A3

Hi Purple Monkey Dishwasher

Originally posted by A3:
Just wondering why.. [heaven can't be perfect if we have free will.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t see your connection. Because of “Earth's imperfection...” heaven can’t be perfect eihter??
Are they one and the same?
To me there is a huge difference, here both heaven and hell are represented (or present with us). Please remember "Heaven is within you," and so is hell.
And we see the signs of both very clearly, the good and the bad. The choice is ours.

Regards
Adriaan

Purple Monkey Dishwasher

Well clearly your definitions of those words diverge from the norm.

Bible Humper

Hello A3! Thanks for the response.

The comparison with ants doesn't work for a couple reasons.

Consider how off the mark the predictions regarding the new century were back in 1900! These people had no chance of seeing what was to come, one can't help but notice how poor a job their prognosticators did peering ahead to see what was in store for them. Even those who felt that they were being wildly daring with their predictions fell far short of what actually happened, missing both the marvels and the miseries, the triumphs and the tragedies, the unimaginable progress and the unimaginable atrocites which lay ahead.

So why can we claim to be able to divine anything about the deity when we can't even make predictions regarding ourselves? Because we have to take into account our own limitations.

It is impossible for us to guess what humanity will be capable of 100 years from now, but this is more a matter of being unable to guess which limitations will prove to be glass ceilings and which will prove to be rock hard.

There is no maze of hypothetical limitations to navigate when talking about the deity, we know that "with God all things are possible" so we know that there are no limitations to speak of, besides the logically impossible such as square circles.

The idea that supernature is perceived in some way by each culture of the world has a definate advantage over the "one true faiths", which are all embarrassed by the presence of a different religion in every group of people in the world, from the largest empire's priesthood to the lone shaman in a tribe numbering a few dozen.

If we take an objective look at the issue from here, we can see that there are two explanations which fit. The first is that there is a supernatural force which is perceived imprecisely by people around the world, the second is that religious belief serves some psychological, and perhaps evolutionary, role.

The first option seems less and less compelling once we note that the various ideas of the supernatural run the gamut from animism to mysticism, from polytheism to monotheism. On top of this, the various modern UFO cults have shown that supernature is not an integral part of religion. Add to all this the modern revelation that phenomena long considered proof of supernature was actually natural, and the inability of supernaturalists to produce a single example of a supernatural phenomenon, and this idea is losing credibility fast!

I'm derailing my own thread now, so I'll stop and be sure to contribute to any future threads where you discuss this

Meaningful to Yahweh, if he made his existence known to all, everyone would be a Christian in order to avoid hell and get into heaven.

It does, because the deity's omniscience would have allowed him to predict the future actions of not only Adam and Eve, but all of their descendant up until the end of humanity.

If divine foreknowledge applies to humanity, the deity knew every decision we ever made, and ever will make, while he crafted Eve's eggs and Adam's sperm. He knew exactly when Adam and Eve's lust resulted in her first pregnancy, even down to the particulars of Adam's sperm and which would have fertilized the egg. It was no mystery to the deity at this point how the child would develop, including sex, personality, at what point he would get so horny that he was willing to do his sister, etc.

No, it is nothing like that because of what omniscience allowed the deity to forsee. He knew everything there is to know about us even as he crafted Eve's eggs.

Actually, the idea that divine foreknowledge and human freedom being incompatible was being argued by a Christian in another thread to defend against an argument I can't remember. If I find it I'll be sure to tell you why he felt it necessary to use this argument

Why would the deity play this kind of game? It almost seems that your idea leads to the conclusion that God only likes people who have a low standard of burden of proof!

The problem with prayer is that it works as often as random chance would tend to have resulted in whatever was prayed for. The deity seems to violate random chance blatantly about 1 time in a million. I see that you don't believe in this sort of prayer, with good reason!

If the deity is preserving our "spiritual freedom", which I take to mean in this context to encourage belief in supernature of some sort, why are the interpretations of supernature so different? Also, if the presence of belief in the supernatural is already evidence of his presence, why doesn't he intervene for the good of mankind?

Why wouldn't he speak up for the few atheists of the world? If he has already decided that it is acceptable to allow enough evidence for those who are more credulous, why not just quit the games and present something convincing to us all?

Why would he care if I call him anything at all? He made me, he knew when he crafted Eve's egg how I would turn out, he already had forseen that I wouldn't be subjected to weekly "education" at church, and he also knew that I would see tons of evidence that religion is false.

Why would he care? It is patently absurd to attribute to the transcendant mind of an omniscient entity an over-riding desire for his creations to believe in him, specifically to believe in him without any evidence. "To have faith."

It is instead suspiciously consistent with the petty desires of the human minds of a worldly priest class.

Like I said before, if "they see something I don't", why doesn't the deity show me too?

How about lack of religious background?


Evidence doesn't have to be physical, it only has to be sound.

The five items I listed in the original post are presented by mainstream Christians as evidence, most of my points don't apply to your particular theology, in fact you agree with me on a number of things!

Actually, you misunderstood this. I was talking about the Christians who think that atheists secretly believe in God, but that we reject him so we don't have to live how he demands. I for one would swallow my pride, I hear it's damn hot down there!

Anyway, thanks a lot for taking the time to go through my entire post, I thought that I wasn't ever going to get a theistic response to it! Even though your theology is very different from the mainstream, there are still a couple points which are still applicable.

Before I'm done, let me ask what distinguishes your theology from solipsism? You agreed with me on many points above regarding standard Christian claims not being evidence, so I'm wondering what you see as evidence of the existence of supernature.

A3

Hi Bible Humper

I was simply comparing the two distances, between us and ants and between us and God. In fact that they are incomparable.
What about both? I don’t think we will ever precisely perceive the supernatural (again to preserve our freedom but also we would have to be infinite ourselves) and that what we do with what we do perceive is crucial to our spiritual development. A major segment of Swedenborg’s books deals with use. The use of this world is for us, and we have a use to look after the world and everything in it. He says for instance that we were not created for the sake of ourselves but for the sake of others. The recognition of this should put us right smack in the middle of heaven.
That is the ultimate goal of our development and, as you indicate, God doesn’t seem to care how we get there: “ideas of the supernatural run the gamut from animism to mysticism.” That is why I believe that God says: “whatever makes you happy....it is your eternity.” (But the more you compel yourself now to follow My advice, the happier you’ll be later). Happiness is feeling useful. A test or qualifier of whatever we do, think or wish could be: What is the use?
Muslims would not appreciate this, neither would atheists. And here is another basic point. We can only go to heaven if heaven is in us, not just to avoid hell. If the only reason to be a good person is to stay out of jail, we will only be good until we know 100% we can get away with something. We have to actually love being good. If the only reason to not have sex outside our marriage is the risk of picking-up a decease, marriage is not our priority.
We are what we love. If we don’t love being good we are being compelled from the outside. This can be the loss of reputation, job, money, health, etc. So basically that is what we are here for, to shape our love( us) into something we are happy with. And this is what the Bible is all about. The creation story is not to tell us how it was done (what is the use) but how a natural person, in 7 stages, is changed into a spiritual one. There are two creation stories because the next phase is how a spiritual person becomes celestial. And these accounts themselves are like an index because then every detail of the journey of the Israelites through the desert is about human spiritual development. All seven stages of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You give a very good description of omniscience. But God is all knowing because He is in time apart from time. He is in the future, the past end the present at the same time. He is our constant Observer. But He does not manipulate or force us to act in a certain way at all because there is no need, as you say, He already knows. He knows what we will decide in freedom. If our freedom were jeopardized in any way we would not be human but puppets on a string.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A3:....God does give us hints and signs but we could be oblivious to them untill we have a close call or someone close to us dies. Then we may slow down and start thinking in ways we never thought before.
BH: Why would the deity play this kind of game?
Because He loves us He wants us to love Him in freedom. As said before, love only exists in freedom but, just as important, it also has to be reciprocal to be meaningful. This is obvious in any marriage. As in any relationship it shouldn’t be a one-way street. God doesn’t force His children to love Him any more than any parent would either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In short to enrich the mosaic of heaven and so make it more perfect. Every pebble of sand is different, every single person that ever existed is different. It is also a representation of His infinity.
Because of a low point in this believe He did, 2000 years ago. He came to do several things to get things back on track. One was to start a new religion which would bring people closer to Him. (But within 325 years people screwed-up again, what else is new).
Like what?? If anything did happen the only question would be: “I wonder how the scientists or Hollywood pulled this off?” There are people in the next life who insist they are still living in the body in this world. That goes to show we are free here and are still free there too. Our freedom is never, ever taken away because that is what makes us who we are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are looking at the same stuff with a different mind-set. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being skeptical, to ask why and to search for truth and I also know that the C. church has always strongly discouraged that very human trait. “You are always welcome but leave your intelligence at the door.” There is a difference, however, if we insist on physical proof and that only evidence we can see or feel with our senses will do, we’ll never find it and only become more and more negative. He said several times “My kingdom is not of this world” so neither is the evidence.
And why would He care? Because He is Love itself He loves the human race and that includes you too. Would you really mind what your wife calls you while you know she loves you? Love has three characteristics: love others outside of oneself, desire to be one with them and make them happy. God created people so He can shower them with his love, NOT because He needs their love and adoration. We don’t love somone for the sole reason they will love us and we don’t decide to have kids so they will love us too.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that if the lack is through circumstances beyond our control there is absolutely no problem whatsoever. Every single child that dies, whatever the situation, is lovingly embraced. But if any one with rationality, in freedom, makes the conscious, deliberate choice to reject God, than that choice is respected. No one has to be close to God who doesn’t want to.
I love you saying that, is that a sound mind or what
I know too little about what solipsism entails to give you a point by point difference. However, first and foremost, Swedenborgianism is squarely based on the internal sense of the Bible. I have mentioned its consistent treatment of Genesis, Exodus and Revelation. Also, I believe Swedenborg was completely above board and except the story of his life as true (so does the Swedish government). Findings in the medical world are still substantiating today what S. wrote about the brain and its opperation. It also rings true because it even has room for "Crossing over with John Edward I could go on for some time but a websearch with "Swedenborg" should produce enough to give you a pretty good idea.
Why believe something we don’t think is true?

Regards
Adriaan

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: A3 ]</p>

Bible Humper

Hello A3,

This is the thing though, because this deity is described as omnimax, though not by you, the distance between Yahweh and the ant is no larger than the distance between him and man. Both distances are equally immeasurable.

My point with this is that it is much easier to conceive of the possibilities available to a being without limits than it is to conceive of what our own race will be capable of in 100 years.

This is why I don't think it is nonsense to even attempt to describe this being "in a few lines of logic". Yahweh's power can be easily described because it is without limits, trying to describe where human progress will get us in 100 years is hopeless on the other hand, because despite all gains we will still be limited!

Well, the second scenario could be a naturalistic expression of the first, but what good is solipsism?

I could hypothesize that we are brains in a bottle being fed stimuli for the purpose of running a simulation of a world dominated by intelligent primates, and that though religious belief seems to have evolved, it was just made to look that way so that the administrators of this reality could more easily cause wars to break out when they wanted to.


Why would this supernatural agency(ies) inspire false revelations of what it is? Supernature can't be a deity, a pantheon, an animistic concept, and mystical "energy" all at once!

Also, some afterlives are more equal than others, why do some get utopia handed to them on a silver platter but then other have to make do with sitting around the deity chanting "holy, holy, glory, glory"?

If all interpretations of supernature are valid, why not live according to the hedonistic ideas of Dionysus and be rewarded for it with more pleasure in the afterlife? Screw Yahweh's taboos!

"Good" is a rather subjective term, it seems that the Vikings were assured by their deities that indulging in the adventurous, exciting life of a raider/pirate was the "good" way to spend your life.

Regarding the next paragraph, are the seven stages described by Swedenborgianism equivalent to the seven chakras? Just curious about that.

Yes, but the following doesn't match this idea...

But he created all of us! It is at that point where the "manipulation" occured!

A real deity could have easily made it so that all humanity would know and love him, by making it so that only people with whatever characteristics are crucial in determining this question were present in all children who were conceived!

Surely you weren't a puppet when you came to believe, so why are people who don't have the needed characteristics even conceived?

If the attempt is made to claim that we all have equal "chances" to start, then it becomes necessary to explain why the deity uses such an arbitrary process.

If you and me had equal "chances" of knowing and loving God upon birth, and life events alone have made me an atheist and you a theist, why would the deity concern himself with the inevitable result of his decision to hide?

Well, I have to say that the whole "the deity loves above all things faith " thing looks suspiciously consistent with the petty desires of the human minds of a worldly priest class rather than the "desires", if it is even reasonable to attribute to this sort of entity such a thing, of an omniscient, omnibenevolent deity.

Why would he play games like this? I makes no sense for this transcendant being to be especially pleased that biological organisms believe in him without evidence. It's ridiculous actually, what could possibly motivate such an inane desire in the mind of this being?

It seems to me that the only answer to this is "the deity works in mysterious ways", but this is once again pushing the religion towards solipsism because in order for religion to exist without a real deity, it would have to admonish it's followers to "have faith" in order to cover for the glaring lack of evidence.

In other words, the deity crafted the universe to be indisinguishable from a naturalistic universe, even going so far as to demand that his creatures believe in him without evidence so that it could appear that he might be a myth to those who fail to be too afraid to question the tale.

Well, not all heavens are created equal, and the entrance requirements are both wildly different and not matched to the desireability of the reward!

A Dionysian can spend his life indulging in every pleasure, and then be rewarded with even better pleasures afterwards, but the poor christian is fettered by a bunch of inconvenient taboos and his reward is to sit around his deity for all time singing about it's glory!

I don't see how heaven is enriched by different interpretations of supernature either, it still makes no sense for there to be so many wrong ideas!

Almost all religions, though not your own, claim to have exclusive access to the Truth. It is strange that Supernature would lead them to this conclusion!

If we look at world religions to discover if they are true, rather than skip that and jump to deciding how they are true, it becomes very clear that the evidence points to religion being a phenomenon of social-psychology rather than supernature.

Actually, I was referring to the problem of evil here because it appeared that you were saying that there is sufficient evidence for Yahweh's existence.

Why wouldn't he present me with the life events which convinced you?

If what you are saying above is true, that atheists would simply rationalise any manifestation of supernature to have a naturalistic explanation, then the deity has absolutely no excuse for not alleviating the misery of the world. The problem of evil refutes this particular deity concept.

If it is beyond the deity's power to convince us, and our atheistic worldviews are due to something more than following the trail of evidence, I also have to wonder about the items listed in the OP being presented to argue for the existence of Yahweh in the first place!

Most believers consider the pieces of "evidence" I listed to be credible enough, why not make it less ambiguous so that the rest of us see our error and become believers?

It seems that if we follow this line of reasoning, that the conclusion must be that the deity loves people with low standards of burden of proof!

This is once again dooming religion to solipsism because in a universe without supernature, the the theists are definately going to have lower standards of proof than the atheists! Not to mention the embarrassing implications of this idea for the image of the religion!

Actually, during my teen years I was much more inclined towards the idea that there "is some greater force" than naturalism. When I became more interested in the question, a supernatural explanation certainly had the benefit of the doubt initially!

I was still unable to conclude that supernature is real.

It is an odd thing indeed that people who are given religious instruction during their formative years tend to conclude later that the religion they were taught is the one true one. I find it impossible to even imagine a good apologetic argument explaining how there are no purely psychological reasons for religious convictions when this fact is so well known.

Your own religion is much more reasonable than almost all others on this point, and if the world's religions didn't all "receive revelations" that they are the one true faith it would be even stronger. It still isn't adequate though, there is an embarrassment of riches when it comes to evidence that religion is merely a phenomenon of social-psychology.

There is no choice, if I discovered that the deity is real I would kiss his ass too. The consequences of refusal are too dire and the reward to good to behave otherwise.

It seems strange, once again, that the deity would employ such a haphazard system of taking your measure. The circumstances of each individuals life play such a massive role in determining whether or not one becomes a believer that I find it odd that he would attach so much importance to it when he doesn't give everyone the same chances(nearly!).

Solipsism is the idea that the self is all that you know to exist. When I say that your religion seems solipsistic, I'm saying that your hypothesis is merely a superfluous speculation of a reality beyond our own, which created and influences this realty in such a way that we can't perceive it.

The classic example is the brain in a bottle scenario, there is no way to know that we are not brains in a lab being fed stimuli directly to our brains, instead of through sense organs, and living a virtual reality simulation of planet Earth. Everything would run the same as the real thing, there wouldn't be the slightest difference, so it is impossible to prove this hypothesis wrong.

Religion is solipsistic also, the believer invents fantastically convulted reasons for explaining how the natural processes of cause and effect in our universe are actually the benevolent "plan" of a higher intelligence.

This is why there has to be evidence, there are billions upon billions of conceivable solipsistic scenarios. The trouble with claiming the items listed in the OP to be evidence though, is that it ruins the free will defense to the problem of evil and the explanation of why the deity hides.

The middle road seems blocked as well, unless the apologist wishes to argue that his deity loves you more the lower your standard of burden of proof is! This argument would vindicate atheist charges of theist credulity, as well as cause us to wonder why the deity plays such a strange game!

Religion is about rationalising how a naturalistic universe's indifference is actually a transcendant expression of it's love for us, it is impossible to read apologetics without realising how contorted and irrational the effort really is.

This is why it is solipsistic. There is no evidence for supernature, as one would expect in a naturalistic universe, so we are told that the deity "loves faith above all" and if there was actual evidence we would "merely" believe.

The universe is indifferent to us, as would be the case in a naturalistic universe, but we are told that injustice and woe are part of a "benevolent plan" so profound that we just can't understand it. "The deity works in mysterious ways"

The holy book's stories seem incompatible with the incarnation of a real deity, as one would expect in a naturalistic universe because the tale wouldn't have happened for real, but we are told that there must be a good reason for it because God is perfect though the apologist can't imagine it right now.

Prayers which are alleged to always be answered never seem to violate the laws of chance too blatantly, as one would expect in a naturalistic universe because prayer wouldn't work, so we are told that the deity answers "no" sometimes, but that he must have had a good reason for it! When prayer is indeed answered the deity apparently likes to show how clever he is by making appear that it happened naturally, even though the theist "knows" that the deity did it, he doesn't like to make it too obvious!

Miracles seemed to become less frequent and less amazing as mankind developed the means to investigate the claims properly, as would be expected in a naturalistic universe because there would be no real miracles, but we are told that this is because we are "no longer close to God", and that there are still some miracles but God makes sure they can't be proved because faith is so important to him, don't forget.

The philosophy allegedly handed down by the deity seems to be a rather crude effort by barbarians at hammering out a moral code, as one would expect in a naturalistic universe because they wouldn't have been guided by a real deity, but we are told that "That part isn't relevant anymore" or "This part wasn't supposed to be taken literally". The fact that there are thousands of interpretations of scripture would appear to prove that there was no deity involved, but we are told many excuses to explain this too.

It amazes me that the believer never looks at his own religion and marvels that despite the labyrinthine theological contortions, the unimaginably profound "plan", and the omnimax attributes of a meddling deity, that the resultant universe is indistinguishable from a universe running on it's own by natural laws!!!


Why indeed! A good question for your deity!

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

A3

Hello Bible Humper

A3: I was simply comparing the two distances, between us and ants and between us and God. In fact that they are incomparable.
BH: This is the thing though, because this deity is described as omnimax, though not by you, the distance between Yahweh and the ant is no larger than the distance between him and man.
A3: But I didn’t say that. Both the ant and us people are in the same natural world. God is spirit, He is in the spiritual world. We can, if we want to, realize we are in both, the natural and the spiritual world. Because of our body we are in the first, because of our mind we are in the second.

BH: This is why I don't think it is nonsense to even attempt to describe this being "in a few lines of logic". Yahweh's power can be easily described because it is without limits, trying to describe where human progress will get us in 100 years is hopeless on the other hand, because despite all gains we will still be limited!
A3: Ok, so one is easier done by you than the other but I think we are comparing apples and oranges. I for one, don’t care what humanity is doing in a 100 years. Also I have read and accepted as truth enough material about God that for myself I can agree with your first line of logic. Your next line is both right and wrong because of your assumptions about God, how He works and what His goals are. This obviously makes your conclusion wrong.

