Roger:

I read a fair amount of CWG a while back, but it has so many pages, I called it quits. I'm going to try to read some more.

Walsch might've read ACIM along with other books.


rondele wrote on Jan 7^th, 2014 at 2:26pm:

Even though I've never read the book, I'm pretty sure CWG is not an actual conversation with God.  Likely more of a conversation with what I'll call the author's inner guidance which is of course fallible because of personal bias either on the part of the author or if "channelled" personal bias of whoever that was.  I wonder does the author actually state or believe it was a conversation with God?  Or is the name of the book more like a "clever" theme / title for the book?

I think the key to understanding Walsch's philosophy is the idea that all actions come from a particular level of consciousness. So Hitler's actions came from a 'Hitler' level of consciousness i.e. one of fear and paranoia; from Hitler's perspective his actions were logical and justified i.e. the goal of a 'great' Germany. As people grow in consciousness and become more aware their actions inevitably change. An example of this could be the change of the angry, bitter young Nelson Mandela to the elder statesman espousing forgiveness of his oppressors. For Walsch  the key is conscious evolution and the purpose of life is 'to recreate yourself anew in the next grandest version of the greatest vision ever you held about Who You Are'.

Regarding God's attitude to 'evil' CWG uses the analogy of a parent's attitude to their children; we don't regard our 3 year old as inferior to our 10 year old  because the 3 year old can't do up his laces- when he grows up he will be able to do so too.

Like ACIM Walsch believes the separation between us and God to be an illusion and so 'We are all One'. Therefore it is probably more accurate to say he is communing with the 'God Aspect' within himself i.e. the highest concept of God consciousness he can currently hold. Because it comes through his 'filter' it (his message) is by definition not perfect but an evolving one. Because of this his message is not 'The Truth' but the truth as he can currently conceive it.

Hi Recoverer,

its a long time since I read the CWG series but I think I am understanding it correctly. I think the really radical part of what Walsch is saying is that we and God are one. He uses this phrase 'We are God Godding' i.e. doing the business of God. This means that we are extremely powerful creationary beings. When people find it blasphemous that Walsch claims to talk to God he would reply that we all talk to God. The key to understanding him is to realise that because of differing levels of consciousness they seem like different Gods ! .Its almost like as you change ,your God changes; so the God of Hitler seems like a different God to Jesus but because the awareness and understanding of Hitler is so much less than Jesus's the God is radically different in conception. Essentially he doesn't believe in a set apart God, we are all sons (and daughters) of God.

Basically its a form of panentheism which is defined by Wikipedia as ' a belief system which posits that the divine (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force[1]) interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it.' I think its important to understand that many people from different religions and none have believed (a glance at the wiki page will confirm it) this so it is not just Walsch on a limb although I've never heard it expressed in the way he does before.

I remember as I read it thinking of how it would annoy a lot of people (indeed some of it annoyed me !) but I think it should inspire better moral behaviour not worse, using the ' recreate yourself anew in the next grandest version of the greatest vision ever you held about Who You Are' principle. Another of Walsch's catchy aphorisms (he has lots !) is 'what would love have us do now ?'. So it is very much a love-based and 'service to others' doctrine.

'Of course when I speak in this way I don't mean that God is like an old man in the sky'

Recoverer- I've read enough posts of yours to know that you don't think that ! But wouldn't it be easier sometimes to believe in an old man in the sky telling us what to: no tricky decisions to make just obey the rules and do what you're told, take our punishments when we disobey and heavenly rewards (hopefully) when we obey !

http://spiritualityisnoexcuse.wordpress.com/category/neale-donald-walsch/

He also has a history of plagarism:

http://blog.oregonlive.com/steveduin/2009/01/the_truth_and_neale_donald_wal.html

No wonder his CWG had God saying almost the same words and phrases in ACIM.

Now he practically has a cult following. I was so disgusted by his book that it found its way into the nearest trash can.

R

Heisenberg:

Regarding the plagiarism part, Candy Chand's article appeared in Clarity magazine in 1999. Walsch posted the same story as his own on his website in 2009. He said it is based on what happened with his son 20 years ago (1989?).

Walsch said,  "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.”

I find his explanation puzzling.  Since he at one point claimed it happened with his son in 1989,  why did he wait until after 1999 to start telling it? If it's such a great story, one would think that he would start telling it right away. CWG came out in 1995 so this might relate.

If he initially told it as Candy Chand's story, the repetition of doing so would've implanted in his memory that the story came from her. This being the case, how did the part of Candy Chand suddenly disssapear from his memory? Was it like, one day he told the story as if it was Candy's story, and then the next time he told the story he did so as if it is was his own?

Now all of this doesn't prove that he didn't receive information from God, it just adds doubt about his honesty.

If one doesn't actually receive information from God I believe it is wrong to claim that one does. It is disrespectful to the one who is misrepresented and to the people who are misled.

Regarding the later, if people conclude that the information comes from God, then they are likely to conclude that it couldn't be wrong because how could information that comes from God be wrong? Therefore, to the extent Walsch's information is wrong, false concepts get imbedded within a person's mind. Until a person reaches the point where he (or she) can question such concepts, he will be misled and limited accordingly.

If he called his book Conversations with Myself, people would be more likely to be able to question what he wrote.

Earlier on this thread I wrote that I'm going to read CWG and look for factual points (e.g., false historical or scientific information) that can be debunked. Early on I found philosophical points that I feel I need to address right away even though they aren't factual points.  I will post about these philosophical points later.

Kathy:

Thank you for sharing about your recent reading experience.


heisenberg69 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

Roger:

I believe you are right to get upset about it.

CWG says:

"God (or whoever): All attack is a call for help.

Walsch: I read that in A Course in Miracles.

Whoever: I put it there."

Funny thing is, as Heisenberg said, ACIM and CWG contradict each other about some key points.




rondele wrote on Jan 9^th, 2014 at 2:19pm: