A Voice in the Wilderness…

Editor’s Note: For the next several months this space will be used to explore — one-by-one — the messages, metaphysical principles, and spiritual meaning of the material found in the 3,000+ pages of the Conversations with God dialogues. This series of observations and interpretations is offered with my continuing disclaimer: I could be wrong about all of this.



CWG Explored/Installment #1:

We begin at the beginning.

There is something more going on here than meets the eye.

We are living in a system far more complex, far more magnificent, far more organized, far more intricate, far more directed, and far more usable than most people on Earth imagine.

It is precisely because most people on Earth do not imagine this to be true that our species is living the way it is living, with the largest percentage of us suffering hardships and facing challenges that no Enlightened Species should or would ever have to encounter.

It is incomprehensible, for instance, for a race of sentient beings that considers itself to be “evolved” to allow over 650 of its own offspring to die every hour of starvation.

It is incomprehensible, for instance, for a race of sentient beings that considers itself to be “evolved” to allow 1.7 billion of its members to lack clean water, or for 2.6 billion to exist without basic sanitation, or for 1.6 billion to live without the benefits of a discovery turned into a tool for modern living over 150 years ago: electricity.

Think of that: After 150 years we have still not found a way to provide electricity for a quarter of the human race.

In other words, we have not even found a way for everyone on Earth to harness and utilize the power that is visible to us, provable with regard to its existence — to say nothing of harnessing and using power that is invisible and not provable as to its existence.

This is how backward we are as a species. This is how primitive we are. We are so barbarian and uncivilized that we cannot find a way to stop 650 of our children from starving to death every hour on our planet.

Given this low level of our sophistication, it is small wonder that we hold the extraordinarily limited ideas about Larger Realities that so many of us hold. We can’t even imagine or manifest the miniscule about of love it would take to stop ourselves from letting so many of our offspring die of insufficient food, much less can we imagine the enormous love it would take to create the Universe and empower all of its sentient beings to produce and experience their own reality as they choose.

We live in a world where we throw away more leftovers in the restaurants of Tokyo, Paris and Los Angeles in an evening than would be needed to feed the children of an entire village for a week, and as we watch the children die we discuss it even while poisoning ourselves with smokes and liquor in serious after-dinner conversations that produce no solutions, but plenty of tsk-tsking.

What it would take to turn around this sad state of affairs is a new and larger understanding of Life Itself…its origin, its function, its process and its very purpose. Yet many of us have limited ourselves to that which can be proven as we seek to expand that which we say we “understand.”

We’ve taken an “if-it-can’t-be-proven-it-can’t-be-true” position on matters of enormous consequence — and it is possible that it is this, and this alone, which has so dramatically slowed and hugely hindered our growth.

I have discussed this before in this space. I have asked: When a person who we have come to truly and deeply admire turns to us and says for the first time, “I love you,” do we believe them? Or do we say, “Really? Prove it. I can’t take you at your word. I need proof.”

If we required everyone who tells us they love us to prove it, I want to suggest that we would live very limited and lonely lives. Yet many of us require “proof” of other equally impactful and important Life Data before we can accept it and use it to our benefit — not the least of which is the understanding that there is something more going on here than meets the eye, and that we are living in a system far more complex, far more magnificent, far more organized, far more intricate, far more directed, and far more usable than most people on Earth imagine.

Conversations with God begins with a premise that cannot be proven. Therefore, if Proof of Premise is the yardstick by which one measures viability and usability of data, our exploration of CWG’s many potentially wonderfully beneficial messages needs must end here.

Its messages must be dismissed out of hand, for they emanate from what I have come to call the Undeniable Unprovable. It cannot be denied that it cannot be proven, and its very unprovability is what, to me, renders it undeniable.

Humanity has demonstrated that everything that can be proven is subject to denial. Global warming offers us a perfect example. A Chinese hoax? Really?

So I’ve taken to assuming that if is can’t be proven, there’s a good chance that it’s true. Like the fact that the first time my wife said “I love you” to me, she meant it. And like the fact that there’s something more going on here than meets the eye in the Universe.

Like the fact, for instance, that there is a Prime Source, an Originating Energy, an Essential Essence that some of us call “God” that exists, and that can be used with predictable and consistent results. An Essence that we are part of. That we are made of. From which we cannot be separated, because we are the manifestation of That Which It Is.

The first message of Conversations with God — contained on Page 5 of over 3,000 pages of dialogue — is this: We Are All One.

We are told: “All things are One Thing. There is only One Thing, and all things are part of the One Thing there is.”

This cannot be proven. What can be proven, according to Earthly science and Earthly standards and Earthly understandings, is that everything is separate from everything else. We live in a Separation Cosmology.

I believe this single idea is the greatest obstacle to the rapid expansion of human potential and the rapid forward movement of human evolution.

And we will explore that thought in Installment #2 of this series.



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:
  • A true friend

    “we are living in a system far more complex, far more magnificent, far more organized, far more intricate, far more directed, and far more usable than most people on Earth imagine.” You write this after you wrote “It is incomprehensible, for instance, for a race of sentient beings that considers itself to be “evolved” to allow 1.7 billion of its members to lack clean water, or for 2.6 billion to exist without basic sanitation, or for 1.6 billion to live without the benefits of a discovery turned into a tool for modern living over 150 years ago: electricity.”
    If God system is so usable and magnificent how come this 1.7 billion people have failed to use it like the rest of humanity. You will point out that humans have failed to deliver this benefits when CwG speaks about law of attraction, levitation, raising the dead from the grave, HEBs, multiple universes and time travel.

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      In my experience the answer to your question (“If God’s system is so usable and magnificent, how come this 1.7 billion people have failed to use it like the rest of humanity?”) is this: The vast majority of the people on Earth do not understand that there even IS a “system,” much less how it works. Most of us do not fully comprehend the Process or the Purpose of Physical Life itself. The vast majority of people on Earth (myself very much included) hold a limited understanding of the physics and the metaphysics of the Universe, and a complete misunderstanding of the Essential Essence that many human beings call “God.”

      CWG asks a probing question: “Is it possible that there is something you do not fully understand about God and about Life, the understanding of which would change everything?” I am going to suggest that the answer is yes.

      The mentions in CWG about the “law of attraction, levitation, raising the dead from the grave, HEBs, multiple universes and time travel” are not notations of things that are commonplace. If humans better understood the Multiverse in which they live, these things might become commonplace. But right now they are not — not because they don’t exist, but because we don’t understand enough about ourselves and all of Life to take advantage of the fact that they do exist.

      This is my understanding. I could, of course, be wrong about all of this.

      • A true friend

        “The vast majority of the people on Earth do not understand that there even IS a system” And God in all of her magnificence couldn’t have predicted such a problem. Way to go God (sarcasm) I should surely let everything in your capable hands.

      • Patrick Gannon

        Yes, you could be wrong about all of this. Most definitely!

        Where is the evidence for this “Essential Essence?” We actually have a pretty good idea of how the “process and purpose of physical life” works (no caps necessary). (Look up entropy). For those with an open mind, a good overview of the state of current scientific knowledge today and (in part) how it relates to all this New Age woo – check out “The Big Picture” by Sean Carroll.

        What there is no explanation for is how something outside of this process, something outside our space/time reality, something outside our physical matter reality (PMR) can interact with the particles in our PMR. There is zero evidence for anything outside our PMR interacting with it. If this “Essential Essence” exists – so what. If it’s outside our PMR, it is moot. If it somehow comes inside, or exists inside our PMR, then it can be observed and measured – at least indirectly, by noting how it affects other particles in our PMR. We have no evidence for any such interactions thus far, and we’ve searched pretty exhaustively; but the search continues.

        If it is actually inside our PMR, then if it’s a force we haven’t detected yet. If, for example, “consciousness” has some characteristic that extends outside of our brains and is pervasive throughout our universe, we have no objective evidence for this either, and until we do, believing that this “stuff” exists, is kidding ourselves. We can hope it exists if we want to. We can hope that this life is not all we get, but the reality is that we have to face the very high probability that is indeed the case. Helping people pretend to know things they don’t know, may turn out to be harmful since it essentially requires that we lie to ourselves.

        The multiverse is still hypothetical by the way. I don’t think it’s even a theory. It’s a prediction that comes from some equations describing quantum mechanics, but those equations are still incomplete until we incorporate gravity. To say, in absolute terms and without caveat, “If humans better understood the Multiverse in which they live…” as though you actually know that multiverses exist and that we live in one of them, is a pretty brash assertion, that a number of very prominent physicists will line up against. I don’t see the term “multiverse” in the early CwG books, so when did God tell you that we lived in a multiverse? Have you shared this information with Steven Hawking – I’m sure he would be interested, and will surely have questions for God, that perhaps you could relay in your next chat.

        If your god was real, why didn’t he reveal something useful to prove his existence? You believe in Jesus, right? If Jesus was a HEB, why did he tell people it wasn’t necessary to wash their hands before eating? If he was a HEB, surely he knew about germs. He had to have intentionally let millions of people die in agony of treatable diseases if he possessed that information and yet told people to do the opposite. If that’s highly evolved, I’ll pass.

        Science is more than buzzwords. Just like Chopra, you seem to be banking on other people knowing even less than you do. Chopra was forced to retract his views on quantum woo, falling back and suggesting that it was just a “metaphor.” Don’t dig yourself into his hole. He made a fool of himself.

  • John Everest

    “All things are One Thing. There is only One Thing, and all things are part of the One Thing there is.”
    “This cannot be proven. What can be proven, according to Earthly science and Earthly standards and Earthly understandings, is that everything is separate from everything else. We live in a Separation Cosmology.”

    In my experience, this CAN be proven, as can all the assertions of all the masters and enlightened ones who went before. But it can ONLY be proven BY experience. That which seeks another kind of “rational” proof is the intellect, in service to the ego, which is in charge of insisting that we remain within the realm of language(s), using words, which are but symbols of the symbols of dream language, sensual images, which are but symbols of the actual thing. So we sit around, as you said, drinking expensive liquor and eating well while we discuss things like world hunger and children dying BECAUSE we are in the abstracted realm of WORDS when we do so. We, as the ego, use words without end to insulate us from the raw, direct sensual experience of the world we knew as a baby, which is so foreign to us now that we can’t even remember it. We learn words from parents, teachers, authorities, friends, and enemies until we are drowning in them. We are like children being kept indoors and taught about the sun with encyclopedic numbers of books filled with endless words of all manner of descriptions about the sun – none of which prepare us for the simple, direct experience of standing for one instant with our faces IN the sunlight. The child still reading the books will NEVER know what that child has experienced, and will likely deny its reality because NO WORDS can ever describe such an experience. In truth, all words CAN do is separate us from direct experience, instantly and completely. When you experience the sun directly, with every fiber of your being, and in complete internal silence, it is one thing. When you try to remember that experience after going indoors, you have a wordless sensory memory of it, which is but a symbol, with nowhere near the impact of the original. When you pretend to be able to convey that to another in language, you use a single empty word to symbolize that experiential symbol which is memory, in an effort to somehow convey the experience of the real thing. But the person who has never had that experience will NEVER know your meaning until they have had the same experience. This is the same for the sayings of enlightened ones. Another who has had the experience themselves can identify with the statements of any other being who has done so. But someone who has not will never be led to comprehend using words alone. Language then, is useless for teaching such things except that it can CONFIRM that two people have experienced the same thing. To me, this is the sacrament of Confirmation. Beyond that, the only way to teach these things is by direct experience of them. And since literally every word throws you out of heaven, as it were, the answer, as given by every great teacher is to end the constant internal dialog of words which separate everything. Every label is a belief, a judgment, an opinion, a definition, which by its nature separates some thing from everything else. So while an infant can still experience a single tree oak directly, with almost psychedelic intensity and beauty, and feel what it feels like to BE that tree, losing him/herself in that tree because that is the nature of LOVE, which is what pure unconditioned awareness IS, the child is quickly taught to replace all that with a word, “tree” which immediately pulls you completely out of that blissful enmeshment of a moment before. With this dismissive label, we are free to resume walking at a manic pace and continue to bypass any direct experience of anything in the world around us, which is how we spend our lives. Psychedelics reverse all this, but momentarily and dangerously at times. But as soon as we can simply recognize that the supposed “guardian,” who is supposed to be keeping us safe from the potential pain we believe might happen if we experience the world directly, has become the “guard” who is, in fact, keeping us prisoner, we will drop the monotony of the judgmental mind in a hot second. As soon as that happens, we begin to recognize/remember that there are NO divisions between anything until we create a label or judgment which causes this. There is no separation between car and road and bird and space and building until my words condemn them to being separate. And more, there is no separation between my awareness and the awareness that peers from within you or the bird or the tree or the rock. There is only formless, definitionless awareness, and it is I, and you, and everything that is. And it is like standing with your face to the sun for the first time. And you know that no one will ever understand, and that they already do.

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      It is as Conversations with God says very directly: “Words are the least reliable form of communication.”

      • It is my understanding that the more advanced HEB’s communicate telepathically. No words needed. However, there is one draw back, the human voice when singing beautifully & joyously can’t be matched & thus the HEB’s do miss out on that.

        Now, I suppose, there is a telepathic form of singing, but I’m not currently aware of that. But do entertain it. I do remember a animal communicator talking about playful swallows flying in a barn & the person could hear them laughing & enjoying themselves telepathically. So who knows? But the vibration of the human voice singing is a blessed one indeed.

    • Gross Prophet

      Beautifully expressed, even if was through the ‘word’ medium. Although, as long as we are using ‘words’, could we also use paragraphs? :^)

  • “Think of that: After 150 years we have still not found a way to provide electricity for a quarter of the human race.”

    Some thoughts. As a primitive race we are still in our infancy. Yet we eventually will grow into our adulthood & become more enlightened. We will stay there & keep growing even into more enlightenment. So in the BIG picture, once enlightened & expanding, we stay there,– & our past primitive states will be only a memory. Thus, in the BIG picture we will live in an enlightened state much longer than our current primitive state. So um, enjoy it now, as once we grow out of it, we don’t turn back.

    As for electricity. That’s analogous to God energy. That is, it is a neutral energy that can be used for good or bad as we currently define it. Free will allows us to experience what we call bad, painful & terrible. Like using electricity for ill etc. We don’t have to continue this way, but we do until we realize we don’t have to anymore or we simply tire of it. We out grow the negativity.

    Yes, it’s crazy to be in a world where fresh water, toilets & electricity are not even available to a large swath of humans. It’s all part of the evolutionary process all societies & planets go through in our universe as I currently understand it.

    Our awakening, the uncovering of our problems is part of our growth out of it.

  • Jethro

    Insanity is proven by comparing a persons thoughts to the rest of the worlds thoughts. You cannot prove to the insane that they are insane. The majority wins.

    • mewabe

      The majority is not necessarily sane.
      “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”

      • Jethro

        Precisely the point. There isn’t any proof of who is sane or insane. The majority gets to decide. If the majority is insane, it is the desire of the majority that all be insane. We have many things around us not making sense. But since the majority claims it makes sense, nothing is changing except that which is getting worse.

        I really do see good things happening since I’ve started looking and I’m looking for a place to jump in. I’ve started by insuring buildings are up to code and correcting lazy, Shotty work. I also make home repairs affordable as I can without hurting myself and educating people as much as possible. I’ve educated our hardware stores to the mind set that homes only last as long as their products, to my surprise they are listening. I’m just one person, so I take every chance to tell the other contractors to do the same. I guess this is my purpose here. We have to take care of each other one way or another.

        • mewabe

          “I’m looking for a place to jump in”
          I am looking for a place to jump off (the planet). Just kidding…
          Congratulation on doing your part to make the world a better place. Caring about what we do, and trying to do honest work is a very good start, as too many people’s priority is to chase the dollars at any cost, to the point that no one can trust anyone.

          • Jethro

            Thank you, I’m not patting myself on the back here or looking for one, but trust is how we are growing. And I merely present an idea that anyone can do something to improve the life of another person. Society has come to this point because of society. It can change. By the way, congratulations. I understand the oil has been rerouted. Awesome news! In my lack of trust though sadly, it’s not over until it’s over. Best wishes to those who have stayed behind to make sure.

          • mewabe

            Nothing wrong with a pat on the back!
            Thanks for the best wishes, I don’t think it will be over for quite some time. as Trump floated the idea of “privatizing” Indian reservations (the same way Republicans want to privatize public lands) so corporations could finally get their hands on the oil, coal, uranium and other resources, the majority of which is under Indian lands. The indian wars never ended, and won’t as long as Indians own more than the shirt on their backs!

    • Gross Prophet

      A thought fully developed into a book, in Dr. R. D. Laing’s ‘The Politics of Experience’.

      • Jethro

        It was discussed in psychology briefly but stuck with me. The only symptom of insanity is being different from everyone else. All I have to do is say what everyone else is saying every now and then and I keep my freedom. It’s that easy!

        • Gross Prophet


          It’s an interesting read. I still have a copy, in paperback. Really brings home the power of perspective. He spent time relating reports of clinical diagnosis and ‘treatment’, and pointed out how, from the patient’s point of view, nearly everything the medical personnel/doctors did could be viewed as aberrant, if not outright criminal.

          • Jethro

            I personally perceive it as criminal and Sadistic. The doctors were insane. The thing that surprised me was learning that those ludicrous treatments lasted well into the seventies. I can not state the sadness I felt for those poor people.

  • mewabe

    “What it would take to turn around this sad state of affairs is a new and larger understanding of Life Itself…its origin, its function, its process and its very purpose.”

    I do not disagree with Neale’s propositions on what it would take…but as usual, I will add my own: I do not think that ideas alone open a person’s heart. And I do think that what is primarily needed to open humanity’s eyes and minds to this “sad state of affair” and to its easily applicable solutions is an open heart.

    I have mentioned this many times, and I am not sure that it is well understood, or understood at all, precisely because in my experience 99% of humanity does not have an open heart. Most people might feel for their special loved ones and their pets, have a few superficial emotions and some deeper feelings, but they cannot extend this love to someone who is living on the opposite side of the planet, and consequently cannot feel actual empathy and compassion. They can only feel guilt, occasionally, when they listen to their conscience. And most people hate guilt…consequently they shut down news of distant suffering.

    We can offer people such concepts as “we are all one”, as in the past a famous troublemaker, real or fictional, is reported to have said “love your neighbor as you love yourself”.

    But a closed heart cannot be touched by such ideas. The mind hears it, and think “Yeah, in an ideal world, sure”. But the heart remains closed, narrow, small, and so does the mind.

    It is my belief and experience that the world is in the state it is not because of a lack of ideas…everything has already been said, in many different ways. It is the way it is because of a lack of feeling. A feeling person, regardless of upbringing, religious beliefs or political ideology, could not stand to see any life form, human or animal, suffer.

    As a matter of fact a feeling person cannot embrace religious beliefs that teach about eternal torture for the unbeliever or unrepentant, or political ideologies that teach that altruism is bad and selfishness and greed good. No feeling person could think this way, not for an instant.

    And so we are living amongst a world population that is desensitized, seemingly spiritually dead and empty, not because the mind lacks ideas, but because the heart, the primary motivator of change, of passion, true creativity and growth, is indeed in a semi coma.

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      Ah but yes…you have left the then Central Question unanswered: How does a species create “feeling” individuals? How can humanity engender “feeling” in its members? Or is it your view that there is no way to do this? If you think there IS a way, what way would that be?

      No fair laying out the problem without at least taking a stab at offering a solution.

      • mewabe

        I think it has to be a number of things…but primarily perhaps, it would have to be the way children are raised, not only from infancy, but even from within the womb. Much research has been done about this.

        The brain keeps developing until a child reaches 3 years of age, roughly. Up to that stage (and beyond of course) a child is very vulnerable emotionally and psychological. Insensitive, unfeeling parents raise insensitive, unfeeling children. It has even been discovered that rageful, angry mothers cause the fetus brain not to develop properly, because basically their inner chemistry is unbalanced.

        How do we break the ever repeating cycles of unmet children’s emotional and psychological needs and mild to severe trauma, which are global problems, is a tough question. Richer nations such as the US are not necessarily producing psychologically healthy children either…so money has little to do with it. And an unfeeling parent, or a parent who has unresolved emotional wounds, cannot easily raise a feeling, healthy child, no matter how sincerely motivated.

        One healthy, feeling child (and adult) at a time seems to be a very slow process to change the world…yet I do not see any other solution.

        • “…it would have to be the way children are raised, not only from infancy, but even from within the womb. Much research has been done about this.”

          I gave away books “The secret life of the unborn child” not about abortion, but the effects on the child during gestation. This was many years ago. Even Aldous Huxley’s wife who was a big advocate of this asked me to be in the forefront of this. I declined.

          I’ll have to revisit this now that you brought it up. But it’s an important concept very much ignored in our society, though not totally.

          In Lisette Larkins book on Talking to enlightened ET’s, you don’t have kids unless one is enlightened. That’s how the HEB’s do it.

          • mewabe

            “In Lisette Larkins book on Talking to enlightened ET’s, you don’t have kids unless one is enlightened”.
            That would be a way to end humanity within a generation! But seriously it sounds like a good concept…
            Unfortunately, apart from the negative influence of bad parenting, children are also primarily educated to become obedient workers or professionals, not fully developed human beings. Noam Chomsky mentions education creating stupidity and conformity (he was not mincing his words).

          • I like Noam Chomsky, the media doesn’t. The weird thing is, they will mention him when he transitions his body, & that’s the only time, but perhaps not?

            Regarding education, child rearing etc. The other point of consideration is, that we came here to earth willingly, within the confines of the culture we were raised & did so consciously. Nevertheless, now that we know better, we can do whatever we can do to help elevate where we are.

            I recently took to the idea that I live in “The United States of Enlightenment.” Of course obviously appearance wise, we certainly don’t. Nevertheless, I’m determined to visualize, reprogram & move as much as I can toward my own enlightenment & perhaps drag a few people with me. While I have a long was to go, I have compassion on my less the enlightened moments & move as best I can into the inner peace I seek.

            Now while I work & play toward that & create the habit, determination & effort to get & stay there,–it’s my hope that at some point it will just simply be there.

            It’s a lot like when I play piano & learn a new lick, phrase, song & it requires a lot of time & at some point I get there more effortlessly. Same way with peace & enlightenment. Cheers.

          • mewabe

            I know we choose our lives and experiences. Yet much could be changed with a better understanding of what a child actually needs. We are not victims, but neither are we completely independent from our environment.

            Enlightenment might not actually look like what people imagine…

            It is totally transformative, from the inside out, for certain. But it is at once dramatic and subtle. What leaves the mind and body are all traces of fear…it causes actual fearlessness, as there is a knowing (not just a concept) that death is merely a transition, as well as a knowing of what it “feels” like in the spirit world (I hear Patrick grinding his teeth from across the continent).

            With such fearlessness comes an unshakable peace. Yet emotions can still come up, old habits do not totally vanish, but one is no longer governed by them.

            It causes a different way of being…not total detachment, but not attachment either, as most attachment is rooted in a fear of loss.

            But then, one still has to keep breathing, and pay the bills, and sweep dead leaves on the patio, and remind oneself that others experience the world in a totally different way.

          • Well I’m far from enlightenment. But about 2 years ago I walked out of a movie theater & had an inner peace that lasted for about 3 days before subsiding. It’s my practice & goal to get there again & stay there.

            In that space even when negative stuff happened, the peace was always there in combination with other stuff. It was still there regardless, I still dealt with stuff, but the peace is there as a great reminder.

            But mostly it was just a beautiful space to be in.
            So now, all things I call irritating, annoying, negative, are only calls to allow my self the reminder of who I want/choose to “Be”. So they are helpers when I’m aware & not so when I’m not. 🙂

          • mewabe

            That sounds great Marko, it sounds like you are on your way!

          • Thanks Mewabe. I hope so (laugh) oh, humor is another sign of peace & enlightenment.

            I’ve noticed in the past when this blog gets too heavy, usually someone, or one of us will remind others to lighten uP, & so it is…….

            Here’s another thing (just happened too!) when I’m deep into reading something, or writing on this blog, or drawing or playing piano, my wife will often call me from downstairs & I get irritated because it breaks my flow. I don’t like that! However, when I’m aware, I see that it’s always something almost always in my favor, or, it means get up off my ass & go downstairs & move! Your sitting too long! So it’s all good.

            That get moving is a message I get from people like Dick Van Dyke or Tony Bennet, both in their 90’s. So the trick is to keep moving.

          • Stephen mills

            Here’s something to add to your important discussion its from the book Spontaneous Evolution …..I might get a red card for this one .

            Children below the age of 6 are operating predominantly in the delta and theta EEG Activity thus operating at levels below consciousness .Delta and Theta frequencies define a brain state known as a hypnagogic trance the same neural state that hypnotherapist a use to directly download new behaviours into subconscious minds in their clients.

            In other words ,the first six years of a child’s life are spent in a hypnotic trance !

            A child’s perception of the world are directly downloaded into the subconscious during this time ,without discrimination and without filters of the analytical self- conscious mind,which doesn’t fully exist.Consequently ,our fundamental perceptions about life and our role in it are learned without our having the capacity to choose or reject those beliefs .
            We are simply programmed .
            The Jesuits were aware of this programmable state and proudly boasted “Give me the child until it is seven years old and I will give you the man”.They knew the child’s trance state facilitated a direct implanting of Church dogma into the subconscious mind.Once programmed that information would inevitably influence 95 percent of that individual’s behavior for the rest of his or her life.

            This is why critical thinking is so important in later years and should always be encouraged .As well as responsibility to create beliefs that are as less damaging as possible to the individual when they grow up and formulate their world view from a very narrow perspective .

            Time for a New Cultiral Story and rewrite the future.

      • Gross Prophet

        I believe that would be the ‘spirit’, the ‘still, small voice’ within each of us that we ‘inherit’ when we are born. It is the constant, gentle yet insistent ‘nudging’ from there that leads us further and further towards ‘the good’. All we have to do, as mewabe has said, is not CHOOSE to ignore it. ‘As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.’ Whichever side we repeatedly choose, is what we shall more and more become.

    • Patrick Gannon

      How could we survive if we had extensive “feelings” for all the hurting humans on this planet? We would be so overcome with emotions that we couldn’t do anything but sit in despair. We, like health care workers, have to draw a demarcation line or become paralyzed and unable to act. It’s why the people who ask us for contributions show a single child starving, rather than a whole village starving. We can empathize with a single child and wrap our minds around that, but an entire village is too much; it’s too overwhelming, and we’ll turn away from it as a result. That’s why they do those advertisements the way they do. We likely evolved this way as a defense mechanism, and there’s little we can do about it in the short term. We are altruistic to individuals, but not so much to groups.

      The internet strikes me as a good way to reach out to individuals and influence them, help them, work with them, empathize with them, converse with them. With lots of people working with lots of individuals, perhaps we can help each other as individuals.

      • mewabe

        “How could we survive if we had extensive “feelings” for all the hurting humans on this planet?”
        With difficulty…the heart bleeds for all suffering creatures, humans and animals. Love shouldn’t have limits, and true love does not, except for the fearful.

        My point is not that we should “survive” but LIVE. In other words be fully alive, which means be fully feeling, rather than half numb as most people are.

        Being fully feeling would indeed make life as we know it today extremely difficult, which once again is the point. It would propel people to act to quickly end unbearable situations, rather than as you say “turn away” as people do today, because a truly feeling person cannot turn away from suffering.

        The problems of the world are actually very solvable, and would be solved quickly if we spent less time and money on conflicts, military build up and war and more time and money catering to our real global human needs.

        There is no doubt that suppressing feelings is an automatic psychological defense that begins in infancy…but it is neither healthy for the individual nor for the collective. This is what allows people, in some nations, to still watch public executions and not blink, and in some cases to look forward to it. It creates and perpetuates sickness.

        You don’t have to agree though Patrick, as you well know…

  • Lauretta

    Neale, I’ve been following these discussion for a while now…and i’m really glad that you’re recovering from hear surgery so very well, I did pray for u!….

    Because last posts have been all about proving of God, I think i have to add something to this….

    My brother whom i loved so very, very, very much, died today in mountains…and…I saw his dead body, and he was not there…I feel him right here, beside me….I discussed this with my father today, that no-one is left agnostic, when he looses person, that he/she so dearly loved…you just see the life in people…when i saw other people today at the morgue, and policemen, I saw him…they had this sparkle in their eyes, while my brother’s body was without it….

    Even I, when i saw, that somebody hurt me, was agnostic…and all that i called “not being love”. All denying of myself is being agnostic…not just rationaly saying that you dont believe in God.

    Horewer, I do understand atheists who believed in false God, that they are not sure about it…

    I did study all of these since my grandfather died…and I have no other answer to this…than that…love is alife and we are all it…so is all around us….there has been a prove…for me…

  • Spiritual_Annie


    I know that there is much more than meets the eye because I have personally experienced things that cannot be explained by what can be seen. Emotions are a simple example of this. We can see people act on or express emotions, but we cannot see the emotions themselves. Thoughts are another simple example. We can hear or read the words someone uses to explain a thought, but we cannot see the thoughts themselves. The only emotions and thoughts we can fully understand are those we have ourselves because the moment we try to put words to them, they become limited. They become something less than the full experience.

    Some people use words as shields, to protect them from the direct experiences like emotions and thoughts, much less deeper experiences. Direct experience can be overwhelming for people who have been raised to put more emphasis on what can be seen. We teach our children, in our homes and schools, that words are more important than direct experience. Part of the reason for this, I think, is conformity. What parent wants their child to be an outcast because they experience life differently than their peers? What child (or, for that matter, what adult) wants to stand outside of what the majority defines as “normal”? And, who wants to feel the heartache of children starving, people getting sick from unsanitary water, or people having to struggle to perform daily tasks without electricity?

    I also think if we’re going to discuss proof, we need to discuss what that means because there are different types of proof. There’s the scientific kind of proof, or what’s called objective proof, where under the same circumstances there is a measurable outcome that can be repeated. There’s also personal proof, or what’s called subjective proof, where one has an undeniable experience that provides the individual with an understanding previously not held. The third kind of proof, for which I have yet to find an appropriate term, is rather a combination of the two, and is what’s often used in spirituality and self help in the form of such things as affirmations, meditation and prayer. Under the same circumstances there isn’t necessarily any objective proof although there are similar subjective outcomes.

    I personally believe in all three kinds of proof as I’ve had all three kinds of experiences. Whether or not someone else believes in the experiences I have or the same types of proof matters less and less the older I get and the more experiences I have. Some experiences are so powerful that there’s no need for any repeat, the one instance providing all the proof I need.

    I think that, in order for us to come to a different understanding about how things work, we must first be open to the idea that we don’t have it all figured out, and stop putting all our emphasis on that which can be proven objectively. First, we haven’t yet developed all the tools we need in order to find all there is that can be objectively proven. If we did, we’d have the answers to what caused the Big Bang, what dark energy is, and the Unified Theory, among other things.

    We do have other tools for other kinds of proof. We have our minds, which can think far beyond what tools can detect. We have our hearts, which can feel far beyond what our minds can conceive. These tools, however, aren’t promoted as valuable. We’re told to stop daydreaming and do something “productive” instead, when daydreaming may lead to our next best understanding. We’re told that our feelings must be limited, both in intensity and in time, or we’re sent to see a psychologist or psychiatrist to help us become more “normal”.

    When I think of the phrase, “We are all One,” I think in ultimate terms. I don’t think the “we” means all humanity, or even all living things, but all of the known and unknown realms of existence.

    For me, the basic building block of all things is energy rather than matter. Einstein’s famous equation shows how much energy can be released from matter when it is destroyed, but few turn the equation around to show how much energy it takes to create matter. There are energies that cause subquantum particles to appear as possibilities and probabilities rather than certainties. There is energy that makes atomic particles spin and rotate around each other. There are energies we as people put out that others can read. And I believe that there are energies that carry information and intelligence, not just particles and powers.

    So, for me, the phrase “We are all One” means we come from, are a part of, and are inseparable from the energy that creates, which some call God or Divinity or a host of other names. I personally connect this energy with the Source of all things, or the “ineffable Light” of myths that existed before matter was formed. I also personally believe that the creative energy that is Source is the energy of Love, expressed in a variety of forms. I know that when I create, whether it’s through writing or art or whatever, it’s most often based in Love for what I’m expressing or Love for whom I’m trying to share my experience with.

    I look forward to the next installment.

    Love and Blessings Always,

  • Jethro

    I get the feeling that someone who hasn’t had electricity is doing fine without it. We have built our lives around having it, so the thought of not having it sounds devastating. I do not know why people are having such a hard time feeding their children. In America it makes absolutely no sense. When I mentioned donating food to a house for abused women, the business said the liability was too high and couldn’t do it. So our laws have worked so hard to protect us that they now essentially bring harm. People are afraid. Food for humans makes more sense than the stuff grown for animals around me. I know that this grain here adds to human consumed foods but it’s not healthy, life sustaining, but not called healthy. We have become spoiled, we don’t wish to feel the pain of loss and we don’t like the thought of dying ourselves. We can jump in the car and be healed by doctors hopefully… we have it easier in America in a lot of ways. Canada has free health care. But we can find fault in anything.

    So I believe it would take something big, devastating, a life changing action, to become aware of our mistakes. An addict has to hit rock bottom, life changing negativity, in order to recognize a need for change. Everyone on earth must do this. See a problem before there is a problem. There is a fluctuation of these “rock bottoms” in the way that it may, just need to be recognized by some, and others have to start losing things to feel a need to change. So what does it take to teach and create Change? Addicts need daily therapy, a constant giving of information with minimal interruption for 90 days and that’s just a decent start. Some still return to harming themselves because the idea that it’s ok is still there. The old ways of thought are easier. Even with proof that life without drugs is miraculous, they choose to be self harming which ultimately harms others.

    So I touched a little on proof and it’s effects. Proof of truth of an idea will never be enough to always make change. Even if we can prove something to be true, truth may not be enough to make changes in ones life if that life is working for someone and they refuse to see the benefits of change. The consequences of one’s current actions outweigh the benefits of change even if damaging.

    When someone we care about says I love you, we believe it emediatly, it’s a desired effect, I like to think in most cases. But when the same person says I hate you, we instantly go into denial. We refuse to accept that the negative is occurring. NOW, we have something that needs to be fixed. It took devastation of ones emotions to see a need for change, nothing that was leading up to that point was seen as a problem….

  • Patrick Gannon

    Neale suggests that our system is “directed.” What does that mean? Who is doing the directing? The only thing we know that is directing us is evolution, and evolution doesn’t “direct” with any particular goal in mind other than fitness in a particular environment as determined by natural selection If we are being directed by something outside ourselves – some universal consciousness, why complain about us. The universal consciousness doesn’t seem to be doing its job!

    Neale decries the suffering and starvation, but as a percentage of population, we are much, much better off than our ancestors who had average lifespans that were less than half what we experience today. That many still starve to death can be attributed at least in part to beliefs – to religious organizations like the Catholic Church that demand that those least able to afford large families do so under threat of eternal punishment if they use contraception. This evil policy is a product of beliefs, isn’t it? That we have not provided electricity for all of them, says something about how fast human population has exploded. It took 200,000 years to get to the 2.5 billion when I was born, and now it’s 7 billion, in my lifetime alone. How are we supposed to keep up with that kind of growth, and the problem is worst where organizations based on beliefs tend to run the show, right?

    In asserting that we are a race of sentient beings that considers itself to be “evolved,” Neale is changing the meaning of evolution. Evolution is free of judgements. Evolution is about natural selection for fitness within a particular environment. Evolution does not have goals such as goodness. Evolution is blind to everything except fitness within a particular environment. We are evolved – the scientific evidence is unmistakable, and I think we have also evolved to become a bit more altruistic and loving that perhaps our earliest ancestors were. Being altruistic provided our species with an evolutionary advantage. Neale doesn’t get to change the meaning of the word “evolution,” either by capitalizing it as he does in some articles, or putting it in quotes as he does here.

    I see no evidence that the CwG material has contributed to making water, power and sanitation available to those who still don’t have it; but note that we have made progress if, according to his own numbers, 4.4 billion people and more do have these things. This progress has not been provided by belief, but by cold, hard scientific progress. Nobody is given credit for how far we’ve come – especially not the people who made it possible in the first place, the scientists! It seems that if you’re going to make progress with a belief system, you’ve got to convince people that things are really bad, so they will believe you, and believe you have a solution – just like legacy religions. They have to figure out a way to feed you shame and guilt and fear so they can offer you a way to alleviate it. It’s hard for me to see this article as anything other than that.

