"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

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,

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


  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.    

  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.

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


  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.

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.

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:

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: