K

A3:

So then I take it you don't believe in the doctrine of original sin which declares us guilty just by being born. I assume you also believe that there were probably many people who lived completely sinless lives. If it is possible, then it would be strange to imagine that it hasn't happened.

Jobar

Sigh.

"A: I don’t know what that is based on, but God, being love itself, is incapable of doing evil. "

Adriaan, I suggest you go back and review this whole thread. What you are saying here is that people are capable of doing things God is incapable of doing. Can you say, 'non-omnipotent'?

And as to putting us into little cages- are angels (whatever *they* are) in cages? And would you prefer being caged to burning in hell for all eternity?

Look, I have been up these stairs too many times lately- I'm done with this thread, though of course I will continue reading it as a mod. Adriaan, allow me to suggest that you read the "Where was God?" thread in RRPetc.

Guttersnipe

Though I may be beating a dead horse, here's my two cents:

The theist would deal with the apparent inconsistency between Gods essential characteristics of: (a)omnipotence (b)being a free agent (c)perfectly good; by limiting the definition of 'omnipotence' to something like: (x) is able at time (t) to do any action that it is ontologically possible for (x) to do at (t). (Insert God for (x))

It would not be ontologically possible for an essentially perfectly good God to commit an evil act. Therefore, God's inability to do evil does not contradict his attribute of omnipotence, as omnipotence does not entail the ability to take ontologically impossible actions.

If that makes any sense...

A3

Hi K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: I don’t know what that is based on, but God, being love itself, is incapable of doing evil. Hey! He did give us free will like His, we never have to do evil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K: So then I take it you don't believe in the doctrine of original sin which declares us guilty just by being born.
A: No, I don’t. One reason is that Adam was not one man but the first church on earth. Swedenborg calls it “The Most Ancient Church.” The name Adam really means Man or Mankind.
We believe, as many Bible scholars do too, that the the first 10.5 chapters in Genesis were made-up ‘history’ and was copied by Moses from the previous “Bible” or Word of God.
Swedenborg also writes:
“...the Garden of Eden means the wisdom of the people in that church, the tree of life means the Lord being in man and man being in the Lord, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil means man not being in the Lord but immersed in his own self (proprium), as is everyone who believes that he does everything, even good, of himself. Eating from this tree means making evil one's own.”

K: I assume you also believe that there were probably many people who lived completely sinless lives.
A: Well, the only ones I could think of would be the mentally challenged because they lack the spiritual freedom of a rational person.
Not believing in O.S does not mean I don’t believe in the existence of sin or evil. Even though it is hereditary and passed down, we do have the option to “brake the cycle.” What I meant by “we never have to do evil” is that we are never forced to, it is always our choice. Besides, I think we can only be quilty of the wrongs we decided to do ourselves. We are all born with a clean slate. Underneath that slate are a lot of hereditary inclinations (good and bad) and depending on the ones we make our own, that’s who we become.
The concept of O.S. would seem impossible to reconcile with a loving God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Jobar

J: I'm done with this thread...
A: OK, I’ll just answer your last questions

"A: I don’t know what that is based on, but God, being love itself, is incapable of doing evil."
J: Adriaan, I suggest you go back and review this whole thread.
A: Then why did you bring it up again?? You mean to say that I have to agree with what has been said?
===========
J: What you are saying here is that people are capable of doing things God is incapable of doing. Can you say, 'non-omnipotent'?
A: Yes, while in this life I can; as you well know, anyone can say anything they want, and do so. After our body dies, however, we cannot pretend and say anything anymore that we don’t believe in or love something we have never loved while in this physical body. That is what it means to be a spirit (and an angel is a good spirit). Swedenborg describes several experiments with Catholic spirits who were incapable of saying: “One God” because, after all, here they can say one God but they really do believe in three Gods.
And that is what this life is all about; we have the spiritual freedom to determine who and what we want to be when we die. Once we make the choice what to love, that’s it, we love that to eternity. (Btw, this is not an eternity in time).
How far did you get when you read some of Swedenborg, the title page maybe? It is all spelled out in there you know.
BTW You still haven’t given me your own definition of evil. And how about your definition of love and your thoughts on what it could possibly mean to be Love itself and Wisdom itself ? (and thus Life itself).
================
J: And as to putting us into little cages- are angels (whatever *they* are) in cages? And would you prefer being caged to burning in hell for all eternity?
A: If God had created us as angels (as you suggested) we would not have had the spiritual freedom we have now (please see previous answer). If He had given us the same use of freedom as we have here, we obviously would be in the same boat as we are now.
===============
Just a snippet:
It is no mark of intelligence to be able to prove whatever one pleases. But to be able to discern what is true as true and what is false as false -- this is the mark and character of intelligence.
True Christian Religion 334

Regards
Adriaan

K

A3:

It is encouraging to see that you don't believe in original sin, but

would you really think that God frowns on us acting in a rational way? Why would He only bestow the gift of a sinless life (through mental challenge) to a few of his creatures? Why not all of us?

