Talk:Conversations with God

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wrote some arguments to show that this doctrine has enough inconsistencies to conclude that it cannot be a true revelation. I also criticize a classical Christian argument against him.

Did other people write criticisms, or argumentations for or against Walsch's view ?

--Spoirier 07:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd argue that this is not the place for that, really. This page is just supposed to lay out what his argument is. You can always use the Discussion page to dispute what he has to say. 82.111.242.163 18:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Walsch says that childeren know no fear. I don't remember whether this assertion has been channelled. Anyway, it is clearly untrue. If I can't trust Walsch with regards to the objective world then why should I trust his metaphysical assertions? Andries 17:27, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reply- From CWG, Book 3,p.26 - " All babies are born with only 2 fears: the fear of falling, and the fear of loud noises. All other fears are learned responses, brought to the child from it's environment, taught to the child by it's environment." Piaget says there are 4 fears from birth, fear of falling, fear of loud noises and 2 others, fear of pain and fear of the kinds of patterns one finds on snakes.

Epistomological a-priori fears should be distinguished from a-posteriori, I see no fault in his logic. --213.106.102.178 10:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe what Neale/"God" is referring to is the Moro reflex. --Musicmonk 23:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Occult 2 He's making it all up... 3 Grammar 4 Re-write

[edit] Occult

I've removed this page from the Occult category, because the category page describes: "This category comprises article pertaining to supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena thought to be beyond the realm of human comprehension and available only to the initiated while hidden from others." That is the opposite of CWG's doctrine. The God of CWG says that he/she is everything, and speaks to everyone, at all times. And he/she also attempts to explain everything very clearly in understandable language. So the "beyond human comprehension" thing doesn't apply, nor does the "available only to the initiated."

[edit] He's making it all up...

...and he's both said it and written it. "God" says it, too: see CwG Book 2, Chapter 18. He just believes that what he's making up is pointing to things which are true...but of course the problem is that if he's not really talking to God, then he's just spouting out whatever's coming into his head--and I sincerely doubt any reasonable person can believe that whatever comes into your head is good enough to be truth.

I was at a workshop he led back in the late 90's (back when I believed this stuff), and right after he finished replying to a questioner he added: "I could be wrong. I could be making this all up." Needless to say, the questioner was aghast. After a short pause to absorb the shock, which I sensed was being felt by many in the room, she said something to the effect of: "But I thought this was coming from God!" To which he responded, as I recall, "Well, I'm saying it is...but I don't know that. I believe that I did, but I don't know." (He isn't entirely consistent about this, however, and I think that's what confuses people.)

Now I'm not sure, because I can't know what everyone in the audience felt, but it seemed to me that many of them were disturbed by his comments. It shook their "faith." Many people took (and still take) this book way too literally. They really consider it to be a revelation from God and as an authoritative source of "Truth." I see it more as an interesting thought exercise which did have an influence on me in my later teens. But as an authoritative guide to life, as "the Truth"...well, after you read CwG, read Voltaire's Candide. If you can still take the concepts in CwG seriously after that, then I guess CwG is the book for you. --Musicmonk 23:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read Candide for a while, and I've never read CwG, but I imagine it's possible for both to be true. 82.111.242.163 18:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Luckily we don't have to have opinions about it. We just have to report what is known to be the case, namely, the content and assertions of the book and similar pertaining to it. Makes life very easy. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

The grammar on this page kind of sucks. Maybe someone can clean it up (or at least remove the sentence fragments, etc).

[edit] Re-write

There are areas of this article which need to be rewritten, as I've not read the book I cannot even attempt to try to sort it out, if someone has read the book, cpould they please try to sort out the page. Especially this section below

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. So where is my motion?

I've read it several times and cannot make out what the editor is trying to say. It's like there's part of the text missing or something.--NeilEvans 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)