BH: I could hypothesize that we are brains in a bottle being fed stimuli for the purpose of running a simulation of a world dominated by intelligent primates, and that though religious belief seems to have evolved, it was just made to look that way so that the administrators of this reality could more easily cause wars to break out when they wanted to.
A3: I quess you could, so what is stopping you? You could also have yourself beamed-up to a meteorite....
=========
A3: That is the ultimate goal of our development and, as you indicate, God doesn’t seem to care how we get there: “ideas of the supernatural run the gamut from animism to mysticism.” That is why I believe that God says: “whatever makes you happy....it is your eternity.” (But the more you compel yourself now to follow My advice, the happier you’ll be later).
BH: Why would this supernatural agency(ies) inspire false revelations of what it is? Supernature can't be a deity, a pantheon, an animistic concept, and mystical "energy" all at once!
A3 : Why are they false? They inspire a believe in a higher being and humility, that’s all that is necessary after death to be open to the truth. In certain cases having more than one wife was even allowed to get into the right mind-set. I also think there are good cannibals in heaven
=========
BH: Also, some afterlives are more equal than others, why do some get utopia handed to them on a silver platter but then other have to make do with sitting around the deity chanting "holy, holy, glory, glory"?
A3: So do you also believe that the terrorists who destroyed the WTC are now reveling in wine, women and song? They were told they would. BTW those that think we sit around the deity chanting "holy, holy, glory, glory" are in for a surprise.
BH: If all interpretations of supernature are valid, why not live according to the hedonistic ideas of Dionysus and be rewarded for it with more pleasure in the afterlife? Screw Yahweh's taboos!
A3: Because they are not all valid, but more wishfull thinking or manipulative.
==========
A3: ...We have to actually love being good.
BH: "Good" is a rather subjective term, . .
A3: To us yes! Because whatever we love we call good, and whatever we believe we call truth. But to God “good” is precise and not subjective. Swedenborg says being good is the same as being useful, it is the fondness of thinking and acting according to Divine order.
========
BH: Regarding the next paragraph, are the seven stages described by Swedenborgianism equivalent to the seven chakras? Just curious about that.
A3: I have no idea but will try to find out. Also, when 7 is used in the Bible it means a holy process.
=========
A3: But God is all knowing because He is in time apart from time. He is in the future, the past and the present at the same time. He is our constant Observer.
-----------------------------------------------------------
BH: Yes, but the following doesn't match this idea...
-----------------------------------------------------------
A3: But He does not manipulate or force us to act in a certain way at all because there is no need, as you say, He already knows. He knows what we will decide in freedom. If our freedom were jeopardized in any way we would not be human but puppets on a string.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A3: Why don’t they match?? You are saying “But he created all of us! It is at that point where the "manipulation" occured!” There is no manipulation whatsoever at any time. We are created as free agents with the ability to believe and do what we want. You don’t seem to appreciate that freedom and I have no idea why.
===========
BH: A real deity could have easily made it so that all humanity would know and love him, by making it so that only people with whatever characteristics are crucial in determining this question were present in all children who were conceived!
A3: No, God could not do that because that would be against His order. Besides, as I said before, would you manipulate your kids that way? Would you value someone’s love if they had to love you?
BH: Surely you weren't a puppet when you came to believe, so why are people who don't have the needed characteristics even conceived?
A3: You mean people like you Sorry, had to throw that in. But I probably made a choice at some point, I don’t remember. If my grandparents had not come across books of Swedenborg and pass those on, there is a good chance I would be in jail right now. I really think so because there is no way that I can accept what traditional Christanity is saying. Is all of humanity damned because someone stole one of God’s apples?? God had His own son brutally murdered just to feel better Himself?? (Talk about evil) Because of these misconceptions there are mysteries. Of course there are. That’s why Swedenborg (1688-1772) said the Christian Church is spiritually dead, they lost contact with reality. We all can make the choice at any time in our life to stay positive. By saying: “I cannot believe this interpretation, but that does not mean there is no God.” It is very difficult to do when everything we hear while growing up is: “religion is bunk, it doesn’t make sense, it exists to control the masses, etc. I consider myself lucky.
=========
BH: If the attempt is made to claim that we all have equal "chances" to start, then it becomes necessary to explain why the deity uses such an arbitrary process.
If you and me had equal "chances" of knowing and loving God upon birth, and life events alone have made me an atheist and you a theist, why would the deity concern himself with the inevitable result of his decision to hide?
A3: This reminds me of a story about a man who gets the warning that a flood is about to happen. He says “God will save me.” The flood does come so he goes up one floor. A boat comes by and wants to help him. He declines “God will save me” he says. The water keeps rising and now he has to go onto the roof. A helicopter comes by to rescue him of the roof. He declines with the same words “God will save me.” His house collapses and he drowns. He does get to the pearly gates and expresses his great dismay that God had not come to rescue him. At which point God said: I gave you warning, I sent you a boat and I sent you a helicopter, what more do you want? (Now He is sending you Swedenborg )
Granted, we may not have had equal “chances”, some people seem to need, and get, more opportunities than others. My personal feeling is that even at birth a child who’s mother is on drugs gets a completely different hereditary ‘package’ than a child from a ‘mother Theresa.’
And what about the mentally retarded. I certainly don’t have all the answers. But I do believe that the Lord calls every single one of us and that we all have the opportunity to heed the call. And why call the result “inevitable”? Are you not free to chose, to say I’ll give it a chance?
==============
BH: Well, I have to say that the whole "the deity loves above all things faith " thing looks suspiciously consistent with the petty desires of the human minds of a worldly priest class rather than the "desires"...
A3: That is just about the most opposite you can get to what Swedenborg is saying. He says: every single person, of whatever believe or faith, who lives honestly and sincerely according to his or her religion is accepted with great joy.
==============
BH: Why would he play games like this? I makes no sense for this transcendant being to be especially pleased that biological organisms believe in him without evidence. It's ridiculous actually, what could possibly motivate such an inane desire in the mind of this being?
A3: He is motivated by His love for His creation. He created us to love us and make us happy and hopes we will love Him too.
BH: ...In other words, the deity crafted the universe to be indisinguishable from a naturalistic universe, even going so far as to demand that his creatures believe in him without evidence so that it could appear that he might be a myth to those who fail to be too afraid to question the tale.
A3: The universe to me is the same as nature. Do you love your parents? And do you love your parents because you are afraid of them?
I love and have the greatest respect for God because of His beautiful creation with all it’s almost infinite forms of life and me being a part of it.
============
HB: I don't see how heaven is enriched by different interpretations of supernature either, it still makes no sense for there to be so many wrong ideas!
A3: It is comparable to the number of pixels in a picture, the more the better. Everyone is free to believe and accept whatever they want because that makes them individual with an individual use. Even if we honestly believe in an incorrect idea, it still means we believe. It means we have a willingness to be led and that is what is meant by being like a child.
BH: Almost all religions, though not your own, claim to have exclusive access to the Truth. It is strange that Supernature would lead them to this conclusion!
Ah, ah that is human nature. Believe like me or you’re out.
==================
BH: Also, if the presence of belief in the supernatural is already evidence of his presence, why doesn't he intervene for the good of mankind?
A3: Because of a low point in this believe He did, 2000 years ago.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BH: Actually, I was referring to the problem of evil here because it appeared that you were saying that there is sufficient evidence for Yahweh's existence.
A3: To me there is. I look at the totality of life on this planet and its incredible variety and complexity, from the fruitfly to the human eye and interpret it as a creation, not an accident. Having said “A” I then have to say “B”too, in other words, acknowledging a creation means to me there must be a creator. As for available, authoritive information about this creator in the Western world, the logical choice was the Bible. I don’t remember ever having to make a choice between religious denominations, between one interpretation or another. Maybe I just gravitated towards Swedenborg because of my parents, but there never was an issue of me not stomaching a particular interpretation or approach, it all just made sense. I am not here trying to convince you or anybody else of anything because I can’t. All I can do is let you have a look at what has given me great tranquility and peace. What I’m doing now is no different than someone sharing a great spot to go fishing or this store that will certainly have the book you are looking for, etc.
As we discussed before, the incredible consistency in all of Swedenborg’s books about the meaning of the Bible stories in every aspect of our life and all the detailed information about the next life including the Near Death Experience, it all makes sense without any mental contortions or mysteries.
BH: Why wouldn't he present me with the life events which convinced you?
A3: Well, it so comes to mind that there just might be an opportunity. Next Wednesday, at 7.30 pm there is an inquirers-class with the topic God or the Lord, as we prefer to call Him. I noticed you are from Toronto and this is on the corner of Burnhamthorpe and Lorraine Gardens. As the saying goes: “What have you got to lose?” Just sit in and observe. Last time there were eight visitors and I only knew four of them (one being my wife
=============
BH: The circumstances of each individuals life play such a massive role in determining whether or not one becomes a believer that I find it odd that he would attach so much importance to it when he doesn't give everyone the same chances(nearly!).
A3: He is working day and night to give little hints, opportunities, the ah-ha feelings if things “connect” etc. All this is for reason that only what the human mind makes its own in freedom will be accepted and made its own and stay. Everything else disappears in time.
=============
A3: I know too little about what solipsism entails to give you a point by point difference.
BH: Solipsism is the idea that the self is all that you know to exist. When I say that your religion seems solipsistic, I'm saying that your hypothesis is merely a superfluous speculation of a reality beyond our own, which created and influences this realty in such a way that we can't perceive it.
A3: What would be the use of that? Would a NDE alter anything?

Regards
Adriaan