Neale claims that he had a memory gaff and mistook his own experience for something he read, yet his memory was clear enough to plagiarize with precise words.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/books/07book.html

I read his Conversations with God, and to me it was a copy of ACIM.  He just took the concepts and pretended he was getting the information straight from God.

It's really upsetting that frauds like this guy mislead so many sincere people.

He's laughing all the way to the bank.

Yeah, but what happens when he no longer has a physical body to make use of a bank?


rondele wrote on Apr 28^th, 2009 at 5:55pm:

I read his Conversations with God, and to me it was a copy of ACIM.  He just took the concepts and pretended he was getting the information straight from God. It's really upsetting that frauds like this guy mislead so many sincere people. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

Fuel for the atheist/skeptic fire.  *sigh*

Albert,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.  Over the years, many people have cited Walsch's "Conversations with God" series as if it were divinely inspired Scripture. Gullibility is a major reason why the astral claims of so-called New Age adepts are not taken seriously by the thinking public.  You can get rich at New Agers' expense simply by identifying the voice in the back of your head with God!  How sad!  How frustrating it when posters equate uncritically dreams about a deceased loved one with genuine contact.

At least, the absurd past lives astral recalled by Bob Monroe were deluded confections, not outright fraud (e. g. a life as a pilot flying close to spear-throwing cave men; a prior wife with his wife Nancy in which he was a Catholic monk who used a knife to ritually torture her against her will as part of his erotic initiation ceremony).  This sort of nonsense illustrates why I insist not only on detailed verification, but also replication by independent adepts.   Maybe this expose will be a disillusioning wake-up call for honest seekers.

Don

..or it can be viewed as practising your discernment. Some has good intentions, but that doesn't mean what they present is good for ones path. Others can perhaps deliberately mislead, for various reasons like money, guru status and so on. You're the master. You choose to read it. You choose not to read it. You choose to read bits of it. You choose whether to go with all of it, something or nothing at all.

Back in the day, I was excited about the first book. The second and third book gradually started to piss me off. The outlined progression was lacking, and instead a rehashing of the first book. Now I feel no interest whatsoever for none the books. It was right for me at that moment. Now it's not. Change.

Hi

One thing that makes any non-physical information difficult to evaluate is that the writer may sometimes be speaking about experience that replicates physical situations and yet at other times be describing scenes that were set up as metaphors.

So for example seeing a pilot in a plane shooting spears at cavemen might stand for an advanced person being way ahead/beyond (in understanding, in capabilities) of the groups 'below him'.
A dream, vision, or even a Biblical parable that showed a monk torturing a woman might mean he cut her with his monk's weapons, i.e., his teachings.
Perhaps these insights to himself were not appropriate to publish?

As Volu said it, some good may be gained from some teachings at some stages of life. For each person those somes are different.

But plaguerizing is a different matter. Sorry to twist your thread, Recoverer.

Bets

Don:

Perhaps it is significant that Robert Monroe shared past life experiences that are questionable.  You would think that if he was trying to pull the wool over our eyes, he would come up with more believable stories.

Regarding the aircraft/spear chucking story, he clearly stated that the story didn't come from this planet. Perhaps what he experienced was a symbolic way of his finding that his I-there had a previous lifetime where advanced beings shared the same planet with beings that weren't as advanced as his race of beings. I say symbolic, partly because it is hard to believe that natives would bother with throwing spears at an aircraft, because they couldn't throw a spear so far.  

Regarding the priest thing, I don't believe he said anything about becoming a Catholic priest. The word priest is used for religious orders that aren't Catholic. In Far Journeys, Robert used words that make it seem as if Catholicism wasn't involved. Even if Catholicism was involved, perhaps what he experienced was a symbolic way of saying that the Church he became a member of made a big point making certain new priests were pure hearted, because the church had problems with priests who took advantage of people sexually. If it can happen today, it can happen anytime.

Regarding the W.C. Fields thing, which wasn't a past life experience, I don't find it hard to believe that an alien being would present itself to Robert in such a way, because going by my experiences, spirit beings have a sense of humor.  I figure different races of beings learn all kinds of things from each other. Why not about humor?

There have been numerous times where information has been presented to me in a symbolic way. For various reasons, on some occasions, it works better to present information in such a way. You've heard the expression, "A picture is worth a thousand words." For a similar reason symbolic messages are received, rather than having a person go through a long literal experience. After a while you know that you can trust symbolic messages and you learn to appreciate the brevity.

From the article, below are key words from Walsch:

"I have told the story verbally so many times over the years that I had it memorized ... and then, somewhere along the way, internalized it as my own experience.”

So what is he expecting people to believe? That numerous times he would start sharing the story by saying that a lady named Candy Chand shared this story...and then one day, from one meeting to the next, he said: "One day I attended my son's kindergarten pagent..."

One would think that if he repeated the part about Candy Chand, this part of the story would be etched in his memory.

He has been quite successful--monetarily. I wonder what he truly does believe.  No matter what his own experiences have been,
I think most will now find his claims unworthy of attention.

Perhaps he has been subconsciously wanting to abandon his
public persona as "mouthpiece" for God.  It's difficult to imagine
thinking that plagiarizing published writing wouldn't be detected.

Lots of people have copied...Doris Kearns Goodwin, Martin Luther King, Jr., lots in between.  So what? In some instances it is considered the highest form of flattery (told to me by an attorney).

Maybe the worst victim of an instance of integrity-slip is the person himself, but not because there is anything intrinsically wrong with what he did, but because it cuts one's integrity with one's self. And in order to walk on water, you need perfect integrity.

Wow Lucy! Lots of power in your post!

Spooky

Lucy-

It's ok to copy as long as the author acknowledges the source.  Otherwise it's plagiarism plain and simple.  And the fact that other people have done it is really not relevant.

But more to the point, Walsch has already admitted fabricating his so-called "conversations" with God.  What he actually did was read ACIM and then merely reconfigured its "teachings" into alleged direct conversations with God.

