"HI Guys Neil Walsh Donald, claims to have personal "buddy like" conversations with the god the infinite source. I find this hard to accept,what do you think?

alan

Conversations with God
.

In an interview with Larry King, Walsch described the inception of the books as follows: at a low period in his life, Walsch wrote an angry letter to God asking questions about why his life wasn't working. After writing down all of his questions, he heard a voice over his right shoulder say: "Do you really want an answer to all these questions or are you just venting?"[2] Though when he turned around he saw no one there, Walsch felt answers to his questions filling his mind and decided to write them down. The ensuing dialogue became the Conversations with God books. However, in the interview with Larry King, Walsch admitted that he couldn’t be sure that it was God speaking and that the books could have been the product of his own subconscious.

Contents [hide]
1 Basis of the dialog
1.1 CwG's basic messages
1.2 God's motive for creation
1.3 Nature of the dialogue
2 Parallels in other belief systems
2.1 Contemporary parallels
3 Prophecies and predictions
4 Bibliography and movies
4.1 The CwG series
4.2 Other CwG books
4.3 2006 movie
5 References
6 External links



[edit] Basis of the dialog
Containing nearly 3000 pages of material in total, the series presents a vast number of ideas. The second and third books in the original trilogy deal with political and social issues.


[edit] CwG's basic messages
In Friendship with God (page 373), "God" presents four concepts which are central to the entire dialogue:

We are all One.
There's Enough.
There's Nothing We Have [an obligation] to Do.
Ours Is Not A Better Way, Ours Is Merely Another Way.
The first statement is understood to mean that existence is essentially nondual in nature. At the highest level there is no separation between anything and there is only one of us; there is only God, and everything is God. The second statement, following from the first, means that we, in this seeming existence, lack nothing and if we choose to realize it, we have enough of whatever we think we need (or the means to create it) within us. The third statement combines the first two to conclude that God, being all there is and is thus always sufficient unto Itself, has no need of anything and therefore has no requirements of humanity. The final concept puts an end to our need to always be right. Given that we have and are everything, and there's nothing we have to do, there are an infinite number of ways to experience this, not just the one way we may have chosen so far.

According to the books, God recommends many economic and social changes if people want to make a more functional, adaptable, and sustainable world, recommends that more attention should focus on the environment. The conversations also teach that reincarnation and life on other planets exists.


[edit] God's motive for creation
In Walsch's first dialogue, God notes that "knowing" and "experiencing" oneself are different things. Before creation there was only That-Which-Is, which cannot know or experience itself fully, without something it is not. It cannot know itself as love, since nothing exists but love. It cannot know itself as giving since nothing else exists to give to. It cannot experience itself in myriad ways because everything is one.

This present creation then, in Walsch's viewpoint, is established by and within God, so that sentience can exist which does not directly remember its true nature as God. Split into infinite forms, all life can live, experience, and recreate its nature as God, rather than just "know" itself as the creator in theory. It is essentially a game, entered into by agreement, to remember who and what we are and enjoy and create, knowing that ultimately there is no finish line that some will not reach, no understanding that is not without value, no act that does not add meaning to the future or for others. In Walsch's view we have a common interest in keeping the game going, for there is nothing else to do except to experience our existence and then experience more of it, to uncover deeper layers of truth and understanding. There are no external rules, because all experience is subjective, and is chosen. But within this, there are ways that (it is stated and implied) people will gradually come to see their thoughts, words, actions are either working or they are not working. A thing is either functional or dysfunctional. These rememberings take place over "time" and can take hundreds and thousands of lifetimes.


[edit] Nature of the dialogue
This section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup.
Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style.(December 2007)

The voice of God states in Book 1 that words are not the truth, and thus readers must ultimately take what is being said and consult their own feelings to determine if they are in agreement with it. The voice says this is true of any other book or words we come across. Though the books bear the title Conversations with God and the author introduces the first book by stating he is "taking dictation" from God, the voice of God in the trilogy explains that the dialogue is God speaking to everyone all the time. The question is not to whom does God talk, but who listens. This is clarified by the statement that God can communicate with you in the next song you hear, the next breeze that caresses your ear, the next conversation you overhear. "All these devices are mine. All these avenues are open to me. I will speak to you if you invite me."

At the deepest level consciousness is and that there is only one "voice" regardless whether it is thought to belong to God, or an individual, or imagination. This leads to a statement of the Divine Dichotomy: that two contradictory truths can exist, neither making the other untrue. This is possible only in the realm of the relative, because, as was stated above, in the absolute all things are one thing, and there is nothing else.


[edit] Parallels in other belief systems
In the dialogue many philosophical ideas are presented that had already been advanced earlier by major Eastern and Western thinkers, but Walsch presents the information in language for modern readers and does not specifically cite any of these philosophers. In fact, Walsch claims that he had never known most of these ideas before his revelatory experiences. Since the beginning of the series, and especially in the latter volumes, Walsch and "God" acknowledge that most of the concepts presented are previously known to humanity, but are profound enough to warrant being explored repeatedly, and put into this cohesive unified form. Since humanity is still mired in strife and conflict, there is value in their restatement. Fundamental parts of Walsch's writings are also mirrored within other well known spiritual writings and traditions:

Souls reincarnate to eventually experience God-realization (Bhagavad-Gita/Hinduism).
Feelings are more important as a source of guidance than intellect (Rousseau).
We are not here to learn anything new but to remember what we already know (Plato).
Physical reality is an illusion (Hinduism/Buddhism's concept of maya).
God is everything. (Spinoza / Brahman)
God is self-experiential, in that it is the nature of the Universe to experience itself. (Hegel, and process theology as first outlined by Alfred North Whitehead)
God is not fear-inducing or vengeful, only our parental projections onto God are. Fear or love are the two basic alternative perspectives on life (Drewermann)
Good and evil do not exist (as absolutes, but can exist in a different context and for different reasons as Nietzsche).
Reality is a representation created by will. (Schopenhauer)
Nobody knowingly desires evil. (Socrates)
It's just a ride. (Bill Hicks)

alan ;)

Gessh...long post there. :)

Anyways, I have read about three of his books.
What I have noticed from the begining is that he says do not take everything at 100%.
He (Welsch) is a 'Filter' and can lose some of the translation.
He freely admits this.

Personally, I don't see this as far-fetched at all.
Why can't 'God' or the Source of ALL things speak to anyone in any form?

8-)

Hi “OLD DOOD”,

I did not say it was far-fetched, just hard to believe and I have also read his first book and felt then he was hearing from his own subconscious mind and interpreting this as god speaking to him. Of course, god is not limited and could do this, but even Jesus did not have the “buddy buddy” relationship with god, that he claims to have. I feel like most of us he has created god in his own image. Good for him, why not?

As for me I simply cant relate to the awesome source of all existence as my personal “Buddy”..

Alan,

I never bought one of his books. I read them some at the library and at book stores. It didn't take long before God supposedly said things that sounded false.

I find it hard to believe that God would chose to deliver his messages in such a way. If a person wants to be a messenger of God, then he or she should do like Jesus did and obtain the level of consciouness that enables he or she to be one. Jesus went through the trouble of overcoming his lower self, before becoming a messenger. He didn't just spout off a bunch of words. He lived the truth he spoke of.

My guess is that Mr. Walsch created a hoax so he can make a lot of money, and have people put him on a pedestal.

recoverer wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 1:47pm:

My guess is that Mr. Walsch created a hoax so he can make a lot of money, and have people put him on a pedestal.

 It doesn't have to be so black and white!  It could be a little, or a lot of both, sincere intentions to help and false self aspects (relating to materialism, notoriety, and the like) coming in too.  

 My sense is that it is a mix.  Personally, while i've read some of his stuff in the stores as well, when i tune into him, i don't get very fast vibrating type feelings, like i do more so with Bruce Moen for example.

But at the same time, this doesn't mean that Walsh doesn't teach good things, or say some very accurate things.   The question is, how clear, balanced, fast vibrating, and receptive is the channel?   This has a lot to do with the quality and accuracy of info coming through.

