innate balance, which is manifest in polarity. From my own perception, and not having a Christian background, I do not believe that there is a war between “good” and “evil”, between “heaven” and “hell”, between life and death, between day and night, between yin and yang. I think that there is balance, harmony and complementary between all polarities. That’s what nature, as it exists today, means to me, as well as harmony.

            If the sun ever becomes a red giant, obviously this earthly harmony and balance will have ended. But a new one might begin somewhere else, perhaps in another dimension. I do not know. I just know that life itself requires balance, and life itself creates balance, through adaptation and evolution.

            I then see as much cooperation in nature, as it exists today, as I see competition, as much life as I see death, as much gentleness as I see brutality. That’s what polarity is about. And overall, I see that all life is interconnected and interdependent, not in a new age sense, not to join hand in a circle and chant under the full moon, but interdependent within a global living system, an interconnected ecosystem. That;s also what oneness means.

            Civilization on the other hand appears to me to generates tremendous chaos, because opposing natural law in every possible way and causing imbalance, mostly from ignorance as well as a lack of sensitivity to life.

            I would say that civilization has, so far, been hostile to nature, waging a kind of war against nature, attempting to conquer, subdue and control nature without understanding much if any of the consequences of our actions, or not caring because of an inordinate arrogance and sense of separation from and superiority over nature.

            This is how I feel, it may sound irrational to you, but it is who I am. I stand with the earth.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I think we agree more than we disagree. I think it’s important to remember that mankind, including civilization, is part of nature. Just as a predator defines and defends a territory, so too does homo sapiens.

    • While there may have been many in the western world who believed in a judeo-christian god, it was hardly the the same one. There were factions in “the church” from the beginning who would have (and did) gladly kill their competition. If they couldn’t do that, they’d try to discredit them. Look at the gnostic throughout history, from Jewish gnostics to Christian gnostics to Muslim gnostics. “The church” hardly caused the dark ages. The plague is as much to blame.


    • “There was a time, when the entire western world believed in the exact same Catholic god. There was no competition for a long period of time, and that world was stagnant and dark. Positive change and enlightenment came, only when we started to ‘know’ things, thanks to the scientific method, instead of just ‘believing’ things.” (Patrick Gannon)

      While much of the “western world” may have believed in a God, Judeo-Christian religions were hardly in agreement about that God, or how their portrait of God affected how they acted. There were Jews, Catholics, Jewish Gnostics, Christian Gnostics, Pagans, and Mystics in every religion. The western world was hardly “catholic” (meaning universal). It sounds like you’re buying into the portrait the Catholic Church would like to portray, which was far from truthful.

      You’re also leaving out the toll the plague took on the western world, leaving it much less populated. A less populated people have less need to “invent” things because it was easier to live off the land. There was less competition for the food that was readily available. Farming and food supplies, as well as the rape of North American forests for building houses and ships may well have had more of an effect than the scientific method.


      • Patrick Gannon

        You just changed your post – perhaps noting that I did not say that the Church “caused the dark ages” as you originally said before deleting that post after once again putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say. What I said was that the period was “stagnant and dark.” I think most historians would agree with that depiction.

        The early history of the RCC was as you described it, but from the 5th/6th century on till Martin Luther, the RCC had very little religious competition in the west. Whatever there was, would likely have been driven underground. Early Church history was rife with competition over Jesus’ divinity, and other issues, however once the orthodoxy (i.e. the “truth” as determined by those in power who decided what was true and what was not true), that was pretty much it, and the RCC ruled without any challenge to speak of from western religions. Those daring to challenge them, did not fare well.

        Apparently I didn’t make my point clear. Under a lengthy period of unchallenged religious domination by the RCC, there was very little advancement for almost 1000 years. Only when the enlightenment kicked in, with scientific inquiry, challenges to the Church, and a breakdown in Church power thanks to the Reformation, did western civilization make significant advances. My point, is that religion and belief don’t get us anywhere. Someone has to “think” in order to move the ball down the field.