That is morally wrong and frankly repugnant.  Yes, he has managed to build an entire cult of followers and, like any other cult, its members find it hard if not impossible to face the truth when the perpetrator is exposed.

Same thing, by the way, could be said about Sylvia Browne.
R

Candy Chand didn't consider it a form of flatery.  In fact, if one reads the article closely, she was very unhappy about Walsch doing as he did.

It isn't simply a matter of whether or not Walsch plagiarized somebody. When he was caught doing so,  as opposed to just admitting that he did so, it seems as if he tried to cover for himself by stating that he told the story numerous times as if it wasn't the result of his own experience, and then suddenly one day, despite the repetition of telling it as somebody else's story, he suddenly started to tell the story as if it is something that took place at his son's kindergarten pagent. This is quite a specific detail.  What does it say of his honesty if he is willing to "try" to cover himself in such a way?

Just because plagiarism happens a lot, that doesn't make it okay.

There are various reasons for which I don't believe that Walsch channeled God; however, one recent fact, in my mind, helps establish this fact.  He titled a book called "Happier than God." Now I'm not the sort of guy that gets in the worship mode, yet I believe that anybody who has felt God's presence in a substantial way, wouldn't name a book in such a way. To me, the title lacks reverence, humility and grattitude. The title isn't the biggest transgression in the World. But I don't believe it is a title that somebody who has been in contact with God would choose. If anything, the title sounds like a title a person would choose if he or she is trying to market a book and the CDs, DVDs, workshops, calendars, playing cards and Nitendo game that follow. I didn't read the book, so I can't speak of its content.

Is there anything that is sacred?

Rondelle:

People who are new age often believe that belief systems are a religious thing, not a new age thing, but often new age sources have followings that are more cult like than religious teachings. Just as it is very difficult to find a person who will question his or her religion, it is very difficult to find a new age person who will seriously question a channeled source. They claim that they do so, then make excuses for all kinds of discrepancies.

Perhaps they should remove the mote from their own eyes, before they conclude that religious people are going to end up at focus level 25, while new age people run into Seth, Hillarion, Elias, whoever spoke to Helen Schuchman, in a realm higher than focus 25.



rondele wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 11:05am:

Lucy- It's ok to copy as long as the author acknowledges the source.  Otherwise it's plagiarism plain and simple.  And the fact that other people have done it is really not relevant. But more to the point, Walsch has already admitted fabricating his so-called "conversations" with God.  What he actually did was read ACIM and then merely reconfigured its "teachings" into alleged direct conversations with God. That is morally wrong and frankly repugnant.  Yes, he has managed to build an entire cult of followers and, like any other cult, its members find it hard if not impossible to face the truth when the perpetrator is exposed. Same thing, by the way, could be said about Sylvia Browne. R

"new age person"

definition, please


recoverer wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 1:01pm:

Rondelle: a new age person rondele wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:05am: Lucy- It's ok to copy as long as the author acknowledges the source.  Otherwise it's plagiarism plain and simple.  And the fact that other people have done it is really not relevant. But more to the point, Walsch has already admitted fabricating his so-called "conversations" with God.  What he actually did was read ACIM and then merely reconfigured its "teachings" into alleged direct conversations with God. That is morally wrong and frankly repugnant.  Yes, he has managed to build an entire cult of followers and, like any other cult, its members find it hard if not impossible to face the truth when the perpetrator is exposed. Same thing, by the way, could be said about Sylvia Browne. R

My guess is that you know what I mean.  I consider myself a new age person.  However, not all new age people think the same. There are some that believe that just about any channeled source that exists is valid and for some peculiar reason it is wrong to seriously question such sources, while new age people such as myself have found that there are many fraudulent sources, and therefore it is extremely important that a new age person, such as myself, uses his or her discrimination.

New age people won't be able to serve the new age to their fullest, if they get sucked into all of the misleading sources that exist.






wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 1:38pm:

"new age person" definition, please recoverer wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 1:01pm: Rondelle: a new age person rondele wrote on May 1st, 2009 at 11:05am: Lucy- It's ok to copy as long as the author acknowledges the source.  Otherwise it's plagiarism plain and simple.  And the fact that other people have done it is really not relevant. But more to the point, Walsch has already admitted fabricating his so-called "conversations" with God.  What he actually did was read ACIM and then merely reconfigured its "teachings" into alleged direct conversations with God. That is morally wrong and frankly repugnant.  Yes, he has managed to build an entire cult of followers and, like any other cult, its members find it hard if not impossible to face the truth when the perpetrator is exposed. Same thing, by the way, could be said about Sylvia Browne. R

new age person

who: you and others
what: not clarified

I don't believe there is one simple definition; nevertheless, I'll try.

People who believe that there is more to reality than this physical World. People who believe that the World isn't going to remain as problematic as it is, but is going to evolve into something greater that is based upon principles of love and light.

People who are willing to consider sources of information that more conservative people won't consider. Unfortunately, there are people who take advantage of this openess.

Whatever the term means, I didn't invent it.



wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 1:48pm:

new age person who: you and others what: not clarified

To me, new age means information or teachings that are beyond traditional sources.  Just as one example, the Bible was the source of teaching for Christians and Jews for many centuries.

We all date things based on our own experiences, but I remember the fuss when Bridey Murphy was hypnotized and reported that she had led many lives prior to her current one.  Reincarnation became very popular in the media and a big subject of conversation.

Then, at some later point, channeling became in vogue.  Ruth Montgomery had her "guides" who gave her information via automatic writing.  Among other things they assured her that there would be radical upheavals prior to the year 2000.  The earth, they said, would shift on its axis, causing earthquakes and floods and millions of deaths.  Very few places would be safe.  Western Canada was one such place.  People actually relocated to Saskatchewan.

And around the same timeframe came other channeled material, including Seth, ACIM and a host of others.

And the bandwagon caught on.  I imagine there are tons of channeled entities right now saying all sorts of things.  

But new age thought is not just limited to religion or spirituality.  Its influence is in medicine, food, exercise.....you name it.  Some of it is good, some of it is just plain bogus.

Unfortunately, we now live in a culture that is seriously lacking in something that used to be valued and used to be taught: discernment.

We seem to have lost the ability to discern.  We gobble up whatever the latest guru or medium says.  If a guy says he's conversing with God, we don't critically examine what he says.  We jump on the bandwagon with gusto.  We drink the kool aid willingly.

Conversations with God is a book riddled with inconsistencies and outright contradictions.  It's not a surprise that Walsch has been exposed.  It was just a matter of time.

True learning is hard.  Takes time.  Takes effort.  These days, that's too much trouble.  Far easier to listen to some disembodied entity who tells us to chill out and not to worry, there's no such thing as sin.

Seductive messages like that always attract the gullible part of the population.  This part, by the way, is expanding exponentially.  Not a good omen.

R

 

Hi Rondele,

you make 'new age' sound similiar to nuclear fission, or a virus or mold!  ;)
All these discoveries were first considered dangerous.

When a new field of knowledge is developing, it does take 'awhile' for it to be shaped to the needs of humanity. Unfortunately for you and I, this "awhile' will probably last our lifetimes, which are just mere dots on any timeline.

Explorations do involve some dead ends. Fraud does create one type of dead end. Negative mindsets create barriers too.

Bravo to the explorers who are willing to risk abit to find 'the eye of the needle.'

Bets

Hi Bets-

I like the virus and mold analogy!   :)

I would probably compare it more to a fad.  Sort of like the colon detox mania that is sweeping the tv commercials these days.

But seriously, as I said, there is both good and bad in it.  It boils down to a matter of discernment.

I would disagree a bit with your characterization of new age stuff as a "field of knowledge."  It is way too fluid and contradictory to represent a field of knowledge in the same way as, for example, nuclear physics.

It is more of a mulligan stew.  There is something in it for everyone. If I don't like what Seth says, all I have to do is turn to Elias. These two highly evolved characters have quite contradictory messages about things.

There really is no unified field in new age thought.

But it's sure entertaining!

Rondelle:

I think you should be like Albert Einstein and try to come up with a unified theory-not for physics-but for new age thought. Tell everybody that you're channeling Albert Einstein. As far as I know, nobody has claimed to channel Albert Einstein.  I figure it would be too difficult to demonstrate the same level of intellect.  But God, that's a piece of pie, supposedly.

If pie is involved, I'm there.....

That's one thing most of us can probably agree upon. Pie is yummy. :)  



wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 4:52pm:

If pie is involved, I'm there.....

Channel Einstein?

Heck yeah, no problem.

I already have the book Einstein, all I have to do is pick out some passages, re-do them somewhat, and then I'll have Albert down pat.

Come to think of it, no one has channeled Lincoln or Washington.  Kind of strange when you think about it.....after all, if Jesus can be channeled, why not some of our well known historical characters?

Hmmmmm

R

Rondelle:

I saw a book where somebody claims to channel Gerry Garcia.

Regarding channeling Einstein, if you didn't really have your physics and mathematics down, a physicist could really expose you. I figure God knows physics and mathematics better than Einstein. If a physicist asked Walsch some really difficult questions while he was supposedly channeling God, would he be able to come up with the answers?  I bet you I could think of some questions I know the answer for but Walsch doesn't, and he couldn't come up with the answer even if he was supposedly channeling God. I figure the same is true for each of us. Each of us knows something that Walsch doesn't know, but God knows.

Don once wrote that the God Walsch supposedly channels doesn't even know the Bible.



rondele wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 4:58pm:

Channel Einstein? Heck yeah, no problem. I already have the book Einstein, all I have to do is pick out some passages, re-do them somewhat, and then I'll have Albert down pat. Come to think of it, no one has channeled Lincoln or Washington.  Kind of strange when you think about it.....after all, if Jesus can be channeled, why not some of our well known historical characters? Hmmmmm R

REgarding 'channeling' Lincoln--

Does anyone know where on the web  there might be an interactive facial documentation program like they use in forensics ? They measure bone structure so that diet and ethnicity doesn't show much.

I'd like to put Obama and Lincoln in it to see if bone structure -wise, they are similiar.  :D

Bets

betson wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 5:16pm:

REgarding 'channeling' Lincoln-- Does anyone know where on the web  there might be an interactive facial documentation program like they use in forensics ? They measure bone structure so that diet and ethnicity doesn't show much. I'd like to put Obama and Lincoln in it to see if bone structure -wise, they are similiar.  :D I thought all you enlightened New Agers knew!...Barack Obama's previous life on Earth was Abraham Lincoln! Carl & Family Bets

<<I thought all you enlightened New Agers knew!...Barack Obama's previous life on Earth was Abraham Lincoln! Carl & Family>>

So this is what passes for enlightened thought these days?

R

I have no interest in putting down new age people, especially since I consider myself to be a new age person.  This past weekend I went to the New Living Expo in San Francisco. There were some fraudulent people there; nevertheless, I felt good about being there because I knew that a lot of sincere, well meaning and loving people were also there.  The energy level felt real good. I felt as if I was amongst my peers, other people who want this World to become a better place.

What I don't like is people who try to mislead us.  Our growth and the changes that need to take place in this World are too important.