 Plus, it seems like Walsh spent of lot of time and energy studying and looking into various belief systems before supposedly channeling God directly.   But all in all, while i don't agree with everything he relays or says, (that i've read) i do think his overall message is a good and needed one.    

Justin:

Perhaps he might get some things right according to how well he uses his intuition and intelligence, but just about any of us can say that. Should we all claim to be channels of God because we sort of, can tune into him? Or is it just simply better to be "HONEST" about the whole thing, and say that we are sharing what we figure to be true, rather than claiming it comes from God?

If one takes him too seriously, one is liable to believe that everything he says is absolute truth. Wouldn't that be a mistake?

Walsch isn't the only person who has claimed to speak to God on a regular basis. Yet, I bet you what other people supposedly heard from God, doesn't match what Walsch supposedly heard from God.

I know you believe that Jesus was qualified to be a messanger of God, because he did what was necessary to make himself a messenger of God.  Does it really make sense that a person such as Walsch could be a messenger just as Jesus was, when he didn't take the time to become like Jesus? So what if he read some spiritual books? Lots of people have done so.  Perhaps all his doing so shows, is where he got some of his ideas from.

Do you believe it is okay for people to claim that they are speaking for God, when they aren't? I believe it is quite irreverent, regardless of how many "neat" things such a person says. I couldn't imagine saying that I am speaking for God, without being given the authority to do so.

Regarding Bruce, what he has done and what Walsch has done, is hardly the same thing.

 Hi Albert, i was speaking more of the possible mix or relativity of his intentions, and specifically addressing you saying that it was only and just for money and notoriety.  

 I definitely agree with a lot of the things you said in your last reply to me.  For me, the only physically incarnate teacher i deeply and wholly look to is Yeshua, because of the issues and considerations you have mentioned.  

 But at the same time, with other teachers, i wouldn't be so black and white about their possible motives and intentions.   Take Bruce Moen for example, is he as fully Source attuned as Jesus was?    Does he consider the material, and material needs or even unnecessary wants?  

 If the answers to these questions are yes, should we lambaste him and put him in little boxes of our own making?  

 The only sources i speak out against, are those who i sense are willfully and purposely trying to mislead others regarding spiritual issues.   It may be that Walsh is taking too much of a poetic license when he says he's directly communing with God, but i don't see that as overly harmful.  

Maybe it is somewhat of a con tactic in order to exaggerate and make his work standout, i don't know, but i don't sense overly negative and slow vibrating vibes in relation to him or his work.  

 This, is different with some other sources, and so i have spoken out against them critically.  But i will not strongly degrade every source, teaching, and teacher who isn't fully White Light attuned.  

 Discrimination is important, but when a person is constantly pulling out others weeds, one tends to have less time and energy for pulling out one's own weeds.

Justin:

First of all, I've updated my last post a bit, since you've posted your recent post. I'll restate that I believe that what Bruce has done and what Walsch has done are quite different.

Whatever Walsch is about, I don't know him well enough to get a precise reading, I don't get the feeling from him that I get from a source such as Seth.

If channeling God is as easy as Walsch suggests, then nobody needs to read his books because they can just channel God on their own. I've found that there is a lot more to it than he suggests.

recoverer wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 2:41pm:

If channeling God is as easy as Walsch suggests, then nobody needs to read his books because they can just channel God on their own. I've found that there is a lot more to it than he suggests.

 Me too, and i totally agree.  At the same time though, i see it as a generally positive thing that more and more people are coming out, and saying that we as individuals can tap into Source consciousness and get info via such processes.  It seems that not everyone understands more fully and holistically what exactly is involved in being a channel, especially if one wants to be a very clear, accurate, and consistently positive channel.  

 I don't think that anyone should put him on an unrealistic pedestal and make his info another structured belief system.   Ideally it should be a catalyst, an impetus, to start the process for ourselves.    As i've said, personally i could leave or take his info, but i recognize, respect, and appreciate the inspirational nature and impact that it has had on others.

Seems to me that the basic ideas are pretty clear. What he does with them after that is his problem. I've known people who wanted to be the Messiah and reform the world, but they tended to get hung up on the self-sacrifice part. If Walsh can make it - more power to him!

dave

Justin:

I agree that it isn't a one sided issue, as I made it seem.

One day I was walking in San Francisco, I looked in the window of a business, and it was a meeting place for some spiritual group. I looked at their book shelves which were near the window, and they had all kinds of books based on channeling. This kind of troubled me.

In the evening while laying in bed I wondered about this, I was shown the front of the book store, and then suddenly I found myself high up in space looking at the top of my piano (not physically). The feeling I got from this was that despite some of the "not completely true" sources that exist in this World, the divine powers that be are looking out for us, and have things under control.

I know my interpretation of the symbology I was provided might not seem that obvious, but I received a strong feeling of what the symbology meant as I received it. The piano was a symbol of creativity, because it is used to create music. My view of it from high above meant that the divine powers that be are looking out for how the creative aspect of being is playing out in this World.

So hopefully, people who read Conversations with God will take what is useful, and dispense with the rest.  Contrary to this, I have seen posts written on this forum that didn't sound completely accurate, and it seemed as if the writer was influenced by what they read in conversations with God. It took place on one of the Hitler threads.

Anyone who mixes "spirituality" with money will be criticized unmercifully for it, and should be prepared for it. Those of us who mutually benefit from what is presented may choose not to criticize.

Anyone who doesn't mix "spirituality" with money will be criticized unmercifully for it, and should be prepared for that, too.

Anyone who presents a message from "God" had better be prepared for a personal response, and also for the fact that their message will be questioned in such a manner that they cannot always personally respond.

It doesn't matter.

Self-expression is our "God-given" gift. Give that gift away and what do you have?

Serenity.

love, blink :)

Dave:

It isn't a matter of getting hung up on the idea of making a self sacrifice. It is about overcoming one's lower nature so that one can live completely according to love and God's will, as Jesus did. When it came to his being crucified, my feeling is that he was so commited to God's will and so unidentified with his body, that it didn't seem like a sacrifice to him.

Since Walsch hasn't come to the point where he overcame his lower nature as Jesus did, he is hardly qualified to speak of God's truth to the same extent that Jesus did.  I've been trying to overcome my lower nature, and I've found that it is no easy feat. Therefore, I am inclined to give credit where it is due.

There is also the factor of how the divine powers that be, might have a plan of how they want to do things. If a person such as Jesus surrrendered himself completely to what God's will is, while Walsch pretty much did his own thing, I believe there is a significant difference.

When we try to be overly hip and groovy about things, we just fool ourselves. Perhaps a far better approach is to pray to God with sincerity, and ask for some guidance.  Otherwise, every Tom, Dick or Harry who wants to fool us, will be able to do so.



dave_a_mbs wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 2:57pm:

Seems to me that the basic ideas are pretty clear. What he does with them after that is his problem. I've known people who wanted to be the Messiah and reform the world, but they tended to get hung up on the self-sacrifice part. If Walsh can make it - more power to him! dave

Hi--

;)  Couldn't we just blame his spirit Guide-messenger-Helper who may be delivering these messages for God? Maybe it's the one who chose to say they were from God, without getting into how many layers of messenger service might have been involved.

Yes!  There are certainly many people who post here who have much to say that could fill a book!
Do it!  Or write it in pairs or groups and set it up as dialogues! That should be the next unfolding of this knowledge!  You are certainly well-qualified! You are!  And YOU!  You too !!

Love, Bets

Betson:

If such a being were representing God, why would some of the information it passes on be false?

If your answer is that Walsch's ability to channel got messed up at times, I believe the way he presents his channeling suggests that he had no problem with receiving the words he supposedly received.

If the information he provides actually does come from God, in the manner is supposedly comes, wouldn't every single word be correct?




betson wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 4:35pm:

Hi-- ;)  Couldn't we just blame his spirit Guide-messenger-Helper who may be delivering these messages for God? Maybe it's the one who chose to say they were from God, without getting into how many layers of messenger service might have been involved. Yes!  There are certainly many people who post here who have much to say that could fill a book! Do it!  Or write it in pairs or groups and set it up as dialogues! That should be the next unfolding of this knowledge!  You are certainly well-qualified! You are!  And YOU!  You too !! Love, Bets

recoverer wrote on Jan 15^th, 2008 at 4:55pm:

Betson: If such a being were representing God, why would some of the information it passes on be false? If your answer is that Walsch's ability to channel got messed up at times, I believe the way he presents his channeling suggests that he had no problem with receiving the words he supposedly received. If the information he provides actually does come from God, in the manner that is supposedly comes, wouldn't every single word be correct? betson wrote on Jan 15th, 2008 at 4:35pm: Hi-- ;)  Couldn't we just blame his spirit Guide-messenger-Helper who may be delivering these messages for God? Maybe it's the one who chose to say they were from God, without getting into how many layers of messenger service might have been involved. Yes!  There are certainly many people who post here who have much to say that could fill a book! Do it!  Or write it in pairs or groups and set it up as dialogues! That should be the next unfolding of this knowledge!  You are certainly well-qualified! You are!  And YOU!  You too !! Love, Bets

No it would not. He freely admits that he is a 'Filter' and can lose the translations.
In fact when I read a couple of his books it got me going in a sense.
Things like: "Listen to your Soul"...."Ask and expect answers..."
What is wrong with that? It got me going again.
It got me going back to listening to that still quite voice in my head once again.
I see no harm in this man.
You need to actually READ his books to fully understand them.
Not just skim them in a book store...
READ them with an Open Mind and not a pre-set 'tude' toward this man.

I don't take every word from him as truth. I don't with ANYone.
Each one of us has our OWN realities.  Our OWN view point in which we 'see' as real.

I will not sit in judgement of this man. I have not walked in his shoes.

Old Dood:

When my filter gives me problems, I simply don't receive the message a spirit is trying to send me in a manner that makes sense. When Walsch filter apparently gives him problems, he puts words in the mouth of God that don't come from God.

If one finds out early on that a source is providing false information, does one really have to read the entire source in order to determine if it is false? For example, would you have to read all of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf before you could honestly judge that it isn't worth reading?

Yes, it's true that Walsch has better things to say than Adolf Hitler, even when according to Walsch God defended Adolf.  But at least ways Adolf didn't claim to channel God when he wasn't.

Here's one false thing Walsch's God shared. He spoke of Paramahansa Yogananda as being a spiritual master. It is hard to see that this was the case, for numerous reasons. For example, Yogananda would lure his married female disciples to have affairs with him, by claiming that he and such disciples were "famous" lovers in previous incarnations.  Another example, at some point during his guruship, he went from being just an everyday run of the mill god realized master, to being an "Avatar," which means he was a direct incarnation of God. This is something false gurus like to do when they want to elevate their status. Another thing he did was claim that he was as overweight as he is, because as a god realized manner, he retained more prana that other people. If this is the case, I wonder why all other so called god realized masters aren't overweight. Some overweight supposed god realized masters would argue with him and say that they are overweight, because they take on their disciple's Karma. I suppose it is possible that Prana and karma have a lot of calories and saturated fat, but I doubt it. Whatever the case, I find it curious that Walsch's God thought that Yogananda was a high spiritual master. I wonder what he thought of the avatar thing.

Here's another part that comes to mind. Walsch commented on something ACIM states. God supposedly responded: "I put that in there."  Even if one believes that ACIM comes from Christ as its authors claim (for numerous reasons I don't believe that it does), ACIM states that God can't become directly involved with the World because that would add reality to the illusion of the World. Therefore, God relies on Christ and the holy spirit to make contact with the World. That being the case, I wonder how he could "put that in there." In fact, I wonder how he could communicate with Walsch at all, since as ACIM claims, God doesn't take part in the World.

Otherwise, doesn't it seem like a contrived conversation was taking place, when God supposedly said: "I put that in there?"

In the end we have to fall back and trust our own guidance what to believe. and I don't mean in a dogmatic sense to be pretending we know everything so that must mean we're god. it means we have to be in listening mode all the time. theres a thing called cognitive thinking which considers ALL possibilities that could happen. just to consider that having free will, self expression here, means like murphys law for awhile....anything that could go wrong, what do you know, it does. thats the same thing as somebody said man's plans are made to go astray.
kinda pessimistic of me huh? :-? well things do go wrong, so it seems until we learn to ask and receive from a higher level of need and want. and that is one function of order that is quite logical and also works.
I'm getting to the good part!  :)

everybody here is having their own guidance or inner voice and Blink is making a point which Monroe makes "there is no bad, there is no good." crap happens, they made a bumper sticker from that!
therefore it's about self expression and sticking your hand in the fire to see if it's hot, that happens alot, it's the risk factor of living here that we live and learn.
I wont bore you with my adventures, but it took me two prayers and an hour and a half to get up the courage to light my hot water heater so I wouldn't have to call someone.
actually, my guides gave me instructions in a dream by showing me the thing was already lit and my fear prevented me to walk into that reality where it was already lit. thats what I call the inner guidance is there if you figure you want to get over your fear, whatever it is. Other people's writings are important only if you are not feeling "less than" them, but I think it's more important to write your own book and stick your hand in the fire once in awhile just to see if you can accomplish it.


along the lines of R's question I think of his vision also, where he saw there are forces have everything under divine order here, whether we recognize it or not.

this has been my experience. all the "bad" things that happened in my life were only bad until I understood the good that came out of them, much later. I think of that poem about the man who asked god where were you when I needed you? there were foot steps in the sand up until I went through the worst part of my life, where were you god?

then in the final stanza god voice says that is when I picked u up and carried you, thats why there were only one set of footprints in the sand then.

as for the existence of pure evil..I don't believe in absolutes, I do believe that on this Earth plane anything can happen, and its only bad if you don't understand what it says about you yourself. so I couldn't believe there are demons who have power over me, because I can see a demon as insubstantial in import, as having no power to influence what is made by god, and so a demon is like an illusion that seems real but upon examination, it has no affinity with truth, or god and must feast on a human's terror to make it more lively. fear feeds it's appearance. sending it to the light means the darkness disappears.

its the same with books...some will deal with left brain, some will deal with right brain, some with both, but they are limited to the person's personal experience and perceptions. Book burning is not the call. Praying for the right book is a good idea because there's so many books out there.
I used to be a seminar junkie too. Now, you talk about being a junkie! ha! you wouldn't believe how many folks, with self expression freedom will feed you whatever, and I burned out quickly on that route! thought I was like Dood here, "what kind of hell is this?" haha!  well it hurt too. but the intuition, the prayer will be answered which book, or which seminar, mostly when you're so far down, you can't tell which is up.
very effective to be on one's knees to pray. you will get it.

I think each person is like a parallel universe. everything they say, channelled or not channelled from god is true for them and happened that way, in their world, in their own dimension of time and space. whats true for one is not necessarily true for another. and I suppose you've heard of the "edited" version?  :)

so u use a prayer and discernment when you put something into your house of consciousness, and u use your heart intelligence.
and theres nothing like being totally burned out and having god step in and pick u up because you just can't go on.
thats when u start believing in miracles.

Recoverer, you rely on your logic to take apart the claims of various teachers. It is your assertion that we should not trust these figures. You seem to feel that your guidance "has your back" on these assertions.

How do you know that your logic trumps another's "inspiration?"

How do you know how it all "comes out in the wash?"

It is easy to take any person apart logically, step by step, person by person, until we have no one left to trust, no one left by whom to be inspired.

Your point seems to be that there is one figure which is most trustworthy, from your perspective, to whom no one else can compare.

No one can argue successfully against this point, because you are fairly due your opinion, whatever it is. No one can take that away from you.

I feel that you retain a certain amount of perceived "personal dignity" from this attachment from which you are unwilling to part at this time.

love, blink :)

Blink:

It isn't like we're talking about higher math or rocket science, so it isn't a matter of logic.

