By Neale Donald Walsch.
“Oh, my darlin’ Clementine…”
My treasured kindred spirit…
I think you’re going to like some of the ideas about how we might collectively create our future; ideas that I believe God inspired. But I’ve not come here to simply post a notification to humanity of what is best for us and what we are now expected to do.
But if you believe that you really did receive these ideas from God, why would you not want to make them a ‘notification?’
I could understand your modesty or your reluctance if you felt that these were your ideas…but is it your notion that God’s thoughts about life and how to make it work are not good enough to simply be laid down as dictums?
And if they truly came from God, should they not be dictums?
No. First, God does not lay down dictums. That would violate the first condition of life, which is Freedom. Or, as some religions have labeled it: Free Choice.
Freedom is a fundamental condition, it is an Isness, which God never would or could overrule or dismiss. God cannot overrule an Isness because God Is the Isness. The Isness will not and does not and cannot “un-Is” itself.
God IS Freedom; the perfect expression of that. So the last thing God could or would do is demand something or require something or force something. God, by God’s very nature, could never be a dictator.
Second—to answer the question as it directly relates to me, personally—if I were trying to inspire humanity to seriously consider the ideas I’ve placed here by using its Free Choice, the last thing I would do would be to insist that these ideas are Right or Best—even if I do believe they came directly from God.
The very reason that most of the ideas that most of the religions have put into most the world have not worked is that most of those religions have declared most of their ideas to be Right and Best.
Nothing stops humanity from adopting an idea faster than being told that the idea dare not be opposed, because it is Right and Best.
The fascinating thing about humanity is that we want to figure things out for ourselves, we don’t want to have someone else telling us what to do.
But be honest. Don’t you want humanity to adopt your ideas?
They’re not my ideas.
Okay, okay—what you claim to be God’s ideas. Don’t you want humanity to adopt them? Don’t you believe in them?
I believe in them, I assure you, or I wouldn’t be putting them out there. But the fact that I believe in them does not translate in my mind into a requirement that you should believe in them. This is the problem with most religions.
But if you don’t feel that I should adopt these ideas, why bother us with them? Why propose them? I’m right back to the original question.
So then let me go right back to my original answer. I’ll try to find different words.
The purpose of proposing of an idea should be simply that. To propose it, not to impose it. There’s a vast difference between proposition and imposition.
The difficulty with many of the world’s religions and so many of their followers (and many political parties, too, for that matter) is that they too often seek to impose their views on others.
If they simply proposed rather than imposed, there would be no problem. There also would not have been the Crusades, the jihads, the ethnic cleansings, and the countless other horror-ridden and totally unacceptable tactics by means of which, throughout history, one group has sought to overlay its views and ideas on another.
Right now there do tend to emerge certain “litmus tests” that determine whether a person is “loyal to the cause” and a “team player.”
As you surely know, litmus is a dye obtained from certain lichens that is red under acid conditions and blue under alkaline conditions. So…if you live in the U.S., are you from a “red state” or a “blue state”?
If you live somewhere else, are you a member of the Red Team (conservative) or the Blue Team (liberal)? Be careful of your choice. Be sure about what jersey you put on, because no deviation is permitted in this kind of deeply divisive politics. Individual thinking by members of a group or party is not allowed.
Of course I would like humanity to seriously consider the ideas here, and maybe even adopt a few of them, but I believe that the simple proposing of the ideas should be enough.
If they have true merit, the benefit of adopting and embracing them will be self-apparent. If not, the ideas should be dismissed.
Now I could be wrong about many of the concepts and approaches that I’m going to suggest here for inclusion in our New Cultural Story. People may read these and stamp them Rejected. The choice is always theirs. But I’m hoping they’ll at least explore the thoughts presented here. That exploration alone, that single, civil conversation, can affect a great deal.
I said it before and I’ll say it again. I believe that we are just one conversation from paradise.
I want paradise for you. I want you to know peace and joy in your life. I wish that for all of us. For your children and for mine. And for our children’s children. One of my own children’s children—granddaughter Clementine—was born on the very day that I’m writing this. So my yearning for this future has taken on a very poignant energy for me today.
Will you join me in the quest to create paradise for Clementine…and for her children’s children…and for yours?
9 Nov 2015.
© Neale Donald Walsch.
The Storm Before the Calm: Book 1 in the Conversations with Humanity Series – by Neale Donald Walsch. Paperback published 1 October 2011, Emnin Books, Oregon, USA; ISBN-13: 978-1401936921