    Now Neale wants to go and blame this problem on those who seek objective evidence to support our actions and make sure they make sense. Because science has not yet figured out how to make power, clean water and sanitation globally available at an affordable price, we need to seek out a supernatural being. I fail to see the connection between doing things to help humanity, and what we believe. Belief in a universal consciousness is completely unnecessary to address these problems of poverty and overpopulation. Indeed those working hardest to find the real solutions to these problems are probably the ones who don’t hold many supernatural (i.e. magical) beliefs. Neale appears to be trying to create a scapegoat – someone to blame. Isn’t that what all religions end up doing? Please note that providing clean water, power and sanitation to an underserved population is a good way to put them to work in order to make a successful business. Reasons to do these things don’t always have to be altruistic. I bring broadband satellite service to the underserved, and “god” has nothing to do with it. I want to help people – no gods required.

    How in the world does taking a position on the provability of universal consciousness, reincarnation, HEBs, and other fanciful stuff have anything whatsoever to do with solving human problems that came about as a result of evolution? Yes, some of us have limited ourselves to that which can be proven, as we seek to expand that which we say we “understand” because beliefs have filled our heads with foolishness and complete garbage for millennia. What we need to do, in my view, is really focus on what we can say we really and truly know as a result of objective evidence and work to solve our problems based on those tangible things, rather that the things of wishful thinking and wild imagination.

    Do we need some proof that people who tell us they love us actually do? You bet we do. Generally by the time these words are spoken, there is more than sufficient evidence to back them up. If someone walks up to us out of the blue and tells us that they love us in an intimate sort of way that normally leads to an ongoing intimate relationship, nobody in their right mind would believe that right out of the blue. If I walked up to a pretty woman and said “I love you” and I want to marry you, and this woman had never met me before, she’d be out of her mind to accept my proposal without some evidence that my love was true. Of course we need evidence, and objective evidence in the form of actions is more valuable than subjective evidence in the form of feelings. If a stunningly beautiful woman walked up and said she loved me and I “felt” that it was true, I might wake up the next morning with my wallet gone.

    Neale says that CwG begins with a premise that cannot be proven (today – it may be proven or disproven in the future). Yes, I would agree that any of the beneficial messages that are based on the unproven assertions, should end there. Advice like seeking the greatest version of the highest vision of ourselves has no need for universal consciousness to be useful and real. Advice like mindfulness meditation can be useful and real. Suggesting that when we die we will have a life review, select new parents and come back to experience and remember more, is completely without basis, unless that universal consciousness is proven first. We have no evidence that there is life after death, so why should we believe things our brains know we have no evidence for? How can that be good for us?

    Neale suggests the solution is – if it can’t be proven, there’s a good chance it is true. That’s dangerously absurd, in my view. It can’t be proven that the moon is not made of green cheese, therefore it must be true. It can’t be proven that a giant vacuum cleaner didn’t suck up all the trash from the travels of 2 million Hebrews on their Exodus, leaving not a trace of their passage – so it must be true. It can’t be proven that aliens don’t read our brains and use telekinesis to control and manipulate us, so it must be true. It can’t be proven that unicorns and fairies don’t exist somewhere on our earth hidden from view, so it must be true. To suggest that if it cannot be denied that it cannot be proven, thus its very improbability renders it undeniable, then CwG has taken logic and reason and killed them with the same passion as the legacy religions have. Let’s just put an end to the process of science right now, and let the products of that process go obsolete until everyone is wallowing in their own wastes, without clean water, and only primitive fires to warm us. In any event, it is not undeniable that the assertions of universal consciousness put forth in CwG cannot be proven. There is at least some chance that they will be proven in the future. I think it’s a pretty small chance, but it’s not necessarily true that it won’t someday be proven or disproven. Neale, using Chopra’s quantum foolishness has attempted to prove it in the past.

    Neale suggests that there is a “Prime Source” and an “Originating Energy” (which must be different from a “prime source” or “originating energy” though for the life of me, I can’t figure out how. Capitalizing the letters doesn’t make it any more real. There may be a “prime source” – a natural something that set off the Big Bang, but that doesn’t mean it has anything at all to do with a “Prime Source” wherein the capitals seem to imply Neale’s personal god. I would like to see how this “Prime Source” and “Originating Energy” can be used with predictable and consistent results. I can guarantee that one of the predictable and consistent results is that no amount of prayer, meditation, wishful thinking, or appealing to gods is going to grow back amputated limbs. If belief in personal gods yielded predictable and consistent results that could be objectively catalogued and studied, we’d know it already. The truth is that there are no predictable results from supernatural beings. Theories like relativity, gravity, germ theory and evolution yield predicted results. Belief in a supernatural deity does not. Capitalizing words like “That Which It Is” or “Essence” doesn’t make Neale’s god any more real. It’s playing with words in an attempt to give the words greater authority than they deserve.

    I don’t know that I would agree that either “earthly” or “Earthly” science suggests that everything is separate from everything else. We are indeed all ONE from the standpoint of all being made of the same stuff and all sharing the same human genome that evolved from, and is related to, every other species on earth. No supernatural mumbo jumbo is needed to make that any less amazing. Neale says we live in a Separation Cosmology – one that is a function of beliefs. He doesn’t believe in legacy religions and I don’t “believe in” his New Age religion. I “think that” it has a very low, but non-zero probability of having some truth to it). How has separateness been fixed, given that the thing that divides us is still beliefs? Christians speak of Neale as an agent of the devil (me too!). They aren’t going to accept his beliefs. The beliefs themselves still separate and divide. His solution: All we have to do is accept his beliefs, and it will be OK. Unfortunately this is the same thing every other religion says.

    Neale in your last article you said that if I provided the source you would explain or retract your article denigrating atheists and agnostics (which you are still very much attempting to do here, without using those terms). I posted it twice in your last article. I’m waiting for your explanation or retraction. Based on this column, I shouldn’t expect one. You seem to have become one of my lab rats. In this article, it is my perception that you are expressing hostility at having your beliefs challenged.

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      Hi, Patrick. I’m not going to get into all of the points you make in your commentary above, because it is not my purpose here to enter into a paragraph by paragraph debate with visitors to, or readers at, this site. But I do want to respond to your last writing above, because it does involve a promise that I made.

      You said, above…”Neale in your last article you said that if I provided the source you would explain or retract your article denigrating atheists and agnostics (which you are still very much attempting to do here, without using those terms). I posted it twice in your last article. I’m waiting for your explanation or retraction.”

      As proof that I have posted such denigrating comments, you offered this…

      “An Open Letter to Our World: IS IT POSSIBLE THAT GOD DOES NOT EVEN EXIST?” March 22, 2015

      “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, after the idea that God is to be feared, I believe that the second most damaging notion that some humans hold about God is the thought that God might not even exist.

      Why this is damaging is that it stops all atheists and many agnostics from using God’s power, even as the whole of humanity seeks to work collaboratively to create the life we all say we want for everyone on this planet.”

      I can see, Patrick, how you could view this observation as “denigrating” to atheists or agnostics. In my world, the comment above was not meant to “denigrate” anyone, but was merely meant to describe a circumstance that I see as unfortunate and damaging to our species.

      My dictionary defines “denigrate” as “to criticize unfairly.” Perhaps I’m using too narrow of a definition, but to me the comment I made did not seem to be an “unfair” critique. It felt like a completely fair statement based on my beliefs.

      I do think it is non-beneficial to humanity, Patrick, that so many people (A) do not hold a belief in God at all, or (B) hold beliefs about God that I feel to be wholly inaccurate.

      I see this as damaging to our evolutionary advancement as a species — even as I would say that I believe it is “damaging to our species” for people to hold the view that same sex marriage is against the Will and the Law of God, or “damaging to our species” for many people to embrace the idea that men should earn more than women who are doing the exact same job, because males are supposed to be the breadwinners of the family, and a female’s place is in the home raising children and making a welcoming and comforting place of respite for their male companions.

      In short, I see many antiquated and antediluvian views — still held by so many on a wide variety of topics — as damaging to the advancement of our species. If you feel this means I am speaking in denigrating terms of people who hold those views, I am sorry. I mean to communicate that I feel the views themselves are damaging to our species, not, on an individual, personal level, the people who hold them. Perhaps that is putting too fine a point on it, but I think that people themselves are at their basis pretty darn wonderful — and that does not mean that some people do not hold some views that I believe are damaging to humanity.

      That’s my explanation of the commentary I posted above in March of 2015. I wouldn’t retract it, but, having explained it, I would hope that people would not think that I was being “unfairly critical” of atheists and agnostics, but rather, that I was holding their viewpoint on the topic of God as not benefiting the advancement of our species.

      I’m willing to be wrong about all of this, by the way. Their viewpoint actually may be beneficial to the advancement of our species.

      Oh, and along those lines…people who continue to want to describe CWG as a “religion” fail always to address the one huge, huge difference between these two. “Religions” seldom (if ever, that I can find or recall) declare to the world that all of their statements could be wrong. In fact, “infallibility” of doctrine and dogma is a central tenet of most religions — whereas it has no place whatsoever within the CWG cosmology.

      (Ahem) …This is where you say, Patrick: “I’ll grant you that difference, Neale. With that as a yardstick, CWG does not qualify as a ‘religion’.” ;o)

      • Awareness

        “”Religions” seldom (if ever, that I can find or recall) declare to the world that all of their statements could be wrong. In fact, “infallibility” of doctrine and dogma is a central tenet of most religions — whereas it has no place whatsoever within the CWG cosmology.” – Neale Donald Walsch 🙂

        That is a significant point Neale Donald Walsch 🙂 And as far as I am aware, there are NO “threats” of “judgement” and eternal “punishment” in “hell fire” in “Conversations with God” 🙂 In my view “Conversations with God” is a very HEART warming, healing and pleasing book 🙂

        Bless ALL 🙂

      • Patrick Gannon

        Neale, thank you for your response. Note that I did not copy/paste the entire article which was quite long, and which I responded to in detail back in March 2015. You went into some pseudo-scientific “woo” in addition to accusing non-believers of damaging society with their beliefs.

        I congratulate you for having as a tenet of “The New Spirituality,” a doctrine that does not insist that all of its statements could not be wrong. Unitarian Universalists don’t go that far, but they are headed in the same direction. What you call a differentiator, is just a religious tenet. It’s a new and clever twist; but it’s just another religion that separates us. I see it as a Christianity-Lite that carves people out of more mainstream denominations, separating them from their family, friends and roots; just like any other religion. Your New Spirituality religion is another in an endless parade of separate and separating religions. I’ve seen the Christians who decry you and your New Age beliefs. You did not bring them ONEness when you took their friend or family member out of their fold and into your own, while continually criticizing their god and their beliefs.

        What The New Spirituality religion also shares is a sincere distaste for those who would question the statements and beliefs of the religion – even while suggesting that it is OK to do so. Atheists and agnostics who do exactly what you describe as your differentiator, i.e. fail to believe the statements of your religion, are indeed denigrated, unfairly criticized and accused of “damaging” society.

        You attempt the same sidestep, the one where I call the Christian a bigot and he says, “It’s not the sinner, it’s the sin.” In this case, it’s not the atheist/agnostic, it’s his beliefs….

        I would suggest that it is “unfair criticism” when you denigrate atheists and agnostics for following one of your tenets. I would also encourage you to look up famous atheists and agnostics in Wikipedia or elsewhere and tell me how these people “damaged” our society. On the list are a great many scientists and researchers. It seems you are willing to believe atheist and agnostic scientists when they tell us about global climate change, GPS technology, and heart repair technology, but not when they tell us about consciousness.

        I’m scrolling through page after page of atheists and agnostics who have hugely benefited our society in innumerable ways from authors and educators, philosophers, business people, entertainment, politics, law, music, science and technology. There are so many names that I don’t know who best to pull as examples. There are similar lists of agnostics…. and all of these people – and their beliefs – were “damaging” and “non-beneficial” because they don’t or didn’t believe what you believe. Yet you boast a tenet that says belief is not necessary. It may not be necessary, but the clear implication is that one is essentially a bad person because he or she is working against society, despite all the good things they may have accomplished that did benefit society. That’s your pitch, huh?

        I love your point, (B). If others hold a belief about God that YOU hold to be inaccurate, then these people and their beliefs are damaging and non-beneficial to society? You get to decide this because God spoke to you?

        I am frequently accused of being arrogant, but I can’t hold a candle to that one. This is worse than I thought. How on earth is holding a belief about something for which there is no objective evidence, in any way the same as holding a belief that same sex marriage is sinful or that women are subservient to men? You’re talking apples and oranges. The reason same sex marriage is seen as sinful and the reason women are seen as subservient is because of BELIEFS in a God – in our society, it is belief in an imaginary, mythical God named Yahweh. There is a clear causal effect between beliefs in gods and those ancient discriminatory traditions; yet those who question those gods are damaging and non-beneficial to society? If agnostics and atheists had not questioned those gods, do you think we’d have made any real progress towards eliminating belief-based unjust discrimination?

        You go on to disarmingly say: “I’m willing to be wrong about all of this, by the way. Their viewpoint actually may be beneficial to the advancement of our species.” Given the countless contributions by these damaging and non-beneficial people, you bet your butt they are beneficial to the advancement of our species, but if you’re willing to admit that they might be right, why use terms like “damaging” and “non-beneficial” because these people question YOUR beliefs? Is that your highest version of the highest vision that you hold for yourself? What would you say of a person who said this: “Hey look at that group of kids over there, partying and carrying on. Look at their clothes and piercings. They look like bad people. I’ll bet they were the ones who broke into the liquor store and stole some booze. But, oh, by the way, you know, I could be wrong about that.” We have no more evidence for a universal consciousness than we do that those kids robbed the liquor store, but we’re casting aspersions based on what we believe. Is that highest vision stuff?

        You have challenged the beliefs and god of legacy religions on an ongoing basis in your books and in your articles here. You lacked belief in their god, so you invented your own. Were you or your beliefs, damaging and non-beneficial to society when you lacked belief in, and questioned and criticized their god, as they understood him? I would suggest that questioning their belief and their god, was in fact beneficial – but that doesn’t apply to YOUR beliefs. If we question YOUR beliefs we’re damaging society.

        My ongoing question here has been – is it possible that it is beliefs themselves that are the problem? I become more and more convinced that this is indeed the case, and that CwG is indeed a religion that, as we see here, castigates non-believers, just as other religions do. It has a lip-service tenet that says you don’t have to believe its statements, but if you do question them you are damaging and non-beneficial to society.

        I am happy; very, very happy, to be in the company of such damaging and non-beneficial agnostics as Susan B Anthony, Samuel Beckett, Arthur Conan Doyle, Betty Friedan, Thomas Hardy, Robert Heinlein (especially him!), Joseph Heller, James Joyce, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, John Steinbeck, Mark Twain (yes!), Elon Musk, Lewis Black, Johannes Brahms, Charlie Chaplin, Salvador Dali, Richard Dreyfuss, Gene Kelly, Dave Matthews, Paul McCartney, Confucius, Immanuel Kant, Noam Chomsky, Epicurus, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Alan Dershowitz, Clarence Darrow, Sir David Attenborough, Alexander Graham Bell, David Bohm, Francis Crick, Marie Curie, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Steven Jay Gould, Edwin Hubble, John Maynard Keynes, Michio Kaku, Bill Nye, Carl Sagan, Edmund Hillary, Pat Tillman.. This is but a tiny sample of agnostics who have contributed far, far more to our society than CwG ever has, or likely ever will. The list of atheists who have contributed to our society is even larger. If the beliefs of these people are damaging and non-beneficial, then so be it. Anything that is damaging and non-beneficial to unsupported belief must be a good thing!

        I watched a Julia Sweeney video recently. She was talking about how she introduced her daughter to Santa Claus (Starter God as she calls him). Her daughter really wanted to believe in Santa but as she got older, she began to ask questions – “How does Santa really fit in a fireplace?” “How do reindeer really fly?” “How does Santa visit every home in the world in one night?” Julia told her, “Belief is OK. It’s fine. You can believe in Santa if you want to, but if you ask questions, you will find, just like God, that you can’t hold the belief any longer.”

        • NealeDonaldWalsch

          Thanks for you input, Patrick. Just for accuracy sake, Let me make the point that CWG does not say that if you question its statements, you are damaging and non beneficial to society. Nowhere in CWG does anything come even close to saying that. This thought about what is damaging to our evolutionary growth is a thought that I, myself, hold, not CWG. You will not find that idea expressed within its content. As well, CWG does not castigate non-believers. Quite to the contrary, it encourages people to come to their own conclusions and to never, ever make CWG their “authority.”

          That said, as a point of accuracy, I feel personally complete now with our exchange. I have said what i want to say and you have said what you want to say, neither of us are likely to change our mind, both of us have had our views fairly expressed here, without hindrance or editing of any kind. I feel no need to continue an ongoing debate about whether or not CWG is a “religion” — or, for that matter, about the accuracy of any of its messages. I have acknowledged over and over again that all of its messages could be wrong, even as I have stated openly that I do not personally believe them to be. I have placed them before the world and am perfectly content to have the people of the world assess for themselves what value, if any, the CWG messages may have for them.

          Thanks for the open and honest exchange. Let’s agree that we disagree, and let us model what doing so civilly can look like — so that others, who chance upon us on these website pages, may choose as well to enter into all of their own disagreements with others with the same level of mutual respect.

          With best thoughts………neale.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Since Neale considers this discussion closed, I will address my post to other readers. “Just for accuracy sake,” let me make the point that I did not say that CwG denigrates atheists and agnostics – that’s a straw man argument – I said that Neale did. He not only admitted as much, he then doubled down.

            Let me also say that when speaking of civility, to put myself, Mewabe, perhaps Jethro and other people here who might doubt Neale’s god, in the same category as misogynist sexists and homophobic bigots, is about the same as the deacon who once quoted scripture to call me a dog and a pig. That led to reading the bible so I wouldn’t be taken unaware the next time I was insulted, and in time that led to CwG, where it seems I am to be insulted yet again, by what passes for clergy.

            Neale speaks as an authority for CwG, as THE sole authority for his movement, or New Spirituality religion, regardless of what we call it. In Jesus’ time, we had all sorts of people having revelations, including Peter and Paul (who did not agree on much of anything though they both claimed to have revelations from the same god), but today, we only get Neale, who presumably came up with his god through some sort of hypnotic free association technique (or perhaps who carefully and systematically constructed it. I no longer mindlessly believe what I’m told).

            I’m guessing Neale did not hold this distaste for those who questioned the existence of God back in the early 90’s because he was doing the same thing and hadn’t fully “created” his own god yet. We know he lacks belief in the god of the bible, as described by the bible. Countless articles have made that clear. Now it seems, to question his god, just as to question any god, brings about condemnation (so to speak) by the clergy. Those of us who doubt his god are on a par with sexists and homophobes – even though it was believers in God who created those conditions in the first place!

            Neale is the clergy, doing just what other clergy does to those who don’t believe in their god. He was surely in the process of questioning and doubting the Abrahamic god as described in the book of myths, so questioning gods was not a problem then, otherwise it probably would have bubbled to the top of his consciousness and ended up in CwG in some fashion. Once Neale had his own god to defend, non-belief became a problem, and so he turned to denigrating and insulting non-believers, just like a good old fashioned Catholic priest or Baptist minister. So much for all that highest version/highest vision stuff I liked so much.

          • NealeDonaldWalsch

            Oops, i said I was finished with this part of our discussion, but i see that I am not. Sorry, Patrick, but on this one you are wrong. Dead to rights…”wrong.” You have said, above…

            “Just for accuracy sake,” let me make the point that I did not say that CwG denigrates atheists and agnostics – that’s a straw man argument – I said that Neale did. He not only admitted as much, he then doubled down.

            Yet you did, in fact, say exactly what I said you said. TO WIT: (And these are your words exactly): “I become more and more convinced that…CwG is indeed a religion that, as we see here, castigates non-believers, just as other religions do. It has a lip-service tenet that says you don’t have to believe its statements, but if you do question them you are damaging and non-beneficial to society.”

            When you say “CWG,” it is presumed that you mean the books, the dialogues, the source materials, not the man who occasionally writes or talks about them. You did not say that “Neale’s personal views amount to a religion,” you said that “CWG is indeed a religion that castigates non-believers.” It is and does, Patrick, nothing of the sort.

            Okay, over and out. Just want you to see what you, yourself, said.


          • Patrick Gannon

            WOW!!! You got me! I really try hard to pay attention to my words – but I messed that one up. You are right. I should have referred to you, and not to CwG. My bad. I think this was later in the conversation, and I mixed topics and should have kept the issues separate. I think you will agree that when you wrote the original article in which you questioned whether you had said what it turned out you did say, that I was speaking about you, and not about CwG.

            I will agree that I cannot recall anything in the CwG material that advocates what you yourself advocate. I find your opinion regarding atheists and agnostics to be very troubling, and particularly your characterization of these folks as being on a par with sexists and homophobes. [I’ll drop that criticism, if you apologize for it, and suggest that perhaps you went a bit too far].

            Note to self: Proofread one more time. Measure often, cut once. Ugh.

          • NealeDonaldWalsch

            Hello again, Patrick. Let me say here that it is never my intention or desire to offend anybody, and I regret if you found my statement about atheists and agnostics to be troubling. I see how you could feel that way, based on what I said.

            My comment earlier above was merely meant to describe a circumstance that I see as unfortunate and damaging to our species.

            I do think it is non-beneficial to humanity, Patrick, that so many people (A) do not hold a belief in God at all, or (B) hold beliefs about God that I feel to be wholly inaccurate.

            When i said this earlier, I should have let it go at that. I agree with you that my attempt to clarify how I feel certain points of view held by large numbers of people can be damaging to our species’ advancement “went a bit too far” (to use your well chosen words) in the comparisons I offered if they wound up offending you. And they did, so the proof is in the pudding.

            To quote someone whose mental dexterity and intellectual integrity I admire: “I really try hard to pay attention to my words – but I messed that one up.”

            Walk well, and lightly upon the Earth, my friend.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Works for me! We’re all doing the best we can, in the way we think (or believe) to be best.

            I know you want to end the discussion, but if you’re willing to extend just a little bit, I have trouble understanding how lack of a belief in the supernatural is non-beneficial. What does it hurt? It just means living by the physical rules that are all we have evidence for in the first place. It doesn’t eliminate morality or ethics, and in my experience the atheist/agnostic folk are not creating the problems in our society that we both decry, and many are working to stop them. A great many of the people who believe in God in this country (a wholly inaccurate Yahweh, right?), are, for example, the racist, sexist, bigots that we all agree are “damaging” and non-beneficial. Atheists and agnostics, as best I can tell, make up a miniscule fragment of those attempting to limit personal liberties. I personally know of only one. I have an agnostic friend who has a gay son, and he’s a homophobe, but every other atheist or agnostic I know supports these personal liberties and many other social causes like combatting climate change. My fundy friends on FB aren’t posting about oil and Indians in N. Dakota, but my atheist/agnostic friends are. I can’t figure out how you can see them as the bad guys. They don’t need a god to do the moral or ethical thing.

            You know I don’t buy that, “Ours is not the only way, ours is just another way” thing (why bother with another way if it isn’t better – and you clearly believe your way is better), but this may be a case where it fits. Your way, through a supernatural deity and the atheist/agnostic way through logic, reason and evidence, both want the same thing when it comes to a better world for everyone. Forging alliances with the Pope and Billy Graham to combat the conditions their religions were responsible for creating in the first place, does not seem to make as much sense as forging an alliance with those who want the same thing you do. Atheists and agnostics have to hold New Agers to account when they dabble in quantum fields and other pseudo-science woo that spreads misinformation and leverages the ignorance of the sheeple, but for the most part, I see more of a live and let live attitude from this side, when it comes to New Age God. Don’t mess with science, and they will mostly leave you alone. (I’m an exception – I am concerned that we’ve overlooked the core problem – beliefs themselves, and atheists can hold beliefs).

