Copyrighted Logo

css menu by Css3Menu.com


 

Bruce's 5th book, a Home Study Course, is now available.
Books & Tapes by Bruce Moen
    Bruce's Blog now at http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/blog....

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 13
Send Topic Print
Nanci Danison's NDE (Read 119512 times)
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #30 - Jan 9th, 2014 at 3:34pm
 
First of all, I tried to be open-minded when I was reading CWG because just in case it actually does come from God I want to be respectful and responsible. Early on I found some philosophical points I find questionable.

For example, God (I will say “he” from now on) tells Walsch that fear is the opposite of love and that love can’t exist without fear.

My feeling is that God and any being who abides with him are able to experiences love completely without fear being present. Fear might present a perspective about love that one might think about, but it isn’t necessary in order for one to feel love and live according to it.

Not everything has to have an opposite. Hate is not love’s opposite. It is something one experiences when one becomes confused to an extent where one isn’t able to live according to love.

Fear can get in the way of love, but this doesn’t mean it is an opposite of love.

“He” tells Walsch that God created us so he could come to know himself.  We needed to be created so God could understand how magnificent he is. God perceives this through us.

I figure that God is a self-aware being, so he is able to be aware of himself and his magnificence without our help.

I don’t know for certain, but I basically believe that God created us so he wouldn’t be alone all by himself. It is also a matter of giving us the gift of life.

“He” tells Walsch that this World was created not so we can learn, but because it is the only way for our knowledge/concepts to become manifest. We have to experience before they can do so.

My feeling is that knowledge and experience aren’t as separate as “he” seems to indicate.  For example, we first experience love, and then we know about it. Love is more than a concept. Love was both experienced and understood before this physical World was created. I believe that life in this World helps both us and God “learn” about some of the possibilities that exist. Knowledge becomes manifest after we experience.

“He gives some analogies that within themselves make sense, but if you consider everything that is said together, some of these analogies might be misapplied.

Some of the things “he” says are hard to understand. I don’t know that the difficulty is the result of my lack of ability to understand.

Some of the things “he” says seem accurate. This is bound to happen. But what about the parts that don’t seem accurate?

I pasted below the parts of CWG I refer to above, so you can see for yourself what is actually said. If you reply to my post please be careful about quoting too much, because your post might end up being really long.

Some of the points discussed require a significant amount of time to discriminate thoroughly. Since there are so many pages, I wonder how many people feel rushed because they are anxious to read more, and as a result they don’t discriminate what they read as thoroughly as is needed.

----------------------------------
From CWG:

W: There are those who say that life is a school, that we are here to learn specific lessons, that once we “graduate” we can go on to larger pursuits, no longer shackled by the body. Is this correct?

“He”(again, I say "he" instead of "God"): It is another part of your mythology, based on human experience.

W: Life is not a school?

“He”: No.

W: We are not here to learn lessons?

“He”: No.

W: Then why are we here?

“He”: To remember, and re-create, Who You Are.

I have told you, over and over again. You do not believe Me. Yet that is well as it should be. For truly, if you do not create yourself as Who You Are, that you cannot be.

W: Okay, You’ve lost me. Let’s go back to this school bit. I’ve heard teacher after teacher tell us that life is a school. I’m frankly shocked to hear You deny that.

“He”: School is a place you go if there is something you do not know that you want to know. It is not a place you go if you already know a thing and simply want to experience your knowingness.

Life (as you call it) is an opportunity for you to know experientially what you already know conceptually. You need learn nothing to do this. You need merely remember what you already know, and act on it.

W: I’m not sure I understand.

“He”: Let’s start here. The soul—your soul—knows all there is to know all the time. There’s nothing hidden to it, nothing unknown. Yet knowing is not enough. The soul seeks to experience.

You can know yourself to be generous, but unless you do something which displays generosity, you have nothing but a concept. You can know yourself to be kind, but unless you do someone a kindness, you have nothing but an idea about yourself.

It is your soul’s only desire to turn its grandest concept about itself into its greatest experience. Until concept becomes experience, all there is is speculation. I have been speculating about Myself for a long time. Longer than you and I could collectively remember. Longer than the age of this universe times the age of the universe. You see, then, how young is—how new is—My experience of Myself!