It is more a matter of using my "common sense" and what my experience tells me. If somebody like Walsch claims that God told him things that just don't add up, am I supposed to lose all faith in my common sense, and just go with it?

I don't mind if a person shares what they found out, as long as they don't pretend to be something they aren't.  What I disagree with is when a source claims to be an all knowing infallible source of information, when it isn't. By claiming that he channels God, Walsch claims that he is sharing information that is infallible.

YOU CAN'T JUST SIMPLY ACCEPT EVERYTHING PEOPLE TRY TO SELL YOU, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SELLING ROTTEN EGGS!

P.S. Alan asked what people think, so I answered.

So true, Recoverer. So many are trying to sell rotten eggs.....sometimes they throw them too.

I guess the person who sells rotten eggs "deserves" to have them thrown right back in their face.   ???  Well, it can happen.  It does happen.

Of course, sometimes I get home with my carton of eggs and discover that one or two may be broken or damaged. It's probably best not to eat those....we all know that.

But....if I was starving.....if I was really really hungry....I might not even notice.

So, you have a valid point, Recoverer, which you make with determination and consistency.

But, then again, they're eggs. They are very fragile things, and sometimes they last but a moment.

love, blink :)

I'd have to say that having read Walsch's books they came across very well if at a usually physical C1 level - it wasn't like I found myself disagreeing, and his stuff is put really well.

That said I had a look at the subsequent website and would be quite cautious about the direction both he and his organisation were heading in terms of direct action in the world. Being (even a very good) channel doesn't mean you necessarily have what it takes to be a teacher or spiritual leader.

As before this issue of teachers and what we believe is like keeping clothes on a kid that's growing up. It's possible to get hung up on wearing a particular item or outfit, but it's not very sensible. We should anyway be growing out of outfits pretty quickly.

Staying light, open and rational is surely the key - meditation helps so much. Too much especially too intense intellectualisation risks blocking the heart or the intuitive side. As we grow, as our heart opens and as our understanding becomes more subtle what we believe must evolve. Hopefully we're not going to find ourselves getting far off path and needing to reboot the whole lot - intensity and grasping are the big causes of this possibility. As we open the teachings we need will also evolve, and become more subtle.

The point is surely not to get hung up about one or the other, but as the Zen saying goes 'care but not care'. Care just enough to learn and carefully apply what's relevant, but stay light enough that it doesn't close the heart or block the ability to adjust views.

We don't need to get so bought into and hung up on a teacher that it becomes all or nothing. Meaning that we either make an over the top and not very rational overcommitment, or swing to the other pole and equally compulsively rubbish everything he (or she) says. This is the egotistical grasping or attachment that Buddhism talks about so often in action - we get ourselves into a place where changing our view or our beliefs involves a loss of something - comfort, face through being seen to be wrong, a prop, a means to be holier than thou, a belief that subtly allows us to continue doing wrong - whatever.

A healthy approach might be to pearl fish, especially at the start - draw what resonates and what feel right from the teacher. It's only with more and more experience and insight that we may choose to gradually  ramp up our level of trust and commitment. (inability to commit where it's merited is another form of grasping)

Get the real deal and you can commit 100% in a 1:1 relationship, but that's not so easily done or demonstrated....

R said: I find it hard to believe that God would chose to deliver his messages in such a way. If a person wants to be a messenger of God, then he or she should do like Jesus did and obtain the level of consciouness that enables he or she to be one. Jesus went through the trouble of overcoming his lower self, before becoming a messenger. He didn't just spout off a bunch of words. He lived the truth he spoke of.
____

R, you're not very specific exactly what Walsh said that is the issue. since not all of us read the books, it's difficult to have a conversation here about this topic of Walsh.
so maybe the topic is not about this author, but about the way he receives his message, namely, channelling.
Since Alan said that Walsh is not sure it's from god, but could come from his subconscious, then we have no topic either and he's just another book writer in that case who "thinks" his message is from god.
You go on to say messengers of God should do like Jesus, to take his example and obtain the level of consciousness he did...but if you're going to suggest we should be like Jesus, you aren't specific enough how one goes about being like Jesus in this day and age. should we all cease and desist the channelling? would JC have us give all to the poor and not get married but preach? would we all be like him? or would we still be individuals and each of us go off to the workplace each day. but how many of us really believe that his path is obtainable, even in one lifetime? should we wait until we're totally enlightened before writing a book? or should we ask Walsh to change the title of his book to say "Probable Conversations with God?"
If JC was here in this time and age, how would he teach us to teach?
what I'm trying to say, Walsh, you or I, we can receive messages from spirit, in any manner of ways because God is not limited in his communications and we are all his children.
even a butterfly can inspire and deliver a message in a subtle way.

If we look at this particular master and what he said, that we would someday do the things he did. thats how I look at it, that he was telling the truth about that. We would evolve to his standard, just not in that lifetime that he was in. then theres the mustard seed thing, and do unto others, and love one another. I suppose this author is loving others by writing down what he's learning.  if you're going to disagree with this author, if its that important, I would like to know specifically what doesn't seem like common sense to you.

we are all the time teaching who we are. He is teaching what he needs to learn as well.
These people are used to coming under fire for what they do and say. and god forbid should anyone like their stuff enough to actually fork over some money for it.
the market is simply supply and demand. The people decide what they like. if he's popular, it was decided as his destiny. (my pov)

I've been misquoting something: I used to say that JC said "I and the father are one."
I just came upon some urtext (unedited ACIM material) which corrects what JC really said in this context, as even the bible has undergone far too many changes for us to know what was actually said.
anyway this feels better and more logical to receive this correction JC, the voice is purporting to be him surely knows more about psychology than I had previously assumed! He says the original words were "I and the father are of one kind." See how we mess it up down through the centuries.

just thought I'd report that..definetely sounds even more factual and like my studies of science.

moving right along as I steal the topic out from under R's nose...
Here's a good message from Rick, a pal, he got from his guides. Rick never wrote a book, but he got a terrific message and he's just a common, ordinary man, so if Rick can get a message like this, anyone can get a message is my point.

Submit to authority, present yourself to love.

blow me down, that's powerful to me. :)

Hi Guys,

As the one who started this thread I must say your well thought out replies really impressed me. I really resonate with what recoverer said,

Alan 8-)

::)Hello again,

Walsh Donald so called conversations with god don’t convince me at all. He is “CREATING GOD IN HIS OWN IMAGE”

Of course, some of the things he comes up with are interesting, but a "BUDDY" "BUDDY" relationship with the infinite mind, ‘NEVER’ EVER

It simply rings untrue unlike Bruce Moen,

ALAN

It's unlikely we can manage a relationship with infinite mind Alan, but it's certainly the case that an emanation of infinite mind can find a way to communicate via a human if it so desires.

The human though is not as Alysia suggests not necessarily going to be some obviously 'divine' individual. Probably by  definition not.

Because if such an individual appeared in the world in an instantly recognisable form ( ;) followed around by a horde of angels with trumpets, for example) all and sundry would instantly slip into relating to this individual as a God - based on all sorts of egotistically derived fear, adoration, 'better get this dude on my side', 'my guy is holier than your guy' or whatever. There'd probably even be a row betwen the major religions to claim him/her. The point is that this far from assisting us to develop would have the opposite effect.

It's not by accident that in life the prompt is always available if we can hear it, the opportunity to develop is always available if we will take it. But that it's always our choice, always led by our seeing and ability to connect - it's never forced on us because that doesn't work. We have to make the first move, but that requires our being open.

It's not by accident either that the likes of Jesus, the Buddha and so on were to most bog ordinary people that happened to have a message to deliver. The point is that for the vast majority of people they were loons ranting on street corners, or even worse threats to be eliminated. (Jesus was crucified, the Buddha was the victim of several attempts at poisoning)

It's in the end about our taking responsibility for ourselves, and out of our own resonance with teaching taking it on board and acting on it to help us to live in a loving manner. Or not.

The ego needs of the subsequent centuries of the religious have effectively deified both of the above teachers. And those same needs ensure that people today also need their teachers up on a similar pedestal if they are to take them seriously. But 'seriously' is inevitably the sort of ego driven response outlined above. Until we drop enough ego to open we can't respond as we should, or at least could. And if we get to that point we don't need our teachers on a pedestal because the real action happens within ourselves.

For this sort of reasoning it's not necessary that Walsch is in some way infallible, in some way divine. But he said a lot that resonates, that's important for the world. Why do we feel such a need to get stuck into the usual 'hero or zero' stuff?? To make him and others like him a saint or a sinner, but never anything in between? That's the dualistic rubbish the the tabloid press go on with with sports stars.

Why not simply draw on what resonates in what he writes while treating him as an ordinary person who may or may not have been used as a channel, no more, no less. If his stuff continues to stack up over time then we can assign more confidence and capability to him....

Alan McDougall wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 2:24am:

::)Hello again, Walsh Donald so called conversations with god don’t convince me at all. He is “CREATING GOD IN HIS OWN IMAGE” Of course, some of the things he comes up with are interesting, but a "BUDDY" "BUDDY" relationship with the infinite mind, ‘NEVER’ EVER It simply rings untrue unlike Bruce Moen, ALAN

I disagree with you. ever since I was a small child I adopted a buddy system with god. I had no one to tell my problems to, so when I discovered almost by accident it would seem there was a chap called god, in my 5 year old mind I at once had a friend I could talk to and I was comforted in doing so.
I stopped talking to god as my friend at some point, when a spirit guide told me god was not a man. I thought I had lost my best friend at that point and started crying but I knew I was becoming stronger to not see god as an image of a father presence anymore.

Later god changed to "higher self." then later everyone had a chunk of god inside them and if I saw and honored within each one this god chunk, they saw the same in me, and that was PUL manifesting, our spiritual truth.
truth is only relevant to the holder of it. we should not resort to gossip of any kind as concerning the media, other authors, psychics, celebrities, etc etc. instead if we want to spend our time wisely upon this Earth, such short time as it is, why not pick out someone you gained some insight from and post about that?
all of us can bash someone quite easily...and it gives a momentary feeling of pleasure to bash someone...but its just gossip. its not the truth of their being, nor of yours to seek this kind of satisfaction, especially on this board, that is not the intentions of this board.

:(

Alysia:

I agree that many of us can make contact with light beings, but this doesn't mean there aren't any fakes. It would be quite unrealistic to expect that fakes don't exist.  I believe your choice of the words gossip and bashing is a bit unfair and off base. If fakes don't want to be exposed, then perhaps they shouldn't become "FAKES." Would you consider it realistic for a person who takes part in another con game, perhaps a person who sells real estate that doesn't exist, to suggest that nobody should ever, ever, ever expose them, because that would be unloving? Should we allow them to just dupe whoever they feel like duping? Dupe, dupe, dupe away!

I do agree with you when you referrred to the message I received.  Despite how many fakes exist, there are still light beings who look out for us, and in the end they'll have the final say.  Perhaps it would be easier for them to do so, if fake sources didn't pass out false information.






LaffingRain wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 3:12pm:

Alan McDougall wrote on Jan 16th, 2008 at 2:24am: ::)Hello again, Walsh Donald so called conversations with god don’t convince me at all. He is “CREATING GOD IN HIS OWN IMAGE” Of course, some of the things he comes up with are interesting, but a "BUDDY" "BUDDY" relationship with the infinite mind, ‘NEVER’ EVER It simply rings untrue unlike Bruce Moen, ALAN I disagree with you. ever since I was a small child I adopted a buddy system with god. I had no one to tell my problems to, so when I discovered almost by accident it would seem there was a chap called god, in my 5 year old mind I at once had a friend I could talk to and I was comforted in doing so. I stopped talking to god as my friend at some point, when a spirit guide told me god was not a man. I thought I had lost my best friend at that point and started crying but I knew I was becoming stronger to not see god as an image of a father presence anymore. Later god changed to "higher self." then later everyone had a chunk of god inside them and if I saw and honored within each one this god chunk, they saw the same in me, and that was PUL manifesting, our spiritual truth. truth is only relevant to the holder of it. we should not resort to gossip of any kind as concerning the media, other authors, psychics, celebrities, etc etc. instead if we want to spend our time wisely upon this Earth, such short time as it is, why not pick out someone you gained some insight from and post about that? all of us can bash someone quite easily...and it gives a momentary feeling of pleasure to bash someone...but its just gossip. its not the truth of their being, nor of yours to seek this kind of satisfaction, especially on this board, that is not the intentions of this board. :(

I liked reading Alysia's post.
You know why?
She is always trying to be fair minded.

Also in the CWG books the main theme that is spoken is finding out "Who you really are..."
I have read that also in Robert Monroe's Books and Bruce Moens's books as well.

Seems reasonable to me.

Recoverer,

Say "fake" "fake" "fake" a million times.

Will it really make the "bad guy" go away?

love, blink :)

Blink:

You know, it is kind of dangerous when people aren't even allowed to question something, whether that something be a stock broker, a political leader, a guru, a...............




wrote on Jan 16^th, 2008 at 5:00pm:

Recoverer, Say "fake" "fake" "fake" a million times. Will it really make the "bad guy" go away? love, blink :)

R said:  :) I agree that many of us can make contact with light beings, but this doesn't mean there aren't any fakes. It would be quite unrealistic to expect that fakes don't exist.  I believe your choice of the words gossip and bashing is a bit unfair and off base. If fakes don't want to be exposed, then perhaps they shouldn't become "FAKES." Would you consider it realistic for a person who takes part in another con game, perhaps a person who sells real estate that doesn't exist, to suggest that nobody should ever, ever, ever expose them, because that would be unloving? Should we allow them to just dupe whoever they feel like duping? Dupe, dupe, dupe away!

I do agree with you when you referrred to the message I received.  Despite how many fakes exist, there are still light beings who look out for us, and in the end they'll have the final say.  Perhaps it would be easier for them to do so, if fake sources didn't pass out false information.
_____

I truly don't know what u mean by calling anyone a fake. you try to tell me what a fake is by saying it's someone who sells nonexistent real estate, and then u say we should not allow them to be duping whomever they feel like duping.

so are u saying that we all here conclude and agree Walsh is such a duper?
I am saying the same thing as you..judge not lest you be judged the same. its up to god to deal with people whose intentions are to take pleasure from others pain.

are you going to spend your life finding all the false ones and exposing them? thats cool. you must be warrior spirit! I like that kind.
Love expressed is also tough love expressed and thats fine. all I'm saying on this particular thread it just sounds like silly nonsensical gossip about some author and we may just as well profit by speaking of another subject. who cares if Walsh sells books and you didn't like something he said?
unless you have something better to say....let him speak. what I sense in your nature is it's only your opinion should be taken as fact, and you punctuate your words as if they were absolute fact.
Walsh is ok by me, but I can write a similar book so I don't read him. but thats just an opinion. I cannot advise another what to read. you come off as if you KNOW all about this or that fake when you are just another man with just another opinion.

I get the feeling also you're a baitor. you manipulate thought and people. you're good at it. You may  not even believe you do this. you like to be the taskmaster of humanity. you bring them to task on certain things,  make them think, make them feel a sense of their own inner powers, thus get them out from under the ones you call dupers.

this is good. u get kudos.  :) I'll bet you though, the dupers don't even know they are being dupers until someone like you would get up in their face and reveal it.

the thing about dupers or fools, whatever, we all get to play that part sooner or later and its not necessarily love that one feels after forgiving this world..its just the first step is the forgiveness part.
u know about forgiveness. we just forget to practice it. jesus, when I think about what forgiveness really means, I feel this entire world slipping away!

so forgive that poor sap. or go get into another brawl see if I care  :)

It's a little like "prohibition," Recoverer. That movie didn't work here in the U.S. early in the 20th century.

It doesn't play very well anywhere that I can see.