            I just don’t get the practical, or even the “spiritual” objection that may lie behind that position. You no longer believe in the Yahweh of the bible, as I understand it. That means you don’t believe in the god of a whole lot of people. Is it non-beneficial for you to hold this belief about their god? Yeah, I suppose it is non-beneficial to them – but you can’t argue that it’s non-beneficial to society, because your lack of belief in their god led you to your own. So, I’ll accept that atheists/agnostics are non-beneficial to NAG (New Age God), but you’re going to have to explain why they are bad for our society. I went through the same process of questioning NAG as both of us did in questioning Yahweh, but that was OK, and this is not? Surely you can see my difficulty with this… And I do acknowledge that we’re speaking of your personal views and not about the position of the CwG material to the best of my knowledge and memory.

            From a spiritual standpoint, I suppose you could argue that we need everyone pushing consciousness in a particular direction in order to manifest the reality we want. Obviously, this force or energy, if it exists, is exceptionally weak and requires the cooperation of huge numbers of people, or assistance from HEBs with supernatural powers, (but for whose existence we have no evidence) in order to change, influence, or manifest something. But if these atheists and agnostics are actively thinking, writing, working to help ensure personal liberties, or a clean earth, or whatever the case may be, then if your conjecture is correct, they must be actively manipulating that same consciousness in the same direction, lacking only a belief that this consciousness exists – and why would that matter? You insist this consciousness exists and they are all a part of it, so there’s no escaping that they are actively engaged and actively moving consciousness toward the same goals you want – with the exception of not believing in your god. That shouldn’t really be damaging to a God who insists you don’t have to believe in her, so I am really struggling to understand why you feel that atheists and agnostics are not actually closer to you, than, for example, the Pope and Billy Graham whom you have referred to in articles in the past, suggesting they shared your views on Hell (they don’t!).

            I would suggest that atheists and agnostics are closer to your point of view than Catholics and Baptists. Many atheists and agnostics like to entertain the idea pantheism, which is quite similar to NAG except that it’s not a personal god. The word deity is not used. I think you have more in common with us, than with the legacy religions you are stealing converts from! I guess the problem is that atheists then steal them from you. By the time they get to you, they’ve learned to think and question beliefs enough to get out from under the yoke of Yahweh or Allah, but not quite ready to take that full step that requires admitting that we do not know, and that this may be all we get. Even if atheists carve off some of your converts from time to time, because they’ve learned how to question their beliefs and to challenge authority, both very important tools for enlightenment, there could never be a First Church of the New Atheism, unless one is capable of herding cats!

          • NealeDonaldWalsch

            Hey, Patrick…I’m going to reply to you under the latest entry I have posted on this website, to make it easier for people who may not be thinking about examining the threads of older entries to see our dialogue. So check with me there, under my entry #2 in my series, dated Dec. 14.

        • Gross Prophet

          ‘Agnostic’ simply means ‘I don’t know’, which, in the absence of any overwhelming data/proof otherwise, is the most logical and rational position to hold.

          But do you really believe that entertainers like Lewis Black, Paul McCartney, Charlie Chaplin, Richard Dreyfuss, Gene Kelly and Dave Matthews contributed more to the welfare of the human race than someone whose efforts were CENTERED on that one, GREATEST question which affects every single member of the human race?

          And to assert that every single one of the other members of that list tended more toward your side of ‘understanding’, simply because they were honest enough to admit they ‘didn’t know’, is just another form of intellectual dishonesty.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I know what agnostic means and I agree with you that it is the most logical and rational position to hold, but Neale does not, so why are you giving me a hard time?

            Remember these are people Neale has put into the same category as sexists and homophobes. We are “damaging” and “non-beneficial.” You could take any of those individuals one at a time, and try to measure what they have done to benefit society vs. Walsch, but that’s a fool’s errand. In total, these people – and the list of atheists was much longer – have certainly contributed far more to our society. We wouldn’t be on this blog without the contributions of some of the people on the lists.

            Don’t put words in my mouth, GP. I said I was happy to be in the company of these people. Where did I say these people leaned to my side of understanding? Everybody loves the straw man on this blog…

          • Gross Prophet

            Straw-man is all you do, nearly every single post. Your entire post above was simply more of the same, to the level that I won’t even bother to respond to your blatant distortions that have already been addressed in a more truthful manner than you seem capable of employing.

            As for your last, you tried to use that list to support your argument (the appeal to authority fallacy, btw). I know for a fact that several on that list would lean more towards belief in a god than your militant atheism.

          • Patrick Gannon

            What did I write that specified something you said, but didn’t, in order to refute it?

            “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.”

            “An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.An argument from authority (Latin: argumentum ad verecundiam), also called an appeal to authority, is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.”

            All I did was list some agnostics and say I was proud to be in their company. How is that an “appeal to authority fallacy?”

          • Gross Prophet

            Well, ‘scuse me. It is late (for me), and I mixed up the labels. Yours was the ‘Argumentum ad populum’.

            The straw-man you asserted was deliberately misrepresenting what Neale had said, even though he had already corrected your earlier misrepresentation of same.

          • Patrick Gannon

            You said, “Your entire post above was simply more of the same…” Now you are refuting yourself, and pointing to something else. You lose that point.

            Neale can defend himself, and I acknowledged an error in my writing when I foolishly combined two subjects into one.

            And you’re still wrong: “In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “appeal to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: “If many believe so, it is so.”

            What did I say was true because a list of agnostics said so? Neale denigrated atheists and agnostics. He insulted them in my opinion by putting them in the same class as sexists and homophobes, when it is atheists and agnostics who probably work harder against those injustices than believers do. I simply put up a list of some of the people he insulted and denigrated, and acknowledged that I was proud to be an agnostic along with so many other very influential people who have done many tangible things to benefit our society.

            “Militant atheism” LOL. I remember when I used to use that term to argue with atheists who disagreed with me. Now I respect them.

          • Gross Prophet

            Just more of the same side-stepping and splitting of hairs that you always do. I told you a long time ago, I am not here to spend countless hours ‘debating’, or trying to win points in some perceived mental contest — but anyone can recognize dishonest tactics and behavior when they see it.

            And, as far as your assertion that you are not a militant atheist, that, too, is patently obvious to anyone who reads your tripe.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Do you actually read my posts before you start blathering? Did I deny that I was a militant atheist? (I would prefer militant agnostic, but know better than to ask you to cut me any slack). That’s another straw man. You said I asserted that I was not a militant atheist, and I did not say that, did I? In fact, I said I respected them.

            As for side-stepping and splitting hairs, those sound like the words of a poor loser. You have yet to point out any dishonest tactics, though you’ve presented several of your own.

            I agree, that we don’t play well together and all our conversations go down the toilet. Time for another flush until next time.

          • Gross Prophet

            If you refer to a group (militant atheists) as ‘them’, then you are, by definition, not one of ‘them’ — unless you use a different dictionary than most people (quite possible, considering most of your responses). So you were indeed, in effect, denying that you were among that group.

            We don’t ‘play well’ together because I have no use for liars…and when you constantly and consistently misrepresent what others say, that makes you a liar. If you could stop that behavior, things could be different.

            I would still have a problem with your ‘militancy’. If you want to be an atheist, go be an atheist. I would have no problem with that, if that’s how you want to live this life (I would still consider it wrong-headed, and counter-productive). The problem is, you won’t afford anyone else that courtesy. You can’t seem to simply ‘live and let live’. You seem obsessed with trying to ‘convert’ everyone else. You ‘proselytize’ more than most ‘fundagelicals’ (as you call them). You have more posts, and more verbiage in those posts, than anyone else in this string of columns over the past two or three years, yet still refuse to consider this as any indication of your abnormal and detrimental psychopathology regarding Neale’s work.

            Get to where you are truthful with yourself, then you can be truthful to others, and then we might be able to converse without such acrimony.

          • Patrick Gannon

            GP, once again, thank you for the character review. I don’t know how I would get through my weeks without your valuable input. I would appreciate an example of the lies I’ve told, though.

            I’m sorry you don’t like my contributions. I’ve probably been here much longer than you. I participated when the blog first began, in an entirely different format. Until I spiced things up, it was largely a KumBaya sort of site, like a bible study group where everyone essentially agrees with each other. That’s not really a conversation that’s going to make things happen. I used to be a KumBaya supporter, and you probably would have liked me then.

            I get it that you don’t like me questioning CwG and other belief system foundations with the question: “Is it possible that holding unfounded beliefs are actually bad for us?”, however, as I’ve said before, you don’t have to read my posts. Nobody is making you do so. That you are such a regular respondent to my posts, indicates to me that you really do have an interest in the subject I’m raising – if only to combat it, which is fine (except that you combat me instead of my proposals). If you weren’t interested in what I had to say your eyes would glaze over as mine do when reading KumBaya responses, and you would just skip over my posts. But that doesn’t happen. You seem to be infatuated with criticizing, not my ideas, but my person, my character. That also tells me that you don’t “get” the CwG material in any way, shape or form, and maybe you should go read it again.

            I must, and any responsible person should, question the parts we have to take on faith – that there is a personal god, a universal consciousness, an essential essence, given that we have no objective evidence for this – but the CwG material speaks for itself in suggesting beneficial ways to treat each other. Neale revived ancient ideas, and added some unique and new twists on ways to think about how to treat ourselves and each other. Some of it’s really good. He had some very good ideas, the best of which don’t require belief in any gods or afterlives.

            Your constant attacks on my person rather than my ideas, tells me you skipped through most of the books, or we have very different ideas of highest version/highest vision. Any time I have questioned your character, it has been in response to your personal insults and attacks, and sometimes I’ve really had to struggle to hold back. Is it really highest vision stuff to call someone a liar and provide no evidence of that?

            I don’t see how what I do is any different than what Neale does. He is certainly proselytizing and selling his quasi-religion (after all, it is also a business), so to say that I am the only one doing this is nonsense. Mr. Awareness occasionally sells things intended to draw us to other sites where we can find some truly fantastical beliefs proposed by Neale’s New Age competitors. Mewabe proselytizes about native Americans and our need to be one with nature. Kristin proselytizes about Jewish Kabbalahism (is that a word?). You proselytize about what a horrible person I am. It’s a global conversation with few restrictions. You have no right not to be offended, and in life everybody doesn’t get a trophy for participating. I can say whatever I want, as long as it is within the bounds of the rules for the blog and you don’t have to read any of it.

            But you do; and that’s amazing. Allow me to play the role of psychiatric counselor, as you are always so prepared to do for me: “My dear GP, I can see that you are fascinated, riveted, desperate to tear Pat to bits because, apparently he challenges your personal beliefs and it hurts you badly, and you don’t like that, so you strike back at him. In this case, we have a pretty good idea of what has hurt you so badly that you feel you have to hurt Pat in order to feel better about yourself. GP, your symptoms are those of a person with cognitive dissonance. You are acting exactly as the theory proposes a person whose basic beliefs are challenged will act when their brain contains information leading to internal cognitive conflict. Take two aspirin and call me in the morning – or if you really want to feel better, do a personal self assessment, be your own worst critic, and examine your beliefs and ask yourself why you must express so much hostility when those beliefs are questioned.” (Now of course this is ‘tongue in cheek’ humor, but I don’t think it’s all that far off the mark).

            Another great option is to take a lead from Annie, and just stop responding to my posts. When everyone ignores me, I will know that my contributions are of no value, and I’ll leave. When my contributions spark discussion that even brings in Neale, and he writes columns dealing in large part with issues I raise, then it’s clear I have something useful to offer – even if only to rebut my ideas. But stop making it personal, or I’ll throw it right back at you.

          • Gross Prophet

            …maybe you should go read it again…

            I told you before that I have not read any of his books, just what has appeared here in his columns. Further proof that you don’t ever pay any real attention to what others say, as I have stated REPEATEDLY.

            As to calling you a liar, if you really want proof, go look back through our exchanges. There are numerous examples therein. Again, I have no desire to engage in a p**sing contest, and will therefore not play by your rules. How about you take your own advice? If you don’t like what I say (even though you know it is the truth) DON’T READ IT. But, as you note of me, you simply can’t manage that.

            The other posters you mention speak from their perspective — they don’t, AS YOU DO, expend hours of effort trying to refute every response they receive. You do, which is why I believe, at least as regards this material, that you are pathological.

            As for your attempted jab at psychoanalysis, it, as do most of your intellectual meanderings, falls flat on its face. As I said, you stop lying about what others say, or mean, and I’ll leave you alone. It’s as simple as that. Again, compared to the research I have done, and the great minds I have walked with (through the printed page), you don’t even register on the scale. You have absolutely nothing that could ‘challenge’ my beliefs, or cause any ‘cognitive conflict’. Again, hubris and arrogance with no basis in substance.

            ‘Throw it right back at me’? Be my guest…you’ve failed miserably so far.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I am pleased to be reminded that you did not read CwG. Yes, I missed that. I’m sorry I don’t pay as much attention to your posts as you do to mine. Now that I know this, perhaps I might suggest that you actually read CwG. Since you have not, I will not expect you to understand my mention of highest version/highest vision and other good advice Neale gives in his books.

            As for the rest, I think the words speak for themselves, and nothing more need be said.

          • Gross Prophet

            You should be aware that Neale has mentioned that concept within these columns. But again, you don’t really pay any attention to ANYTHING ANYONE else says…do you?

  • mewabe

    I never read the bible, and wouldn’t want to waste my time doing it. I know enough about the Christian doctrine to understand that it is completely, ridiculously absurd. But my girlfriend did, out of curiosity, and talked to me about it. And man, what a collection of extremely primitive garbage! That people take such a book (as well as other “holy” Abrahamic books) seriously is revealing of how little humanity has evolved, particularly in the intelligence department.

    So concerning the question of atheism, I would take an atheist over a Christian (or member of the other 2 primitive Abrahamic religions) any day, and do think that atheists and agnostics are far less destructive to society and the world, except when they make their political leader a “god”, as in the case of Mao Tse Tung.

    By the way, when it comes to certain human virtues or “morality”, these religions invented absolutely nothing. Read Greek and Roman philosophers and you will see that humans sought to develop personal and social virtues way before such primitive religions appeared.

    • Patrick Gannon

      Hi Mewabe. While I agree with much of that, I would suggest that it’s not a waste of time to read a book that has had such a profound effect on our history, our development of justice, our religions, our wars, our politics, our art, our literature, etc. The bible, though it be a book of myths occasionally placed in a real historical setting, has had a profound effect on western civilization, so I don’t think it would ever be a waste of time to read it (and it’s OK to skip all the ‘begats’!). Parts of it are a soap opera full of incest, rape, murder and mayhem! Exciting stuff once you get past the old language. A good modern translation can make it easier. A chapter or two a day at lunch and you’ll finish it in a year.

      If I could only read one, and had to choose between them, the bible would be a far more beneficial book to read for my understanding of the world we live in than CwG.

      • mewabe

        Thanks for the advice Patrick, but I wouldn’t want to regurgitate my lunch…

        If I was ever to read it, it would be to study it as a physician studies pathology, to understand how deeply it has affected the world negatively.

        You might say I am biased.

        • Patrick Gannon

          I certainly understand that, and I had my own motivation for reading it the first time (looking for Hell), and the second time (looking for UFOs – don’t laugh – seriously that was part of the motivation at the time. You’d be surprised at how many things make more sense if you (just for fun) proposed aliens as an explanation. I marked up a bible with UFO references – it was surprising how many times alien UFOs or alien beings (angels) could be made to fit the stories. I’m in communications, and I remember a section talking about building the structure to house the Ark of the Covenant, and it sure sounded like they were constructing a mesh antenna! You can find whatever you look for). By the third time, it had become more of a scholarly pursuit. When I got to the NT, I read it in chronological order instead of the order the books appear. That changes the whole “flavor” of the NT and you can see the ‘evolution’ of the theology and the development of the structure that became the Catholic Church. For example, in the earliest NT texts witten by Paul, women fully participated in church activities in all ways. As you get to the last epistles, Tim is written in Paul’s name (we call that forgery today) and women are relegated to second class status. They even went back and butchered some original Paul letters. You see a passage clearly inserted after the fact in which Paul says he doesn’t allow women to talk in church, while in the paragraphs just preceding this, he was describing exactly how they did so. If you remove the inserted passage the original reads seamlessly. With the inserted passage, it’s disjointed and doesn’t make sense. They needed to do this apparently because Catholicism is maniacally obsessive about sex – I’m still trying to figure out why. Seeing how this stuff happened helps when you are talking with fundies who relegate women to second class status. (And yes, I’m at the same level as them because I question the reality of Neale’s god!). Stop Pat. You’re rambling…

          Anyway, I have to admit that, just like the CwG books, there is a lot of good stuff in it. A lot of stuff that helps us to understand our justice system for example. We have a system of retribution, rather than rehabilitation – it comes directly from the bible. Knowing this helps when you try to convince other people why the system should be modified. We have the amazing beauty of language that comes to us from the bible. Richard Dawkins provides a long list of common sayings we all use all the time, that came right out of the bible. Some of the books in the bible are literary masterpieces in their own way. We got centuries worth of art and music that spring from the bible. You said that you were an artist – if that is so, then it is likely that in at least some way, the bible has indirectly influenced your work. It is what it is. It’s not a book of evil, though it rather clearly describes the prime protagonist in that manner. Oh well…

          I would suggest that you choose to read it or not read it out of curiosity, rather than what you expect to find in it. Don’t start with too many expectations. You’ll find much of what you expect – but you’ll find a lot more too. We have to be fair to the bible. It’s lasted a long time. If CwG lasts that long and has anywhere near the same impact (which I find highly improbable) then someone will be writing something like this about it in the distant future. The better we understand the bible, the more quickly we can relegate the primary characters to the same mythological status as Zeus, Apollo, Osiris and all the other old and new age gods.

          • mewabe

            Thanks Patrick, I understand your points, but I will truly pass…to me religion is poison, period. And the ironic aspect of this is that I denounce it not in the name of being an atheist but of my own spiritual experiences (real or imaginary, it makes no difference…after all, we might all be dreaming our lives). I abhor all 3 Abrahamic religions in particular, and strongly disagree with anyone who can see anything redeeming in them.
            Humanity has been brainwashed and damaged by this poison for centuries, and the world has been affected in the worst possible way by it, and still is.
            I know that these are strong opinions. I might appear closed-minded about this. But seriously, this is the 21st century, and people are still referring to the bible as their guide in life?

          • Patrick Gannon

            Perfectly understandable. I just wanted to make the point that the bible can be more than just a source of theology and beliefs.

    • I’m not here to argue about the bible. My personal opinion. The old testament is the old vengeful God. The new testament is a loving & forgiving God. Like everything we take what works for us if anything from the Bible & if it doesn’t, so be it.

      We generalize way to much about Christians. My wife & I sing in a gospel choir & one of the women who would talk of the Bible & the devil found out I was going to a CwG workshop. She said “I hear your going to a retreat with Neale Donald Walsch.” Waiting to get an earful from her she then said “Would you have him sign one of his books for me!”

      There are a vast amount of Christians that hold all kinds of views on the Bible & life. At the end of our choir rehearsal we go into a circle for prayers etc. It doesn’t bother me one iota that they have some beliefs different from me, I see past that to the love they have & show.

      When we joined several years ago, I early on ask one of the choir directors whose black & by the way, a country & western singer! I ask him, “If someone was totally okay with being prejudiced against blacks & told you that, what would you do?” His response was simply “I’d just love em that much more.”

      Years back I had a Christian chase me down the streets of Green Bay Wisconsin yelling “God’s a killer!” So there are all kinds out there.

      • mewabe

        Hey Marko, thanks for the feedback…I wasn’t generalizing about Christians though, but fundamentalists. I wrote that the bible was garbage, not Christians. People remain human, with diverse human qualities, no matter how deluded or deceived. Most “worshippers” enjoy the human companionship/fellowship and the feeling of being part of some sort of “community” or “family” that come with being members of a congregation. And so do cult members, as a more extreme example.

        • Gross Prophet

          I would venture to wager that you have never read William James’ ‘The Varieties of Religious Experience’, or the accounts of any of the ‘mystics’, Christian or otherwise.

          • mewabe

            I am not sure what your point is. Mysticism has been my personal path as a direct spiritual experience, but without any antiquated and irrelevant religious foundations.

          • Gross Prophet

            It is precisely because of the commonality of the experience described by those mystics that I began to more seriously research the bible.

            I agree that ‘christian’ doctrine is absurd, and self-contradictory, on its face, and that the OT (and even much of the New Testament) is primarily useful only as a tool for waking people up to that truth, but there is much of value in the bible still to be found, if approached with the right mind-set.

            And, yes, many others before had and/or expressed profound wisdom, like the Golden Rule, etc. — but how many have actually been willing to die a horrible, agonizing death simply in order to prove the value of their words?

          • mewabe

            Who has died a horrible agonizing death? I am not trying to argue, I simply do not know to whom you are referring, or how dying for your beliefs or ideas proves anything but the strength of your own convictions, which is something most of humanity has done for centuries.

          • Gross Prophet

            I referred to the account of Jesus’ death.

            I don’t know what history you have been reading, but dying for one’s beliefs is still something only a small percentage of people have ever been placed in a position to have to decide, let alone carry out.

          • mewabe

            How do you know there was a Jesus and that he died? Perhaps the “Jesus” that you have learnt about is a made up personality composed of a collection of real and imaginary characters.

            People die for their beliefs everyday, on every battlefield, and have done it for centuries, whether they believe in their nation, their ideology or their religion, but such death does not give their belief any validity.

          • Gross Prophet

            It is possible that Jesus was a contrivance, but I don’t think so, based on the unique circumstances of his life story, and his death — a subject of much more length and breadth than I wish to get into today, other than to say that his death would give his ideas more validity because of those circumstances.

            As for others dying for theirs, no matter how many battles have occurred on all the continents of the globe throughout history, those who died therein are still a minute percentage of the extant population as a whole, in any time-frame — and many of those died simply because they were caught up in those circumstances, not from any sincere beliefs.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Read Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus” for an excellent, fairly exhaustive, and well sourced and documented study of this topic. He applies Bayesian logic to every piece of evidence, and comes up with a very high probability that Jesus was a mythical figure and a very low probability that he was historical. His work is gaining more and more attention. The NT itself is the best evidence. Paul knows nothing of a historical Jesus. It appears that the author of Mark, the first gospel written, invented a historical person, and the other gospels embellished from there.

            Back in the 1970s debate was raging over whether Moses was a myth, along with the Exodus, but the general population didn’t know this. It has now become widely accepted among scholars – including many religious scholars as well, including senior members of the Jewish Archaeological community, who desperately wanted to find evidence, that Moses and the Exodus were myths. Archaeologists have given up the search for evidence of the Exodus as a lost cause. The event certainly didn’t happen as described in the bible, though there may have been small bands or migrants, and maybe they stumbled on some magic mushrooms on the way!!!

            We are at the same place with the historicity of Jesus as we were with Moses, back when I was in school. Chances are that in 40 years, we’ll be as confident that Jesus was mythical as we are today that Moses was.

      • Patrick Gannon

        “The new testament is a loving & forgiving God.” I know we’re not here to discuss the bible, but for many Christians – perhaps still most Christians, the NT god is the biggest monster of all time – they have just been indoctrinated to ignore the obvious.

        In the OT, in his Yahweh persona, everyone good and bad went to Sheol where they languished in a state of permanent unconsciousness until the end of time. At that point many Jews believed they would be judged and rewarded with a new paradise, or destroyed. Fair enough.

        When we got the “good news” of Jesus, we learned that now, we are to be judged immediately upon death, and if found wanting – including failure to believe the right thing – and for which there is no evidence – you would go to eternal torment in hellfire. Billions and trillions of endless years in excruciating, blood curdling screaming agony. Forever and ever, Amen.

        A great many Christians still believe in Hell today. These people worship (actually they fear) an evil god – the most evil god ever conceived of. Eternal torture for failing to believe, say or do the right things, though we live here but a handful of decades and have nothing upon which to base the belief. Any god who would do that is the very epitome of evil, no matter how many hypocritical sermon on the mounts he may have made. Many Christians still believe in this hell, and that fear is not helping our society. They are afraid to open their minds and question their own beliefs because they are scared out of their gourds. These are the Christians who are the problem. The “traditional Christians” or Christianity-Lite, or Progressive or Liberal Christians aren’t the ones creating the problem – but they don’t speak up against their fundagelical brethren, and that is how we got to the point where the religious right practically took over a political party.

        I completely agree that not all Christians are the same, and I have some very good friends who are Christians. They tend to be pretty progressive, but they tend to be unwilling to speak out against their mainstream brethren. It’s kind of taken in our society as something you just don’t do. It’s considered indelicate. It’s not polite. We have to get past that.

