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 nearly 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 #3: What IS CWG, actually?

Since the publication of the Conversations with God dialogues people have wanted to label them. It is our nature to give names to things. All things, really. Not just physical objects, but events, circumstances, experiences…you name it.

Literally, you name it.

Without a name, we have no way of talking about things, no way of referring to things, no way of entering into a deeper exploration of things. So we give things names, and then we can discuss them.

People have given a variety of names to the Conversations with God texts. Some (mainly those who disagree with its contents) have called it a religion. Some (mainly those who disagree with its contents) have called it blasphemy, heresy, apostasy. Some (mainly those who disagree with its contents) have called it foolishness, fantasy, wishful thinking, or misinformation.

Some people (mainly those who agree with its contents) have referred to CWG as dialogues with Deity, Divine revelations, inspired messages, metaphysical insights, guidelines for living, and even a New Spirituality.

No one, however, has spoken to me so far about Conversations with God in words that describe the material as I have felt it in my soul. So let me tell you what I experience CWG to be.

An invitation.

An invitation in three parts.

An invitation which, if accepted by large numbers of people across the globe, I feel could make our planet a more wonderful place on which to live, virtually overnight.

Here is that three-tiered invitation:
Change the world’s mind about God.
Give people back to themselves.
Awaken the species.

There you have it. Fourteen words that I believe could change the world if we took them in as God’s invitation to humanity; if each of us, individually, embraced them as God’s invitation to us, personally, and acted on them every day in every way.

You might find it interesting to note that these fourteen words, acted on, summarize the life of virtually every person that our world has recognized through the centuries as a spiritual master.

Whether we’re talking about Lao Tzu or Buddha, Moses or Jesus, Mohammed or Vasugupta, Mother Mary or Julian of Norwich, Catherine of Genoa or Teresa of Avila, Beatrice of Nazareth or Hildegard of Bingen, all of the Great Masters, male or female, ancient and contemporary, have moved through the world in a way that demonstrated their decision to accept God’s invitation to humanity: Change the world’s mind about God, give people back to themselves, awaken the species.

As we inch our way toward the third decade of the Twenty-First Century, this tri-part invitation is being extended to each of us. No longer is it intended to be sent to, or received by, only one-in-a-million. Now it is being sent to all of humanity’s billions — and those who are ready and willing to accept it already know who they are. By virtue of the fact that they have heard the invitation…actually, felt it at an energetic level…they have already self-selected to be among those who now choose to move through the world in a way that demonstrates their decision to accept the invitation.

This process of self-selection — of people choosing themselves, rather than waiting to be or to feel “chosen” — is what marks this day and age as different from times long past.

In the earlier days of our species’ evolution, people did not embrace what we might call a “heavenly assignment” unless or until they felt “called” or “anointed” — usually as a result of a personal epiphany or spiritual transformation of some kind.

Today people are transforming themselves. No longer content to wait for some outside influence or exterior energy to shift their ground of being, people are expanding their consciousness, elevating their awareness, and expressing their grandest selves because they choose to — not because they feel they have been chosen to.

Such self-selection marks the beginning of a new era, the onset of a new epic in humanity’s long evolutionary process. It is the next stage of growth for the species, signaling the emergence from spiritual infancy to metaphysical maturation. Humans are claiming their True Identity, embracing their Actual Nature, and expressing their Divine Essence without waiting any longer to be ordained or consecrated through some external experience or authority outside of themselves.

This is as it would most naturally be; as it was intended to be; as it is, in fact, with all highly evolved sentient beings in the universe.

As you read this you will know (just as you knew, immediately, when you first read the Conversations with God material) if the invitation to change the world’s mind about God, to give people back to themselves, and to awaken the species resonates with you. You will understand intuitively and at once that accepting this invitation has nothing to do with huge exterior accomplishments you are expected to achieve, but rather, with States of Being you have the opportunity to embrace, express, and experience.

That is, there is nothing you have to do, and only that which you are invited to be as you do whatever you do.

This is one of the opening messages in the Conversations with God dialogues — which we will explore in the next installment in 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:
  • Jethro

    I am not one who says beautiful things nor conveys enlightening messages. If this is required I will fail as I’m not a poet. I came to “conversations with god” in a time of my life that I desperately needed a new way to think. I found it. I have been concentrating on this new way of thinking since. I had a thought in the beginning of my change that all spiritual/religious teaching was a product for self views. The world seems to be reading spiritual/religious views and using them to view everything but themselves. We should see the world of course, everything around us can have, and does have, an impact on who we are, and choose to be, but we must start by seeing and recognizing ourselves.

    In my kindness and ability to accept that “I could be wrong”, which has been viewed as a weakness to be attacked, I try to walk with others in their beliefs rather than create another attack. I see nothing wrong with that. I have received acceptance in my views from atheists/agnostics on multiple occasions. I have found myself wondering if that was good or bad in some cases. I do not wish to condone the amount of anger being produced by those who wish to deny another person their personal beliefs, and I do not wish to further their anger by denying them their beliefs. So I’m still looking for my balance.

    The word “God” seems to be the key to creating upset and anger. It also creates acceptance whether a person understands you or not. (Just don’t admit you might be wrong!). This is why I feel the word “God” is the problem. Most spiritual views can be described with science in mind. Psychology is a science I believe? “The scientific study of the human mind and it’s functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context”. If I talk about my beliefs in God and say the word God, it’s presumed that I’m a bible thumping fanatic and should be shunned by the non believing masses, but when I state my beliefs in a manner that doesn’t sound spiritual, I’m accepted.

    I’m not insulted by the word God, nor the views of others regardless of their beliefs unless it may cause harm. I found absolutely nothing damaging or harmful in the sharing of a conversation with god.

    What is CWG? Life saving, a return to sanity, an idea of hope that has been working in my experience. I believe the ideas shared in the books, and my acceptance of the parts I needed, moved me into an area of thought that has provided my wishes the ability to manifest, as they continue to do so. Perfection cannot be achieved through external information, perfection is an internal thought, therefore no message will ever be perceived as perfect in its whole. I have not found perfection in my life as of yet. I have found that using the tools, the acceptance of many ideas contained in CWG, that I continue to find myself at peace with many things outside of my control. That doesn’t mean I have quit voicing my opinion, I have quit being so angry about it.

    Thank you Neale for sharing your thoughts of God. I was having many of the same thoughts and you told me it was ok. You also added new ideas, a new wonder, to my life in the process. I will never have the right words, I hope thank you works.

    Love, kindness, and peace to all…

    • “I have not found perfection in my life as of yet”

      As a friend said to me “When life sucks it sucks perfectly.”

      Life is perfectly imperfect. Life is set up perfectly. That is, as a contextual field for good or less good as we currently perceive it.

      Perfection comes in many flavors. I’ve experienced both perfection & imperfection. That is the perfection of the system we are in.

      Now, if perfection is still troubling for you, consider this. Replace perfection with harmony. Seek harmony & you will find your perfection. Just some thoughts to consider.

      • Jethro

        A wonderful perception my friend. From a spiritual standpoint this can be achieved, and spiritually it has been accepted in my life. I’m moving forward perfectly through life always. Always perfectly handling hard times as we must because we must, embrassing every wonderful moment as it is truly something of wonder. As humans with human minds we can choose to see the perfection in the cycle of life. It’s seeing that which is not perfect that creates a need for change, as long as I see a need to change something in me, I will not call that part perfect. I still have things that need changing, it is that which I refer to as imperfect. A changing of which could bring internal harmony. To desire perfection of the world is useless, to recognize it is perfectly doing what it does is truth.

        Thank you Marko

        • Yer welcome Jethro.

          • AKA Patrick

            As a follow-up to the last two or three conversations above, you cannot know white till you know black, you cannot know day till you know night, etc., etc., etc. Picture a perfectly totally white room. With nothing else in the picture, you can’t distinguish anything or anyone there. You can’t even tell where here and there are. Think about it. Try to place yourself in that situation. Psychologists have come to realize that in order to even exist (at least sanely) we must experience some sort of sensory reception.

          • Yes, I would agree & I’m familiar with the concept. I’m not sure what placement it has in the above comments.

      • Jethro

        What part of what I wrote triggered your post to me?

        • The part I quoted from you regarding perfection.

          • Jethro

            Thank you.

    • Spiritual_Annie


      I personally think you have a wonderful way of expressing yourself. It’s down to earth and I can sense the truthfulness in it. I’m certain that there are people who would hear you more clearly than someone who speaks poetically or “says beautiful things.” I personally enjoy reading your comments here.

      Love and Blessings Always,

      • Jethro

        Thank you Annie, it means a lot.

    • mewabe

      Just a quick thought about anger and beliefs…

      I agree that getting angry at people because of their beliefs, of triggering their anger about ours, is not productive…after all, humanity has done this for centuries and it hasn’t worked.

      But anger at religion itself is not so bad…it is quite justified, as most aspects of religion have been very detrimental to humanity (spreading guilt, shame, fear and physically terrorizing populations into submission and blind obedience for centuries).

      Anger itself is not a negative feeling. It is not pleasant, but it is appropriately triggered by an unpleasant situation, and is nothing more than a powerful energy that propels us to move away from or beyond the unpleasantness if we use it wisely, not to attack but to remove ourselves. Anger, like fear, is a warning signal that tells us that something is very wrong.

      Rather than trying to control anger and ignoring the wrong, we can change the situation, meaning change our own situation rather than attempting to change others, unless we are pushed against a wall and must act in self-defense.

      Religion is wrong when it it pushed on others, as anything else that is pushed on others is wrong. And religion is being pushed on people all the time, from the government down. So anger at religion is indeed an appropriate, natural response, as would be anger at being slapped around repeatedly, it is a response that calls us into change.

      • Spiritual_Annie

        mewabe, my friend,

        You speak such wisdom that touches on much of my own experience.

        I don’t think any feeling is good or bad, right or wrong, positive or negative. In part, that’s because I don’t attach my goals to feelings. I see them simply as the most accurate indications of my state of being.

        There are times I have used my anger to heal myself. To live with a past anger hurts only the one feeling the anger. But I learned that there were ways to transform that anger and heal the wounds that caused it. There have been times I have been afraid and, by facing my fears, changed the situation and my state of being. Even when I feel joyous, I know this comes from my state of being.

        Yes, religions have caused and are causing much distress and disorder in the world. I see it as a three-part problem. First, religions become dogmatic, not allowing for the changes that inevitably happen in our world, especially over thousands of years. Second, people who are devoted to their religions believe it is the only way–to live, to reach salvation, to make it to paradise–and become righteous about their religion, making everyone else “wrong.” Third, growing out of that devotion and righteousness, religious people believe that they have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others–by evangelizing to “unbelievers” in order to “save” them, by law, through war.

        I know fewer spiritual people who have problems with anger than religious people, I think in part because to “be spiritual” is an individual thing, different for everyone who experiences it. Certainly there are times when I get angry, but when I do, I look for the source of the anger and make a choice about how to change the situation. Sometimes it’s by talking things through quietly and calmly. Sometimes it’s by finding a way to release the energy of the anger, like walking or using a punching bag or writing an anger letter and burning it. Sometimes it’s by simply removing myself from the situation that’s causing the anger, either literally or by refusing to participate.

        Anger is often misinterpreted and misunderstood. If I find someone “getting on my nerves,” there could be any number of reasons. However, we often don’t look for the reason, or attempt to explain it to the other person(s) involved. Assumptions get made all the time, both by the one feeling the anger and the one who is exposed to another’s anger. I’ve learned for myself that anger is almost always covering up hurt. Anger is easier to feel than is whatever pain I’d prefer to avoid. I’ve also learned for myself that it helps to be specific about my anger. I once was angry with all priests, for example, because one molested me. When I made the anger about the specific priest involved, I was able to release the anger towards the rest.

        I don’t feel anger towards religions. There are specific people who try to convert me that I feel anger towards, especially when they are relentlessly speaking at me and not listening to me. There are things I feel are no longer beneficial in some religions, but that doesn’t cause me to feel anger because I can choose to not be a part of it. There are people who cause damage and kill in the name of their religion, and that’s one of the situations when anger is covering my pain–pain for those hurt, and pain for those so misguided they believe they have the right to hurt and kill others in the name of their God.

        I’m glad you brought this up. I needed to hear what you said, reflect on it, and express my own experiences. Thank you.

        Love and Blessings Always,

        • mewabe

          Hi Annie!

          “I’ve learned for myself that anger is almost always covering up hurt. Anger is easier to feel than is whatever pain I’d prefer to avoid.”
          I couldn’t agree more…anger is powerful because, like fear, it is a call to action (fight or flight) that originates in the primitive survival part of the brain…a defensive reaction that basically causes us to want to, physically, immediately eliminate the source of the pain or hurt (at least it was when we were cavemen and cavewomen). Now that we are no longer so physically violent (except when we have ourselves a massive world war butchery party sponsored by our criminal governments), we must learn to understand the nature of anger, which I do think is always about hurting, in one way or another.

          I replied extensively to Jethro (just above your post) about why religion can-and should-cause anger in most people who are initially awakening to their true nature. Humanity has been wounded in its psyche by certain specific religious ideas. Anger is a stage many people pass through…a sort of revolt and regurgitation that I think is necessary, at least until we get to the underlying hurt, until we heal psychologically and spiritually and our conditioning is eliminated (as much as possible).

          Undoing our conditioning is no small task…and I am not even mentioning past lives 🙂

          I would be interested to know your thoughts regarding the specific topics I addressed in my reply to Jethro,

          • I think we’d solve a lot of problems if we’d simply get rid of the rigidity that causes the dogma & self righteous from the religious to the vegans, politics etc.

          • mewabe

            I agree Marko, but certain ideas cause such rigidity…such as the strange (and pagan) idea that a deity would demand compensation (the torture and killing of “its only son”) for the transgressions (“sins”) of humanity. As long as people do not discard such a primitive idea, rigidity will remain, because rigidity comes from fear, and such an idea originates in and perpetuates fear.

            Individuals take what they want from religion, some are “God-fearing”, others are God-loving. Yet the basic premise or foundation of Christianity is dead wrong and rooted in pagan beliefs in a punishing God. Unlike Neale I do not mind using the word “wrong” when it applies, even though I would never debate these things with a Christian, because I totally respect their choice and right to be wrong. We all have made mistakes at one point or another…

          • Well for me, rigidity can be seen in religion, science, new age philosophy. politics etc. So it’s not limited to one ideology.

          • mewabe

            That’s true…and the way I see it, people become rigid in their views when they do not trust them completely, when they still have doubt about them. It’s a simple defense mechanism. When for example you know without a doubt that the earth is round, you don’t need to argue with someone who believes it is flat…you just wish them a good journey on their flat earth.

            This is why some dictators and brutal tyrants sometimes start out as idealists…But they fail in their idealism and become in turn oppressors when they doubt their ideals, and consequently do not trust that a population would embrace such an ideal willingly. They are, as Jane Robert put it, failed idealists, using force rather than gentle persuasion, because they do not believe in the strength and validity of their own ideas.

            And…to go further, it could be said that no idea that is one sided can ever be valid. There are two sides to every coin! This is a hard one to admit for most people, because it seems that most enjoy a good drama based on tension and conflict, and find peace uninteresting and boring. We have a long way to go still…
            As Leonard Cohen put it in one of his songs: “Aren’t you tired yet?”

          • Great points my friend! 🙂

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Just for fun… There are more than two sides to a coin. There is the front side, the back side, the inside, the outside, and the edge. 😉

            (Sorry, but I couldn’t resist.)


          • mewabe


          • Spiritual_Annie

            mewabe, my friend,

            There is much to consider in what you have written.

            Historically speaking, brutality in the name of religion goes back much farther than most think about. Greeks and Romans used to torture and kill those who wouldn’t provide offerings, oaths or prayers to their gods. Romans in particular were brutal, devising the public torture and death of nonbelievers through crucifixion. Druids were thought to require human sacrifice in their rituals, and the sacrifices were generally those who they had conquered, seen as unbelievers. Almost all of this abhorrent violence took place because there was one group of people who lived under the rule of their leader who was seen as ordained or chosen by their gods, and another group who did the same under a different ruler and different gods.

            We do this same thing today, it’s just that the rulers and definitions for “God” have changed, as have the means of inflicting brutality. In the Judeo-Christian world, the idea of sin, and original sin, were added to the mix. In Judaism, there is a day of atonement where, in ancient days, an animal sacrifice was made and sins forgiven. For those who could afford it, the “best” sacrifice was a young lamb. In the Christian tradition, Jesus is seen as the sacrificial lamb for all mankind’s sins.

            Despite that sacrifice, the idea of sin and original sin persist in the Judeo-Christian part of the world. Having been raised Catholic, I was indoctrinated with the idea that we are all sinners, most especially women who were seen as bringing original sin into the world. The entire Catholic church (and many other Christian denominations) run on guilt, shame and sin. One didn’t even have to act out a sin as the mere thought of committing a sin was considered sinful. Since the Catholic God knew one’s every thought, one was constantly sinning. Thus one was always guilty of sin and made to feel shame about it. In previous centuries, this is one of the ways the church filled its coffers as an atonement could be bought for a price (even though Jesus died as the ultimate and final atonement).

            These ideas were well in place when laws were being codified. Laws are no more than the either the consensus of the people or the desires of those in power to control others (something they have in common with some religions). Many of our current laws are based on ideas from the bible. Thou shalt not kill has become legal manslaughter and murder. Thou shalt not steal has become grand larceny and theft. They originate from religious traditions that controlled the tribes, and now they control nations.

            Separation of church and state is a farce in America. The money we earn and spend, and many courthouses, contain the words “in God we trust.” Everyone from the President to Supreme Court Justices to judges and witnesses in trials swear with one hand on the bible, with the swearing often ending in “so help me God.”

            With all of this, it naturally follows that we would fight wars and slaughter millions in the name of our God. After all, the God of the old testament instructed his people to do so, even with the admonition to leave no being living when lands were conquered. It all comes down to the belief that we have the right to kill and take other people’s land and property because God said we could. (This part is also true in Islam, although there used to be a provision for non-Muslim tribes to pay tributes and be left alone.)

            Recently, the voices of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians have grown louder, I believe because of the influx of legal immigrants who are not Christians, or aren’t the “right kind” of Christians. They aren’t white, anglo-saxon protestants from Europe. In conjunction, there has been a rise (and, I believe, many crossovers) in “white power” groups who believe America should belong only to white Christians (ignoring altogether the stealing of the land from Natives). Add to that the refugee crises in the Middle East causing an influx of illegal immigrants, and the stage was set (in part) for a right-wing, misogynistic evangelical to become president. Immigrants become the scapegoat for the loss of jobs due to a change from an industrial country to a technical corporate country, which has meant the loss of manufacturing jobs but an increase in technological jobs that manufacturing employees weren’t trained for. Immigrants have become the scapegoat for the numbers of Christians in churches (and the money in their coffers) going down. It has created yet another “us versus them” situation where violence against any non-white, non-Christian feels justified by the righteous white Christian.

            An undercurrent of all this is the misogyny in America, which has always existed but which is now more apparent. Built into the Christian traditions are the examples of Eve, the ultimate sinner by bringing original sin into the world; the virtuous and virginal Mary, the mother of Jesus; and Mary Magdalene, who was believed to be a prostitute and temptress (although the story of the prostitute in the new testament contains no name). Therefore, Christian women were expected to be virtuous and virginal, yet also carried the guilt of original sin by the mere fact of being female, and if men felt lust it was because women were temptresses like Mary Magdalene. It’s a no-win situation for women.

            This is reflected in not only relationships and marriages of yesteryear where women didn’t own property or earn an income, making them rely on (and in some cases, be trapped by) men. In modern marriages, where oftentimes both work, the woman is still expected to do the majority of the housework and child rearing. All this while making less than a man while performing the same work at the same level of efficiency.

            The suppression of the natural (and oftentimes spiritual) act of sex is everywhere in our society. When children reach inside their diapers out of curiosity or because it feels good, they are quickly admonished not to touch themselves “down there.” Little boys and girls, naturally curious about each other’s bodies, are shamed and punished even if they’re just looking. Teenage boys often masturbate, but already feel enough shame and guilt to hide it from everyone. Teenage girls, on the other hand, aren’t even supposed to think about it. Right at the time teen bodies are raging with hormones that are changing their bodies and urges, they’re told that they should abstain from their very natural desires.

            This abstention continues into adulthood where women are called easy or loose or sluts or whores if they have (much less enjoy) sex. Men are allowed more leeway, especially when promoted with the idea they should know how to perform by their wedding night. The exception is those who are called to be priests (and we’ve seen what that’s led to in the scandals of sexual abuse in the Catholic church). Even in marriage, sex is seen more as something expected to be done, but not necessarily enjoyed.

            Why should it then be surprising that there is a proliferation of pornography, incest, paedophilia and infidelity? There is control, guilt, shame and repression from the day we’re born. Our natural inclinations, whether they be about sex or cooperation or altruism or individual expression or creativity, are stifled and we’re told that they can’t be trusted. We’re told that WE can’t be trusted. If we can’t trust ourselves, it naturally follows that we can’t trust anyone else, especially those who are different from us.

            There is anger, but its expression isn’t against the people who repress us by means of legal, political or religious authority. Instead it is misdirected into riots at sporting events and domestic violence and child beatings and road rage. As more people struggle to run from the anger, they do so with alcohol and street drugs, or they’re repressed by others with degrees who prescribe legal drugs that can be charged at sometimes 1000% of the cost of production and tested on only 100 patients before being approved by the FDA. Laws declare “war” on street drugs and fill our prisons with nonviolent offenders, off of whom corporations make a huge profit running the warehouses, including providing the food, clothing, medical care, and even the guards. Courts and law enforcement make money off of the fines imposed, and if one can’t afford the fines, one is simply warehoused along with the others while being charged fees for their daily meals and care.

            We need a revolution–a literal turning away from–the ideas that we are not born as free, individual persons with a right to basic survival needs and expression of self. It will take a multi-layered approach, starting with how children are raised and taught, whether in homes, schools or religions. This means that existing adults need to be re-educated about their own rights and the ability to trust their natural instincts. Competition needs to be replaced with cooperation. Tribes and neighborhoods should be trusted with self-regulation rather than having it imposed on them from on high.

            I’m not sure that we have many generations left to achieve these goals before we somehow self-destruct, either through weapons of mass destruction, or a superbug that is immune to the antibiotics we take too often, or environmental disasters caused by our disrespect for nature. I believe that this is why Neale proposes a three-part invitation (or, as some might say, an intervention), starting first with removing our distrust of the small, still voice inside ourselves and connecting with our own spirituality. When we are able to do so, we can then help others understand their own true nature on a one-to-one basis or in small groups. Eventually, this will cause the awakening of communities and states and nations and then the world as a whole.

            I imagine that’s a bit more than you were looking for in a response, and I don’t mean to rant or lecture, but these are issues about which I’m passionate and have given them much thought. Please accept them as they’re presented, with a loving compassion for humanity.

            Love and Blessings Always,

          • mewabe

            I love everything you wrote Annie, you expressed it all very well, and needless to say I agree 100%! Very well said!

            I especially like this line: “Our natural inclinations, whether they be about sex or cooperation or altruism or individual expression or creativity, are stifled and we’re told that they can’t be trusted.”

            This is right on the mark and brilliant! I am not sure too many would understand this or have even thought about it. It goes well with what Russell Means once said: “The dominant culture teaches people (children and adults) to love everything they hate and hate everything they love”.

            It is more difficult to be awake than asleep in this world…which is why I have often said that spiritual awakening (or any kind of awakening) is not for the faint of heart, because once you are awakened, you have to develop the courage to stand outside of the mainstream…you can’t be a sheep anymore!

      • Jethro

        Ok, which description of “God” are you talking about? Being shoved down your throat? That created past wounds. The ONE that gives you justifiably negative emotions? Christian, Neales, Wakan Tanka? I cannot even copy and paste all the different names of God in the many different spiritualities as the list is a mile long. It’s just word in my post, “God” without definition.

        Justified or not, the word “God” produces negative emotions. Unless of course people are looking to understand “God”, but which one?

        Anger is what it is…. it’s both negative and positive.
        While I normally only do this for my wife who hates it when I call her angry, because it makes her angry! I hope she doesn’t read that, I have edited my post to say “negative emotions”, I hope this works better. It works better for her.

        • mewabe

          Hi Jethro. There is only one Source (divine) but there are many understanding (or misunderstandings). The religions that seem to have been the most aggressive in brutally forcing their ways on people are Christianity and Islam. Since I am not living in a Muslim nation (thank you Allah, blessed be his name), I am mainly concerned with Christianity.

          When our government starts listening to the most extreme evangelical conservative elements within this nation, and you start replacing sex education with “abstinence only” nonsense as an example of what was done under Bush (the shrub version within the Bush dynasty), or there are talks of making birth control illegal for women, you have to start scratching your head and wondering if religion is not being forced upon us again by a radically unhinged segment of our population that wants to establish a sort of Christian Sharia law.

          But going deeper, there ought, in the western world, to be a healthy angry reaction at having been taught to obey religious authorities and live in fear, guilt and shame for centuries. This kind of deep conditioning doesn’t just instantly vanish from an individual, and it doesn’t go away within a couple of generation: it is branded within the collective unconscious, and needs to be consciously and forcefully rejected, along with all of its ramifications, and there are many.

          The idea of sin being associated with sex is particularly damaging, and is, along with the resulting puritanism that still infects anglo-saxon cultures, the very source of the degradation of sex we can witness in the spread and popularity of pornography. Christian puritanism and Catholic guilt, which are directly related to the idea of sin, go hand in hand with all forms of perversions, as they are their very sources.

          Anger is as a cleansing storm that must be allowed to pass through to renew and regenerate the human psyche, which has for centuries been beaten down by abominable forms of religions (I am using the biblical term abominable ironically).

          • Jethro

            I have thought these things as well Mewabe, and understand. Do you believe that I am promoting these these things in my post? Neale was not promoting these things in his books. I was giving Neale a little praise for saying it’s ok to have a different idea of “God” actually. So in my post I was actually pointing out that the only thing that has created a problem with anyone reading the books is the confusion created when he understandably used the word “God”. Nobody would have read the books had he called it say… a conversation with Neale. He used the word “God”. There’s actually no better word. But fewer people would be up in arms if he could have used a different word. It is impossible for some to create a separation. The word God is a name given to the highest form of spiritual deity. Just because the word was used in my post, doesn’t mean we are discussing the God that you are talking about.

            With that said Mewabe you have proven my point, using the word “God” creates negative emotions in people because they cannot separate pre-existing ideas of anything known as “God” from the description of “God” that Neale wrote about. As I understand Neales description of God, have sex for pleasure all you want, with all the contraceptives that make you feel comfortable. Sex is natural and should be enjoyed between people, not only for the purpose of creating children. Just don’t do what your not comfortable doing, don’t force anyone to do what they are not comfortable doing.

          • mewabe

            I think you misunderstood my comments. Perhaps I shouldn’t have addressed them specifically to you but as a general comment…because in no way did I imply or mean or think that you or Neale were talking about the traditional Christian God.

            My comment about anger in general and anger at religion in particular were more of a social commentary, and so were the question of sin associated with sexuality, and the degradation of women, which I think are very serious problems within our Judeo-Christian cultures.

            For some reason I failed to communicate and made you believe that my comments were challenging you personally, or that I was talking about myself regarding anger or sexuality, but I can assure you they were not meant that way. They were meant to enlarge the conversation to talk about social problems, not narrow it to you or me.

          • Jethro

            I could have easily misunderstood, been busy and haven’t been concentrating as I should. thank you. It makes more sense now. I’m going to go back and start over. Sorry I went the wrong direction.

          • Jethro

            I have witnessed the negative views of women and Christianity. Women are blamed for the poor thoughts of man. I believe this is why Muslims wrap up their women in cloth. It’s ridiculous! It’s as if a person almost reached mastery and couldn’t remove lust, and was just powerful enough to force women to hide their forms. My dad and grandfather had a descussion about women wearing pants (a Pentecostal no no). My grandfather said women shouldn’t wear clothes that are designed for a man. My grandmother wore pants at home, only at home. But my dad asked my grandfather if he ever wore grandmas pants, he got a little angry and said “NO! Those are womans pants!”…. WHOOPS! Men are having to learn to control their thoughts and actions today towards women like never before. These days I find myself leaning on my wife for her ability to reason, something I have not grown comfortable with entirely after the alcohol problem. Equality is a must. We are here to assist each other. Period. Not just man and woman but all human beings.

          • Stephen mills

            Yeah this is so ridiculous Jethro as Native Aboriginal cultures practically run around naked and have virtually no rape sexual abuse and grow up having a healthy understanding of human sexuality .
            It’s so sad to watch all this play out when it seems so obvious ,one just has to observe to understand. The blind are leading the blind. Take organised religion out of schools replace it with critical thinking and observational feedback.

          • Jethro

            I’m not so sure it has anything to do with religion or lack of religion in schools. Peers in school are not teaching anything good, well not when I was there. The teachers are doing all they can to teach the useless crap that’s required that hardly have time for stupid things like morals, in America anyway. Television, the internet, song lyrics and video games are teaching our children. Disfunctional parents who are stressed out trying to make ends meet, who are also trying to give their kids all those things that distort reality. Not to mention the population boom meaning more and more kids growing up with strange beliefs. Drugs, porn, or violence. Could be that the aboriginal cultures still have close family ties, enough that the children still learn respect.

            I remember having that very thought that you stated, tribes running around mostly naked without sexual problems in the community. I wondered if that’s what it would take. I’m thinking that in those communities that the people aren’t as selfish and self serving as the kids I’m witnessing these days.

          • mewabe

            Yes women have, because of religion and especially because of the concept of original sin, basically been blamed for the “fall” of man.
            We are still living within patriarchies, even in America. I think this creates a complete imbalance at the spiritual level as well as culturally and socially.
            Women are only considered equal when they can prove themselves capable of performing like men, as in the military or the corporate boardroom…in other words the only valid standard is still male, and that’s were feminism has failed (for example, a female political leader has to prove herself “strong” and “tough” to be respected…not sensitive, empathic, compassionate or caring, unless caring is incorporated into the dominant male standards, as it might be in progressive ideologies.
            Yes we must assist each other…I think the old idea that one should either lead or follow has to be discarded. As Native Americans say it best:
            “Don’t walk ahead of me, don’t walk behind me, walk with me.” That’s how the relationship between the sexes should be!

          • Jethro

            “Don’t walk ahead of me, don’t walk behind me, walk with me.” This has been a belief of mine for years, I see it “in the homes” of people of all religions in America. Documentaries that I have watched have an appearance of it “in the homes”. I don’t understand why it has to change when they walk into public. I know it’s due to religions and religions forced by government. I’ve witnessed the woman appearing to be “the boss” in almost every home I’ve been in. Could be an awakening? Could be the way it’s always been? With my grandparents, my grandmother was “the one in charge”, at church, she was the timid soft spoken follower. Even my Muslim customers are much different at home.

            My wife and I work together. We are plumbers who do home repairs. We have established rolls based on ability. It has naturally, meaning nature decided, that she handles helping me set up, she handles the money and invoices, the phones, clean-up. We have balanced physical abilities. She out works me in some cases as I don’t bend over very well. Still I’m physically stronger. I do the big stuff and most of the construction. She’s right in there every step. When we are setting down and using Only our brains on the other hand, we become one and the same. We are as equal as we truly are. We balance each other.

            I use that knowledge when dealing with widows who have dealt with the natural separation between (man) husband and (woman) wife. (Widowers as well.) the women are very uncomfortable because they expect me to be in charge. The relief is clearly shown in their faces when I present them with choices and options. I let them know they get to be in charge, it’s their house. The widowers are just as lost sometimes, they have shared their lives with their female counterparts for so long that they find it hard to make decisions. We do truly become one. Why we make the man and woman separate in public I have no idea. That part is not natural order. Well, we don’t feel it’s natural.