Any idea which is perceived as a "prohibition" can stimulate people to want to disagree with you, even if they wish they could agree.
*****

LOVE: playing in a theatre near you.


:) blink

Blink:

You're right, love is playing in a theatre near me, and the movies says to not let dupers dupe people. It isn't good for those who get duped, nor for the duper.


Alysia:

Do the Dupers know they are doing it?  What about the Yogananda example I provided? Did he know that he was duping his disciples when he conned them into having sex with him partly by telling them that they were "famous" people and lovers in a past life? Was Walsch's god duping him when he told him that Yogananda was a spiritual master despite his non master like behavior?

I honestly don't know how you two can discriminate things, when you won't even allow yourselves to question.  Love doesn't mean that one has to be a gullible person who never questions. It means that one is a person who is responsible enough to take the time to discern whether a teacher is a genuine spiritual teacher or scam artist, before one irresponsibily refers a scam artist to other people.

Recoverer,

I question everything, even you.

When you die, and we all get to know you even better than we do here.....would you like for us to ferret out every last thing you might have done in error and hold it up for all in the kingdoms of light to stare at forever?

God, will that ever get boring.

love, blink :)

R said: Love doesn't mean that one has to be a gullible person who never questions.
___
right. but we should direct our questions to the Christ within, and not to me, or anyone else. and the ego's job is to always have a question but not to necessarily be attaining the answer. and the answer is not in the world, it is within each person. the ego consists of the yammering in the head.
_____
R:
It means that one is a person who is responsible enough to take the time to discern whether a teacher is a genuine spiritual teacher or scam artist, before one irresponsibily refers a scam artist to other people.
____
again, you and I disagree what is genuine and what is scam. while if we look through Christ love, we ask for his perception of how to look upon the scam artist, for his vision would surely be different than ours.
_______


heres some ACIM affirmations I found helpful for all those wishing to secure profound powers of discrimination.  if u are ever feeling a moment of conflict, anger or fear or even defensiveness it may produce a soothing moment in order to make further decisions from a clear head. I might add, never make a decision when angry as its very difficult to change your life course when decisions are made in anger. better to wait and count to 10, or sleep on it. However, all things can be turned around by thinking upon miracles of transformation and going into your closet.

I am not asked to make a sacrifice to find the mercy and the peace of god.

Today I learn the law of love, that what I give my brother is my gift to me.

I will not fear to look within today

I will not hurt myself again today (this for Judith)

my sinlessness protects me from all harm

I let forgiveness rest upon all things for thus will forgiveness be given me

my grievances hide the light of the world in me

holding grievances is an attack on god's plan for salvation

I am under no laws but gods.

Let me recognize my problems have been solved

I am as god created me

to give and receive are one in truth

forgiveness is the key to happiness

I seek a future different from the past

I have no cause for anger or for fear, for You surround me. In every need that I perceive Your grace suffices me.

Judgment and love are opposites. From one come all the sorrows of the world but from the other comes the peace of god Himself.

I see all things as I would have them be.

In me salvation's means and ends are one

Forgiveness ends the dream of conflict here

I will receive whatever I request

I am forever an effect of god

What limits can I lay upon god's son?

My sight goes forth to look upon Christ's face.

I love you father, and I love your son.

When we are in the process of life changes, we will slip in and out of a love perspective until we gain the perceptions that a master has.

my favorite affirmation was that I wished to see only love. therefore I was beginning to create only love in my life, because I began to see I could pull love out of the heart of my brother where it is in truth his essence as well. love begets love.
then later, in a dream message, a guide spoke "when you wish to see only love, you will see only god."  so then I concluded we are like Christ to maintain this one pointedness in the face of all conflict, you begin to create that love in the world that JC preached about, and the kingdom of god manifest through your own self, into the Earth plane, the more speedier, this time during the shift, that we each practice and ask what is PUL?
Soon, examples and opportunities manifest to prove yourself, that you begin to believe in his teachings. Yet there are other masters quietly here and there who are assisting the Earth plane for the promise to come to us.
We need more workers who will stay faithful, because, there certainly IS strength in numbers.
and Ian is right to be scrutinizing our own egos, what our intentions are here, for posting. it is a very good practice to read your own words over twice, as well, never post while angry is my rule of thumb. that way if the Christ consciousness wishes to use you to post something helpful perhaps, the dark cloud of energy known as anger, will not get in the way of your words. we want to be careful that what we say to one man or woman, can be said to all peoples and still be true.
otherwise, we remain, just another coyote howling in the darkness of the grid.

keep faithful, it only hurts for a minute.

I will always remember and love this board with every breath I take when I pass on.

I just want to remind u again, I'm glad I found you. love, alysia

Surely nobody is suggesting that we shouldn't question sources (teachers, writers etc) R. The opposite in fact - the message seems to be that it'd be unwise in the extreme to somehow place high levels of confidence in anybody without a lot of experience and knowledge of that person.

:) ;) There's a really important point buried in this which I'd really appreciate you would at least consider.

Questioning and judging are not the same.

Questioning implies applying discrimination while staying centred and open to all aspects of a person or situation - remaining able to varying degrees to take on board that which makes sense, while holding off (deferring final judgement) on that which does not.

It clearly doesn't make much sense to make an unconditional commitment to a writer or teacher we're getting a mixed or unclear message from, and there are of course sources out there who quite clearly are seeking to use others for their own ends.

There's a range of responses open to us - from taking steps to engage with to learn more from a source, to deciding to invest no further time in it unless something changes. The latter very quickly in some cases. With various middle ground options in between.

The problem we face though is that while knowledge is important it's never really possible to reach an absolute position on stuff - we have to learn to become easy with this groundlessness. To stop grasping after firm ground or certainty, because this is (a) not usually possible given our human limits  and (b) usually driven by ego needs. (to become easy with 'knowing but not knowing' to coin a phrase) Which ability is one hallmark of spiritual progress. It's the opposite of the building of blocks of 'truth' one upon the other that many regard as progress.

It's perfectly right and reasonable to express a balanced and limited view on those sources we come in contact with - provided we don't overplay our hand.

Learning to lightly and sure footedly navigate this jungle is surely a key skill if we are to learn and progress in a dualistic world where the limits of language and conceptual mind mean that spiritual truths can rarely if ever be expressed as absolutes. Even a very good teacher or writer is not necessarily going to be right (or seen right) all of the time, but the opposite is usually true too.

Buddhism distinguishes as above between prajna (true wisdom or dsicrimination) and it's facsimilie - ego driven  'know-it-all-ed-ness'. The former brings happiness, the latter suffering.

Judging implies a final decision on somebody or something. This would be fine if we had complete knowledge of the facts, and that our own use of them was accurate and complete. But it's almost never that way.

Meaning that most judgements which wholesale accept or reject teachers tend to be highly dualistic, or based on the facsimilie outlined above. That world plays the hero or zero game of the tabloid media - based on sketchy and usually hearsay information received from a distance with knowing the context. Or informed by cultural or religious values or norms which don't necessarily hold water.

The complete rejection of a source can of course be legitimate. But the reality seems to be that much of the time we can't help letting a personal agenda come into play.

One downside of 'judging' sources (and indeed other people) is that we condemn ourselves to the spiritual equivalent of serial marriage. Our current hero teacher, tradition or source will sooner or later be seen to have skid marks on its underwear, and will be rejected as flawed. To be replaced by the next big thing glistening there on its pedestal....

One give away is the more strident and closed minded form of campaigning - it betrays that it's likely that the driver of the situation is the judge's investment (for whatever reason) in the position he/she has adopted rather than any ongoing rational assessment of the source. That proving the adopted position to be 'right' is as (or even more) important than getting to the (relative) truth of any situation.

This approach stands to do as much harm as good. It's true that people get led astray by false teachers, but that's mostly a consequence of their own neediness and inability to make a wise call and is a part of the learning experience too.  They too have their own wisdom and knowing, and their own path. We have to trust in this.

