Conversations with God

[DrFree]

I just finished reading Neale Donald Walsch's Conversations with God, Book 1. (Putnam, 1996. ISBN 0-399-14278-9).

My copy is littered with the little plastic flags that I use to mark interesting (i.e., absolutely right, absolutely wrong, doubtful, in need of extended conversation) passages. In other words the whole book is worth a lot of conversation.

Is there anyone in the Forum who has read or is reading this book? Are you interested in a conversation about Conversations with God?

 

[iBrian]

It would be interesting to see what the replies are, and what people's responses where to reading the book.

I did see it in a shop one time and flicked through out of interest - but the way the supposed replies from God were written seemed very casual, as if God were nothing more than some next-door neighbour who had a barbecue every other Saturday and drank Budweiser.

From what little I saw, it seemed less "Conversations with God" as much as a conversation with himself - the author asking his common-sense side of himself, and attributing the replies to God because he was unable to rationalise that part of himself as himself.

2c.

 

[DrFree]

You can take the frame story as seriously as you want. (Ask yourself: how would God communicate with me in a form I would believe?) And certainly the characterisation of the contents as a conversation or dialog is somewhat a stretch. Nonetheless, there seems to be a an interesting and refreshing novelty novelty in Walsch's theology.

 

[At_the_Wellspring]

I have also read the book (all three 'Conversations' books anyway). I just randomly picked it up in a bookstore and started reading... it intrigued me (plus it was on sale...) so I got it and kinda got hooked I guess.

I personally found the book extremely enlightening, it helped me to 'relax' into my spirituality/ myself I guess. And while I know its not 'wise' to take one source and worship it as absolute truth beyond all others, a lot of it made sense to me and answered some questions that had been plaguing/ irritating me.

I've since recommended it to quite a few people (none of whom have actually got around to borrowing it yet...). My sister started reading it but didn't like it, as she said it 'personified' God too much or defined his character in too specific rather than an elusive/ mysterious way. Different strokes for different folks I guess. I've heard some Christians warn against reading it, as it is misleading/ dodgy/ perhaps even evil.

 

[presser_kun]

I read book one years ago, when it first debuted...and at least volume two, perhaps even three...or it was on my list...Do I sound vague enough? It was a long time ago.

The author's take on God was/is interesting. Kind of reminds me now of an alternate Celestine Prophecy for casual drinkers (even though Walsch's God doesn't drink).

I did like, as I recall, the willingness of God to simultaneously challenge and tolerate the author's life assumptions.

Well, I'm officially rambling. Hope these thoughts are at least not harmful. (There is this bit, somewhere, about negative knowledge -- hearing it causes one to know less than before -- I think my fifth grade math teacher had this ability...)

Cheers and peace,

press

 

[Wendigo]

Im not one to personify God, so I was a unmoved with Walsch's God. ITs been years since I read it, so I forget. How exactly did he explain his workings with God, was it automatic writing? his own musings? a voice?
Im more apt to believe its 'conversations with himself', his alter ego maybe, or even a/his spirit guide. And though I dont give God human attributes like personality, I do think God does talk to us, but not in our language, with words. Lower spirits can though, so maybe Walsch has mistaken these for God. And these lower spirits can, and Do lie.

 

[DrFree]

I'm not sure it's worthwhile discussing the frame story that gets Walsch into the "conversation." I'd rather focus on the relationship between God and me / you / us that is described in the conversation.

For example, God says,

There are those who say that I have given you free will, yet these same people claim that if you do not obey Me, I will send you to hell. What kind of free will is that? Does this not make a mockery of God -- to say nothing of any sort of true relationship between us?

[Book 1, p. 39]
​

This is only one passage in a continuing theme: it is not our task to obey God; it is our task to choose our future. And we can't pass the buck for our decisions back to God's will.

Such a concept seems quite contrary to the ethics commonly presented by the Children of Abraham. On the other hand it strikes a strongly positive chord with my adopted Unitarian Universalist faith.

What are your thoughts?

 

[wil]

This is only one passage in a continuing theme: it is not our task to obey God; it is our task to choose our future. And we can't pass the buck for our decisions back to God's will....Such a concept seems quite contrary to the ethics commonly presented by the Children of Abraham. On the other hand it strikes a strongly positive chord with my adopted Unitarian Universalist faith.

I think it is a strong statement about choice, pure and simple. Not only it is not our requirement to obey God, nor is it our requirement to obey the principles of any religious tenent or of any of man's laws. However the consequences of same are our doing.