A3

Hello K

"Well, the only ones I could think of would be the mentally challenged because they lack the spiritual freedom of a rational person."

K: ...would you really think that God frowns on us acting in a rational way?
A: Absolutely not, (we did not just get our intelligence to be smart shoppers) as long as we don’t go overboard. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to go to heaven” This had nothing to do with money but everything to do with smarts and knowledge. We can consider ourselves so rich in smarts and intelligence that we don’t need God.

K: Why would He only bestow the gift of a sinless life (through mental challenge) to a few of his creatures? Why not all of us?
A: You wanna trade The first of five spiritual laws (that even God will not break) is that “A person should act from freedom according to reason.” If we are not in spiritual freedom (severe sickness, disability, obsession, brainwashing, etc) or we cannot use our reason, then we are not spiritually responsible.
Besides, commiting sin is not the end of the world. We are all human, no one is perfect, everyone makes mistakes, and He knows that, but to not learn from it is the real sin.
The best thing that can happen to anyone is to get caught and then say: “I’ll never do that again.”
Please remember that anything we get on a platter will in no time be regarded as worthless. We have to work at becoming an angel.
There is one very important and much larger group that I completely forgot about, sorry, but maybe you figured that out for yourself. All children that die go straight to heaven because they have not made any of their hereditary tendencies their own; they are not responsible.

Regards
Adriaan

K

A3:

If the choice is between being mentally challenged and and eternity of unimaginable torture, hell yes I wanna trade. I think you might have said you don't believe in Hell. If there is no Hell, I wouldn't want to trade.

A3

Hello K

Heaven and hell has over many ages been a huge subject and hard to react to in just a few words, but I’ll try. But if that leaves any questions please say so.

About the existence of hell I would say that it exists alright, but also, one man’s heaven is another man’s hell. Besides, they are spiritual, they are not places but states of mind that we choose while in this life. This makes them both very much present in this world and in my personal opinion the best way to see what that hell is like is to watch the movie “The Godfather.”
It says in the Bible “Wickedness burneth as the fire” (Isaiah 9:18) and that’s all it is. The hatred, mistrust, revenge, etc. is what causes the burning smell
What else is it but the burning, all-consuming selfishness of those who have completely and deliberately rejected the Lord - their own burning passions and ambitions; their own hot tempers and smouldering revenge - the fires of self-love burning within them? If we habitually have within us now the burning fires of self-love, which are the fires of hell, we will still have them after death to eternity - unless we repent and change our ways, which, of course, we are free to do.
This part was from a sermon I heard. What makes hell a ‘place’ of torment and of no peace is that everyone there wants to rule over everyone else, and have his or her own way. The selfish love of dominating is what makes hell to be hell. And as long as we can get what we want we would be happy but that is not going to happen all the time, so the other times we are not happy.
Someone once said: the reason people in heaven are joyous and blissful and those in hell are sometimes somewhat happy is because they are with people just like them.
As you may see, this is the result of a loving and meriful God who lets you have what you want. Not a vengeful one who sends and tortures you there. He doesn’t even do the punishing, the people there do that.
Because heaven also is a state of mind it is just as little a reward as hell is a punishment. The joy and delight in heaven are side effects of a loving and useful frame of mind. The very limited happiness in hell is the side effect of a egotistical or selfish mind set.
Actually there is a third state which Swedenborg calls The World of Spirits. That’s the one we are all in right now and will wake-up in after death. Because this state is between heaven and hell it guaranties our equilibrium or spiritual freedom to go either way. The seven stages in the parable of creation depict the degrees of spiritual development we have to go through from being selfish to becoming an angel.
I hope you don’t believe that angels were created as such because that would leave very little for us to do to eternity.

Kind Regards
Adriaan

K

A3:

If that's hell, I would have nothing to fear. I reject the Lord, but still have no desire to dominate. I am not vengeful or angry. It might get boring being surrounded by people just like myself (as it would being surrounded by any one type of person), but I don't think there would be personality conflicts.

So if going to hell means I'll be surrounded by people who like to analyze things rationally before accepting them, who have an overwhelming love for their families and friends, and would like to make life better for the rest of humanity, bring it on.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by Guttersnipe:

"The theist would deal with the apparent inconsistency between Gods essential characteristics of: (a)omnipotence (b)being a free agent (c)perfectly good; by limiting the definition of 'omnipotence' to something like: (x) is able at time (t) to do any action that it is ontologically possible for (x) to do at (t). (Insert God for (x))"

I don't think this move will ultimately work. This falls prey to the problem of McEar, a being who is essentially unable to do anything but scratch his ear. It is ontologically impossible for McEar ever to do anything other than scratch his ear, so he is omnipotent.