We most certainly should speak up where we see people risking going astray, but moderately. Those that out of neediness are drawn to false sources will usually not anyway listen to advice - wise or not. Driven by ego needs they will do what they must  do.

Much as in the case of the judge....

I feel no need to continue to defend where I am coming from.  If what I have written doesn't make sense by now, it probably won't do any good for me to add more.

recoverer wrote on Jan 17^th, 2008 at 6:43pm:

I feel no need to continue to defend where I am coming from.  If what I have written doesn't make sense by now, it probably won't do any good for me to add more.

This seems to represent a breakthrough.
The same sentiment applied to an internal dialog of persistent negativity might enable one to stop recovering and start living.

- u

 Hi there Ultra/u,

Good to see you around again.  A while back, on the public forum, i had asked you a question that i was curious about, but never heard a response back.  It may be that you didn't see the question, in question?

 Anyways, here it goes again, and since this is a much briefer post than last time, it's a lot easier to see.   Did you use to, and/or still do, post on the Bob Marks astrology forum?   I ask because your grammar, vocab, general writing style, vibe, sources you recommend, and behavior tendencies are remarkably similar to someone i use to interact with, and knew for awhile over there.  

 This is not a "bad" nor "good" thing really, but more of a curiosity thing.  If you don't feel comfortable answering this in public, then you could p.m. me the answer if you are interested enough.  

 May the Force be with you, and you be with the Force, relatively speaking of course.

Thanks R, that's progress for me too. I'll park it.

Going by the responses I received and a long PM somebody sent me, I hope people don't get the wrong impression about my last post.  Even if some of the people who took part on this thread aren't hearing me, I'll still continue to speak out against false gurus and false channeled sources, because perhaps somebody who cares to know will listen.

I find it mindboggling that people believe it is okay to advertise such sources as much as they want, but other people who just might know better don't have the right to comment differently. Has somebody called out the thought police? If some people want to believe that I'm Mr. Negative, angry, and all that bus, that's up to them.

"REMINDER ABOUT THIS THREAD!" Alan asked people what they thought. He didn't say, "What do you think, but don't say anything critical."

Gee, it seems to me that everyone got to say what they thought....maybe I'm completely mistaken, but I see lots of replies here with lots of people saying exactly what they thought.

love, blink :)

 Hi Alysia, i agree with quite a bit of your 2nd to last post.   You bring up "dupers" and the question of do they even know they are doing it?  

That's a very good question to ask, and i believe the answer can be more complicated than a black and white contrast.  

 Let me ask you, does the average con person type, know when they are actually duping, misleading others, and twisting the info to their advantage?  Did the folks at Enron, consciously know what they were doing, that it was illegal and not quite right?

Maybe some, the particularly imbalanced ones might not even consciously recognize it anymore... Maybe the ones who have been doing it so long, that they have come to a point where they can't discriminate any reality from fiction, even in relation to themselves...  

I once dated a girl who constantly pathologically lied (Neptune Rising, and closely square Saturn, Libra Sun, Libra Venus CON Pluto, etc), and i would say she probably didn't consciously know half or more the times she was doing it, because it was something she had done for so long, was so good at, etc.   The lies started to become indistinguishable from the truths.

 But, do a lot of duper, con types start out like that?  I doubt it, i have a feeling a pretty good percentage of people who con, lie to, or manipulate people for their own benefit, started out with twinges of the still small voice within them saying, "don't do it, you know its not right.", little twinges of guilt and self dislike.   I believe this is the case, because we are all part of God, and still have a connection to God however we mask it over temporarily.  

 I believe a lot of con and duper types, do know exactly what they are doing, and that is part of the "high" for them, especially when they fool people who seem otherwise very intelligent.   Why would an actress who will never lack for money and material wants, start compulsively going into stores and shop lift?    Why, dunno, it sounds pretty "irrational" and destructive to me, and yet there is a real life example of someone getting a high off something that is destructive to self and to others.

 Now, if there are and have been plenty of people throughout the world who would dupe people for some narrow material self interest, or little emotional high, then chances are there are even nonphysical consciousnesses who would do the same.    Or that there are people who would dupe you not just in regards to insurance, credit, mortgage loans, a used car, a fantastic new product you really (don't) need, your own gov. lying and duping constantly, etc., but also about spiritual issues and info as well.

Maybe even most in that latter category, because spiritual info is THE MOST POWERFUL AND POTENTIALLY LIBERATING info in the Entire Cosmos.    Those with a larger and more long term agenda, would definitely want to mislead about something so important and potentially freeing.    Why, because they know that belief systems are powerful, powerful things, which can really influence people.  

 So, as far as duping and dupers go, its not a black and white contrasted issue.  

Occasionally it is important to speak out against something one knows more for sure, to be a misleading, deceptive, and destructive source of info (like Yeshua did with the Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.)... but at the same time, we shouldn't concentrate on stuff like that either and we should choose our "battles" wisely.   There are plenty of sources who miss the mark, who aren't pure, but it would be rather pointless and non constructive to speak out in a critical sense about them.  

Great post Justin. Even the last paragraph. Perhaps I should bonk myself on the head for my participation on this thread, even if Alan did ask. :)

recoverer wrote on Jan 18^th, 2008 at 5:54pm:

Great post Justin. Even the last paragraph. Perhaps I should bonk myself on the head for my participation on this thread, even if Alan did ask. :)

 Don't worry, plenty of us have already bonked you., but heres a little more..bonka bonka bonka....  I think you have been bonked enough.  ;)

8-)
Hi, guys,

I have investigated Walcsh further and found to my interest that what triggered his dialogues with god was a profound nde like OBE. It really resonated with me as authentic. I just by convenient coincident, came across a book in my private library, “Hot Chocolate for the Mystical Soul” by Arielle Ford. Donald Walsh gives the account of his initiation into mystical commune with god in this book, under the title “Nothing Matters” by Neale Donald Walsch. This small book of short true stories of mystical experience gives accounts of experiences from people of all walks of life and contains just the kind of beautiful subject matter that fascinates us all on this forum.

alan

Hi,

Surfing the forum I found that our Nanna had posted a thread on Neale Donald Walsch. to which no one responded "SHAME ON US"


Quote:

Neale Donald Walsch Dec 11th, 2007, 11:51pm    http://www.nealedonaldwalsch.com/ A wonderful author, a great movie maker, a person whom shoots straight from the heart. This page can help anyone whom can`t breathe for having been run over by too many impressions of religions. This page will bring one back to point zero! Specialty: Uplifting, non-biaseded to  "

alan

Since the ball is in play again. Sorry if it felt like we were trying to beat you into a corner R - it's in truth not about winners and losers. I was trying to communicate the idea that in reality teachers and sources are surely spread along a continuum from the truly bogus to the presumably perfect - if that exists in this world. And that we need to keep this in mind in how we approach, and how we relate to them.

To try to go through life sorting them into two boxes - either fakes or genuines - reflects a human tendency that most indulge unknowingly. But it's a terribly coarse means of making sense of a complex situation, is not very practical or realistic, and can do a lot of harm to self as well as to others.

Which is why I was cautious about Walsch being written off as a fake. No doubt he makes errors, I doubt he's the Messiah or the basis for a new religion, but regardless of the source there's lots that's wise and loving in there too.

This tendency to broad brush categorisations can also betray a highly egotistical approach or an ideologue - somebody with an agenda - out to convince his/her  audience of what they have already decided. In the words of Robert Pirsig in Lila 'ideologues usually talk in terms of sweeping generalities'. Basically because they are not open to real debate, and don't want their premise subjected to detailed discussion or analysis.

But any truth/reality (even the sort of relative truth/reality we deal with most of the time)  is multidimensional and consequently far more granular than that....

 A person coming from a "highly egotistical approach" tends to get negatively "personal" in their debates, and it becomes less about the subject, idea, concept, debate, etc. at hand, and more about the individual people who believe in same.  

 Consistently, i've seen R avoid this, and he keeps it about the issue or topic at hand, though plenty of others will throw some pretty obvious, or subtle jabs aimed rather specifically at him.