        Your suggestion that the plague was responsible for this lack of advancement is only applicable for a short period of time in that roughly 1000 year period. The “black death” was a short period of time from 1346-53. Europe had been “dark and stagnant for many centuries prior to that, with the RCC the unchallenged master of just about all of it during that period.

        To reiterate; beliefs held in common by the masses did not lead to changes in people’s lives. Knowing is what changed people’s lives.

        • I deleted my original post because I realized I had double posted. There was no ill intent or purposely changing my wording based on “putting words in your mouth.” I have had a severe head cold and bronchitis that has left me without much sleep. Nothing more.


          • Patrick Gannon

            OK. Why do you frequently employ the Straw Man argument to debate with me? Why do you, over and over again, put words in my mouth that I didn’t say and then refute them? Why do you do this? I’m asking. What is your motive?

          • I already addressed this in the previous column. I’ll paraphrase: I’m human and make mistakes. I believe I directly quote you more often than misquote a word or phrase. There’s nothing sinister in that. No ulterior motives.

        • “Only when the enlightenment kicked in, with scientific inquiry, challenges to the Church, and a breakdown in Church power thanks to the Reformation, did western civilization make significant advances. My point, is that religion and belief don’t get us anywhere. Someone has to “think” in order to move the ball down the field.” (Patrick Gannon)

          You’re overlooking the power of underground and grass roots movements, in my opinion. Just because a religious sect may have been forced underground doesn’t mean that it had no effect. Gnosticism exists to this day. So do other religious movements beyond the reformation. As do ancient belief systems that existed prior to the Roman Catholic Church.

          It was, from what I have read and understand, a combination of many different factors that loosened the stranglehold of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, including rebellion from within other than that of the reformation.

          One example: Priests have rarely liked, or obeyed, the celibacy rules, which made it an obligation to enter the Priesthood near that of tithing. Some even saw it as literal “first fruits of the harvest” to send firstborn sons into the Priesthood, despite their having a calling to do so or not.

          Additionally, it was often misbehaving or uncontrollable daughters who were sent to serve the church as nuns, again regardless of their belief in the church or feeling called to serve it.

          My point is, the Roman Catholic Church wasn’t as solid as church history would have us believe.


          • Patrick Gannon

            You’re seeking out exceptions to the rule, so to speak. Generally speaking it was a dark and stagnant time ruled by beliefs – almost exclusively Catholic beliefs. It wasn’t until some individuals turned to the long lost scientific method to actually “learn” things so that we could “know” them, rather than “believe” them, that the darkness began to lift.

            My simple point (I thought it was simple) was that there was a dark time in human history, ruled by beliefs, and it wasn’t until individuals began to challenge those beliefs that things began to improve for the human species. I’m simply pointing out that having everyone share the same beliefs doesn’t necessarily imply the change for the better, that Neale suggests. You haven’t really commented on that, preferring instead to take up side issues not pertinent to the main point I was making.

          • “I’m simply pointing out that having everyone share the same beliefs doesn’t necessarily imply the change for the better, that Neale suggests. You haven’t really commented on that, preferring instead to take up side issues not pertinent to the main point I was making.” (Patrick Gannon)

            But your first post stated: “There was a time, when the entire western world believed in the exact same Catholic god.” I wasn’t “preferring instead to take up side issues not pertinent to the main point,” but disagreeing with the foundation on which your main point stands.

            You were implying that “the dark time in human history” was caused by beliefs over science. I disagreed. I believe there were a myriad of reasons, especially as everyone didn’t hold the same beliefs, which is what I was simply pointing out. I was also pointing out that the church was rotted from within as much as from without, which I believe contributed to the upswing in belief in science as the solution to the world’s problems.

            I realize that you have addressed your comments to “the western world,” but how do you explain the lack of war, for example, within our country since the Civil War? It’s in crossing borders, whether of the mind or of the land, (I’m talking modern world) that wars are waged, civilians are killed, and the land made radioactive because people believe differing things. If everyone believed the same thing, what’s to fight over?

            If we all believed, for example, that all life is sacred, I can’t see how that wouldn’t be better than the wars that continue to pop up all over the globe (which also add to the Earth’s ruin, to add insult to injury).


          • Patrick Gannon

            Ok then, what do you attribute to the stagnant dark period that enveloped most of the western world (this did not include America – it wasn’t a player for the most part until well after this dark period had ended). As I mentioned, from the 5th/6th century till about the time of Martin Luther, the Catholic Church was the primary source of beliefs. There are always minor exceptions – thank you for pointing them out – but for the most part, I think my suggestion is pretty accurate.

            Prior to the RCC forcing (and they did force, rather than push) beliefs on the populace, there were periods of enlightenment in ancient Greece and Rome, for example. There were a diversity of views; the scientific method was employed, and there were periods of great discovery. At those times, beliefs were all over the map, with countless brands of paganism. All that came to an end when the RCC imposed a single set of beliefs that (practically) everyone was bound to (whether they actually believed it or not). I blame the RCC for this dark, stagnant period. Apparently you don’t, so what do you think was responsible for this lost millennium?

            If the church hadn’t shut down or prevented the emergence of science, then for all we know, the germ theory might have been discovered earlier, and the plague avoided. Scientists say that there is no reason that we had to wait till the time of Galileo and Copernicus to come up with their discoveries – that what they discovered could have easily been discovered by people hundreds of years earlier. I suggest that the RCC is responsible for that lapse in advancement, by imposing its beliefs on everyone, thereby eliminating discussion of anything the RCC didn’t approve of. Having everyone believe the same thing sets the field for tyranny, oppression, and lack of advancement, based on the example of the RCC.

            Forget the Civil War, that was at least a century after the enlightenment kicked in. That’s self evident as the beliefs of the RCC regarding slavery were being put to the test by then. It wasn’t until this period of enlightenment, that knowledge began to prevail over belief – or so my reading of history indicates to me.

            Let’s look at the Islamic world. Sure there are divisions, but by and large they all believe the same thing. Now look at the level of scientific and social advancement in that world. There are almost no Nobel Prizes; very few contributions to science and technology, and of course they are still in the Bronze Age in some of those countries with regard to civilized behavior. Having everyone believe the same thing, appears once again, to hold back society.

            My point was that everyone sharing the same belief doesn’t necessarily imply change for the better. It didn’t happen when the RCC gave everyone the same belief, and it may or may not happen if the church of the New Spirituality is able to “push” its beliefs on everyone. It might; but there’s no guarantee that just because everyone believes the same thing, that things are or will get better.

            It seems to me that it is disagreement, contention, discussion, and debate that generates new ideas, improvements, advances in civilization, etc. I suggest that if everyone were to believe the same thing, even the sugar and sweetness of the New Spirituality, we may very well end up in another dark, stagnant period. Jesus was sugar and sweetness when he started, and look what they did with him. He was turned into a bigger monster than his dad, who was content to let us sleep in Sheol after we died. It took the good news of Jesus to introduce the concept of eternal torment. The same could easily happen to the New Spirituality.

            My comment was really just to create a point of discussion, because it’s extremely unlikely to happen. Deciding to make his movement about “God” Neale ensured that it would always be subject to conflict and disagreement; but then, conflict has always been good for business!

  • mewabe

    Neale, you ask if the idea of oneness could change the world. Yes. The world is upside down, it would put it right side up.

    But I am going to approach this from another angle, a personal one.

    Ever since I was young I felt that western civilization was opposing my own form of spirituality. Few people will understand this here, but many Indigenous people would, because many feel exactly the same way.

    My own form of spirituality has always been grounded in a love and respect for the natural creation (of course this includes all life, meaning also humanity).

    If you look at civilization realistically, you will have to come to the conclusion that 99% of what it manufactures and the way it manufactures it is very toxic and destructive to the natural environment and in many cases to animals and people. There is very little that is not toxic and destructive, except perhaps organically grown products.

    From my perspective, a civilization that destroys life, that ultimately acts, through ignorance and arrogance, as an enemy of life, of nature, of the natural creation, acts as an enemy of the spirit of creation. It is not my enemy because I have no enemy, but it does oppose my spirituality and forces me not to live a true life, not to walk my talk.

    Native Americans call this “living in two worlds”, their own and the white man’s world. But it is not quite accurate. It is more like being torn between living in the world of inner truths (spirituality) and living in the “real” world (civilization), which completely contradict these inner truths and forces you to be a fake.

    In this manner, Native Americans talk beautifully about living in harmony with the earth while participating, like everyone else today, in the chaos of civilization.

    This is why when I was 12 years old I dreamt of leaving civilization behind and finding a tribe of Indigenous people in the Andes who still lived in harmony and balance with the creation.

    But I didn’t, so like everyone else I am a fake, because my spirit loves, respects and honor the earth and all life, yet I am using a toxic technology to type these words, I live in a house made of toxic materials, I drive a toxic car, and I could add that I pay taxes that in part finance a war machine that is toxic, abusive and dangerous to humanity.

    None of these thoughts have anything to do with being perfect. I do not wish to attain perfection. I wish to reach a basic requirement, which I would call being true. Being true, to me, means living in unity with your own heart and Spirit or Soul. That’s very basic.

    Rationalization and denial are the balms that allows some people to live fake lives, but these denials slowly put your heart and soul to sleep, until you no longer remember who you are.

    Civilization does not let us be true, which is why we, as well as all life, are all wounded. By we I mean those of us who love the earth and all life not just in theory but in practical terms.

    • mewabe, my friend,

      I understand, not necessarily to the depth that you do, your connection with and love for the natural world. It is in nature, away from poisonous pollution and people sleepwalking through their lives, that I feel more spiritual than anywhere else.

      Personally, I wanted my own tent (made from hemp) after learning more about native plants and their values (which I would replenish). As it is, I am instead technically homeless, live in an awful motel, use the service of food pantries, off of my medications, and having to let my roommate do the nature part as she’s much more physically fit. (As it turns out, she has found much in nature to help with the withdrawals as each medication leaves my system.)

      But there’s hibiscus tea aplenty, with citrus and avacados from a vacant lot, as well as plants we’re learning about. I’d rather go without all the physical comforts than without my connection with nature, the Earth, and the rest of Creation.


      • mewabe

        Thank you Annie 🙂

        I understood long ago that nature can be hard on the body…but it is soothing to the soul. Civilization, with all its numbing comfort, can be soft on the body…but it is very hard on the soul.

        Yes, I feel the same way about nature and spirituality.

        Remain close to the earth
        Touch the ground with a loving mind
        For the creation is as a dream
        From the Creator

        (I wrote this years ago).

        I am glad you are able to find free resources in nature which are healthy and healing.

  • Patrick Gannon

    “In our religions we would see the end of their seemingly endless competitions for human souls. Religions would stop insisting on portraying themselves as the One and Only Path to God. They would assist us on our own personal path, but they would not claim to be The Path. And they would cease using Fear as the chief tool in their arsenal.” (NDW)

    Mr. Awareness posts content from other websites here frequently with no penalty, and they seldom have anything to do with the topic at hand. I too shall offer up a post, but it is pertinent to the topic and likely to be very controversial. I offer up this post from “Spirituality is No Excuse.” I won’t make any judgment; I’ll simply put it out there for discussion…

    “New Age esoteric spirituality has popularized the old mystical idea that “God is in everyone”.

    As an idea, this one is eminently marketable. Which God? Choose it yourself, tailored to your own tastes and fears etc. (The New Age is unique in the business world, in that its customers actually supply the product themselves while paying someone else for the use of the brand name. And the term “God” is the ultimate one-size-fits-all.)

    But it has a built-in weakness: If you don’t need a priest to connect with God, then what the hell do you need Neale Donald Walsch for?

    The video below demonstrates how Neale Donald Walsch gets around all this. He plays a crass authoritarian power game

    [Video is an interview with Ernie Manouse]

    Walsch’s customers don’t seem to notice it, but standing before them is a man who, while condemning priests and organized religion, is in fact borrowing authority from “God” in a manner far more blatant than any priest would dare: he appears as God Himself before his audience. You can watch him subtly changing the tone of his voice, his posture and his language when “God” is supposedly talking through him.

    Walsch explains that the God who speaks through him is indeed the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. As God, Walsch is less humble and his statements suddenly take the form of imperatives. God clearly prefers a more formal style of discourse — “does not” instead of doesn’t, “will not” instead of won’t, etc. This “God” sounds rather stiff and stodgy, despite supposedly being Walsch’s most intimate friend. What’s more, He also seems to be very good at bossing people about and telling other people what’s best for them. One can get a whiff of hellfire and damnation too, in his demeanor.

    He cloaks it all in democratic “and-you-can-too” rhetoric, but you can’t. Your position in this hierarchy is on the receiving end. You are a consumer; a paying customer.

    In the video above Walsch uses the interviewer as a stand-in for a customer. It’s more an exercise in salesmanship than a theology lesson. Walsch leads the interviewer through the story of his first encounter with the God-voice, as it moved first from outside his head to within it. He explains his doubts and how he overcame them, modeling the desired behavior for the customer. Straight out of a Multi-Level Marketing textbook. (They usually call it “Step, step, lead” if I remember correctly.) The interviewer is trying to simply give Walsch a platform for his ideas, but Walsch repeatedly engages him directly on first name terms. Maybe God has also completed one of those sales trainings for Amway or Herbalife.

    A Judeo-Christian God With a Business Plan

    Walsch is supported by the whole New Age culture which invites people to hear only what they want to hear, to skim over the parts that grate on them and ignore any red flags. (“Choose only that which resonates with you”; “criticism is negative”, etc.)

    They are led to believe that by listening to Walsch they can find their own God who will act in their own best interests. Instead, in a form of psychological colonization, Walsch’s customers are likely to find that their own “inner God” is merely a puppet for Walsch’s God.

    ….. And Walsch’s “God” already has an entire business plan waiting for them. By an extraordinary coincidence — wonders will never cease — it also happens to be exactly the same the business plan that a whole bunch of other New Age teachers are running.

    This pro-forma business plan is a slick formula with everything from organizational structures and “support networks” run by the customers themselves, to the setting up of dubious charities. This model looks a lot like it was designed by former Scientologist Werner Erhard and refined by former Scientologist Tony Robbins, and run in an almost identical fashion by, for example, former Scientologist James Arthur Ray.

    It involves:

    “Free” seminars to trawl for the willing and to exclude any skeptics or potential trouble makers. (Skeptics: ever wonder why this stuff makes you so angry? It’s supposed to! By pissing us skeptics off so much, they polarize opinion and effectively socially isolate their followers from anyone who cares enough about the truth to dissent.)

    Constant upselling using manipulative sales techniques to establish an exploitive relationship to customers.

    Hierarchy built from the top down where one can only get close to the master through the exchange of money or various types of favors.

    Establishment of an “inner circle” of a chosen few who pay extravagant amounts with the promise of close personal contact with the God-man. In Walsch’s case this group is called Humanity’s Team who pay Walsch thousands of dollars per year for personal contact.

    Networking with other gurus who all cross-promote each other’s products and prop up each other’s credibility — obviously without regard for quality of product or safety of customers.

    What’s missing from all this? Of course, it’s…..

    Charity work…. I quote:

    In Oneness, Humanity’s Team makes itself available to participate in local outreach programs around the world: Donating food, clothing, time to those in need

    Battered Women’s Shelters, Orphanages, Critically ill Children’s Programs, Homeless Shelters, Food Banks, Charity Drives, Trash Clean Ups

    Now I am not suggesting for a minute that such things are just a front for collecting money, laundering funds and evading taxes. I have absolutely no evidence of that. But I will say that there is only one thing on that list that I would trust these people with.

    Again, I’m not indicating what I might or might not disagree with; but I’m curious what others might think…. Don’t ream me. I didn’t write it.

    • OK, who did write it? And when? And where was it posted? I’d like to investigate.


      • Patrick Gannon

        I provided the source. It’s not hard to find. Google: “Spirituality is No Excuse.” On the right side, under Categories, you’ll find Walsch. I just stumbled on this a couple days ago. It appears to be a site that investigates New Agers and their claims. The article is called: “Conversations With God: A Walsch in Sheep’s Clothing” August 4, 2013 The blog owner uses a “handle” name but says he or she will provide a full legal name to anyone who emails and asks for it. In the “About Us” section he (or she) provides a bio.

        The author claims: “I have no financial or professional interests of any kind related either to this blog or to any of its contents. All of the factual information presented here is freely available on the web or published elsewhere. ”

        It’s an opinion piece. I’m not sure what there is to investigate, but there are some additional articles if you want to read them. For me, it was nice to find that I’m not the only one with similar concerns.

        • “In Oneness, Humanity’s Team makes itself available to participate in local outreach programs around the world: Donating food, clothing, time to those in need
          Battered Women’s Shelters, Orphanages, Critically ill Children’s Programs, Homeless Shelters, Food Banks, Charity Drives, Trash Clean Ups

          “Now I am not suggesting for a minute that such things are just a front for collecting money, laundering funds and evading taxes. I have absolutely no evidence of that. But I will say that there is only one thing on that list that I would trust these people with.”

          Wow. Not suggesting, but certainly implying.

          So, you had to find a blog (which is entirely opinion rather than anything proven by scientific methodology, which you admit) from 2012 and 2013 that’s so popular it has (or had—I don’t see anything current) all of 67 followers. I can see why you like it—the blogger has an obvious distaste for religion and spirituality.

          I’m sure that a search of the Internet would allow one to find an opinion one agrees with on nearly any topic.


          • Patrick Gannon

            I wasn’t looking for it. I stumbled across it. I thought the opinion offered some interesting thoughts, so I copied it and asked others what they thought. I said that it was opinion. I did not imply that it was anything other than an individual’s personal opinion – which he is entitled to. I don’t care if others on the blog site agree – I asked what people here thought of the article and the points he raises. Many of the points are valid. The description of the business model is accurate based on what comes to my email (or used to – I opted out of some of my lists). Neale says his New Spirituality isn’t a religion, but his organizations all seem to have religious tax exemptions. I poked around a bit.

            Annie, you choose not to offer your thoughts about what the author said, but focus instead on going into a personal battle with me again. Not going there. I’m done here. If you want to comment on the content of the post, I may rejoin the discussion, but it’s too nice a day to waste in unproductive, personal tit for tat.

          • Just a note… I did say that it was an opinion, which you admitted. And I thought my thoughts about the blog were pretty clear: “I’m sure that a search of the Internet would allow one to find an opinion 67 people agree with on nearly any topic. And, from reading through it, not all agree with the blogger.”


        • When I read a blog, I look at its history, its potential bias, the length its been present, how many followers there are, the context in which any “cherry-picked” quotes have been taken, and whether or not the blogger has an axe to grind.


  • Georges Dupont

    We are all one ? This is of course a very beautiful concept, but i doubt a lot of people experience it often. To be frank i don’t. I read many times CWG and as i felt a lot of joy reading it, so i tried to practice what was written inside. For example it’s written that if you want to experience something, like joy for example, you should give joy to others. My experience, for many years, is that i’ve received mostly slaps in my face. We live in a very individualist and narcissistic society, and if you try to share joy for instance, most of the people will consider that you are only a ‘sucker’. Of course i guess if you a very advanced spiritual being, you are not affected by the external events, and it doesn’t matter. This is not my case. I am reading again CWG books and i consider now to be a book about very beautiful fairy tales. Of course if you are following spiritual conferences or groups, almost everybody seems enlightened and talks about unity. But most of the time it’s more a concept than a everyday experience.

    Also if we talk about work environment, with the globalization, it’s more and more a hard environment where everybody tries to fight others in order to survive.

    Now the only place where i can find a little bit of peace is being in nature. By contemplating its beauty, i feel more and more connected to it. But unfortunately with human beings, despite all my efforts, it’s another story. In any case, if there is really a life after death, i’ve no idea what is trying to experience my soul on this planet, as i feel not belonging to this planet.

    • mewabe

      You will not experience this reality of oneness in the world as it is now malfunctioning, because our world has the idea of separation as a foundation. Separation leads to extreme competition, conflicts and struggles, alienation and fear. Separation opposes the aspirations and needs of the heat and soul of humanity.

