Wednesday, October 26, 2005

Conversations with God, part 3

Did God really speak to NDW?

There are a few possibilities about how this book came to be written: (1) God really did talk through Walsch, (2) Walsch believes God was talking through him when it was really him all along, (3) Walsch was knowingly pretending that God was talking through him, or (4) Satan or some other spiritual being besides God was talking through Walsch pretending to be God.

I don't think God or Satan was talking through Walsch, mostly because the book was too full of contradictions, and I would expect God or Satan to be a little more consistent. So either Walsch was deceived or he was deceiving. My impression is that Walsch was intentionally deceiving, and the reason I think that is because a lot of his questions seemed to be no more than set-ups for God to present some information. That is, they didn't seem like genuine questions. For example, God tells Walsch several times in the book that there's no such thing as right and wrong, good and bad, should and shouldn't, or do and don't. Then on page 72, Walsch asks God several questions about why certain things are immoral, like sex. Was Walsch not paying attention, or was this just a setup for what was to come?

Another reason I think Walsch was behind this books is because the one opportunity God had to give any evidence that the book was inspired by her, she turned down. God refused to say whether or not we will see irrevocable and indisputable evidence of extraterrestrial life in our lifetime (p.72). She was quite willing to tell us that there was extraterrestrial life, but she refused to make any future predictions. It seems to me that Walsch was just being careful not to say anything in the book that would be falsifiable.

to be continued...

Part 4


At 10/26/2005 8:10 AM , Blogger Ab Truth said...

loved your work on CWG. would like to see you have a go at gene edwards divine romance and 100days on a secret place. am going to quote you on a small blog in australia if i may.

At 10/26/2005 4:38 PM , Blogger daleliop said...

Walsh asks why sex is immoral? Odd, because I thought only extramarital sex was immoral.

At 10/26/2005 5:55 PM , Blogger ephphatha said...

Well, like a lot of these popular books that rail against Christianity, there are a lot of caricatures and straw men. Christianity being "anti-sex" is just one of them.

ab truth, you're welcome to quote me. I haven't heard of Gene Edwards' book.

At 10/27/2005 12:43 AM , Blogger Steve said...

well the Pope has interpreted lust for your wife to be a form of adultry, as well as masturbation, etc.

I think his logic is that sex is supposed to be a means to an end, not an end unto itself, and that when you desire sex rather than procreation, then you are committing a sin.

Here are a few relevant verses:

Matthew 5:28 "But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart"

Jon 31:11-12 "For lust is a shameful sin, a crime that should be punished. It is a devastating fire that destroys to hell. It would wipe out everything I own"

I think in general, the idea is lust is somehow focusing on ones self, rather than on being more like Jesus (Romans 6:19).

So, yeah, I would say Christianity views sex differently than non-Christians, and therefore one could at least interpret these things as being "anti-sex."

At 10/27/2005 1:09 AM , Blogger ephphatha said...


Even if we accept the interpretations you're offering, it still doesn't make Christianity anti-sex. Not even non-Christians would advocate unbridled sex with any and everybody. Just about everybody agrees that you shouldn't have sex with another person's spouse, but that doesn't mean everybody is anti-sex. The difference between Christians and everybody else, then, is just a matter of degree.

But there's good reason to dispute these interpretations. Regarding "lust for your wife," it's impossible to commit adultery with your own wife by any means, because adultery, by definition, involves having sex with somebody else's spouce, or being married and having sex with somebody other than your spouce.

Besides that, the interpretations you offer come into conflict with passages like Proverbs 5 where it says rather than embracing the bosom of a loose woman, you should "rejoice in the wife of your youth," and he says, "may her breasts satisfy you always" (Prov 5:18-19) Clearly, then, sex can't be solely for procreation. It is to be enjoyed. Also, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 says that husbands and wives should have sex with each other, basically to safisfy their sexual desires, which protects them from the temptation to get satisfaction elsewhere.

Christianity isn't anti-sex. It just advocates that sex should be confined to marriage.

At 10/30/2005 5:31 AM , Blogger Steve said...

well personally, i find these to be biblical inconsistancies regarding how to approach a complicated subject like the Bible.

The Bible is so vague on these topics its no wonder we are left to come away with such diverse opinions about what God thinks about the subject of sex.

Sure, some stuff is straightforward, but something must not be getting through because there are SO many denominations and personal opinions about what the Bible means that its hard to come away knowing any absolute interpretation. That doesn't mean they are all false, but it certainly means its hard to know whats true.

At 12/06/2005 3:59 AM , Blogger andrew said...

Thanks heaps for your commentary on CWG! Was just wondering if you have ever read or heard of "Seth Speaks". This is a similar book of "channelled information" with a lot of simlilarities in content. The difference is that Jane Roberts doesn't claim she is hearing from God but from "Seth" who is apparently an "advanced being" with access to information beyond our 3-dimensional limits. Apparently the Seth teachings have been quite foundational in a lot of the New Age teachings around at the moment. I would be interested in your comments on the possibilities about how this book came to be written?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home