 This, i believe says something about where R is coming from, i feel.   Yet, i do think perhaps he may be a little over zealous about speaking out against non pure sources, but it seems he himself as recognized that openly.   This is a mark of humility, and willingness to be open.  

 Dunno, i might not agree completely with everything that R believes, perceives, or acts, but when i tune into him, i get a lot of light.   I go more by my feelings and inner intuitions about someone than just the appearance stuff, or if someone is a little rough around the edges for example.  Hence why i speak up for him at times.

 Plenty of people talk a very good, "kind", and wise seeming talk, but the inner Heart is rotten (i'm not speaking of anyone here specifically, just in general, and more thinking of various lawyers, priests, gurus, politicians, politics in general, and the like).   R just strikes me as more blunt and direct than the average person.

Hi Everyone,
glad the topic Neale Donald Walsch is up to par for a while. I`d like to add my two cents worth with an experience.

This just happened not too long ago for me okay.

Round about October last year I had come to find out that NDW was coming to Hamburg germany - to one of the Premiers of his movie. Well Nanner geared up and was all ready to go.

Since the theater in which it was playing was not "one of the big ones" around, not like Cinemax or such, but rather a sort of hick town cinema, I felt very confident to get tickets. WRONG ANSWER! I called every where, tried to get tickets via ebay if need be - NOTTA!

Well, take a look at my picture on the left. That little Miss Smileyface "puckered!" I mean I was soooo dishearted. So I went into the Net looking for the CD - well, nope - not there either.  I ended up listening to all the YOU Tube info of NDW as sort of a bandaid for my longing.

My friends tried to swiftly help me, but they ALL ended up with problems of some sort..lol... One guys PC even crashed directly while trying to burn a copy for me. I was starting to thingy up my eyebrow in amazement and eventually felt like I was not suppose to watch this movie! I gave up and simply puckered.

Not but a month later, I ended up having to go to the unemployment office and out of the blues, the lady behind the desk, whom doesnt know me from a hole in a wall, looks at me and says the following quoted words: "Hey, did you know that Conversations with God is going to play in your town tomarrow evening at 5 oclock"? Folks can you possibly imagine "what facial expression I had on my face?. It was a cross between a donkey and a mouse! (I mean come on...she couldnt have known how much I wanted to see that movie!!!)

Well as the story takes its end, I ended up going the next day - and I took a friend with me - AND TO TOP IT ALL OFF - "We were THE ONLY ONES in that theater that day...lol... I had CWG all to myself really and I cried, I cried like a itzy bitty baby, when I had realised that GOD is in the everything and nothing, yet we take exactly everything and the nothing for granted.

The movie done WONDERS for the person whom I took with me, as if it was suppose to be exactly that way - he since has really done some serious thinking.

The moral of the story:
YOU "CANT" HAVE WHAT YOU "WANT"!

Watch the movie, but read the book!

Love all of you,
Nanner

Now THAT was a cool story Nanner!

I believe that book also tells you there are many ways to 'God'.

Your story just proved that.

Nanner hi there, did you mean You Can't, or you Can have what you want?

wasn't sure if this is a typo...

hi guys, was looking over this entire thread this morn for the overview. its a good thread, its like we're accomplishing something together that we couldn't singly. glad you're back Nanner, you're like part of the furniture around here now, I missed you!
Thanks Alan for starting this thread to. Alan seems to have some inspiration for starting thought that I don't so I appreciate that.

just to notice the interconnections...Ian is back and talking something else besides Buddism, I'm back talking something besides ACIM..we are doing ok I figure if we notice our commonalities and accept our faults as we can move past them quickly it seems.

Justin thanks. I did need the reminder, that not everybody loves me, or loves what literature I love. Discerning con artists I think comes from experience. Let's not assume we can discern early in life. Experience getting is necessary, to ascertain intentions behind propaganda or truth, or partial truth or glitter.
its a journey, hey, not complaining, would have done the same thing based on the information I had at the time.
There is inner guidance, sometimes we speak of this as outside our selves, such as nonphysical guides and helpers. for this kind of thinking, first you'd have to come to the conclusion by experience of course: of one or two philosophies:
1) God has everything in control or he doesn't.
either you're pregnant, or you're not. Cant be a little bit pregnant.
2) It is a benevolent universe operating or it is a malicious universe operating.
In the same way we make this choice to be creating of the benevolence or the maliciousness. (with others help, such as spiritual growth and logical experiences)

you can't serve two masters here. You chose one or the other. Simply put and this is the last of it I will let myself comment on, ACIM was my choice to help me decide which master I would serve and accept any flack might come my way to declare it so because I have made my choice.

So in the end I am not divided in opinion as to what to do or say in life because I have help in those decisions whether to speak up or be quiet. Being quiet never served me well early on, so I do speak up and hope for the best. If I'm in disagreement with someone over an opinion on any material or a point, its not the end of the world or that I must find agreement mentally with you all, because I come here and I can observe what was going on yesterday has changed today simply because I spoke up.
and the other person spoke up of course, without disagreement and honest participation we would probably be living on islands and fortresses throwing spears at each other.

I suppose R, that you might have thought in terms of this or that material is absolutely wrong for the whole world as it is wrong for you.
just flat statements were made concerning ACIM, no further explanations, just this is the way it is and thats final.

You could instead elaborate why this is the way it is, rather than short, kryptic, remarks implying that the matter is not at rest and like arnold Swartzeneger, you'll be back.

that is what I took exception to. I already expressed my opinions about ACIM and so you know ACIM is my path. naturally I will defend it. it is me. I am it. However, it is more important to forget the book. ACIM says to forget it. it says to live it.

so I did and I proved it was the truth, but only to myself of course as I cannot share that much or give to another these teachings I experienced.
I would like people to be aware here that people have feelings, and we hurt each other unintentionally when we get stubborn about something, because we want others to agree with us, then the hurt passes around, its like catching or something.
we don't need to do that, if we just elaborate more on why we don't agree with something, at the same time don't forget to mention what DID work for you and elaborate on that.
you can state opinion with this is my opinion.
that way you don't rouse the hurt and rejection. then we know, oh, it's just an opinion. we can be destructive to one another, at the same time, let's be constructive also, to mention the positive, the good, we can create it that way.

so I don't push the Course, I have other means to express it, besides here. but I'll tell you this much, if my house was burning down and I had a million dollars cash under my mattress, and I only could save one thing in my house, I'd grab ACIM automatically.

what I meant to say about the benevolent universe: it operates behind the illusions, but we are the ones to break thru the illusions to see it.

love, alysia

Alysia sweetie - No typo.
You can`t have what you want!

Meaning "if you stay in the frame of mind that you want something, then you cant have it. It took me almost ions to understand that sentence when Neale Donald Walsch said it.

Glad I am part of the inventory now Alysia. Nice to belong and to be wanted. Thanks for the fuzzy.


Hugs,
Nanner

Nanner wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 1:15pm:

Alysia sweetie - No typo. You can`t have what you want! Meaning "if you stay in the frame of mind that you want something, then you cant have it. It took me almost ions to understand that sentence when Neale Donald Walsch said it. Glad I am part of the inventory now Alysia. Nice to belong and to be wanted. Thanks for the fuzzy. oh wow now I get it Nan! let me say it in my words then! I like that new twist on it, so he's talking about releasing what you want. then if it comes back to you, its yours, if it doesn't it never was yours... another way of putting it, we say here, doubt will manifest alongside with the desire, as both are creative agents.. people have a hard time with this I do believe...did u read all Bruce's books yet? well theres this part about being out there with his partner, and he would think small and suddenly it was large..he'd think distance and suddenly the opposite would appear, so on and etc. he was manifesting the opposite of what he thought and becoming amazed with that principle. I think it works here the same, thats like saying opposites attract.. at the same time we discussed this once like attracts like. so thats a little confusing, any comments? also in prayer, or intention setting, there must be that release action, like faith, or a knowing that it's done. thanks, whew...keep the faith! Hugs, Nanner