      You, I and everyone else who might be interested have to create a new life and a new world. Start with your own heart and imagine the world your heart and soul need in order to be free and fulfilled. Then make a move in that direction…there are alternatives to mainstream culture.

      • Well put, my friend. Alternative lifestyles, rather than than following the norm, are ramping up, including the uBuntu movement, Humanity’s Team and other spiritual movements, more people going “off the grid”… People are getting more and more fed up with the” status quo with the rich getting richer, more and more starving or without shelter…

        There are, I believe, ways to fix what is wrong with our worldview, change society, and replenish the planet. Will it take a lot of work? Absolutely. I think the planet, and we, are worth it.

        Love, Blessings and Gratitude,

        • mewabe

          Thanks Annie!
          Given the current state of the world, those of us who are sane need to drop out of the mainstream and reinvent our lives. Many intentional communities are doing just this throughout the world. Some fail, other are successful, as in any experiment…

          • They are what give me the hope that not all is lost. And, for every one I hear about, I’m sure there are more that I’ve not. A movement that may have started with a desire to prepare for doomsday already removed many from the mainstream. Spiritual movements, survival movements, the movement to feed the homeless even—removes people from participating in a sick system. All the small groups, and large groups, happening on more than one continent, may yet win the day.

            Love, Blessings and Gratitude,

  • Georges Dupont

    To give a recent experience, in my previous job, everybody was working in a open office. Almost nobody was talking or taking any pause. I had a colleague which seated one meter in front of me. In eight months, we talked perhaps one minute about personal things. When he wanted to communicate, he was often not talking but sending me emails. Despite he was just in front of me. ! As i had more and more pressure from my boss, as he was telling me i was not productive enough, i became sick and in the end i was fired. Anyway i was not able to work and concentrate anymore in this environment. You could say that perhaps this job was bad, and i could look for another one. But everywhere around me, i see more and more people getting despaired and getting sick because of their job. As there is more and more unemployment, there is more and more pressure for the people who are still working. And then let’s talk about unity and that we are all one !

  • shenika

    what a fraud. Whew Whoa Whoa Whoa Shew

    • And your opinion is based on…?


    • Stephen mills

      A fraud no as we look at the headlines today from Paris …yet again !!!

      • Hyori

        Religious wars arent anything new your point ?

        • Stephen mills

          The solution is above ! That’s all .


          • Hyori

            What makes you think religious fundamentalist are ready to embrace oneness ? For all we know they are willing to destroy everything in order to get their way.

          • I’m sure that religious “fundamentalists” (I use the term “literalists” as most of what I hear espoused is hardly fundamental, even to life) aren’t “ready to embrace oneness.” That doesn’t make it either untrue or unneeded. Ending slavery, paying women the same as men, firing men off to the moon by sitting them in a small capsule on top of a huge rocket… A lot of ideas have been or are unwanted by many. It doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t happen.


          • Hyori

            Annie i don’t get your point of view.
            I’m saying that these poeple are unwilling to accept new ideas. The new ideas you speak of are needed but what are you going to do ? Force people into submission ? I doubt that you would do such a thing since that would be a unloving thing to do.

          • mewabe

            You can only plant seeds. You cannot force anyone to be or do anything. Ideas are seeds. The hope of humanity is in its children…if they can be exposed to better ideas, and shown how to keep their hearts open.

          • No, I personally would not force anyone. No one really benefits because those forced resent it and those that do the forcing have to worry about rebellion. What works better than force, in my experience, is to attract. I personally would try to be both human (physical and fallible) and a part of the Divine in a way that might inspire them to want to change.


          • Stephen mills

            I fear many will die ! They will destroy themselves ,this is what they are doing clinging too their beliefs just to be right .The young are doing the killing and the dying ,they have not been allowed to question there infallible teachers ?
            How long must this go on until they realise that they have been mistaken . They must relinquish their ideas of life and god and be given a new model based on new thoughts and beliefs .

            It’s not going to play out well more bombs will be dropped ! France and the UK are saying what Isis have done is basically declared war .

            One things for sure this will solve nothing but only create a death spiral .
            The only way forward is for an understanding of what would produce lasting peace .


          • Hyori

            And how do you intend for the world to create lasting peace ?

  • mewabe

    There is a different way to look at the latest terrorist event.

    Humanity has spent much of its time, energy and resources killing, massacring, raping,
    torturing, persecuting, oppressing, enslaving, committing acts of genocide against itself, since times immemorial. Violence and hatred are nothing new.

    Then more civilized cultures began establishing rules of war, as if war were a game, to be played on the “field of battle”. It was decided that it was okay to use certain weapons but not other weapons, okay to kill certain people and not others, okay to attack under certain circumstances and not others. As long as the general ruled were adhered to, or as long as they were only broken by “accident” (as with “collateral damage”), under the belief that national security called for the breaking of such rules, or with the complicity of top commanders because telling the truth about committed atrocities would outrage civilians and break the military’s moral, the game of war could keep on being played forever.

    And then came terrorism. Breaking all of the war rules. Committing atrocities in plain view rather than behind the world’s back as was done in Indochina by the French and in Vietnam by the Americans (watch Winter Soldier 1972).

    Now no one knows how to react. How to deal with terrorist rule breakers who reveal the ugliness of violence and hatred for all to see, not just for soldiers on the battlefield, but who bring the battlefield into subways, restaurants, sport stadiums and theaters?

    The following ideas are not part of any terrorist plan, obviously. But what is actually happening, paradoxically and if you think past the drama, fear or anger, is that by pushing violence to the extreme and without any rules, by making it part of every day life, they are demonstrating, unwillingly of course as they themselves feed on violence, fear and hatred, that violence cannot work, that it is always a failure, it is an aberration, it is abnormal, pathological, and an abomination.

    Violence does not work, plain and simple, it is not something that anyone can live with, not in a city street, and not on a distant battlefield.

    What about war? There is no human war either. War is always a crime against humanity. It is always a failure and an abomination. It is always rooted in pathological thinking.

    • Georges Dupont

      “Violence does not work”

      Well, the problem is that some people think they will go to heaven if they kill ‘infidels’ and die as martyrs. In every major scripture you can find incitements to violence. As a lot of believers think that their holy books contain only god’s words, they will never accept to change their belief. Of course some people will say that you have to interpret and put the texts in context. But if don’t see many interpretations of sentences which say that everything in a town, including women, children, animals, plants should be destroyed ! (I remember reading similar sentences in the old testament)
      I am speaking about religions, but you can dogmatism everywhere, not only in religions. For example, you will find materialist scientists who think that all religions are totally rubbish and that they must be fought at all cost. Also more recently, in the green movement, i find also a lot of dogmatism and manipulation of people with fear. They say that if you don’t follow all of their advice, the end of the world is coming soon.
      So in the end, peace will not come soon, as a lot of people are sure that they know the absolute truth. Unfortunately this has been always the story of human kind.

      • Patrick Gannon

        “For example, you will find materialist scientists who think that all religions are totally rubbish and that they must be fought at all cost.”

        What do you mean by the word “fought?” I have never heard any scientist propose the use of violence against religion. Fighting with logic, reason, history, evidence, etc. – yes, by all means; but fighting with violence? Name a scientist who would propose this.

    • Well said, my friend. Very well said.

      Love, Blessings and Gratitude,

  • Oneness

    Wilderness within us,
    Energy of the Universe pulses in our veins.

    All of humanity is Divine, as part of Creation.
    Remember this, and remind others:
    Each of us part of the Whole, and made of It.

    Ask and ye shall have, seek and ye shall find,
    Life and Light are everywhere, inside and out.
    Love thy neighbor AS thyself, because they are.

    Oneness is no slogan, conveniently coined.
    No, it is our Truth, and our standard we hold high.
    Everyone matters. Every One matters.


    • Stephen mills

      Great Annie Bless you …

    • Larry-Sharon Metzenbauer

      Thanks Annie, love this. Can I share this with friends?

  • Spartaco Antonio Paolini

    As one we have individual experiences, evolving the glory of God.