W: You’ve lost me again. Your experience of Yourself?

“He”: Yes. Let me explain it to you this way:

In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itself—because All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, All That Is… was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not.

This is the great Is/Not Is to which mystics have referred from the beginning of time.

Now All That Is knew it was all there was—but this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experientially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent. Still, this was impossible, because the very term “magnificent” is a relative term. All That Is could not know what it felt like to be magnificent unless that which is not showed up. In the absence of that which is not, that which IS, is not.

Do you understand this?

W: I think so. Keep going.

“He”: Alright The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so It could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. The “Is-Not Is.” The Am-Not Am.

Still, the All of Everything chose to know Itself experientially.

This energy—this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone-else energy—chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within.

It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if It thus simply divided Itself into portions, each portion, being less than the whole, could look back on the rest of Itself and see magnificence.

And so All That Is divided Itself—becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither.

Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there—but which must exist for here and there to exist.

It is the nothing which holds the everything. It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts.

Can you understand this?

Are you following this?

W: I think I am, actually. Believe it or not, you have used such a clear illustration that I think I’m actually understanding this.

“He”: I’m going to go further. Now this nothing which holds the everything is what some people call God. Yet that is not accurate, either, for it suggests that there is something God is not—namely, everything that is not “nothing.” But I am All Things—seen and unseen—so this description of Me as the Great Unseen—the No-Thing, or the Space Between, an essentially Eastern mystical definition of God, is no more accurate than the essentially Western practical description of God as all that is seen. Those who believe that God is All That Is and All That Is Not, are those whose understanding is correct.

Now in creating that which is “here” and that which is “there,” God made it possible for God to know Itself. In the moment of this great explosion from within, God created relativity—the greatest gift God ever gave to Itself. Thus, relationship is the greatest gift God ever gave to you, a point to be discussed in detail later.

From the No-Thing thus sprang the Everything—a spiritual event entirely consistent, incidentally, with what your scientists call The Big Bang theory. As the elements of all raced forth, time was created, for a thing was first here, then it was there—and the period it took to get from here to there was measurable.

Just as the parts of Itself which are seen began to define themselves, “relative” to each other, so, too, did the parts which are unseen. God knew that for love to exist—and to know itself as pure love—its exact opposite had to exist as well. So God voluntarily created the great polarity—the absolute opposite of love—everything that love is not—what is now called fear. In the moment fear existed, love could exist as a thing that could be experienced.

It is this creation of duality between love and its opposite which humans refer to in their various mythologies as the birth of evil, the fall of Adam, the rebellion of Satan, and so forth.

Just as you have chosen to personify pure love as the character you call God, so have you chosen to personify abject fear as the character you call the devil.

Some on Earth have established rather elaborate mythologies around this event, complete with scenarios of battles and war, angelic soldiers and devilish warriors, the forces of good and evil, of light and dark.

This mythology has been mankind’s early attempt to understand, and tell others in a way they could understand, a cosmic occurrence of which the human soul is deeply aware, but of which the mind can barely conceive.

In rendering the universe as a divided version of Itself, God produced, from pure energy, all that now exists—both seen and unseen. In other words, not only was the physical universe thus created, but the metaphysical universe as well. The part of God which forms the second half of the Am/Not Am equation also exploded into an infinite number of units smaller than the whole. These energy units you would call spirits. In some of your religious mythologies it is stated that “God the Father” had many spirit children. This parallel to the human experiences of life multiplying Itself seems to be the only way the masses could be made to hold in reality the idea of the sudden appearance—the sudden existence—of countless spirits in the “Kingdom of Heaven.”

In this instance, your mythical tales and stories are not so far from ultimate reality—for the endless spirits comprising the totality of Me are, in a cosmic sense, My offspring.

My divine purpose in dividing Me was to create sufficient parts of Me so that I could know Myself experientially. There is only one way for the Creator to know Itself experientially as the Creator, and that is to create. And so I gave to each of the countless parts of Me (to all of My spirit children) the same power to create which I have as the whole.

This is what your religions mean when they say that you were created in the “image and likeness of God.” This doesn’t mean, as some have suggested, that our physical bodies look alike (although God can adopt whatever physical form God chooses for a particular purpose). It does mean that our essence is the same. We are composed of the same stuff. We ARE the “same stuff”! With all the same properties and abilities—including the ability to create physical reality out of thin air.

My purpose in creating you, My spiritual offspring, was for Me to know Myself as God. I have no way to do that save through you. Thus it can be said (and has been, many times) that My purpose for you is that you should know yourself as Me.

This seems so amazingly simple, yet it becomes very complex— because there is only one way for you to know yourself as Me, and that is for you first to know yourself as not Me.

Now try to follow this—fight to keep up—because this gets very subtle here. Are you ready?

W: I think so.

“He”: Good. Remember, you’ve asked for this explanation. You’ve waited for it for years. You’ve asked for it in layman’s terms, not theological doctrines or scientific theories.

W: Yes—I know what I’ve asked.

“He”: And having asked, so shall you receive.

Now, to keep things simple, I’m going to use your children of God mythological model as a basis for discussion, because it is a model with which you are familiar—and in many ways it is not that far off.

So let’s go back to how this process of self-knowing must work.

There is one way I could have caused all of My spiritual children to know themselves as parts of Me—and that was simply to tell them. This I did. But you see, it was not enough for Spirit to simply know Itself as God, or part of God, or children of God, or inheritors of the kingdom (or whatever mythology you want to use).

As I’ve already explained, knowing something, and experiencing it, are two different things. Spirit longed to know Itself experientially (just as I did!). Conceptual awareness was not enough for you. So I devised a plan. It is the most extraordinary idea in all the universe—and the most spectacular collaboration. I say collaboration because all of you are in it with Me.

Under the plan, you as pure spirit would enter the physical universe just created. This is because physicality is the only way to know experientially what you know conceptually. It is, in fact, the reason I created the physical cosmos to begin with—and the system of relativity which governs it, and all creation.

Once in the physical universe, you, My spirit children, could experience what you know of yourself—but first, you had to come to know the opposite. To explain this simplistically, you cannot know yourself as tall unless and until you become aware of short. You cannot experience the part of yourself that you call fat unless you also come to know thin.

Taken to ultimate logic, you cannot experience yourself as what you are until you’ve encountered what you are not. This is the purpose of the theory of relativity, and all physical life. It is by that which you are not that you yourself are defined.

Now in the case of the ultimate knowing—in the case of knowing yourself as the Creator—you cannot experience your Self as creator unless and until you create. And you cannot create yourself until you uncreate yourself. In a sense, you have to first “not be” in order to be. Do you follow?

W: I think…

“He”: Stay with it.

Of course, there is no way for you to not be who and what you are—you simply are that (pure, creative spirit), have been always, and always will be. So, you did the next best thing. You caused yourself to forget Who You Really Are.

Upon entering the physical universe, you relinquished your remembrance of yourself. This allows you to choose to be Who You Are, rather than simply wake up in the castle, so to speak.

It is in the act of choosing to be, rather than simply being told that you are, a part of God that you experience yourself as being at total choice, which is what, by definition, God is. Yet how can you have a choice about something over which there is no choice? You cannot not be My offspring no matter how hard you try—but you can forget.

You are, have always been, and will always be, a divine part of the divine whole, a member of the body. That is why the act of rejoining the whole, of returning to God, is called remembrance. You actually choose to remember Who You Really Are, or to join together with the various parts of you to experience the all of you—which is to say, the All of Me.

Your job on Earth, therefore, is not to learn (because you already know), but to re-member Who You Are. And to re-member who everyone else is. That is why a big part of your job is to remind others (that is, to re-mind them), so that they can re-member also.

All the wonderful spiritual teachers haw been doing just that. It is your sole purpose. That is to say, your soul purpose.

W: My God, this is so simple—and so… symmetrical. I mean, it all fits in! It all suddenly fits! I see, now, a picture I have never quite put together before.

“He:” Good. That is good. That is the purpose of this dialogue. You have asked Me for answers. I have promised I would give them to you. You will make of this dialogue a book, and you will render My words accessible to many people. It is part of your work. Now, you have many questions, many inquiries to make about life. We have here placed the foundation. We have laid the groundwork for other understandings. Let us go to these other questions. And do not worry. If there is something about what we’ve just gone through you do not thoroughly understand, it will all be clear to you soon enough.

W: There is so much I want to ask. There are so many questions. I suppose I should start with the big ones, the obvious ones. Like, why is the world in the shape it’s in?

“He”: Of all the questions man has asked of God, this is the one asked most often. From the beginning of time man has asked it. From the first moment to this you have wanted to know, why must it be like this?

The classic posing of the question is usually something like: If God is all-perfect and all-loving, why would God create pestilence and famine, war and disease, earthquakes and tornados and hurricanes and all manner of natural disaster, deep personal disappointment, and worldwide calamity?

The answer to this question lies in the deeper mystery of the universe and the highest meaning of life.

I do not show My goodness by creating only what you call perfection all around you. I do not demonstrate My love by not allowing you to demonstrate yours.

As I have already explained, you cannot demonstrate love until you can demonstrate not loving. A thing cannot exist without its opposite, except in the world of the absolute. Yet the realm of the absolute was not sufficient for either you or Me. I existed there, in the always, and it is from where you, too, have come.

In the absolute there is no experience, only knowing. Knowing is a divine state, yet the grandest joy is in being. Being is achieved only after experience. The evolution is this: knowing, experiencing, being. This is the Holy Trinity—the Triune that is God.

God the Father is knowing—the parent of all understandings, the begetter of all experience, for you cannot experience that which you do not know.

God the Son is experiencing—the embodiment, the acting out, of all that the Father knows of Itself, for you cannot be that which you have not experienced.

God the Holy Spirit is being—the disembodiment of all that the Son has experienced of Itself; the simple, exquisite is-ness possible only through the memory of the knowing and experiencing.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BobMoenroe
Ex Member


Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #31 - Jan 9th, 2014 at 4:33pm
 
Quote:
If he called his book Conversations with Myself, people would be more likely to be able to question what he wrote.

Recoverer, good thing he didn't call it The Bible. Conversation(s With The) Board would be better so that we could answer all the questions from readers coming here according to the ultimate truth.

Quote:
Sorry, I just have a visceral reaction when it comes to people like Walsch.  The shenanigans he's involved with just hit my hot buttons.

Rondele, have some of that chocolate cake that you recommended a while ago and eat it too. Or just some chocolate - coconut oil, raw cocoa powder, agave, salt and goji berries.

Quote:
No wonder his adherents defend him so intensely, in light of his anything goes philosophy.

Sprinkle the cake or chocolate with unconditional love and, well, anything goes so who cares.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #32 - Jan 9th, 2014 at 4:45pm
 
BobMoenroe:

If there was a guy who was Robert Monroe and Bruce Moen packed into one, I might be able to trust him completely. 

I'd think that way of you, except that perhaps your name doesn't represent an actual combination of Robert and Bruce, just as CWG might not actually mean Conversations with "God."

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

Recoverer, good thing he didn't call it The Bible. Conversation(s With The) Board would be better so that we could answer all the questions from readers coming here according to the ultimate truth.

Quote:
Sorry, I just have a visceral reaction when it comes to people like Walsch.  The shenanigans he's involved with just hit my hot buttons.

Rondele, have some of that chocolate cake that you recommended a while ago and eat it too. Or just some chocolate - coconut oil, raw cocoa powder, agave, salt and goji berries.

Quote:
No wonder his adherents defend him so intensely, in light of his anything goes philosophy.

Sprinkle the cake or chocolate with unconditional love and, well, anything goes so who cares.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Rondele
Ex Member


Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #33 - Jan 9th, 2014 at 5:10pm
 
If he called his book Conversations with Myself, people would be more likely to be able to question what he wrote.

Of course, if he admitted what he was really doing, his followers would need to find a new Guru.  Preferably one who would tell them what they want to hear.  And there are plenty of them out there.

R
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
heisenberg69
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 504
England
Gender: male
Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #34 - Jan 10th, 2014 at 2:44am
 
Forgive me, I'm not into religion bashing, but I am genuinely puzzled at something. I read the bible, cover to cover, about 20 years ago and was continually amazed  at how violent and nasty the Old Testament actually was; with Jehovah regularly smiting thousands of Canaanites seemingly for fun. Yet, many people around the world, over centuries, have no problem believing that the Old Testament prophets regularly communicated with God, a figure often cruel and capricious. At least Walsch's God is loving and forgiving ! Yet people feel anger toward Walsch; can someone please explain this.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Rondele
Ex Member


Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #35 - Jan 10th, 2014 at 12:00pm
 
heisenberg69 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 2:44am:
Forgive me, I'm not into religion bashing, but I am genuinely puzzled at something. I read the bible, cover to cover, about 20 years ago and was continually amazed  at how violent and nasty the Old Testament actually was; with Jehovah regularly smiting thousands of Canaanites seemingly for fun. Yet, many people around the world, over centuries, have no problem believing that the Old Testament prophets regularly communicated with God, a figure often cruel and capricious. At least Walsch's God is loving and forgiving ! Yet people feel anger toward Walsch; can someone please explain this.


So your point is, the God of the OT was cruel and did bad things, but the God with whom Walsch supposedly chatted with said good things that were warm and comforting. Therefore it's confusing as to why some of us don't approve of Walsch?

Well, Jesus supposedly was the author of ACIM, but some of us question the teachings in that book and strongly doubt that the Jesus of the Bible and the author of the book were the same person.  In fact, there are many channelers who claim they are in contact with Jesus.  There are probably as many versions of Jesus as there are people who claim they channel him.

Speaking strictly for myself, I believe Walsch is a con artist. He was no more talking with God than Jesus was speaking to Helen Schucman.  He has his crowd of followers and is enjoying the fruits of being their Guru. 

If you tell people what they want to hear, and tell them it's not you but God Himself that is saying these things, you have bought yourself a gold star in the constellation of Gurus.

Do some research on Walsch.  The fact that the God of the Bible and Walsch's god are totally different doesn't automatically confer credibility on Walsch!

R
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
recoverer
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male
Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #36 - Jan 10th, 2014 at 1:29pm
 
Heisenberg:

My response is that it isn't as if the Bible was written by the hand of God and then it fell out of the sky.

Rather, the various chapters were written by different men, men decided which chapters would be included, and men made various translations. 

This being the case, certainly it is possible that at times God has been misrepresented by the Bible. For example, some of the things Moses was supposedly told by God (e.g.; animal sacrifice protocols), it hard for me to believe that they came from God.

I forgot which chapter, but supposedly a lady is impure after she gives birth so she has to be kept separate from people afterwards, and animals need to be sacrificed. For 4 weeks if she gave birth to a boy, and for 8 weeks if she gave birth to a girl. Why twice as long for a girl? Eve sure made it hard for women.

If certain animals aren't available for sacrifice, then other named animals should be sacrificed instead.

I don't remember the exact details, but they are basically as above. I find it hard to believe that God gave Moses such instructions.

We always have to you our discrimination (and common sense) whenever we read something.

We aren't moronic bafoons when we do so, we are wise.

heisenberg69 wrote on Jan 10th, 2014 at 2:44am:
Forgive me, I'm not into religion bashing, but I am genuinely puzzled at something. I read the bible, cover to cover, about 20 years ago and was continually amazed  at how violent and nasty the Old Testament actually was; with Jehovah regularly smiting thousands of Canaanites seemingly for fun. Yet, many people around the world, over centuries, have no problem believing that the Old Testament prophets regularly communicated with God, a figure often cruel and capricious. At least Walsch's God is loving and forgiving ! Yet people feel anger toward Walsch; can someone please explain this.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
a channel
Ex Member


Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #37 - Jan 10th, 2014 at 2:55pm
 
Re: Nanci Danison, well i've recently watched a lot of her video interviews, etc, and overall i found them interesting, credible, enjoyable, and rang of truth often.

  That said, there were some things i didn't quite agree or "resonate" with.  Some of these i think are important and major, so will point some out.

  For example, she talks about how karma doesn't exist at all.  I would be the first to say that karma as usually defined doesn't exist, and that it's not very well understood or explained from a lot of sources, but ime with other lives and with guidance, i've been shown that some kind or form of karma very much does exist. 

   It's not necessarily linear and equal and opposite reactions and all that, but rather it's the Source nature within us, which seeks balance and atonement for the negative intentions (especially) and effects towards others.

   She keeps saying, "there's no judgement", etc and yes, while what she calls "Source" (inaccurate, because she is referring to just ONE of many of the Creator Beings) is unconditionally loving, etc the judgement doesn't come from outside us as much as from within us, from that core of purity and love, which knows that anything less is unreal and needs to be transformed.

  Part of that transformation process plays out in choosing other lives wherein we approximate the conditions, experiences, and feelings/reactions we meeted out to or influenced others to have in other lifetimes.  Sometimes it's just as simple as "being there" for someone, during a difficult time for them, whom we mistreated before.  Nor is always individual centric. Karma is more with self than with others in the specific, so it doesn't necessarily have to involve the same individuals.

  The way out of this process is by attuning to and choosing unconditional love more and more to the extent a human can be influenced too. 

  And the being she calls Source, well i have a lot of experience with Him too (tis that Disk whom "Christ" belongs to) and He certainly wants us to treat each other better, to improve, to attune to unconditional love more.  He does not judge or punish us for not doing so, but He very much hopes, wishes, and tries to help us along in that direction especially when we ask for help with this.

  He is exquisitely sensitized to our suffering, and it does affect and hurt Him too.  He will not ever try to force growth or remembrance, but to think He is totally passive in all this process is to so miss the mark, it's not funny. 

  As Nanci admits herself, she went far off the path of her old soul, expanded Light being nature would generally incline, and therefore as a channel of info, she's not the clearest of same though she is regaining and tuning in to it more and more. 

  I also think she has some repressed guilt or perhaps self dissatisfaction in this area, and is quick to form belief systems that say, "anything goes" because it's more comfortable for her considering her recent pattern. 

  There is a lot of truth to her accounts, but there is some skewing going on too. 

  This is to be expected of any individual or source not fully consciously One with THE Source, PUL and the Whole.  To perceive purely, you have to BE pure.  That's one of those "principles" that the Co-Creator God built into this larger Universe both physical and nonphysical so called.  This principle as been referred to in various ways, the Law of Like attracts and begets Like is one of them. The Law of Resonation is another. 

It's an automatic, built in type of big picture physics almost, and there is no going around it. 

   

   
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
heisenberg69
Super Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 504
England
Gender: male
Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #38 - Jan 11th, 2014 at 4:47am
 
Rondele:

no I don't think we should believe Walsch just because his God is 'warm and comforting' but I do think that believing in that type of God would have been a lot less damaging over the years in terms of repression and human suffering. I think its absolutely right to show discernment with Walsch but I think its also right to show discernment with anyone else one uses as a source too, including critics. For example if we wanted to know if Obama was doing well we wouldn't just go and poll the local tea party branch or in assessing Christ's influence on the world we wouldn't just go and ask Richard Dawkins for his opinion !  People have opinions but those opinions are not necessarily balanced or fair.

As for treating Walsch as a guru, I don't believe its healthy to treat anyone as a guru because that means handing over self-responsibility to someone else; but if there are value in Walsch's words then they stand on their own merits regardless of the source. I think that much of the problem stems from Walsch using the loaded term of 'God' but typing God into the Amazon search bar yields 281,427 results, 281,427 ! This includes such titles such as 'How to Hear the Voice of God ', 'God According to God: A Scientist Discovers We've Been Wrong About God All Along' and 'God: A Biography' amongst many, many others with similar catchy titles. In other words Walsch is unexceptional in his use of the word 'God'. Throughout the ages humans have been saying God wants this, God hates people who do that, i.e. claiming a direct line to the almighty.

I will be doing research on Walsch when I go to hear him speak when he is down my way in May and maybe have a question for him in the Q and A session.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
carl
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 122
Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #39 - Jan 13th, 2014 at 12:32am
 
Nancy Danison is a new age fictional writer...Just check out all her college-university degree's? which also include a Law degree!? She even has a 'private detective' license! Don't take my word for this! Just use google and check out her own websites on Youtube and Facebook, and wherever else! Blessings and Love, Carl
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lights of Love
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 881
Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #40 - Jan 13th, 2014 at 11:20am
 
As I mentioned earlier, I accidentally bought Danison's third book, "Backwards Beliefs" instead of her first book, but now I'm glad that happened.  I just finished reading it this weekend and I have to say that it was one of the most interesting books I've ever read.  Apparently she viewed what she calls a "documentary" of earth's history and that's what the third book is about.  It's very well written, almost like poetry in her descriptions of what she viewed.  There's not much in it about the other aspects of her NDE, so that's why I still want to get the first book, too.

I didn't view it as new age at all.  I think she spoke of exactly what she viewed, and how some of what she viewed was against her own beliefs and how she was disturbed by it.  I must admit I felt some resistance as well to certain things regarding the history of Christianity and I'm not knowledgable enough to express an opinion about what she saw.  I'm going to leave it at that.

K
Back to top
 

Tread softly through life with a tender heart and a gentle, understanding spirit.
 
IP Logged
 
Rondele
Ex Member


Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #41 - Jan 13th, 2014 at 11:56am
 
Hi Kathy-

By any chance did she say that Jesus was not crucified?

Or any other thing re. Jesus that would contradict traditional teachings?

R
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Lights of Love
Super Member
*****
Offline


Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 881
Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #42 - Jan 13th, 2014 at 12:15pm
 
Hi Roger,

I don't recall her mentioning anything at all about Jesus' crucifixion.  She said his life was not detailed in the documentary.  She quotes a few other NDE'rs regarding Jesus.  Mainly she concluded that Jesus was not the one who started the Church, but that Paul was.  As far as I know this is accurate. 

The start of the church is the main discussion of 3 or 4 chapters and she quotes from authorities in that field, but I'm not qualified to say how much accuracy there is or isn't.

K
Back to top
 

Tread softly through life with a tender heart and a gentle, understanding spirit.
 
IP Logged
 
Rondele
Ex Member


Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #43 - Jan 13th, 2014 at 1:03pm
 
Thanks Kathy.  I think we need Don to weigh in, would be nice if he read Danison's book!  Would really like to get his take on it.

R
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
a channel
Ex Member


Re: Nanci Danison's NDE
Reply #44 - Jan 13th, 2014 at 1:35pm
 
carl wrote on Jan 13th, 2014 at 12:32am:
Nancy Danison is a new age fictional writer...Just check out all her college-university degree's? which also include a Law degree!? She even has a 'private detective' license! Don't take my word for this! Just use google and check out her own websites on Youtube and Facebook, and wherever else! Blessings and Love, Carl   


  Hi Carl,

  She mentions all the above in some of her interviews, so it's not like she is trying to keep this hidden.  She also mentions that during her NDE like experience, she realized how off track in some ways she had been in her life, as far as being a "money grubbing lawyer" etc. 

   If she's a "fake", then she is a very, very good actor, because in a number of interviews when she talks about certain things, like merging with Source (actually the Creator Being of this Universe/larger reality), she spontaneously starts to tear up and you can plainly see and feel the depth of her emotion about it.  At least i could, and it seemed/felt very genuine.   

    Why does everything have to be so black and white?  It's good to have some skepticism and to question, but perhaps it's limiting and unhealthy to have pathological cynicism and suspicion?

Why is it so hard to believe that she had an experience and feels a need to raise awareness about these realities, but in being human and not pure she doesn't necessarily perceive and get everything 100% accurate? 



 


 
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 13th, 2014 at 4:09pm by N/A »  
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 13
Send Topic Print


This is a Peer Moderated Forum. You can report Posting Guideline violations.