Posted by Robin Edgar on December 18, 19102 at 18:50:00:
In Reply to: Re: Neale Donald Walsch posted by Nikki on December 17, 19102 at 21:13:00:
: WHOA there, Robin....cool your jets!
: From what I have read, and you have not read any of his books......I safely can say that he does NOT claim to have the "bona fide" Cappy R Revelations, that you think he does.
I stand by what I say in principle and it applies generally, not just to Walsh; however, if there is a disclaimer in his books that makes it clear that he is not claiming a capital 'R' "Revelation of God that is fine. As I said I only saw the Beliefnet interview and the impression it gave was that Walsh's claims were the result of a revelatory experience that he underwent in the early 1990's. I am just urging caution in what one claims as "Revelation" in a religious context.
: In his book One, he says to take his books with a grain of salt, and that he is in no way whatsoever claiming that his philosophy came directly from THE GOD ITSELF.
That's a good thing but this was not stated in the Beliefnet interview.
: And you are correct--- it is purely semantics, and nothing to fire up your jets about. ;-) Walsch capaitalized the word 'revelations' cuz of English skills, nothing more. :-) Just cuz sometimes we captialize or downcase a religion's name (christianity or Christianity), it does not mean it is "bona fide" nor does it mean downplaying its importance if the letter is downcased.
I am speaking figuratively when I refer to a capital 'R' Revelation not literally. When I say a capital 'R' Revelation I mean a Revelation that comes from God itself. I am have no problem with people using the word revelation in other contexts.