By the way, Walsch was one of the speakers at the Expo, I didn't go to see him.


rondele wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 6:05pm:

<<I thought all you enlightened New Agers knew!...Barack Obama's previous life on Earth was Abraham Lincoln! Carl & Family>> So this is what passes for enlightened thought these days? R

I expect Carl and Family were joking as were we all to some extent  :)

(smiley face) Bets

OK, Moonsandjunes, I will not duck your understandable request for a definition of "New Ager."  Here are defintions to light your fire!   ;D

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: A "New Ager" is a person who browses and reads books from the "New Age" or "Occult" sections of large bookstores rather than from the "Inspiration," "Philosophy," and "Religion" sections. A person who seeks an independent perspective by reading broadly in these related fields is an "honest spiritual seeker," not a "New Ager." For example, a "New Ager" derives his iniformation about Jesus and early Christianity from unqualified New Age writers like Acharya S. because he can't be bothered by harder reading in books by more reputable and mainstream scholars.  "New Agers" see no need to assess personal mystical experience in terms of broader knowledge of psychology, neurology, philosophy, and religion.  And so, they lack curiosity about contradictions with the astral experiences of New Agers from different metaphyiscal camps such as Ekandar, Rosacrucianism, and Swedenborigianism.  

More to the point, there are various types of "New Age occultism" just as there are various forms of "existentialism."   But this defintion will prove pragmatic:  "New Age thought" can be defined as thought trapped in the following limiting oversimplifications: (1) the belief that we are God and God is All That Is; (2) belief in reincarnation informed by uncritrically accepted contemporary experiences of alleged past life recall rather than by classical eastern religions; (3) belief in expanding creativity and self-knowledge as the meaning of life rather than any conception of meaning focussed on love or satisfying the purpose of a loving Creator God.  Thus, it never occurs to New Agers that the Source of PUL might want us to direct PUL back to the Source (= worship) to help transmit it to others.  In short, New Age thought is not based on honest, open, and eclectic inquiry that seeks knowledge through progressive falsification of outdated preconceptions; rather, it is based on narcissistic mystical experience that is impervious to the critical eye of intrusive truth seekers who want to expand scientific knowledge by engaging every relevant academic discipline.

Don

Don:

Sometimes we agree with each other, sometimes we don't. I love and respect new age people a lot. Even though I'll get on my high horse at times when I really get into a topic, the main reason I speak against fraudulent sources of information is because I have a lot of respect and love for new age people (I'm happy to state this twice :)), I believe they can really make a difference in this World, and I don't want to see them get misled. When they get misled, it is more about their purity of heart, rather than a lack of intelligence. They have a hard time seeing negativity in other people, when it doesn't exist within themselves.  When I think of new age people, I don't think of the con artists that try to trick them.

Here's a new age principle I believe in.  Numerous souls have incarnated into the World with the hope of increasing its vibratory rate. Many of these people are new age people.  

A lack of thorough investigation can happen in more than one way. For example, you can't really know what it's like to receive credible information from spirit beings, until you try to do so.  Sometimes these beings will reveal things to you that contradict your preconceptions.  You'll know that you don't have to worry about this when you feel what it is like to be in contact with them,  see what the overall information they provide adds up to, and find that when they challenged your preconceptions they were correct. For example, I didn't believe that Christ had much to do with anything, until the spirit beings I was in contact with helped me find differently.

I need to add this. Don and Rondelle don't present themselves as new agers. Nevertheless, I love and respect both of them a lot. I believe that both they and new agers have good intentions. Sometimes we just don't see eye to eye on how to manifest good intentions. Sometimes it seems as if I'm in the middle. Don, Rondelle, Alan, Matthew to a lesser extent, and Justin (who is new age like me), don't appreciate misleading sources of information to an extent, where we are more vocal about it than other people.

Regardless of how each of us approaches the subject of misleading sources, I believe it is important to remember that each of us has good intentions in our own way. Therefore, it is important that even when we have our disagreements, we don't forget how wonderful each of us is. I say this with full acknowledgment that sometimes I get carried away at times. I never mean disrespect towards anybody. Not even the sources I speak against. I look forward to the day where I'll share the great oneness with these sources. I understand that it is a part of life, as it is, for some of us to end up not being a positive influence for a while. I don't believe this happens for all of eternity.  I don't believe this happens in every part of the universe.

Albert,

New Agers like yourself are continually making unwarranted assumptions about alternative approaches.  My definitions and explications, I believe, accurately portray New Agers as I've experienced them here and in public life.  But reply #22 does not label Roger, Matthew, or any specific poster as a New Ager.

Why do you imagine that you have often contacted the real Jesus in astral realms, but show no evidence of trying to understand Him or contact Him in the places He Himself indicated He could be discovered--i. e. the Church?  If I understand you correctly, you worship neither God nor Jesus.  Yet Jesus insists that we worship God and gladly accepts the worship of His followers.  Do you really imagine that the ecstasy you have experienced in mystical encounters trumps the need to understand who the historical Jesus actually was and what His trusted eyewitness followers transmitted from Him and taught about Him?  I ask this because you seem to acknowledge that Jseus was in truth who He claimed to be.  Or have I misunderstood your position?

Don

:) Here's another perspective to play with.  (amended Sat am)

The core issue in relating to a teacher or other source of input is surely trust. (trust is in essence a description of the most fundamental belief we hold about others - its essentially  created or destroyed depending on whether or not actions likely or actual are perceived as more or less loving towards ourselves) Meaning our degree of trust is a measure of our willingness  accept vulnerability and/or risk as a result of relying that the actions of the other will be in our interest.

Goodwill/benevolence, integrity/honesty capability/skill and predictability/reliability are often cited as major dimensions of perceived trustworthiness. Where our belief in the likelihood of the others delivery of any of these is damaged, trust reduces.  

We tend to particularly emphasise the first two, although the trade offs are individual and complex - depending on context, cultural values, personal conditioning and experience and so on. e.g. westerners often get especially upset about sexual morality. We routinely tolerate deeply dishonest, self centred and incompetent behaviour in politics and business, but may divorce over a single mistake.

We're likewise heavily conditioned to instantly reject especially spiritual or religious teachers that fail to live up to either their own teachings, or who break our cultural taboos.

Yet trust is not a yes/no decision - the possibilities range from walking away at one extreme, through various conditional judgements, to trusting beliefs and affect/empathetic or loyalty based trust at the other.

In life we'd be unable to function, and would lose enormously if every time we felt the tiniest bit suspicious or let down we walked away and refused to have any more to do with the other. That's not to say that there are not absolute truths, but these are of a higher nature, and  inexpressible/opaque to intellect. The situation in relative reality we live in is not that simple.

In life we actually proceed by finely nuanced assessments of at least the multiple variables out lined above. We use these to decide how much risk/exposure to accept in a given situation.

The decision framework relies on only bits of data and our system of belief, and as above these are also highly complex and unreliable.

Perception is at the centre of all of this, and it's clear that perception is not the most reliable of judges. It's equally clear that judging is not a good idea - when we adopt a default position regarding anything we close down all rational process in favour of what is only a personal belief - one probably based on very limited information.

It's not hard to get turned against  a teacher. Possibly out of some of the above reasons - some of which are valid, and some not, or perhaps simply out of not understanding what the teacher is trying to do. Its pretty much a given that all teachers are perceived (whether or not this is the reality) by many people as making errors. Teachers that appeal to mass sentiment are in fact almost by definition pushing a lower view.

The truly great teachers are often only understood in retrospect, or become the target of popular hostility. The highest view is rarely the majority one, and is in fact going to be downright threatening to most.

So is it realistic given this complexity to make digital yes/no judgements on teachers based on single as we see them 'significant' bits of data, and hence potentially to reject whole bodies of useful teaching and other material out of hand?

Is it not possible to proceed more cautiously, using our own discrimination as we go and witholding the head over heels commitment many seek until we've gained a lot more experience with a teacher?

Is it realistic either to seek to fix personal perceptions and/or beliefs as truths, to judge rigidly by these and to demand that others believe as we do too?

Is it not possible to have some reservations about teachers, while at the same time drawing on their output where it intuitively feels right/is helping us?

This all of course implies a requirement for intuition and wisdom, and that we need to be cautious as these develop. That we will make potentially serious mistakes is a given. But that's the learning process, the means by which Spirit teaches - on the basis that intellectual knowledge is fairly meaningless, difficult to integrate and very different to becoming.

To move beyond a very moderate attempt to insulate others from what we regard as false teaching is (a) impossible, (b) more likely to inhibit their learning, and (c) very likely driven by ego  - either as a result of an unwillingness to accept the reality, or an attempt to control them...  

Given this inability to either easily access absolute truth in this life, and our very limited ability to recognise it even if we find it who else can be responsible for our path but ourselves?

I think you missed my point.

Why do you really care if Walsch lied?

I am pulled to go in more than one direction with that...hard to chose.

The word "cult" is thrown around a little too much.

Why shouldn't I consider Christianity a cult? I do. As a religion, it has an abominable history. Why then do people who defend it attack other paths? Must be a form of projection.

Walsch filled a need for many people. Maybe he gave them hope when nothing else did. So even if he was literally wrong, he was figuratively right. He maybe lied, but he shared a sense of love. Don't fret over the possibility of finding a pea under the mattress when what you need is sleep.

Lucy,

To use your argument, we should seek to be spiritually uplifted by Hitler's programatic Mein Kampf.  After all, it gave hope to milliions of Depression-era Germans.  And if quoted selectively, it contains some morally elevated points.  No, I'm afraid we must always consider the source for unverified spiritual claims.  

Don

P. S. In its primary meaning, "cult" is used interchangeably with "religion" and is not a negative term.  though it CAN be used pejoratively.  

Then I suppose Bruce Moen is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!? in his books???..Proof!!??? Somewhere between zero and one per cent in the big picture!..Carl & Family

Carl-

Actually you raise a good point.

Even if Bruce in his books is telling us precisely what he experienced, all that really means is that he's a truthful guy.

It certainly doesn't mean that what he experienced is the Truth.  That word is tossed around way too loosely.

In the big picture as you call it, we're all like goldfish in a bowl.  Or, as was said long ago, we're looking through a glass darkly.

R

See edit to my message above.

Lucy is nailing the point with her pea analogy.

Who's a perfect teacher? Who's entitled to set themselves up to judge anyway?

What's wrong with the guy making a mistake when what he wrote helped so many? (it's not that the end justifies the means or something like that, it's just that when we're presented with situations which are given it behoves us to be pearl fishers)

Don is right on this one; the problem with supposedly loving information coming from a deliberate liar is that no matter how much they spew out, it stems not from true experience and love but from a need to advance their own ends (money, fame, recongition, ego,etc.).  These ends must, in some way, manifest in their writings or potentially in the mind of the reader on some level.

This is not to say that there is no truth at all in the writing in question.

In Walsch's case, the writing was written by a sincere individual, and he lifted it, word for word and called it his own.  

For other deceivers, the resulting text is bound to be flawed.  Although Cervantes in Don Quixote, was often quoted as saying:

"There is no book so bad, said the bachelor, but something good may be found in it."

Yet, the overall effect on the reader may be to throw them off on a path to ego based gratification or lead them astray.  

As to how we know the truth if another persn has an astral or mystical experience, and comes back and swears its the truth - unfortunately, we can only go by our own gut (instinct), until grace shines upon us and we experience the truth for ourselves.

Matthew

Vajra-

What about all the televangelists who blanket the air waves these days?  They also bring comfort to those who tune in, wouldn't you say?

Supposedly Jim and Tammy Baker brought comfort to millions.  As did Jimmy Swaggart.

And yet they were frauds.  They constantly solicited money, supposedly to promote the growth of the ministry, but took that money to buy luxury items and live the life of royalty.

So I don't think whether someone brought comfort or not is the test.

As far as Walsch is concerned, a person could either read ACIM and believe he/she is reading the words of a channeled Jesus, or could read Conversations with God and believe he/she is reading the words of God Himself.  And yes, I admit they no doubt are being comforted.

Let's suppose, just for discussion, that Walsch's motives in writing Conversations was to capitalize on the success of ACIM.  He decided, as a marketing tool, to claim that he was getting the words directly from God.  A title like that would be a huge draw.  Suppose he ultimately admitted that he really wasn't chatting with God, he was really just rehashing what he read in ACIM.  But he claimed that his intentions were good.