We are not punished for the sin, but by the sin. Call it what you may, our actions and thoughts speak for themselves and will haunt us as we allow them. God gave us a world that is open and allows all....we get to dig our own ditch.

 

[Quahom1]

I think it is a strong statement about choice, pure and simple. Not only it is not our requirement to obey God, nor is it our requirement to obey the principles of any religious tenent or of any of man's laws. However the consequences of same are our doing.

We are not punished for the sin, but by the sin. Call it what you may, our actions and thoughts speak for themselves and will haunt us as we allow them. God gave us a world that is open and allows all....we get to dig our own ditch.

How about the man with no concience? As with everything else in life (that we have observed, physical, scientific, emotional, and yes even supernatural), there are rules. When we choose to break them, we pay the price. Hence we pay for committing the "sin", not by the sin. In otherwords, even if we refuse to feel guilt, justice is served when we are caught. Nature does not care whether we accept blame or not. Neither does society. Both met out swift justice. Only God hesitates to see if we "repent."

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[akbar]

DrFree,

Many friends on this forum know that I am a farmer from Punjab, Pakistan with an ordinory education, have never been abroad and haven't read many books and I may not have read the book you mentioned.
I am interested in this word Unitarian Universalist but I don't know any details about it. Your name DrFree also attracts me and I say,
"Free your thoughts and you are, "Out of religion". Meditate on universe and nature and you are,"In spirtuality".
I am illustrating my faith through my topics and replies as I believe that the God is the God of universe, the God of mankind not of religions, communities or groups and that unlike religions faith in the God is neither a heritage nor an inheritance.

I could not open your attached file which you sent me under my topic, "The God and moralities". Perhaps it is my computer's fault as it is not a new one. I would like to communicate with you.

 

[Quahom1]

DrFree,

Many friends on this forum know that I am a farmer from Punjab, Pakistan with an ordinory education, have never been abroad and haven't read many books and I may not have read the book you mentioned.
I am interested in this word Unitarian Universalist but I don't know any details about it. Your name DrFree also attracts me and I say,
"Free your thoughts and you are, "Out of religion". Meditate on universe and nature and you are,"In spirtuality".
I am illustrating my faith through my topics and replies as I believe that the God is the God of universe, the God of mankind not of religions, communities or groups and that unlike religions faith in the God is neither a heritage nor an inheritance.

I could not open your attached file which you sent me under my topic, "The God and moralities". Perhaps it is my computer's fault as it is not a new one. I would like to communicate with you.

As per your request...

Unitarian Universalism (UU or UUism) is a theologically liberal Liberal may or may not refer to:

Politics:

• Liberalism, the ideology.
• American Liberalism, a political trend in the USA.
• Political Progressivism, a political ideology that is for change, often associated with liberal movements.
• Liberty, in a classical sense, a government or political party associated with ideals of high individual freedom, etc.

, inclusive religion Religion (see etymology below) —sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief. In the course of the development of religion, it has taken many forms in various cultures and individuals.
..... formed by the merger of Unitarian and Universalist organizations in the mid 20th century. UUs generally: cherish creativity, freedom, and compassion; embrace diversity and interconnectedness; and, promote personal spiritual growth and justice making through worship, fellowship, personal experience, social action, deeds and education. While one UU may differ from another in personal creed, the term UU is a distinct theological signifier and Unitarianism Historic Unitarianism believed in the oneness of God as opposed to traditional Christian belief in the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Historic Unitarians believed in the moral authority, but not the deity, of Jesus. Unitarians are often identified through the ages as free thinkers and dissenters, evolving their beliefs in the direction of freedom, tolerance, rationalism, and humanism.
or Universalism Universalism refers to concepts and issues which are said to be "universal" in appeal —i.e. trancending any existing localizing boundaries. The term may refer to:

• In comparative religion, universalism is the belief that all religions are "equal roads to heaven," although the adherent may be practically limited to choosing only one religious system, or certain aspects of a few religions.

should not be confused or interchanged with Unitarian Universalism.

 

[wil]

How about the man with no concience? As with everything else in life (that we have observed, physical, scientific, emotional, and yes even supernatural), there are rules. When we choose to break them, we pay the price. Hence we pay for committing the "sin", not by the sin. In otherwords, even if we refuse to feel guilt, justice is served when we are caught. Nature does not care whether we accept blame or not. Neither does society. Both met out swift justice. Only God hesitates to see if we "repent."

exactly. When man finds out you broke a law (like running a stop light) you get a ticket. When nature finds out...well it doesn't matter...unless a car is coming from the opposite way and nature says two objects can't occupy the same space...so one is illiminated...nature's retribution is swift as well. Where as God could essentially care less. This is your life, your soul, your growth we are talking about, man has created rules, ettiquette, nature it's gravitional and physical rules...break them as you will. Sins...with or without conscience the punishment comes...but not from some anthropormorphic being deciding to send locusts or lightining bolts...but eventually from that conscience you don't have...you will either gain one or gravitate to others without conscience and suffer their fate, or man's or nature's laws will catch up to you.

The whole system has been created and the game is afoot, no need for God to step in...let the play resume. Now lets say God is busy worrying about the universe...keeping track of who is naughty and nice in his excel spreadsheet...don't you think he might be busy over here where to galaxies the size of the milky way are both running the stop light sucking each others solar systems out of their place, removing planets from their orbits, eliminating potentially billions of billions of life forms simultaneously...and he is going to worry about what transgression on this happy little blue orb basking in the sun?

 

[Quahom1]

exactly. When man finds out you broke a law (like running a stop light) you get a ticket. When nature finds out...well it doesn't matter...unless a car is coming from the opposite way and nature says two objects can't occupy the same space...so one is illiminated...nature's retribution is swift as well. Where as God could essentially care less. This is your life, your soul, your growth we are talking about, man has created rules, ettiquette, nature it's gravitional and physical rules...break them as you will. Sins...with or without conscience the punishment comes...but not from some anthropormorphic being deciding to send locusts or lightining bolts...but eventually from that conscience you don't have...you will either gain one or gravitate to others without conscience and suffer their fate, or man's or nature's laws will catch up to you.

The whole system has been created and the game is afoot, no need for God to step in...let the play resume. Now lets say God is busy worrying about the universe...keeping track of who is naughty and nice in his excel spreadsheet...don't you think he might be busy over here where to galaxies the size of the milky way are both running the stop light sucking each others solar systems out of their place, removing planets from their orbits, eliminating potentially billions of billions of life forms simultaneously...and he is going to worry about what transgression on this happy little blue orb basking in the sun?

Except God is the author of nature (and the rules), and is the author of society (and the rules), so what makes one think God does not have rules that man must abide by as well?

Let's make God's rules more personal. One's body functions at peak proficiency when the appropriate nutrients and excercise and emotional and mental stimulation are applied. Yes? God said "Don't be a drunkard (e.g. addict). Why? Because the rules state that the body can't handle that kind of abuse, and will shut down.

Then we have to deal with the ramifications of deliberately causing our bodies to shut down. In short we have to answer to God for our choices. True He didn't stop us, but true He warned us...now we must defend ourselves to the creator for the damage we deliberately did to His creation.

Ever notice we have two of most of what we need?...except for that which we must absolutely depend upon for survival? Why is that?

God gave us a gift my friend. Our choice is to make the best use of it, or throw it away, or bury it. You make an excellent point in your view of the galactic responsiblities of God (or universal if you wish). While the Master is away, we are charged with being "Good Stewards" over what we have been given. He expects us to conduct ourselves wisely and with prudence, while He is away. I personally don't think He is away...just watching, and ready to help, if we'd only ask...

my thoughts

v/r

Q

 

[wil]

Except God is the author of nature (and the rules), and is the author of society (and the rules), so what makes one think God does not have rules that man must abide by as well?

agreed...on all counts. I feel the punishment is meted out right here right now, by nature or by our conscience. As I indicated I'm just not buying into the hamburger universe w/God keeping tabs and worrying about our indescretions...

Spirit set the operation in motion, doesn't need to keep butting in. Perfection is creating itself.

 

[Quahom1]

agreed...on all counts. I feel the punishment is meted out right here right now, by nature or by our conscience. As I indicated I'm just not buying into the hamburger universe w/God keeping tabs and worrying about our indescretions...

Spirit set the operation in motion, doesn't need to keep butting in. Perfection is creating itself.

But God is merciful where justice is often deserved...

v/r

Q

 

[DrFree]

I think that Wil and Quahom1 have expressed the essential issue:

We are not punished for the sin, but by the sin. Call it what you may, our actions and thoughts speak for themselves and will haunt us as we allow them. God gave us a world that is open and allows all....we get to dig our own ditch.

versus

How about the man with no concience? As with everything else in life (that we have observed, physical, scientific, emotional, and yes even supernatural), there are rules. When we choose to break them, we pay the price. Hence we pay for committing the "sin", not by the sin. In otherwords, even if we refuse to feel guilt, justice is served when we are caught. Nature does not care whether we accept blame or not. Neither does society. Both met out swift justice. Only God hesitates to see if we "repent."

The question is whether God want obedience or morality. Or if you don't like God-talk, is morality a matter of obedience. I'm inclined to think that obedience is something we require of children (for their protection and edification) while (or so that) they learn to be moral. A moral person chooses because the action and its consequences are right, i.e., they take into account the consequences on everyone. Such actions conform to the spirit of the Golden Rule, whether you formulate it as "love your neighbor as yourself' or "do unto others as you would have them to unto you" or the Wiccan "An it do no harm, do as you will". This rule doesn't tell you what to do; it's a meta-rule that you use to assess what you do.

People who make their decisions based on profit and loss, reward and punishment, heaven and hell, aren't being particularly moral. They're being practical. Unfortunately, our concept of risk is not very well developed, so we're not particularly adept at these decisions, especially since most of the important consequences of our actions depend on the choices of others as well. We do create our futures, but not individually. We concurrently, jointly co-create our common futures.

Since people are generally poor assessors of benefit and risk, if they really are choosing based only on that calculation, they are untrustworthy. Reliable people make their choices within the boundaries of loving relationships.

Wil's observation "We are not punished for the sin, but by the sin" is similar to what Plato said in The Republic, "The price they [i.e., evil people] pay is the life they lead." Although we might play around with the idea that the man with no conscience somehow has an advantage. Perhaps by some measures such a person seems more successful. But the price he pays is his ability to have a meaningful relationship with other people or with God. He is alone and alienated. Many of us might like the physical rewards that sometimes accrue to such a person. Few would choose his life.

 

[DrFree]

As the lawyer played by Paul Newman in the movie The Verdict said to the judge, "If you're going to try my case for me, your honor, at least try not to lose it!" I fear that Quahom1's reply to Akbar about Unitarian Universalism leaves a lot to be desired.

Q is right that Unitarianism emerged, most explicitly in Transylvania, only a century after Vlad Dracul, as a heresy in conflict with the trinitarianism of the Roman Catholic church and nearly all of the flavors of Protestantism that were fighting it out in Sixteenth Century Europe. It was quickly forced underground, after producing Sigismund II of Transylvania as the only Unitarian king in history.

Unitarianism re-emerged in 18th and 19th Century America with such notables as John Adams, Louisa May Alcott, William Ellery Channing, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Herman Melville, and Deniel Webster. (See http://harvardsquarelibrary.org/UIA%20Online/.) Their essential message was freedom of thought in an age (not unlike ours) when religions tended to impose doctrine on their adherents and hellfire on their opponents.

Universalism emerged in the 18th Century with the message that all people are saved; none would go to Hell. As Thomas Starr King once quipped, "Universalists believe that God is too good to damn people to Hell; Unitarians believe that people are too good to be damned." [Words not exact.]

In 1961 the national Unitarian and Universalist Organizations merged into the Unitarian Universalist Association. UUs ("you-you", as we call ourselves) are commonly charged with not believing anything. A better characterization is that we don't impose any doctrine on our members. Rather we agree to operate within a certain set of principles that, like the Golden Rule, keep the dialog civil:

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

(My own belief is that these principles work equally well for any interfaith interaction.)

That in a nutshell is Unitarian Universalism. For more information see http://www.uua.org/.

 

[DrFree]

Akbar,

I'm glad to be chatting with you. I've described Unitarian Universalism in my response to Quahom1's reply to you, so I won't say more here.

I find much to like in what you say about God,

DrFree,

I am illustrating my faith through my topics and replies as I believe that the God is the God of universe, the God of mankind not of religions, communities or groups and that unlike religions faith in the God is neither a heritage nor an inheritance.

My own working formulation is that God is to the world as I am to my body (and as you are to your body). This makes God a natural rather than a supernatural being, about which we can gain empirical knowledge rather than mere dogma.

About my attachment to an earlier reply, I'm pretty sure that what I submitted was a Microsoft Word document. It was originally an HTML document, but this forum manager wouldn't let me submit it. If anyone can tell me how to attach HTML documents, I'd appreciate it.

 

[akbar]

Friend,

As I have already said I am illustrating my faith. I requested all friends who joined me in discussion to please let me know if I deviate from my declared route. I am an ordinory farmer from Punjab, Pakistan and do not know about this html or any thing alike. I have only learnt to send simple messages on net and that makes me able to communicate with you people. I claim to be an interpretor of a human heart and I believe that humans hearts are alike the world over.

 

[akbar]

Sorry, I forget to tell you that I have sent an E-mail to unitarian universalists association and I visited the site.