Talk:Neale Donald Walsch

message: I have lost respect for NDW, he's jumped on the patently nonsense and dangerous Indigo phenomena. Although I do find NDW has written some very coherant beliefs which are similiar to mine, I just cannot believe certain claims which defy the most basic rules of critical thinking. Is he writing with false positives in mind? (writing in a way to appear to everyone's sense of underlying faculty of conciousness). --86.18.156.77 07:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with with you but Wikipedia rules does not care about your personal opinion. 46.254.152.22 (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigo 

message: Maybe there should be a note at some point, perhaps before the article, that the only objective thing you can say about the "God" in the books is that it is a literary device, and that this article discusses it with this in mind, and also when not discussing the book that the implication is that the God being discussed is the real-life idea, whatever that is for some people. Right now it kinda sound interchanged, like it's being assumed most people are taking this as an actual conversation (whether or not it was, the Wikipedia doesn't take sides, right?)...
Part of it like the "met with criticism" sentence are chunky and floaty. If it's not a big deal, it shouldn't be there, if it's a big schtick part of what people know about him when they think of the name, it needs better priority in the article. 70.118.235.203 21:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  note 

message: Walsch believes in a pantheistic God.
I think the above is not true. Already in the first chapter he says that God has a visible and invisible part. Therefore, God is everything created and also extends beyond the created (transcendent and immanent). This view is properly called panentheism not pantheism. NikNovi 01:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pantheistic or panentheistic? 

message: There are over 6½ billion people on earth. *  
The combinations of culture, genetics, individual intelligence, personality and experience of people are infinite in number.  These factors and perhaps others produce personal perspectives that underlie an individual’s beliefs.  These beliefs in turn determine what the individual perceives as true and false, good and bad in it’s worldly experience.  *  
For these reasons, every individual thinks that they are “right”.  They must, for to think otherwise would violate all their intellectual and emotional underpinnings.  *  
If there is a God, if that God is loving, if that loving God created our immortal souls, then by His very nature He must afford each individual a path by which he or she can eventually abide with Him in Heaven.  That path must speak to the individual in terms that the individual can accept.  Therefore, the message to one person can vary greatly from that given to another.  But due to the nature of the God of which we speak, it must be grounded in pure love — a concept with which we humans for some reason have, at least at times, great difficulty in accepting.  *  
If an individual’s message contains negative judgments of any kind, then those parts of the message cannot have come from the loving God, but must reflect some residual resistance to love.  *  
For all these reasons, I do not see the profit in judging the spiritual positions that various groups and individuals are attracted to.  *  
One might, if so inclined, enjoy identifying unloving aspects of others’ beliefs, but as yet I have not seen anything unloving in Walsch’s expressions such as would earn any criticism of the man.  
beerscheersBeerscheers (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differing Views on Spiritual Paths 

message: Jujube deleted my addition of the following allegation of plagiarism against NDW, saying that it contained only blog entries and was distinctly non neutral. My information, as included in my original addition, included the allegation sourced in the New York Times, not solely blogs. I'm also not sure how my tone of voice is slanted, and suggest this allegation doesn't follow the information reported in in the NYTimes. Another link in the NY Times appeared today: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/books/07book.html
I have reversed JuJube's deletion and updated the NYTimes blog link to the NYTimes article. Feel free to make edits for editorial voice if you wish, but I don't think there is adequate grounds to delete this entry, given that the article is now printed.
Original edit deleted by Jujube:
Walsch was accused of plagiarism in his 2008 Christmas article, "Upside down, or right side up?" which was published on Beliefnet.com. Walsch's story purports to tell the tale of a miraculous appearance of the words "Christ Was Love" during the rehearsal of his son's school Christmas pageant. His article is almost identical to the same article published 10 years previously by Candy Chand, down to the name of the son mentioned in both articles, Nicholas. Walsch subsequently apologized for the "mistake," saying that he must have erroneously internalized the story as his own over the years, a claim the original author Chand disputes. The article was subsequently pulled from Beliefnet.com.
Cfoo (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would remove the "mistake" in quotes, but otherwise, I don't have a problem with this. JuJube (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, IMHO, the tone was a bit slanted, probably unvoluntarily. I have rewritten a bit, fixed a couple of slight inaccuracies, placed the sources better, and expanded a bit --Enric Naval (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism allegation deleted 

message: Is it allowed and applicable to add a drawing portrait (illustration) of Neale Walsch? Or does it have to be a photograph?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.129.190 (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add portrait drawing of Neale? 

message: The text currently says "...Walsch was reportedly told by God in Conversations with God Book 1 that he would write only 3 books." The writer of that text here in wikipedia then suggests this is a problem, since Walsch wrote more than 3 books at the end.
However, this is confusing.
In book 1 Walsch reported being told by God "...that three books would actually be produced..." - however there is no indication that he meant he would write ONLY 3 books throughout his career. This is not a problem and cannot stand in criticism. There are indeed 3 books (book 1, book 2, and book 3), and then there are the other books in the series - all of which have been given subtitle names, so it is clear the first 3 books make an 'installment' (which was reported already in book 1), and then there are also the other books Walsch wrote in the series.
My points:
1. In no place it was reported Walsch will write 'only' three books. The word 'only' here in Criticism section, is error, and cannot come in as an issue or problem in 'criticism'. 
2. Also, that 'criticism' does not bring any reference, rather it says "There is also the issue..." Who raised this issue? what is the reference?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gil Dekel (talk • contribs) 20:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in section Criticism 

message: I added a very short paragraph about the first Conversations with God book, and a brief noticement of subsequent writings, because these were not even mentioned under the "Career" heading on this page. Please feel free to delete it if you feel it egregiously violates the spirit of COI guidelines. It just seemed that under Career, the page might want to make mention of this. ---- Neale Donald Walsch  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealewalsch (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added a tiny bit of info