Talk:Conversations with God

message: What? I removed the small section which had some last minute babble about controversy. Two sentences of unsourced, weasle word filled content.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.51.223 (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: controversy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Arguments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: There's obviously a great deal of suspicion regarding this man's philosophy, why isn't this reflected in the article? —Ortchel 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, there should be some criticism added. Surely there's enough of it to go around, considering the things this man has claimed? Also, the "prophecies/predictions" section is currently unsourced. It'd be nice if someone could add sources for the predictions regarding Bill Clinton, along with any other notable predictions that the author has put forth. --RoyalFool 01:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has to be some sourced criticism of this guy, right? TuckerResearch (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: I think references to Bill Hick's comments have been deliberately taken out of context. Specifically "Hicks' belief that all humanity is in fact one eternal consciousness separated by a loving God only by illusion", and "claimed to have received these revelations through the use of psychedelic substances". In this speech he was trying to extol the virtues of using mind altering substances as a medium for creative thinking. Although he freely admitted to using drugs like LSD, he never claimed (to my knowledge) to have "received revelations" from anywhere. I also believe that he was an atheist (although I haven't got a reference for this at the moment), and never made any assertion that he believed that we are "separated from a loving God" in this routine, or any other. (128.243.220.41 (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Hicks 

message: From the article
:"In one of the books "God" states that the universe had a beginning and will have an end (as part of the 'breathing in and out of God')[citation needed]. The latter part of this statement appears to have been disproved by the discovery of Dark Energy.
:However, it should be noted that the CwG books do not really claim to make predictions."
there is no need for the entire section on prediction as stated in the section itself. The mention of Dark Energy as proof for the Fate of the universe seems out of place, edited by someone with nascent understanding of Dark Energy. There are only speculative ideas about the implications of Dark energy on the future of the universe. It has no relation to the topic whatsoever, for reference please check the wiki on Dark Energy or The fate of the universe, Its mention seems unlikely and out of place in the article. This entire section should be removed from the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.180.13.112 (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophecies and prediction section 

message: Per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conversations_with_God&type=revision&diff=585240750&oldid=582996284, in anonymous Wikipedia user 64.110.231.136's only-ever contribution to Wikipedia, he/she simply added "Sikhism" to 11 of the then-13 bullet points under the heading "Parallels in other belief systems", and to this day, almost three years later, said revisions remain standing. Nemodomi (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinda funny, is all. 

message: An ip wanted to remove it, and I’m not clear on how what’s there now fits. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section