        As info you can use – note that Hell is a pagan word used to translate four very different words: Sheol, not a place of punishment, Gehenna – Jerusalem town dump – it’s closed, Hades- brother of Zeus and Poseidon – yeah, paganism in the NT, Tartarus – bottom level of Hades abode for the dead where Satan and his demons will end up. Hell is a product of intentional mistranslation and a pairing in the middle ages with Dante’s “Inferno,” Milton’s “Paradise Lost” and countless pieces of art depicting poor mortals basking in flames. If you can get Christians to look up the words, it raises doubt. Nobody really wants to believe in Hell and and an evil god. That’s what Neale and New Age leverage.

        You say we generalize way too much about Christians, and many would say that is true of Muslims as well. In my view, as long as the majority of mainstream believers in these religions insist that their texts are somehow holy and sacred, then those who do exactly what those texts instruct them to do are righteous, and those who did not speak up to deny that these texts are somehow sacred, are contributing to whatever harm they may inflict. And if they do believe these texts are sacred, then they should stop being hypocritical, give up pork and lobster, and start stoning homosexuals and people who work on the Sabbath.

        • Hell was invented by the church to control people. Reincarnation was in the early church until it was taken out, for fear it would be used against them.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I haven’t read that, but by early church, you might refer to one more more competing sects of Christianity including Marcionites, Ebionites and Gnostics. Some gnostic groups might have held that view. The group that won was the proto-orthodox, who became the orthodox who became the Catholic Church. I doubt they ever embraced reincarnation. I haven’t heard that, though of course there are a couple passages you can point to in the bible in order to make the argument..

          • The Bible is heavily edited & is far from complete in what was practiced & believed in the early church.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I know this quite well, having read a number of gospels, epistles and ‘revelations’ that contended for, but were not included in the bible which was assembled by the Catholics hundreds of years after Jesus died…. and for which not a single original fragment exists. What good is an inspired scripture, if you can’t keep the originals? LOL We wouldn’t even have much of the material we have now, if it wasn’t for chance discoveries in the Egyptian museum and Nag Hammadi. The Catholic Church destroyed the texts of their early competition.

            The question is, how do we get fundagelical, and even mainstream denomination Christians to understand that their books are not sacred or holy, and that they are the work of other mortal, fallible, and very human men? There are texts in the bible that can fully justify blowing up an abortion clinic. As long as the majority insists the books are holy and sacred, then how can those who follow or carry out the edicts contained within them be doing anything wrong? You can’t call an abortion clinic bomber who used the bible to justify his actions a terrorist, and then stand up and say the bible is the holy, sacred, word of God without being a hypocrite that the bomber sees right through.

            This is an example where holding beliefs without evidence (such as – the bible is either the literal or inspired word of God), is not good for our society. Even though the CwG literature gives us a much nicer, kinder, more feminine god, when it is treated as holy, sacred scripture, then you run the risk of enabling people who take something out of it that may not have even been intended.

          • I think CwG does a good job at allowing people to question it, any of it & only use what rings true for the individual.

            As for “, how do we get fundagelical, and even mainstream denomination Christians to understand that their books are not sacred or holy, and that they are the work of other mortal, fallible, and very human men?”

            By setting our own example for them to follow.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Good luck with that. I think liberal Christians need to be more forceful with the fundagelical brethren who hijacked their religion. As long as they continue to insist that their texts are holy and sacred, they continue to provide the foundation for extremism.

          • Gross Prophet

            There are doctorates in divinity and theology within my extended family, and I have raised that very point, and without exception they would do nothing other than deny and/or deflect, as if they had never been exposed to that kind of information during their studies, or could only react very much like the early church fathers did in that regard.

          • Allow them their beliefs as they now stand. Isn’t it great you don’t have to change them or convince them. The only person you have to work & play with is you. Cheers.

  • There is nothing to prove if you have been touched by a higher power.

    • Gross Prophet

      …except what you do. Your life is the proof. Think Gandhi, Mother Teresa, etc.

      • Patrick Gannon

        Re Mother Teresa… might I suggest Hitchens’ “The Missionary Position.”

        • Gross Prophet

          Another problem I have with you — you are so blinded by your hatred of ‘religion’ that you can’t see good in anyone. Everything boils down to base motivations and political intrigue. No one is perfect, and, just as has been done with the bible for millenia, anything can be mistranslated or misrepresented (something you know, and practice, well).

          Just reading a review/article, I highly doubt that Hitchens has unassailable proof for most of his claims…more likely they are simply based on his faulty assumptions about events and what they mean(t).

          I also see that you operate very similar to Hitchens. So sad that you have been through so many lifetimes, and this is all the farther you have gotten.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Please don’t take the time and effort to read it for yourself. I wouldn’t want you to experience additional cognitive dissonance.

          • Gross Prophet

            I wouldn’t read his book. Comments from others, both pro and con, are enough to convince me that he, and you, simply despise religion enough to do anything to disparage it.

          • Patrick Gannon

            That’s fine. He was a journalist, and he reported on what he learned and provided source materials for his findings. A number of other journalists reported the same or similar things. Hitchens was not the only one to point out the many hypocrisies of M. Teresa; he was just the most infamous to do so. You could, if you really had the gumption to challenge your own beliefs, do some searching and find other journalists who backed up or reported the same things.

            You suggest that I despise religion enough to do anything to disparage it; so are you including the New Spirituality, Neale’s CwG movement, as a religion?

          • Gross Prophet

            Again, you simply don’t get it, and never will, so long as you have the notion that you have already found the ‘superior’ answer.

            You yourself have never bothered to ascertain the veracity of what Hitchens wrote, you’ve simply accepted it because you want to believe it (which is the same mechanism you decry in others)…it fits with your hatred of all things ‘religious’. As to the other ‘journalists’, most of them simply parroted Hitchens. There is almost no real ‘journalism’ in any of them, Hitchens included. It used to be that you needed actual facts to write a story…nowadays any fool can cast aspersions with a few strokes of a pen.

            Whether or not there is any truth to any of the allegations leveled against Mother Teresa is irrelevant to me. She spent her life in the company of people most others would not care for, and lived in a personal state of poverty. You would never even contemplate doing something like that.

            Just like Neale, Mother Teresa was trying to help, in the way that she could at the time. You, however, simply stand on the sidelines of life and throw stones at all of those who are actually, actively trying to do something to improve the lot of mankind.

            There is absolutely nothing that Hitchens has produced, or you either, that could possibly ‘challenge my beliefs’. As I said from the first, I know what I know. Now, trying to explain exactly what that is, or how it works may not ever work out as well as one would like, but that doesn’t change what is known.

            And, no, what Neale has written is not a ‘religion’ — but YOU view it that way, and so, despise it, and wish to ‘destroy’ it. You’re not motivated by any grand humanitarian impulse, you’re just a hurt little child who feels betrayed, and can only lash out at what hurt him. As I said, it’s a crying shame that you have lived through as many lifetimes as you have, and this is all the ‘enlightenment’ you can manage.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “And, no, what Neale has written is not a ‘religion'”

            How the heck would you know? I thought you said you haven’t read his books? Have you perhaps, ” simply accepted it because you want to believe”?

            “According to a paper written by three Canadian academics, Serge Larivée, Geneviève Chénard, and Carole Sénéchal, Teresa’s clinics received millions of dollars in donations, yet their conditions drew criticism from people disturbed by the shortage of medical care, systematic diagnosis, and necessary nutrition, as well as the scarcity of analgesics for those in pain;[114] they said that “Mother Teresa believed the sick must suffer like Christ on the cross”.[115] Some have argued that the additional money could have had transformative effects on the health of the poor by creating advanced palliative care facilities in the city.[116][117] Abortion rights groups criticised her stance on abortion,[118][119][120] while advocates against abortion praised her support of fetal rights.[121][122][123][124]”

            You can use sources on Wikipedia as a starting point to research this further if you are so inclined. I did seek out sources other than Hitchens to check into this, and whether you believe that or not is immaterial to me.

            google “digitaljournal article/345087” for example. Click the link to the published paper and you’ll see a long list of sources, besides Hitchens.

            Did we know each other in a previous life? Is that why I annoy you so much? What did I do? Kick your puppy? Steal your spouse? Prove reincarnation, and you’ll have removed any objections I might have to Neale’s god.

          • Gross Prophet

            Why do you assume that I have ‘accepted’ everything Neale has written? Is it because you wish to build yet another straw-man?

            Why do you also assume that I did not do any research before replying to you before? I will reiterate — most of those others have simply regurgitated Hitchens’ spew. Of the specific items you mention, might it not be that, because she was a CATHOLIC nun that she had to spout the ‘party line’ on some of those issues? Or that the Catholic Church might not have appropriated many of the funds donated to ‘her’ charity/foundation? I have no clue, either way. The fact remains that she spent her life trying, as best she knew how, to care for others less fortunate…and all you can do is make cat-calls from the peanut gallery.

            You have no ‘connection’ with me, from this life, or any other. I simply can not stand liars, dissemblers, critics who offer nothing better. People so full of themselves and their own over-blown egos that they can not find the good in anything that is not exactly aligned with their own childish and self-centered existence.

          • Patrick Gannon

            GP, where did I say that you accepted everything Neale has written? Please quote it for me. If you cannot do so, then THAT is a straw man.

            What did I say exactly: ” I thought you said you haven’t read his books?”

            I asked if my memory was correct, insofar as you saying that you had not read his books. Have you read any of his books? If not, then how on earth, are you qualified to offer a useful opinion on the question of whether or not the movement is a religion or that CwG is a religious text?

            Where did I say that you did not do any research? Am I precluded from offering sources to support my own points in response to your challenges? How do you know the others regurgitated Hitchen’s “spew?” Did you read Hitchens book? Did you read the other books and papers? On what do you base your accusation?

            Thanks for that last paragraph. I thought you might be going soft on me. Hey, you aren’t by any chance someone that goes by the name “Isaiah’s Cry” or “Isaiah’s Call” or something like that, on a Catholic blog are you? If not, you could be twins. I finally realized that IC was actually a Catholic pretending to be a fundagelical who was very abusive and acted badly so that Catholics would want nothing to do with any religion he (or possibly she) was associated with. I’m glad that you aren’t a typical representative for the values espoused by CwG.

          • Gross Prophet

            As am I glad that you are not a typical example of humanity.

          • “blinded by your hatred of ‘religion” ? correction, Blinded by religion.

      • Yes I agree Gross Prophet, Thanks for that, my life is the proof for me, which allows me to see it in others.

        • Gross Prophet

          Sorry for the very late reply. Somehow I missed your reply earlier.

          I would say, the same way that you would have a conversation with anyone else. If I understand the ‘thrust’ (pun only half-intended) of your question, his or her adoption of a pagan belief system would have little bearing on how they expressed what they professed to have experienced.

          • I will let you in on something I have told only 2 or 3 people outside the AA fellowship. I was a stanch atheist most of my life admiring the Origin of the species by Darwin. survival of the fittest and natural selection. However because I could not control my alcoholism I went along to AA meetings where I was introduced to the higher power concept. As the months dragged on and I listened to the other speakers in AA saying the AA slogans of “let go and let God” and “Fake it till you make it” Then about a year later after a bust I was thinking about the chance I could be wrong. about the 50-50 chance that I was right or wrong. It was suddenly as if a fog had lifted and I could see from a vantage point, one that revealed the stark reality. It is a simple matter of choice when it comes to a faith based religion.

          • Gross Prophet

            Following a ‘religion’ may indeed be a ‘simple matter of choice’ for most people (personally, I would hope not, but I am well aware that most people are too wrapped up in daily life to spend much intellectual capital trying to divine – no pun intended – the ultimate veracity of one over another), but living as an expression of your own revealed truth is quite another matter.

            As another poster, in another thread, put it — I do it because I could not live with myself any other way.

          • Is killing part of your Gods religious movement? you follow or allow persecution of those following other faiths? or are they sinners?

          • Gross Prophet

            You seem to be in a real big hurry to make all sorts of unfounded assumptions regarding what I personally believe, or do not believe. Perhaps you should take a little more time to reflect upon whether or not you are addressing anything I’ve ACTUALLY said, or simply what your own biases and prejudices have puked up onto same?

            If you are really so curious, my profile is open. You can easily read what I have written in past conversations. I will not be around to waste any more time here today.