            I find humor in young husband and wives because the male tries to be in charge and the young ladies are standing back, by the end of the job, the rolls reverse. I have been known to tell the husband to get his wife because I know the rolls are going to change and I don’t want to have to backtrack… I know who’s in charge! It comes with age. Seriously though, both are equal, both have a say and I want both involved in the decision making or my life on the job gets tough.

            There are many differences sexually between a man and a woman. Three wives in 30 years and I’m not even going into that. Anybody looking for advice, listen to your partner. Really listen close. There are no rules, or answers, unless between partners.

            Whether a man or a woman, do not discount a man or a woman because they are. The abilities of both are shared by all and we are as a whole equal in our abilities. Feminine or masculine.

      • Jethro

        Christianity has been changing a lot, they seem to be concentrating on positive emotional expression, trying consciously to produce positive attitudes. As if faking it makes it true, or more holy. Maybe it’s partly for drawing people back to church beyond the fire and brimstone sermons a lot of us had to set through. Anger has always been described as a negative emotion, they actually mean rage, but some don’t understand the difference.

        Your right, anger is normal and productive at some levels. People don’t understand that it’s love that called the police on the drug abuser. It took some anger to exercise that love. Anger brings us to action and that’s an anger we seldom notice.

        Anger in the realm of belief. I was very angry with my religious history, At the same time I was dealing with many other issues but religion was heavy on my mind. There were things that never made any sense! I argued with anyone who would talk about it. So much so there are people who still won’t talk to me, even though my way of thinking has changed. I found a bit of insight, hence my note of gratitude to Neale. I had to drop old beliefs and replace them. I quit being angry at the Christians too. It took anger to move on though.

        I believe the arguements between the atheists and theists are quite rediculous. Does too, does not, Does too, does not,..and use many different words to say those same things, that’s not a discussion. They look for no middle ground, Really it would be more productive to discuss the weather. People who bargain prices know emediatly that if they are too far apart in price, there’s no need to continue. I think atheist and theists already know that and go into conversation to test something. I know there is common ground, as religions are nothing more than ancient psychology lessons designed to create a specific view on self, life, nature. Christians haven’t found a way to express themselves so they tend to say, “because God says so”. Now the word God is a trigger for anger/rage. Definitions/translations of what holy books are saying are changing too. The words haven’t changed, just the idea of what is meant. I’ve heard people use the Bible to justify and condemn the very same thing. Neale uses killing as a good example. So it’s no wonder there is so much anger and confusion in religions these days. Political correctness is taking its toll. I’ve had a few arguements with my significant other that result in a totally new arguement beacause of a single word. One word is anger. As I stated in an earlier post, she claims it wasn’t anger, yet it’s what she was expressing. So I’ve learned to say things like, “It appeared you were expressing a “negetive emotion” and I don’t understand what I did.” To say “anger” would mean that for the millionth time we would have to have a discussion on the different levels of anger, a core emotion. I have wanted to pull out my “how are you feeling” paper, the one with humorous little expressions, but that would really cause some, “negative emotion” so I have not.

        • Patrick Gannon

          Christianity is changing a lot, and we can expect more. The reason it is changing is because we now have scientific knowledge that has undercut, if not removed, the very foundation for the Abrahamic religions. We know today, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there was no 6 day creation, no two-person DNA bottleneck (which means no original sin), no global flood, no mass Exodus from Egypt, and no conquest of Canaan. Without these things, there is no foundation for Yahweh, or the Allah that followed him; and of course with no foundation for Yahweh, there’s no need to believe say and do the right things in order to be “saved” by Jesus. Jesus becomes moot. The problem here is that Christians just love their Jesus, not recognizing that all those words of love and peace were intended for his fellow Jews and not the rest of us.

          I propose that a lot of anger from Christians is the result of the cognitive dissonance created when what they believe comes into conflict with what we know and can demonstrate using objective evidence. A lot of this anger probably comes about because atheists are providing them with information they don’t want to hear. I’ll be the first to admit that some atheists can drive one to distraction, and I used to get really upset with them, when they challenged my CwG beliefs. Now, years later, in retrospect – it’s clear that they were right, and I didn’t want to hear it. I didn’t want my CwG beliefs questioned, but eventually had to question them myself because I couldn’t respond to their challenges. The real changes take place when we look deep inside at our own beliefs and ask ourselves what support we really have for them.

          Those arguments between atheists and theists do have value, I think. Other people watch them and learn things which they can then use to make up their own minds. Often those going at each other have no intention of changing their beliefs. As far as fundagelical theists go – they are much too frightened to consider doing so – but in a good debate, there is still useful information flowing that other people can use to evaluate their own positions. I would propose that the only time these debates lose value is when they become personal attacks and insults and the discussion shifts from a useful topic to the personalities and characters of those involved in the discussion. (I find that messing with such people can sometimes be entertaining though! LOL).

          There are other Christians who are trying to change the religion, having recognized that the original basis for it can no longer be supported, and Neale’s “Christianity-Lite” seems to be a part of this attempt. People are still afraid of dying, and New Age God, like all the gods that came before, provides unfounded beliefs intended to give people peace and comfort that there will actually be an afterlife. What if we all just accepted that, until we learn otherwise, this is all we get? Would it change how we live our lives? If there’s no second chance to get it right, will we be more inclined to get it right here and now?

          What I struggle with, is why it’s necessary to create NAG, a new god, just because the old one has been debunked. Sure it’s a nicer, kinder, more feminine god, but it’s still based on beliefs, just like all the gods that came before. How do we know that it’s not the beliefs themselves that are the root of our problem?

          The problem with Neale’s god, like all the others, is that we know exactly what is required to manipulate particles in our PMR (physical matter reality). We know that if there was something out there that could manipulate and move our particles, we would have discovered it by now. There are no movements of particles that we can’t explain with our PMR space/time natural laws. In order for Neale’s god to have influenced his writing, it would have had to move particles – electrons and chemical compounds around in his brain in order to produce the thoughts that became the words of his book. Despite exhaustive searching, we know nothing like this exists. We can explain all the movements of particles using the forces we are already aware of. A good book that is not overly technical that explains the current state of our scientific knowledge is “The Big Picture” by Sean Carroll.

          Jethro, as a sidebar (and with tongue in cheek humor), might I suggest that there isn’t a man alive who can understand why his woman is mad at him! When you hear “fine,” it certainly isn’t; and when you hear “nothing” it certainly is something!

          • Jethro

            Hey Patrick. Man, I like your point about the arguements being an educational tool for those undecided. I’ll see it that way as long as, like you stated, it’s not a bunch of personal attacks. I have no need to be even slightly entertained by it as I once was.

            The struggle with NAG, can be lessened in the same manner as seeing the positive in arguements between atheists and theists. I would still be struggling with the biblical God had I not found another stepping stone. it was scary quite honestly. I think you might have stepped yourself moving to CWG and now a new understanding. CWG is middle ground at least for those looking. I related a lot of CWG to the 900+ hours I spent learning to be a counselor. A counselor that couldn’t say the word God to a client. I can use the ideas Neale discussed without using the word God. It’s all related to psychology. Some people need a higher power, even if just a door knob.

            I had a few cartoons that spoke about husband and wife, if she says “what?” She heard you, she’s just giving you a chance to change what you said. I’m rather stupid though, I repeat and prepare to run just to see what’s next. It’s all about the fun sometimes.

  • Spiritual_Annie

    I have long been a walking, breathing contradiction: a lover of words and a rebel against labels. I read voraciously, as if the words I take in sustain me as much as the food I eat. I write, usually longhand but now also typing, pages and pages every day as if I will explode if the words don’t come out. But people have tried to label me all of my life, and I’ve always felt that to do so misses the totality of me. Even a gender label feels like it puts me in a box marked “female” which denies the parts of me that are generally in the box marked “male”. And there have been many, many more labels over my lifetime.

    I was a bit concerned reading the opening paragraphs of this column, wondering if we were “going there” with labels again. I was, therefore, joyously surprised to hear Neale’s definition of his experience with CWG as an invitation. My Soul did a little happy dance, not because we weren’t “going there” again, but because it’s the most appropriate, most important, most on-target description I’ve heard of CWG and my own experience with it. When I first read CWG, I found myself saying “Yes!” over and over again, and automatically wanted to share what I’d found with others. Friends probably got tired of hearing about CWG, but put up with it because of my excitement in finding the words for much of what I’d been feeling.

