#STRask - What Book Should I Give a Strong Pantheist?

Episode Date: September 14, 2026

Questions about suggestions for a book to give a strong pantheist who’s a fan of Neale Donald Walsch, and how karma is different from the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 or the teaching about reaping what you sow in Galatians 6.   My neighbor, who is a strong pantheist, gave me Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch. Do you have any suggestions for what I could give him in return? How is karma different from the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 or the teaching about reaping what you sow in Galatians 6?

Thanks for joining us today on hashtag STR Ask. Starring Greg Kokel. No starring, but I just got a new name for us. The Dangerous Duo. The Dangerous Duo. I like the Dangerous Duo. There's no stars a stand-a-reason. We don't do that kind of thing.

Sorry, Greg. I knew you would hate that, but I had to annoy you a little bit. But there's some pretty cool people and dangerous, and we're the dangerous duo. All right. What do you got for me? Okay, here's a question from Aaron. My neighbor is a strong pantheist and ascribes to the teachings of Neil Donald Walsh. Since he gave me Walsh's book Conversations with God saying it changed his life, I feel that I have an open-door opportunity to give him a book in return.

Do you have any suggestions? Yeah. That's a better fact I do. Gee, I wonder what would come to mind at this point. How about story of reality? Because I presume that this book Conversations with God, which, by the way, strikes me as odd, because pantheism is a lot. because pantheism is a view in which God pervades everything, and God is not personal. So in pantheism, you don't talk with God.

It's not theistic. I don't know how he solves that problem or what his underlying, this other person's, not errands, but the other person's underlying worldview involves. But it just is odd. I don't go deep in Eastern religions. I'm a generalist with a lot of this stuff. but I know Pan Theism, Francis Schaefer used to call it everythingism, because God is in everything. It's kind of an offshoot of monistic Hinduism, where monism is just simply the idea, and I do talk about this in the story of reality as an alternate view.

The Christian view of reality is material, in immaterial, you know, physical stuff and non-physical stuff. God and souls and angels, whatever, and all those stuff he's created that's physical. Okay. And the atheist is a materialist. It's only physical. And the, that's, I call it matter, matterism. And then you have the Eastern mystical view that's monistic, that's oneism. And that's the view that only one thing exists. And this is, it's not matter. matter is an illusion, and this one thing is God, but he's not personal. He's just, it's just God essence kind of thing, and pervades everything. So all of what is is also God, but only in the sense that, and maybe this is kind of a coarse, not nasty, but crude illustration,

but the only in the sense that your dreams last night were you, yours. They had no concrete separate existence. The people in your dream didn't know they were in a dream. They were just what you produced in your mind, so they were yours. And in that sense, the world around us is kind of the, it was the, it proceeds from the impersonal God that is. and it's called Maya, M-A-A, which means illusion. So I don't know how the illusion has a conversation with the impersonal God.

But nevertheless, that's the title of book. And don't, I guess I'm asking, I'm demanding too much of this religious view, you know, like it should be more coherent, you know. And I actually read the book so long ago, very long, decades ago. What haven't you read? My golly. Well, at the time, I was working in the film industry, and there were people around me who were interested in it, and I wanted to know what it said. And I don't remember any details. All I remember is that it was very, like New Age, Pantheistic, and he was claiming that God was dictating.

He was asking questions and claiming that God was dictating the answers back. But it was all very New Age. Yeah. So, well, New Age is a kind of an adaptation or personalized distortion of. of kind of Eastern religion, particularly Hinduism. And so you can't, there's so many permutations of it that it's hard to put your finger on it. And there's all these kinds of contradiction. I do talk about that whole notion, the monism and the story of reality, and the twist then that we are all God.

Okay. Well, if we're God, the price of divinity is that we're responsible for everything, which is on the one hand, they say, that's right. You know, you kind of, it's a very sophisticated name it and claim it type thing. But at the same, what was it, the secret. Remember that book, The Secret? I wrote about that. It's on our website. But at the same time, that means you're responsible for all the bad, too.

