Something to think about:
IS CWG INFALLIBLE?
IS IT A RELIGION?

I think it is time to make something clear here. It is something I have made clear over and over again in all of my writing and at all of my public appearances — and I will continue to make it clear until it is understood by everyone.

I have stated time and time again that everything in the Conversations with God material could be wrong. I have never equivocated about that. Never once. In fact, just the opposite. I have said it over and over again.

Indeed, the books themselves make the same point. Do not believe what is written here, they say. If you choose, as an experiment, simply live their messages and see if they feel good and true and workable to you. If they do not, throw them away, toss them out, discard them and move on with your life in the way that feels good and workable and true for you.

I am open to a deep discussion of the CWG material with anyone, and this Global Conversation website is as good a place to have that discussion as anywhere on the Internet, so I welcome the engagement here. Let’s explore, item by item, what CWG says, what I believe it means, and how I believe it can be beneficially applied in every day life. It is not necessary to profess a belief in God in order for us to have this conversation.

I am not clear what has caused our regular visitor Patrick Gannon to state that I have made “earlier comments in times gone by that denigrated atheists and agnostics.” My memory must be fading, because I cannot recall ever having made such comments. So Patrick, if you could help me by citing what you considered to be such comments, I would be happy to either explain or retract them.

Patrick and the person posting as A True Friend have also recently asked here why I didn’t fix my own heart. But, in fact, I did. It is, apparently, how I did it that Patrick and ATF disagree with, and/or wish to use as evidence that the God in whom I believe, and the process of self-healing, is not real.

A True Friend also has posted this comment here: “I’m also kinda repulsed on how the CwG community like any other religious community follows their leader blindly.”

Well, my true friend, I am sure and very certain that anyone who knows me personally would tell you that I, as well, do not wish anyone to follow me blindly. First, the worldwide readership of Conversations with God could not in any accurate way be described as being “like any other religious community,” as CWG is not a religion in any sense of the word. Second, if some people have formed a community of interest around the CWG material, I am not “their leader.” Not in the sense of wanting, needing, asking, or hoping that anyone will “follow me.”

Again, evidence suggests it is quite to the contrary. I invite people — actively and continuously — NOT to “follow me” (I would be among the worst examples anyone could think of, of a so-called “religious”or “spiritual” leader), but to follow, always and in every case, their own innermost guidance.

I appreciate that both Patrick and ATF are, presumably, doing just that in their lives, as evidenced by their entries in the Comment section here. And I invite any and all discussions and explorations of the CWG messages in which anyone wishes to engage in this space. Indeed, that is the purpose of the space itself…so I invite the discussions to continue.

Looking in a serious way at the topics raised in the CWG material can only produce benefit for everyone, whatever their point of view, if the only outcome is that the discussions make more clear than ever to everyone what their point of view is.

It feels to me that emerging from one’s own highest personal understanding and greatest truth can only be a wonderful and beneficial way to live. I hope I have never denigrated anyone for doing that. But let’s not call a spiritual point of view a “religion” when it is not — especially when it declares, itself, that it is not.

I consider CWG to be a theology, not a religion. My dictionary defines “theology” as “the study of the nature of God and religious belief.” CWG surely is that, but it could not fairly be called a religion. And I am surely not fairly called the “leader” of a religion.

So let’s discuss Conversations with God fairly. It is a series of books, offering a commentary on God and Life. The books declare themselves to be a conversation between a human being and God. That is the belief of the author. I neither need nor ask nor expect anyone else to accept or embrace my belief. I simply invite people to consider the messages that have been shared in the material. Millions seem to have found something of value in them, if the number of people who have obtained and read the books, and passed them on to others, is any indication.

Now I know that any ideas that capture the attention of millions tend to be threatening to those who don’t embrace or agree with those ideas. But that is no reason to mislabel those ideas, or the person offering them. CWG is not a religion, and I am not a religious or spiritual leader. And everything in CWG could be wrong. I have made that clear repeatedly.

So let’s continue the discussions and explorations here by playing fair.

Good idea?