What then? Would you still say it's ok because so many people found comfort in his books?

Just wondering.

R

Depends what you mean by 'bringing comfort' R - presumably as in removing suffering from our lives. 'Clean living', or living through compassion and wisdom, and if not that at least by adhering to basic rules of conduct does tend to bring about less suffering, but good teaching in fact may well led us into places which are quite painful too.

So it's more about about helping to raise our insight and ability to live through love, than it is about reducing suffering.

It's all relative. There's a Buddhist saying that it's not unknown for a student to achieve realisation through devotion to a teacher that actually is knowingly or unknowingly a fraud. What matters (in the individual context) is the students internal situation and process.

It's possible that a knowingly fraudulent TV evangelist may assist many by e.g. introducing them to a valid and life changing view they otherwise would not have been exposed to, or that the teacher does not himself adhere to. That doesn't make them honest, it doesn't make them a suitable teacher for a student in different circumstances, and nor does it make it desirable that teachers in general be chancers.

Peculiarly enough though it's reckoned to be the setting aside of personal will and judging that leads to progress in such a situation, so having decided regarding a teacher there's choices to be made in this respect too.

But that doesn't mean that whether through luck, personal judgement or even a mixing of an ability to teach effectively to a level while simultaneously being on the fiddle that one of these guys may not do good for some.

The problem is to walk the line down the middle - to extract what is useful and helpful, and to withold judgement on what may not be.

We can as i said choose to avoid absolutely everything we don't regard as perfect, but (a) can we really judge this accurately, and (b) as above can we afford to do this?

Walsch's books are fact. (in that they exist) Were they divinely inspired, or the work of (say) a scheming charlatan? The point is that we can't ever know this for sure. Yet my own experience is that his books contain loads of solid and spiritually valid insights into life. Should the fact that (if indeed it was the case that he actually did plagiarise a bit of somebody's material) result in all of his stuff being dumped?

What would happen if we were to institute a law that teachers must be infallible, on pain of being banned and all their works destroyed? Who would decide? Is there even a remote possibility that they might get beyond personal bias, beliefs, interpretation and perception in deciding this? How many teachers' works (including the bible) would survive this process? How long would it take until competition started between opposing factions rooting for different teachers and/or interpretations, with the result that the teacher most favouring the strongest interest would eventually be deemed 'truth'?

How do we know with precision anyway what was taught and maybe more importantly meant by historical or even current teachers - given that what we are exposed to has been through multiple re-editings and re-interpretations?

It really doesn't matter what anybody says or does. We all live in our own reality as we travel forward in time, and we each have to decide what we accept and don't from the influences we are exposed to, and what level of certainty we apply to them.

Walsch could have been divinely inspired, been an imperfect (as is inevitable) channel, and at the same time thought he was hatching a get rich quick scheme  - all at once. (i'm for example a fan of his books, but was not enhusiastic about the pronouncements of the organisation he founded)

Our tendency to insist on infallibility is much more to do with ego and our liking for neat one size fits all answers than the complex and multi dimensional reality - it comes straight from our own mind, and is arguably the result of our having conceptualised (or been influenced by societal conditioning, or competing interests) and adopted the belief that teachers must be infallible to be the real thing.

Of course it's OK. It's happened, and given this our task is to figure out what's positive and what is not (if anything), and to respond appropriately to the situation. To say anything else is to refuse to accept the reality.

Not to mention that if we keep on throwing the baby out with the bathwater and we risk ending up like the spinster that never met a man good enough for her. But we're free to make that choice, or we can decide to move on to other sources - we don't have to persuade the world that we were right first....

PS Maybe i'm making it too complicated by trying to explain. What i'm trying to get at is that judging is an ego inspired response and not appropriate to these situations - it damages us, and it damages the target, and it potentially damages others by failing to see the good in any situation. (its essentially the nuclear option)

It's a form of attack based on an incomplete and selective perception of the reality. The above tries to set out some of the wider dimensions, but perhaps the most fundamental of all is that all concerned need treating with love. If only because from a higher view we are all one, and when we attack another we attack ourselves.

It's important to realise that as a fait accompli we didn't bring the situation about, and that it's inappropriate to deny it - that our task is to engage with reality as it is (that's why it has to be 'OK'), and to perceive it in its totality. And then to  respond wisely and compassionately - without acting out any preconception of the situation, and without attachment to our view.

The full spectrum of responses remain open to us, the difference is where we're coming from - what's driving us.

Our task is to deal with our own response, it's better that we leave other to sort theirs and especially that we don't attempt to impose our view on anybody else....

Greetings,

When Rondel brought up the concept of comfort, I began wondering if  an analogy would be appropriate--
::) but I'll try it anyway --
If we came upon a starving person and all we had to offer was macaroni and cheese, would we hold back because we believe in more veggies, and less carbs? Would 'comfort food' be inappropriate?

Since we can't judge how developed the souls are that seem to need to hear these storytellers whom we find inadequate, should we deprive them of all but what we consider the best?

Bets  

Hi Lucy,

When is plagiarizing appropriate?  The word surely must exist for a reason.

I can think of several reasons plagiarizing could happen:
the footnote or other reference is left off due to carelessness, deceit, or a 'memory block' such  as Walsche says he had.
Or the writer may have thought certain information was common knowledge and needed no reference, but someone else judged it wasn't common knowledge.

Plagiarizing doesn't seem like a sin, it's more like bad manners to not honor the originator, imo.  ??

Bets

Everyone that posted on this thread makes a good point. It is a matter of perspective. Seems to me the man that did walk on water also stated something about letting the one who is without sin cast the first stone.

My point is which one of us has never chosen wrong action because of having a wrong intent?

Anything less than understanding and forgiveness indicates your little ego is alive and well. What is it that you fear?

Love, Kathy

Hi Kathy-

Well, let's hope that our egos are alive and well!  Surely you're not suggesting that egos are not a good thing?

Great people have done some pretty great things precisely because their egos were alive and well. And most of them had some pretty big egos!

I would bet that many if not most of the greatest inventions, whether they be technical or medical or whatever, have come about because of egos that refused to quit until their goals were reached.  

I would also imagine that if their egos were tiny, they would have long since given up.

You seem to draw a conclusion that if we are ego-driven, it must be because of fear.  Actually, when you think about it, ego and fear are probably inversely related.  Those who are fearful have small egos.  Those who persevere regardless of obstacles, in other words those who are fearless, no doubt have large egos.

And I know that being judgmental is contrary to new age thinking.  I would contend, however, that the whole notion of being nonjudgmental is essentially a cop-out. In fact, those who shy away from making judgments are also those who do so out of fear of either being wrong or of criticism from others. 

When we accept all beliefs, we end up believing in nothing at all.  Taking a stand on issues requires courage, not fear.

R

Hi Roger,

Hmmm... it seems that you and I define ego differently. The development of ego is basically becoming self aware and in this sense I would agree that the "ego" gets a bad rap in new age theology. However, the ego in my definition and as it is used most often now days is basically what is commonly referred to as our "mask self" which is founded in fear.

I think what happens is that when we are born, we have a strong connection to an inner spiritual wisdom, what I usually call God. This connection gives us the feeling of complete safety that allows for the curious wonder and innocence that we have as very young children. As we grow this connection to spiritual wisdom fades and is replaced by parental voices that are intended to protect us and keep us safe. These voices speak of good and bad, right and wrong and teach us how to make decisions, how to act and react in varying situations, etc. As the child's connection dims his or her psyche tries to replace the original innate spiritual wisdom with a functioning ego, but because of the internalized parental voices, the mask self is produced instead.

The creation of a mask self is essentially an attempt to get back the feelings of safety we had before our inner spiritual connection dimmed. It is the lack of our inner spiritual connection to God that makes us feel deeply afraid in a mortal world. The only way to truly feel safe again is to find our way back to God... to rediscover who we really are, but I'm getting off track so back to the mask.

Depending on our beliefs, usually deep seeded ones that formed as a child is how the mask self develops and presents itself to the world in order to feel a connection with others, accepted and safe. However, it doesn't work. The mask can never succeed in producing an internal feeling of safety because the intentions of the mask are wrong intentions. The intent of our mask self (ego) is to try to protect ourselves by proving to the world that we are good. But it is based on pretense and denial and by not taking responsibility for negative thoughts and actions and the blame game plus a lot of other games ensues.

LOL... ::) I could probably write a book on the subject, but I'll spare all of you and stop here.
 
Kathy

I rmember year ago when the book "The Towering Inferno" was written and at the same time "The Glass inferno" also was published.  There was a huge legal dispute that the person who wrote "Thel Glass Inferno" had stollen the story from "The Towering Inferno".  

When reading all the books I have read on parapsychology, several persons have stated that when a person receives and idea, it is not just sent to only one individual, but to many. Only a handful of those who are the receivers may follow up on the idea sent from the Ether and nature being what it is , may procede to write it down, word for word and duplicate (or more) the idea. History does back this theory.  A very simple example: have you ever grabbed something to wear and when you get into work, almost eveyone else has the same color on?? I always lay my clothing out the night before, so I say they copied me--- that I had the idea first!!! LOL

Hugs--- Carol Ann

Roger, I happened to think Don posted about humility and what he says here is basically what my post was getting at. Humility and compassion are basically the antitheses of ego. Only through a lack of fear and ego can one truly love and understand as Don indicates here.


Quote:

Quote Don: "The meaning of "meek" must be understood in tendem with the first  beatitude: Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matthew 5:3).  "Poor in spirit" clarifies the nature of true humility. We must be "emoty" of selfish ego to be filled with God's love and goodness.  Most of us walk around with a rubust self-image that we cnnsult when we feel the sting of criticism or when our own behavior challenges our self-concept.  To be poor in spirit is to be empty in spirit--empty of a fixed self-image that blinds us to our true behavior patterns.  In other words, we can't walk around carrying virtues like love. The crucial question is, how many loving acts have we performed recently?   St. Paul expresses a similar point in his denial of his own spiritual maturity and the sarcasm he directs at believers who deem themselves "mature" (Philippians 3:12, 15).  Spiritual maturity implies that we are spiritually whole and complete.  But this notion only reinforces unseemly pride because it overlooks the fact that we are always works in progress.  Whatever acts of moral heroism we have performed in the distant past may be irrelevant to the kind of people we are today. The "meek" are people who are "gentle" as a result of their humility in this sense.  St, Paul identifies "gentleness" as a manifestation of the "fruit of the Spirit," wothuot which there is no true love (Galatians 5:22-23).  The opposite of gentleness is assertiveness, which keeps our minds full of ego and manifests our need to feel right.  The human mind rarely admits that it is unequvocally "wrong" about moral and spiritual issues.  People will almost always counter with a defenisive "Yes, but..."  The meekness or gentleness of true love creates the space for others to discover if they are wrong at their own pace and in their own way.   Don

Don:

I can't say that meeting Christ in the astral has been a regular occurence. I had what I refer to as my might in heaven experience years ago, and without meeting him in a personal way, I found out that there is truth behind his story. I couldn't precisely tell you all of the details.

There have been a few other occasions where I was visited by his spirit, but I wasn't in the astral at the time. It was a matter of allowing my awareness to open up so I could make contact with him.

Most of the time when I make contact with guidance, a name isn't provided. I believe a mixture is involved. Sometimes I make contact with my higher self, sometimes with a disk member, sometimes with Christ.  As long as the beings I make contact with live according to love and a higher purpose, it doesn't matter who they are. I figure Christ has lots of friends that try to accomplish the same thing he tries to accomplish.

Regarding Church, I figure a time comes when as opposed having a preacher, minister, reverend or priest tell one what one should believe, one will try to figure out for one's self. If I would've allowed a preacher to tell me what to believe, there is no way I would've made the spiritual progress I made. Not unless, the preacher told me to find out for myself.

I don't mean to suggest that preachers are never needed. If this is what a person wants, then this is what he or she wants. But a person doesn't become unholy when he or she realizes that the main church we need to make contact with is the church that resides within ourselves.

Churches have been around for years, yet the World is full of problems. Some of these problems are caused by people who attend churches.  They get more into condeming people such as new agers, rather than striving to love their neighbors as themselves.

If a person lives according to love, he or she doesn't need to go to church.

Here's a story I heard one time. I don't remember where it comes from. A black man was troubled because a church didn't allow him to become a member. Jesus told him, "Don't feel bad, I've been trying to get into that church for years."






Berserk2 wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 8:32pm:

Albert, New Agers like yourself are continually making unwarranted assumptions about alternative approaches.  My definitions and explications, I believe, accurately portray New Agers as I've experienced them here and in public life.  But reply #22 does not label Roger, Matthew, or any specific poster as a New Ager. Why do you imagine that you have often contacted the real Jesus in astral realms, but show no evidence of trying to understand Him or contact Him in the places He Himself indicated He could be discovered--i. e. the Church?  If I understand you correctly, you worship neither God nor Jesus.  Yet Jesus insists that we worship God and gladly accepts the worship of His followers.  Do you really imagine that the ecstasy you have experienced in mystical encounters trumps the need to understand who the historical Jesus actually was and what His trusted eyewitness followers transmitted from Him and taught about Him?  I ask this because you seem to acknowledge that Jseus was in truth who He claimed to be.  Or have I misunderstood your position? Don

Don:

Regarding worshipping God, as you know, Jesus said to love thy lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul, and all thy mind. How can you completely love another being if you're in the worship mode? When you do so you put a barrier between yourself and that being. Shouldn't God be able to experience the same kind of intimacy that the rest of us experience? Would a being who lives completely according to love want to be regarded more highly than the beings he shares love with? To do so would be kind of egotistical.

I want God to be completely happy, and I appreciate greatly what he has done.  Because I believe he has the greatest good in mind, and knows how to achieve the greatest good, what he wills is important to me.

Think about it. If you were the first being to exist and you created many children to share love with, would you want them to worship you as if you were some kind of king, or would it be enough that they simply shared love, respect and humility with you, just as you share these qualities with them? Plus, if you understood that your children came from no other place than your own being, would you find it necessary to look down on them in some way, or would you realize that different parts of yourself have played different roles?

If a person truly lives according to principles such as love, humility, respect and grattitude, there is no need to add pretenses by making God out to be a being who desires to be worshiped.  Often people get into the worship mode, because they believe that loving God means that you have to fear him in some way. Love and fear don't go together.

Would I be a better teacher if I just pointed out that some of you guys here sound like those ladies on "Desperate Housewives"?

How do you learn to be transcendent by waggling your tongiues over Neale Donald Walsch?

Love isn't based on logic.

Exactly Lucy.

In addition the human intellect does extremely well when it comes to gathering and interpreting information, but it is incredibly poor at utilizing the logical process.

Being logical to any significant degree seems to be beyond human capability even though most of us believe we are much more logical than what we really are. In fact we are just barely rational much less logical, especially when it comes to the most important aspect of spiritual growth, our relationships with others.

Kathy

Lucy,

Desperate housewives is more centered around body matters then what I see here.

Information is presented. Opinions are posted. The topic might be expanded along the way. what does one do with it, if anything. Might make a difference as to what one chooses to do. Or not. Or somewhere inbetween.

I know both feet and doormats, they're loving what they do, and they're still here.

How can you completely love another being if you're in the worship mode? When you do so you put a barrier between yourself and that being.

Someone (who was trying to use the possibility of meeting Jesus to awe my pagan daughter) asked her what she'd do if she met Jesus face-to-face.  She said she'd give him a big hug.

I thought that showed about the right attitude.   :)

I have only read one of Neale Donald Walsh's books because my aunt read it first and found it confusing. She couldn't understand where Neale stopped and God began the conversation. So, I took the book and as I read it, highlighted all of God's "voice to Neale" in gold.
For the most part, I enjoyed the book and agreed with about 90 per cent of what was said. It gave a lot of hope.  
My husband and I watched the movie, also named Conversations with God. It was a biography of Neale Donald Walsch and how he came about to write the series of books.  It was very interesting.

As for all the rest, a person must find belief within ones self and follow that belief individually. Our lessons vary from person to person and our experiences all vary also.  
For all those who posted here, your INDIVIDUAL experiences and teaching are helpful to all who visit.  Sometimes one single sentence will change a life.  Love to All --- Carol Ann

Regardless of whether or not it is appropriate to claim that one is channeling God when one isn't doing so, hopefully Walsch's books have an overall positive effect rather than an overall negative effect.  If a person approaches his or any source of information with a cult like mentality, even a valid source, this isn't a good thing. We should always be free to figure things out for ourselves. A limiting belief system is a limiting belief system regardless of where it comes from.



identcat wrote on May 6^th, 2009 at 12:33pm:

I have only read one of Neale Donald Walsh's books because my aunt read it first and found it confusing. She couldn't understand where Neale stopped and God began the conversation. So, I took the book and as I read it, highlighted all of God's "voice to Neale" in gold. For the most part, I enjoyed the book and agreed with about 90 per cent of what was said. It gave a lot of hope.   My husband and I watched the movie, also named Conversations with God. It was a biography of Neale Donald Walsch and how he came about to write the series of books.  It was very interesting. As for all the rest, a person must find belief within ones self and follow that belief individually. Our lessons vary from person to person and our experiences all vary also.   For all those who posted here, your INDIVIDUAL experiences and teaching are helpful to all who visit.  Sometimes one single sentence will change a life.  Love to All --- Carol Ann