So if something awful happens, you get in a car wreck, you get raped, or you get beaten up or something. Well, you're God, after all. So that's all on you. You create your own reality. So this is something I talk about in, in the book's story of reality. But my concern is that, Aaron, I would suggest the story of reality. It's a very easy read, and it does address some of the specifics on a worldview basis. But the difficulty is that, or what you're going to run into, and even the nature of my complaints is the coherence of their view. And what I'm offering in the story of reality is our view is coherent. And theirs has problems. And a lot of times what they say is they don't care.

You're thinking like a Western or not an Easterner, you know, which this is, this is not true. Easterners use the computers and it's all, and they can even program. It's all zeros and ones. You know, it's either or. It's A or non-A, you know, so it isn't. Now, they are comfortable in some measure with contradiction when it comes to spiritual things, but they're not generally comfortable with contradiction. The guy goes to get his paycheck, you know, in India.

And the boss says, I already gave it to you. He says, no, you didn't. You're right, I didn't. Well, then where's my paycheck? I already gave it to you. You just said, you didn't give it to me. You're right. I didn't give it to you.

I'm comfortable with contradiction. No, nobody's obviously we'd live that way. And there you go, Aaron, maybe this is a way you can question your friend. Because they say these kinds of things all the time. I remember what I did, I think that was this issue. I was doing live radio in Southern California early on in the 90s and early 90s. And I was getting, before the show, I was getting lunch somewhere in Orange County. and there were some bunch of people talking to the table next to me,

and they were talking about this kind of stuff. They were all thrilled about it. And so I kept asking questions about it, and they couldn't answer the questions, but they were still thrilled about their incoherent view. And I said, well, I'm going to have a radio show in a moment. You want to come on the air? So I grabbed one of the guys, and we talked for an hour on the air, you know.

And what I'm trying to show them is, like, this is not sound. It's not what we do is not Western thinking. It's human thinking because we are all human beings. And the only time we, and when we divert from that, we get into trouble. And we actually would never do this with anything else really important. But we do this with religion. Oh, I'm comfortable with contradiction. Okay.

And then you go back to the illustration. I just heard about payment. So, no, they're not. This is the inside out tactic, by the way. And it's also kind of a combination of inside out and take the roof off. God has placed things inside of us that are going to come out. And even though they talk, you know, I'm comfortable with contradiction. In fact, they're not.

I think the simple answer is story of reality because what it does is sketch out our story in a way that makes sense. And I would say that commence its truthfulness. And the reason that I can say that is because a thing is true when it matches reality. Okay, is it true that we're doing this show together right now? Why? Because we are. Duh. That's what everybody means when they say that word. And so what I'm trying to show through not only the coherence of Christianity, but it makes sense of the world as we actually experience it. Problem of evil. Oh, that's a problem for theists. No one's not. It fits into theism. It doesn't need to be answered, but it makes sense in our worldview. It doesn't

make any sense in the atheistic worldview, and it doesn't make any sense in the monistic worldview. Because all the evil, you could say two things. It's a distinction between good and evil, and these kind of distinctions are not ultimately sound. It's all the same. So there's no real distinction of it. And if you want to make a distinction, that's all part of God, too. So it's not just that you have evil to answer for. On your view, evil is part of your God.

So this is what I'm saying. It just doesn't work if you think about it. But it's low in human responsibility. it's high in individual freedom. So you're not guilty. I guess there's a karma thing, but if you're nice and you purchase birds like in Thailand and you open the cage and the birds fly away, then that's tombone. Thai means making merit.

So you get credit. The guy who sold the birds, you had to capture the birds, I guess that was a carmic debt he got to give you a chance to release the birds. Oh, this is silly. It's just not sound, but it just seems to capture the imagination. of a lot of people because they don't like having to bend their need of God. I mean, I think that's what it amounts to. I think it would be a great idea.

I agree, Greg, I think that book is really good for helping people to understand the bigger picture of Christianity. The book, oh, story of reality. And I— Not the conversation with God. Right. Thank you. Okay. Just clarifying.

And it's not a very—it's not really long. It's not a difficult read. It flows really well. I think anyone could read it and understand. understand it. And so if you can both read those books and then talk about them together and go into that conversation with the idea that you're going to pursue clarity about each other's views. Right. Understanding. Yeah, not like you're going to go in there and try and convince the other person, but your first goal should be let's understand what the other person believes. Let's go in there

and let's get real clarity. And simply put, that's what do you mean by that? It's really the first step of the tactical game plan. It's also the first step of critical thinking, really understanding the other view. Go ahead. And I think from there, what you can find out is what is important to this, to your friend, to your neighbor. Is he, what is it about this book that he loves? What is it about this book that's attracting him? Is it something that we should really be seeking? And if that's the case, then Christianity will be the fulfillment of whatever it is. he's seeking. Maybe he's seeking something that we shouldn't seek. It depends on what he says, but that's how you can find a way to talk about, well, here's how your worldview solves your problem, and here's how Christianity solves this problem. Can you see the differences between

there? And then once you're clear on that, then you can move into more of a, why do you believe that? Yeah, I have, it's interesting we approach this from a little, in terms of application from a little different perspective, and certainly the first point is getting clarity. Let's all be clear on what we believe. Now, I think that one, or what kind of worldview we're proposing, that's better than what we believe, because we're not comparing subjective belief systems. Like, that's what you like, this is what I like. We're talking about, and this is a direction, Aaron, to press the conversation, we're talking about what is reality, what's real. simply put what's true. So, and so we get clarity on the front end, but then you're asking a

legitimate question about what is it that this appeals, that appeals to you about this? And it might be the case that what appeals to them is something that Christianity gives it more robustly, and then it would relate hopefully to my own question there, but I just want to make an observation. I think a lot of people like Easter religion because it conveys to them a certain personal autonomy. I'm in charge. I'm God. I'm with God. Everything's good by being God.

And so, well, that's not something that in that same way that Christianity is going to give them. So you just have to find that out. Here's what the question I would propose, and it's not in contrast to yours in the sense either or, because both of these are important. but it just shows how our minds work a little differently. Let's see what it is. Here it is. Okay, we get clarity out with these. Which one makes most sense, given the world, given what we know about the world.

That would be the question I would ask. Which one makes most sense? But that's more of my left brain working. No, I think those are both important. In fact, getting across the idea that you are talking about what is real is absolutely important at the beginning of the conversation because most people don't even think about that. So I would not skip over that. But even in the case where they think they want to be their own God, you're showing them a better God.

Yes, exactly. And that's something that your book can help them see or you can help them see. But you don't even need to directly ask them the question, what is it that's attracting you? I just pay attention to what he says and figure it out. And then you can emphasize whatever that is that he is after. I remember a conversation I had. I was in Kuala andpur. It's like in Indonesia, kind of.

And I was on transit to some. I think I was on my way to Thailand. I can't remember how that really worked, though. But I ended up laying over there for about 12 or 15 hours. So I left the airport and I got a room and I slept a little bit. And then I was walking in a park. And there was a guy there. There was also in the same situation that I was in.

And he was on his way to India to study it in an ashram. And so he was into this Easter religion cause. And I was pressing him with certain questions about the view. And I can't remember exactly the question I asked, but I knew where I was going with it. And it has had to do with, you know, kind of ultimate reality and ultimate significance or something. Again, I didn't use that language. But I remember what he said, though, in response, because it was a friendly conversation. He's reflecting on my question.

And he said, well, it centers on me. The meaning of reality is me. That's the way he started and he paused. And then he said, no, not big enough. Oh, interesting. No, not big enough. In other words, he realized as he reflected, that he himself is not an adequate foundation for everything. That so ironically, is ironic, though, this is nowadays, this is everything is about me.

me, you. And I was just reading a book on AI, and he identified all these commercial lines that are all different ways of saying, you do you. You do you with this product. You do you with this product. Whatever it is, you do you, and buy our product kind of thing, which is commercialization of the concept, but notice they're trading on the concept. And this guy understood is he's reflecting, no, I'm not big enough to be the center of my idea. identity. I thought that was a very interesting observation and very a fair one, you know. It was insightful. And sometimes all people need is for someone else to give them a glimpse of something bigger because maybe they've never thought of anything bigger. And that's what you want to do is you

want to give them a glimpse of the true God who is so much bigger than whatever they are imagining. Yeah, like themselves. Especially bigger than themselves, yes. All right, let's go to a question from Carl. Question about karma. I like Greg's response to karma. You talked about karma, and I think it was the other podcast a while back. But how is karma different from the parable of the sower or Galatians chapter six? Galatians chapter six actually makes reference to sewing and reaping.

And we do not deny that there are consequences to behavior. It's the most obvious thing in the world. You do good and good things can happen. You can do bad and bad things can happen, but it's not, you know, a rigid thing because sometimes people in this life, as it were, they get away with stuff. And what we see in the parable, well, let's just go to Galatian 6. In fact, let me read it. I know the context.

I know what's going on there, but I want to read the words because, ironically, it's about giving, financially giving, Galatian 6. And actually, we've made this point before as I've encouraged people to participate in financially with standard reason. And the appeal is, if we've given to you in significant ways, it's appropriate for you to give back. Okay. And this is exactly what Paul says in Galatians chapter 6. Let me get my magnifying class because my glasses are not adequate to the task anymore. Okay, let's see.

Verse six, this is where pericopy, like a new section starts. The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. The one who has taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches. Well, what's that? Well, that's talking about finances. And then it says here, do not be deceived. God is not mocked. For whatever a man sow is this, he will also reap.

For the one who sowes to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption. The one who sowes to the spirit will from the spirit reap eternal life. Now this is a general principle. Next verse he says, let us not lose heart in doing good. For in due time, we will reap if we do not grow weary. So Paul gives this general principle of being able to harvesting whatever it is we sow. And if we, you know, if we sew poorly, we're going to reap poorly. If we sew well, we're going to reap well.

But in this, the application he's making, at least in verse six, is is sewing to the person who is sewing to you. They're sewing spiritual things, and you're sewing, sharing all good things with him, which is in a financial appeal. And Jesus says in another place, the worker is worthy of his wage. Don't muzzle the ox while he's stretching. That shows up in the epistle somewhere, I think. And so there's a principle there of supporting those who are feeding you spiritually. And then there's, then what we see Paul doing is applying this broader principle of, there's a,

there's a kind of a cost and effect. This is not karma, though. Karma is not just cause and effect. Karma is a feature of a complex religious system in which you incur debt to who or what is not clear to me, but it amounts to a debt that you owe. and there's a payoff. Or you can incur benefit. We're all kind of in this cycle of reincarnation,

living our lives in different ways, and as such, we are either incurring debt or we are paying debt off that we had from a prior life. We're making merit, as they say in Thailand, or we're not. And so when we die, whatever we did in this life, there's a payoff of sorts one way or another in how we end up in the next life.

And transmigration of the soul is the idea that sometimes we're so bad, we end up as an animal. And that's why, you know, the animals are kind of held with high regard. They don't, the cows are walking around. I was in Madras, India a number of years ago, and there they are walking all over the place, you know, and nobody's molesting the cows because maybe grandma, you know. But notice, this is all part of a religious system. And so when we say, oh, see, there's karma right there. Well, Jesus wasn't the Hindu, and the apostles weren't Hindus.

They were Torah Observer Jews up until, certainly Jesus was, but the apostles up until their conversion, they started in the new covenant, Torah observation was no longer applicable. So to read karma into here is just a mistake. It's trying to mix different world views. And it's like trying to put a carburetor on a computer. It doesn't do any work for us. This isn't karma.