    In that way, CWG has always included as much outreach as it has “inreach”. I’d not really bought into the “guy in the sky” God my family heritage tried to pass on to me, probably in part because to call God “father” made a connection in my mind with my human father (definitely not a good thing). I also didn’t believe it was necessary for someone to stand between myself and my creator because, after all, we were already connected through the act of the creation of me. That’s an intricate, intimate act. Definitely one of those times when “three’s a crowd.”

    So, from the beginning, I was sharing what I was reading, although I wouldn’t have called it “changing the world’s mind about God” back then. I do now, though, which is part of the reason I use the term “God”–to rehabilitate it. To remove it from the heavenly realms and place it inside of all creation. To make it more intimate and less distant. To turn it into something one can make use of rather than merely implore to, waiting for answered prayers while missing opportunities. To feel joy about rather than fear.

    Even before I read CWG, though, I was “giving people back to themselves” in my own way. I was a friend to those who others judged as “less than.” The kids on the playground who no one would ask to join in. The “token” black kids at church. The neighborhood kid who everyone referred to as “that cripple.” Feeling so very different myself, I reached out to others who people treated differently, making friends with those who believed they were unworthy of friendship. Now, with CWG being a part of me, I can and do let people know that God resides within them and they are Divine beings, as often as I possibly can. I speak it, I write it, I post it, I tweet it. That’s because I breathe it. Deeply and regularly.

    That’s a small way of awakening humanity to its Divinity and our connection through it. I’ve since found organizations and groups to work with who are aiming for the same goal. I’ve also been recently inspired to create a blog/group/FB page/private community/book aimed at helping people move from “survivors” of abuses (and eventually other challenges, as well) to what I call “Risers,” those who rise when they get knocked down (and eventually those who rise above what we generally consider humanity to be).

    While I don’t feel “called,” it certainly feels like my calling. I say that because of the feelings I get when I think about it, when I share it with others and when I’m working on it. I’m not sure what to label that feeling, which is emotional and physical and spiritual all rolled into one. It’s a glow. It’s an aliveness. It’s a state of being. It’s synchronicity of all the parts of me. It’s a passion.

    Well. This comment has had those feelings, too, rather than the up-inthe-head, well thought out comments I usually post. And you know what? Rather than proofing and re-reading it, I’m going to just let it be.

    Love and Blessings Always,

    • Jethro

      Awesome Annie, just awesome! I have a very hard time using words that describe my feelings, I understand. Overwhelming just about says it. I find so much kindness in your posts. Thank you for being here.

  • mewabe

    In a world where some religious people have serious debates about burp demons (“demons” that cause you to burp), it is best to keep a light sense of humor…Neale’s gentle invitation to evolve is a good approach.

  • A true friend

    I have one final question to you Neale and your God and I quote CwG book 1 (1996).
    “God:There is nothing you cannot be, there is nothing you cannot do. There is nothing you cannot have.
    Neale: That sounds like a pie-in-the-sky promise.
    God:What other kind of promise would you have God make? Would you believe Me if I promised you less?”
    Where is my is my machine and how do I activate it?

    • Jethro

      I have had a little experience with the above. If you pay close attention to what you posted you find the answer. There is nothing “YOU” cannot be, there is nothing “YOU” cannot do. There is nothing “YOU” cannot have.

      It doesn’t say there is nothing “God or Neale” will not allow you to be, It doesn’t say there is nothing “God or Neale” will not allow you to do, It doesn’t say there is nothing “God or Neale” will not allow you to have. YOU are allowed to be, do, or have whatever “YOU” desire.

      How many people who specialize in the study of time travel have you talked to? what have you done to further your education in engineering that may allow you to construct your machine. How do you if it will in fact be a machine. How much work have you done to move in the direction of traveling through time? You are only as limited as you make yourself.

      • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

        “How many people who specialize in the study of time travel have you talked to? ” I’m talking to God. Isn’t he the leading authority on that field?

        • Jethro

          If god is talking back, your talking to the correct entity I guess. I’ll let you have your fun… good luck.

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            “If god is talking back” Wasn’t this the whole point of CwG?

          • Jethro

            Mateia, good luck!

        • Jethro

          There is nothing “YOU” cannot be, there is nothing “YOU” cannot do. There is nothing “YOU” cannot have.

    • AKA Patrick

      Reminds me of “Star Trek” and transporters.

      • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

        What about it?

    • mewabe

      Mateia, did something truly awful happen to you that you would want to go back in time and undo it physically?

      • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

        So thing happened because I didn’t knew better other we’re caused by exterior forces. While I don’t call them “awful” I choose to change the present version of me into something else.

        • Spiritual_Annie


          I can testify to the fact that it doesn’t take a time machine to change who you are to who you would prefer to be. I have had a life filled with circumstances beyond my control that damaged me in so many ways that I used to think I couldn’t be “fixed” and life wasn’t worth living.

          One of the hardest things I’ve ever done was to admit that I needed help (and I had no idea what kind) and reached out to ask for it. I’m not saying that’s where you are or what you need to do. I’m just offering my own experience as an alternative.

          Love and Blessings Always,

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            “time machine to change who you are to who you would prefer to be” The past is a part of me. You change the past you change yourself. It’s simple and straightforward. Change the past and you change the present. I don’t choose to change myself. I simply choose to compress my experience in a shorter amount of time.

          • Spiritual_Annie


            You specifically said, “I choose to change the present version of me into something else.” I merely pointed out that it doesn’t take a time machine to do so. It’s possible to reframe the past–see it from a different perspective–and thus change your present self.

            Love and Blessings Always,

          • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

            You clearly don’t understand that my past self desires to creat my experiences faster.

  • Awareness

    Neale Donald Walsch wrote: “This series of observations and interpretations is offered with my continuing disclaimer: I could be wrong about all of this.”

    I gave it a thought and decided you could also put it down as follows:

    “This series of observations and interpretations is offered with my continuing disclaimer: I could be wrong about all of this. And I could also be right about all/some of this” 🙂

    Bless ALL 🙂

  • Of the 3 invitations, I must say I’m currently most intrigued with the 3rd “Awaken the species”

    I remember years back in the early 90’s hearing about critical mass & once reached the acceleration of our evolution will be set in motion. I don’t currently see it, even after 20 years. Neale uses the idea of the boiling of water & the one degree difference it takes before the water boils. You don’t see it coming until it boils. Prior to that, it looks normal & it appears like nothing is happening.

    Is that where we are now, near the change point? I certainly believe & feel that many small orchards of enlightenment are happening & even serious students of spirituality— using CwG & like minded material to work & play toward their own individual enlightenment, myself included.

    From what I’ve heard the new forthcoming book talks about HEB’s helping & influencing us to evolve further & I believe have been for quite awhile. I suspect it’s all behind the scenes, no visible HEB has yet to be seen. Neale has not encountered an HEB last I heard.

    But HEB’s & ET’s certainly fascinate me as they do for many others. We so long for the world of peace & harmony.

    The only HEB’s I’ve read about besides Neale’s books & CwG book III is Lisette Larkins book “Talking to Extraterrestrials: Communicating with Enlightened Beings” Like the HEB’s in CwG books they are fully enlightened & living their full potential. They too are here to help & mentor us, if we desire.

    It gives me pause, excitement & great hope to think that we are on a verge of such a historical momentous spiritual renaissance upon us.

    It seems with president elect Donald Trump that we are clearly stepping backwards & yet others think this is exactly the shake up we need & is part of the awakening.

    What I do know is I’m very grateful for the tools CwG has offered & use them, work & play to refine them toward my own awakening. It’s exciting to consider the historical timeline we are in, as well as off-putting that we have so many incredible overwhelming problems on the planet. Problems that are accelerating & slow to resolution. Yet, who knows what is truly in store for us?

    I mean, we are right in the middle & thick of it. It’s wonderful to have a place such as this to discuss such ideas. I’m happy I have so many tools I use from CwG & similar material to give me a positive place from which to position my life that allows for my own advancement & those of others.

    • Spiritual_Annie

      Well said, Marko!

      I do think we’re on the verge… of what, I can’t be sure.

      I know from personal experience that sometimes that critical mass can be one of chaos and pain before we may be willing to acknowledge that life isn’t anywhere near what we would prefer, finally motivating us to choose differently about what matters to us most.

      I also know that the form of what finally tips that scale can be beyond what we imagine. Mine was the sudden loving responsibility for an unwanted infant, from as soon as he left the hospital, in a very convoluted and abusive situation. His innocence in the midst of the chaos and his simple yet clear reactions to what was going on around him broke me. But, it’s that breaking that led me to leave and get the help that turned my entire life around.

      It’s now one of the reasons I bless everything, not just what most would call positive but also what most would call negative. We humans can be motivated by either one, or both.

      Love and Blessings Always,

      • Thanks Annie, what form & even how this critical mass eventually comes about is anybodies guess. Taking care of an infant is a lot of responsibility & Neale has a new book on CwG & parenting. Happy holidays.

  • Patrick Gannon

    I don’t think one can refer to the texts themselves as a religion, any more than we call the bible a religion. However the movement (The New Spirituality), which refers to these texts as though they were holy and sacred, certainly seems religious to me. Most authors would refer to “my book” or “my study” but the way Neale consistently refers to his books, it is as though they were religious texts. “The gospel of Mark says…” The CwG text says…” “The Qur’an says…” “CwG tells us…” Normally we’d expect, “In my Blah Blah book, I suggested, yada yada…” “When I wrote Blah Blah, I was influenced by yada yada…”

    Speaking for myself, I have not indicated that I disagreed with its contents – indeed I have said many times that there is much of value within that I use myself. Yes, there are some things I do question, and most of all the core tenet that there is some sort of universal consciousness that is somehow also a personal deity. However the advice for interpersonal relationships and how to treat each other – much of that is great.

    Moving on..

    “Here is that three-tiered invitation:
    Change the world’s mind about God.
    Give people back to themselves.
    Awaken the species.”

    Yes, let’s change the world’s mind about God by starting with the question: What evidence do we have for any god? Let’s change the world’s mind about God by illustrating through solid, evidence-based education that we have no need for gods to explain much of our physical matter reality? If God shows up, (evidence consciousness survives the death of the brain), then we can add Her to the curriculum at that time. If there are gods, they are moot, as they do not interact with particles in our reality, else we should be able to observe them, at least indirectly. If a god or gods exist, there is no objective evidence that they interact in any way with our universe, so they don’t matter. We matter. We are matter, and so far we’ve found nothing that interacts with our “matter” that does not come from within our material universe. Why isn’t it better to admit what we do know and learn to live with it, than to insist on believing things we don’t know? How can that be good for us?

    I’m all for changing the world’s mind about God and giving people back to themselves without god baggage. The species does seem to slowly be awakening to the idea that we should stop hoping for some supernatural being to bail us out. Indeed people are self-selecting to stop relying on beliefs in things that we hold no evidence for.

    The growth of the “Nones” in the US is escalating, and now represents the largest voting bloc in the US, with Nones at 25%, Catholics at 21% and Evangelicals falling like a rock to 16%. People are self-selecting to recognize that “none of the above” gods are necessary for us to be decent, moral and ethical in our treatment of each other. Look what the word “God” has evoked in Neale’s own words: ” blasphemy, heresy, apostasy. Some (mainly those who disagree with its contents) have called it foolishness, fantasy, wishful thinking, or misinformation.” For a movement that is supposed to be all about ONEness, it’s clear that it has created division and separation, just like any other religion; otherwise why would it generate these responses? Isn’t CwG yet another slice of the God pie?

    If we are evolving as a society (how we evolve as a species or genome is a more technical and biological matter of genetics), then it seems to me that we are doing so by rejecting the need for gods and recognizing that we can still do all the great things that CwG and other books suggest, without invoking the supernatural. As others have said below – use of the word “God” with all its positive and negative connotations, along with the use of terms like “revelation,” automatically relegate CwG to being a religious or quasi-religious books, that contain some self-help suggestions, rather than being self-help books that contain some references to a hypothetical higher power.

    The books still have value without this hypothetical higher power, but it almost seems as though we are required to believe in this higher power in order to reap the benefits of the common sense advice and suggestions contained within. As I understand my recent conversation with Neale, in spite of the fact that I leverage many of the good ideas in CwG, and use them in my daily life, there is still a net loss to humanity – a damaging and non-beneficial loss – since I lack belief in the higher power that the books refer to, since I see no evidence for this god. It makes me wonder if Neale thinks it would have been better not to have read the books at all, rather than end up not believing in the hypothetical god they propose, even if I practice and take to heart many of the ideas. When I started, I questioned the existence of Yahweh, but knew nothing of NAG (New Age God), but now I question the existence of NAG, so perhaps that is more damaging and non-beneficial than not knowing anything about NAG to begin with!

    I would like to see CwG treated like “The Shack” a book written by William Young, as though it were true, with a human interacting with “the divine” in order to tell a story of forgiveness and acceptance, but that book is specified as a novel. If CwG was referred to as a novel, most of my objections would be gone. I still wonder if dragging out the concept of god, after it has lost most of its usefulness, really makes sense at this point. We don’t need to invoke gods to understand our universe, as we did for much of our species’ existence. It seems to me that we are self-selecting to figure out the rest of it, without needing any gods to do so.

    • Mateia Andrei (A true friend)

      “The books still have value without this hypothetical higher power, but it almost seems as though we are required to believe in this higher power in order to reap the benefits of the common sense advice and suggestions contained within”

      In a reply Neale gave me he said that there is nothing to reap from God. “God, being all powerful, not only can, but has, in the blink of an eye, given all sentient beings the tools with which to experience any and all outward circumstances with inward peace, joy, and love.”
      There! Every atheist and agnostic can accept outward experience if they choose so. The benefits he mentions are nullified.

      • Patrick Gannon

        I’m more inclined to think that any “tools with which to experience any and all outward circumstances with inward peace, joy, and love,” are a product of our genome, as developed by evolution, and these genetic tools are influenced by all our life experiences, memories, knowledge, intellect, beliefs, etc.

    • Just for your knowledge, Neale gave a very lengthy answer to you in his last blog, go back there to read if you haven’t yet.

      “If CwG was referred to as a novel, most of my objections would be gone.”

      First, you can treat the material like a novel. Because others don’t, is no reason you can’t, especially, if it helps your current belief system deal with it better.

      “I still wonder if dragging out the concept of god, after it has lost
      most of its usefulness, really makes sense at this point. We don’t need
      to invoke gods to understand our universe, as we did for much of our
      species’ existence. It seems to me that we are self-selecting to figure
      out the rest of it, without needing any gods to do so.”

      This may be true for you. Not necessarily others. I’m certainly okay at seeing God or more accurately Life, as the energy & intelligence behind physicality. That’s just me. When we look out at the Universe, the stars & planets etc.— Do we see God/Life or do we see ourselves in maximature? I think we see both & that is the beauty, irony & paradox of life. To see and witness our grandness we have colluded to be the size we are to see how immense we & Life are.

      • Patrick Gannon

        I responded to his post. We were discussing why he feels that atheists and agnostics are dangerous and non-beneficial to mankind. His explanation made no sense to me. It’s what he believes (probably because when he was a kid, an “atheist” was about the most horrible thing a person could be and that’s stuck in his brain). He admits that these are his beliefs, so we move on agreeing to disagree. One of the things I’m really liking is that Neale is now quite consistent in pointing out that these are his beliefs and that we don’t have to believe them and that they may not be (probably are not) true.

        Yes, I know that I can treat it as a novel, but I would really like to see Neale tell everyone that it is, in fact, a novel.

        “Maximature” as best I can tell, is a word that Neale made up when referring to reincarnation in a post dated 11 March, 2016. As such, I have no idea how to answer that question. It’s a made up word which indicates that it can subjectively mean whatever he wants it to mean in any given circumstance, and thus is of little objective value. Interestingly he points out in that particular post that we are influenced by every single experience we have. I would agree, and it is those experiences, along with memories, emotions, beliefs, etc. that bubbled up to the top of his brain’s consciousness to create the CwG material – assuming it really happened as he posits.

        Unfortunately I must disagree with your assessment that we are “immense.” Indeed, when compared to the grand scale of the universe, we are incredibly insignificant. As for how immense life is (is “Life” different from “life”?), again we look around, and to date, the only life we are aware of is our own. It may be that we are unique, though that’s unlikely based on sheer numbers, but the universe certainly doesn’t seem to be teeming with either life or Life at this point.

        • “Maximature” is the opposite of miniature. That’s how I was using it.

          “Unfortunately I must disagree with your assessment that we are
          “immense.” Indeed, when compared to the grand scale of the universe, we are incredibly insignificant. As for how immense life is (is “Life” different from “life”?), again we look around, and to date, the only life we are aware of is our own. It may be that we are unique, though that’s unlikely based on sheer numbers, but the universe certainly doesn’t seem to be teeming with either life or Life at this point.”

          I have no problem with your disagreement Pat & get your logic & it’s very understandable. In fact you are correct! At least from our current vantage point of awareness. I will give you that.

          As for the larger um, er Maximature picture, I think it’s possible in the grand scheme of things that we are the Universe & God but have taken to our current local physical status as means to see how grand life really is. Big L Life as the Universe & little l as our life here on earth.

          Remember you are dialoging with a creative person here who’s imagination and artistic nature enjoys the expansiveness of possibility thinking.

          HEB’s ET’s, Time Travel, Parallel Universes, other dimensions, metaphysics etc. fascinate me to no end. Yet, I’m keenly aware of our current status on this planet & the things I see. But there’s more much more. If my mind can think it, it can be possible to exist elsewhere. It’s a fun and parcel to enjoying life here & being a creative being. But I try not to take myself so seriously either.

          • Patrick Gannon

            All, well said, but consider the creativity of the scientists who theorized germs, evolution, the atom, Newtonian physics, relativity, quantum field theory, the Big Bang theory, etc. Being creative doesn’t restrict one from seeking real truths, based on real evidence.

            I was fascinated with all that paranormal stuff too – I still am – I’m just much more skeptical since learning more about how things really work.

          • Being skeptical is good, if too rigid however, one can easily dismiss paranormal stuff that happens right under their noses.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Someone is going to have to provide real evidence that paranormal stuff actually happens. Researchers have been trying to provide it for a long time now, and are no closer to doing so.

          • Well we don’t have the instruments to measure them yet.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Well, yes, actually scientists tell us that we do. We fully understand the properties of particles, and it is particles that have to be affected by external forces, in order for psi effects to occur. Healing has to involve particles. Anything in the brain such as auto-writing would have to occur by affecting electrons, chemicals, neuron cells, etc. Everything that happens to us, happens at the particle level, because we are made entirely of particles. If you’re going to change a thought, or give someone a vision – you’re going to have to manipulate electrons in ways that can be observed. Scientists say we know all there is to know about how particles can be affected, in order to render the psi effects in question.

            The tools to measure the particles in the brain – and particularly in solid mass, such as healing a heart, are extremely well developed and there are no motions or actions of particles that we can’t explain. As you dig into the smaller things that particles emerge from, the level of understanding gets more difficult because of the scale – but at the scale of particles – which is where these psi effects would have to take place – there is nothing science has found or thinks exists, and (as I’m trying to more fully understand), and it turns out this is actually predicted by quantum field theory.

            The New Age community turned quickly to quantum mechanics, early on, since it was unknown, and therefore, like all other religions attempting to explain that which is not yet understood – decided god must have done it, so to speak, and adopted quantum-speak as their explanation for the things we have no compelling, objective evidence for. We’ve learned a lot in the last few decades, and as it turns out, we’ve apparently learned that quantum field theory predicts (with amazing accuracy), all the possible ways to interact with a particle, and from this we now know that if there was something out there that could do what’s required to affect particles in an unknown and never observed manner, then we’d have found it by now. If it exists – it’s moot. It can’t interact with us at the particle level which is where we exist. This seems to be pretty well accepted, and it looks like the whole quantum thing is turning on those who first abused it with pseudo-science, as well as taking advantage of the ignorance of their sales prospects for books, sessions, DVDs, programs, etc.

  • Stephen mills

    Among civilized peoples victory is won by persuasion….is this not what CWG is about trying to civilize civilization from another perspective. Causing us to remember who we are and then reaching out to others to cause then to remember. Accepting responsibility for all of it .

    Peace and goodwill to all…

    • Patrick Gannon

      Persuasion is much more effective when it is accompanied by objective evidence. I can try to persuade you that the moon is filled with green cheese, but you will demand evidence before accepting that. For some strange reason though – if we tell people they existed before they were born, and will live after they die, many will accept this with absolutely no evidence – either because they want it to be true, or because they are too afraid to consider that it might not be, or so it seems to me.

      “Causing us to remember who we are…” is a claim that has no objective evidence to support it. There is no evidence that we existed before dropping out of our mother’s womb, thus it’s an unpersuasive claim, and must be seen as wishful thinking until such time as evidence can be provided.

      • Hi Pat, I really thought we’d gone over this before several times. You do delight in your “must have objective evidence for proof.” Science may yet create tools, devices, instruments, machines that verify many spiritual & mystical claims that were intuitively or subjectively experienced. That it hasn’t yet does not mean they aren’t true.

        I’ve said before but will recapitulate. Because something has not yet been objectively proved does not mean it’s untrue. You can certainly pursue this argumentative inquiry, here but I’m not sure why? People here are big believers of pre-life & afterlife. And as Neale has said numerous times. He could be wrong about this. So yes, we could be wrong, but what if we are not? Either way for me, It’s still a fun grand pursuit.

        It may be harder for you to grasps some of this especially if you’ve not had any psychic or mystical experiences. I see these as extensions of ourselves beyond the senses. With out these experiences it’s easier to see where you are coming from.

        You’ve mentioned that lack of evidence of out of body experiences in medical areas where they supposedly resuscitate people back from the dead.

        The NBC Today show had a 5 minute clips where science is working to see if people have out of body experiences & using devices of hidden objects to verify if people slip out of their body & can identify them. Look on the internet to find it.

        I bring this up because in the past you used the lack of evidence of such programs. I merely bring this up that they are still investigating it.

        Of interest perhaps, is that for me whether Jesus or Moses really existed is not of real consequence if the did or did not. What came from them are stories that whether they really happened or not is less of the point for me.

        What’s important, is the message that came through & how we may or may not use them to enhance our life or learn from them.

        Why do I bring this uP? Simply to show you that not all of us need these stories to be factually true to still have truth in them.

        • Patrick Gannon

          I keep tabs on any experiments regarding OBEs for example. The NDEs are completely subjective, but in an OBE, a patient either does or does not see objects placed out of their view – and so far, based on all the testing I’ve read about – they never do.

          Are you speaking of the AWARE project? This study is checking to see if the brain actually lives longer than we think it does. It’s not research to prove consciousness survives the death of the brain – which many crappy new age trade rags “spin” it into. The question in that study is about when the brain really dies. It may remain active longer than we think it does; but that doesn’t mean consciousness has survived the death of the brain – it means the brain hasn’t died yet.

          Why do I continue to bring it up? A. Truth, real truth, not our own idea of truth, actually matters. B. It is still my contention, and that of others, that holding unsupported beliefs may actually be bad for us. C. Others continue to bring up their beliefs, so why can’t I continue to bring up my challenges to those beliefs? Why are personally held or preached beliefs subject to some special privilege? We all know that’s the way religion thinks it should be treated.

          • The study I refereed to is just a video clip from the NBC Today show I saw & thought of you and your past remarks on such experiments.

            I think it’s fine to challenge our beliefs, but at some point like a blog here, you will get similar answers simply because many here enjoy the CwG material.

            I guess you must find some of this meaningful enough to come back so often. So carry on.

      • Stephen mills

        Its a personal thing for me Patrick . As a searcher or seeker of wisdom in a world of non coherence and fear. Sometimes you find something that intuitively makes sense . It clears some of the mist away on the journey illuminates the path .