This is just kind of a cause and effect thing related to giving and other things. And Paul's saying, be careful how you sow, whether financially or otherwise, because the way you sow, you're going to reap. There is a cause and effect. Now, the parable of the sower that you find in the synoptics, and I'm thinking right now, Matthew 13, I think at 12, he tells this parable of the four soils, and then he interprets it. I don't understand how anybody who reads that could think that this is carmic. So that parable is about the condition of the person's heart and how they respond to the gospel. Yeah, but it's really obvious.

That's why, because Jesus explains it all in chapter 13, verse 9 and following. I know this because part of one of the talks I give, and so I have this in my mind. And he's, you know, he's just talking about the so-or-so's the word, and there are different responses based on different soils, that's it, different kinds of receptivity, and some bear fruit and some don't for different reasons, and that's what he's talking about. I was never, ever tempted to think this sounds like karma at all, because it's. It sounds to me like a new ageer read one line out of that, sewing and reaping and then just read karma into it. Didn't take time to look at the discourse itself for just the section where Jesus was teaching.

Here, if ever anything sounds like karma, it would be perhaps passages that talk about judgment of some kind. Because here's the thing. the desire for justice is a real human desire that we have because we're made in the image of God and we know justice is good. So karma is their system's way of accounting for justice. And God's judgment is how we see that justice will be accomplished. But note that in the case of karma, it's hopeless. It's hopeless because there is no way when there's a force that if you do things that are wrong, this force determines automatically that you are punished in some way. There's paybacks. There's paybacks. We know that we are not good enough to get out of that. That is a

hopeless system. Whereas in the Christian account of justice, we have a person who is the judge and who offers mercy. And not just offers mercy, but offers mercy on the basis of justice having already been accomplished in Jesus. So in the Christian system, justice is accomplished completely, fully, perfectly, and we have hope. Yes, that's right. Because there's grace, because Jesus has already paid the justice. Yeah. There's one other postscript to this discussion. When I was in Madras, and I actually seen this in other cases, particularly when, you know, in the 70s and the 80s, Transcendental meditation was a big deal, and that was all karmic, that was all Hinduism, and before it kind of morphed into New Age stuff.

But there were different people who claimed to be the reincarnation of Jesus. And I remember in Madras, this was night, this is the spring before we started Santeris in 93. So, what, February 93, I'm in Madras, India, and there's big billboards about this, guru guy who is the reincarnated Jesus. Okay, now I want you to think about that. You ask any of these people, what do you think of Jesus? Oh, man, he was like the D.T. suit, they say, it's the absolute best. There was like, yeah, he was the one, man. But Jesus is still in the system. After 2,000 years, even Jesus of Nazareth hasn't been able to get out of the reincarnation system. According to you guys who say your reincarnation, the reincarnation of Jesus, right? So this goes to your point about

this being a hopeless system. If Jesus can't get out, I'm not going to ever get out. I'm going to end up a cow. At least I'll get some respect then, right, if I'm in India. We'll get eaten. And you mentioned earlier, it doesn't even make sense. Who are we accountable to? Yes. There is no person we're accountable to. And what is the standard for goodness also? I mean, is that, I know in Thailand they had in their Buddhism, their practice, there were like five things that were their moral code, don't get drunk, don't commit adultery, don't lie, don't steal, don't murder. I think those are the five things. And I mean, apart from the murder part, there were so many people who never took any of those other things seriously at all, but that

was part of their system. I guess you could say, well, that's true of so-called Christians. Yeah, I guess so. The point is, that's just fallen humanity. So how, how is anybody going to get out of that system. Buddhism is a little different, I guess, than the Hindu system. I don't know about the karmic element, but nevertheless, I think this point of hopelessness is really significant. And the irony is that even in their system, you have people claiming that Jesus is still around, gee, well, you know, that is hopeless. Well, thank you so much, Carl and Aaron. We appreciate hearing from you, and thanks for listening to the show. This is Amy Hall and Greg Kokel for Stand to Reason.