D.H. Cross

So? Einstein was pretty damn smart too and didn't believe in the soul or god. I think that where experts disagree at every turn on a subject it becomes a lot harder to make a proper appeal to authority. When Swedenborg steps beyond science he is in Terra Incognito, in no better shape than any other of the genius folk who dedicate their lives to the study of such mysteries (or illusions).

There are no absolutes. I do not "prove" to my wife that I love her. She makes the warranted assertion that I do love her based on my actions. Thus she reciprocates. Love is NOT unconditional. And never was.

I would be happy to read the file. I wonder if that internal and external mind is similar to Ken Wilber's distinctions...I know that Swedenborg was not a little bit influenced by eastern thought. You may also enjoy Colin Wilson's writing (the Outsider).

Jayhawker Soule

No problem. Do you suppose that Hindus believe in a personal God?

By the way, I'd be interested in knowing the 'atheistic texts' that constrain 'Theism' to belief in YHWH.

scumble

Accuracy and internal sense in the Bible? Accuracy certainly isn't a given, and internal sense could have something to do with the collecters of the stories in the Bible who produced the dead sea scrolls, which actually have drafts of certain stories in them.
If it can be interpreted so badly, does that make it such a good book? No-one agrees about interpreations.

A3

Hi D.H. Cross

A3: Emerson says of Swedenborg that "he is one of the missourians and mastodons of literature who is not to be measured by whole colleges of ordinary scholars."

“So? Einstein was pretty damn smart too... When Swedenborg steps beyond science he is in Terra Incognito, in no better shape than any other of the genius folk who dedicate their lives to the study of such mysteries (or illusions).”

A3: Except he did so by invitation... and literally reported what he “saw, heard and felt.”
That is exactly my point. Love itself, although it is non-physical is not nothing, it is a spiritual substance. In fact, I think, it is the basic substance of our mind.

“You may also enjoy Colin Wilson's writing (the Outsider).”
Did you know that he wrote the introduction to Swedenborg’s book Heaven and Hell?
The file will be on the way shortly.
----------------------------------------------
scumble

Accuracy in several ways. One is how few mistakes have been introduced over the several thousand years it has been copied many times. Every jot and tittle do seem to be important because they mean something. I think it is also accurate in the way it relays what people have done and said, flattering or not. Taken literally there are many contradictions and “double sayings” which are there for a reason but are not understood. For anyone who would like to read more there is the parable of Creation, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah’s Arc, Tower of Babel.

We have the human freedom to approach the Bible with our own agenda. We can also approach it with honesty and live by our interpretation. As with any interpretation I think some are better than others but one thing seems certain, God does not want us to use it as a club. Being right is not as important as being good. Trying to be right divides, trying to be good unites.
What I have read in it and about it proves to me that it is Revelation.

Regards
Adriaan

Kip

<strong>
A3: Instead of ‘false’ I would prefer to see them as containing less truth for me. They make less sense to me because basically they look inside a person and I don’t believe that is where we will find revelation. And I hasten to add that traditional Christianity falls in the same category with its faulty interpretations and consequent mysteries.
I subscribe to Swedenborgianism because it has credible answers to the meaning of life from creation to eternity.
It tells me everything I ever wanted to know about God and was invited to ask. What He came to do and how He did it.
It even explains to me why there are two genders with either a male or female mind.
That the resulting (holy) institution of marriage is based on the nature of God (not on the Bible). And that the most perfect “image and likeness” of Him is expressed in this unit of husband and wife.
It gives abundant detail about heaven and hell including their 5 laws.
By doing that it shows where our thoughts and feelings come from e.g. what happens during hypnosis.
That reincarnation is based on the incorrect interpretation of phenomena then encountered.
What the real origin of good and of evil are and why wars are allowed and even necessary.
Why there is no physical proof of anything spiritual, which includes God and His Providence.
It even tells me what the purpose of creation is and where God is trying to get us to go to, every moment of every day.
All this is based in part on a consistent explanation of the internal meaning of Genesis, Exodus and Revelation.

Kip: “. . . So religion appears to be a matter of habit.”
A3: Do you still see religion as a habit, which to me means a thoughtless, involuntary and repetitive action, like smoking, after reading the above?

Regards
Adriaan</strong>

Adriaan, I do not mind your replies at all. Indeed, I welcome them.

Regarding your question, perhaps we are using the word "habit" differently. By matter of habit, I mean a matter of habit, or custom, or preference, as opposed to a matter of fact. Cigarette smoking is one example. Smoking varies across peoples and geographies and there does not appear to be any firm consensus as to whether cigarette smoking is objectively "wrong". Most everyone agrees, however, that the world is round.

You ask me if I think religion is a matter of fact. First, let me suggest what establishes something as a matter of fact. A matter of fact would be something that either (or both):

1. there is a global consensus about
2. there is conclusive evidence supporting

The true criteria is 2 but a lack of 1 strongly suggests that an issue is a matter of habit and not fact. So, the question is, does religion satisfy these criteria? After what you told me, Adriaan, I must say no.

You summarize:

"I subscribe to Swedenborgianism because it has credible answers to the meaning of life from creation to eternity."

However, while you do provide answers, you never demonstrate that these answers are "credible". That is the problem I have with your logic. You tell me that your religion gives you all of these answers but you never show that any of these answers are the real answers. There are thousands of internally consistent religions and creation myths (not that Genesis is internally consistent) in the world and thousands of answers to these questions. How do you decide between them?

No, according to these criteria, religion is almost certainly a matter of habit or opinion, and not a matter of fact. If you disagree, please show me why.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Kip ]</p>

D.H. Cross

DHC: Only because you haven’t yet read enough Ken Wilber Well, actually, I don’t believe in his stuff either. Swedenborg believed that he spoke to angels and other celestial beings. His insights are the product of revelation, regardless of his towering intellect. How am I to choose his channeled knowledge over that of the Seth entity, or Mohammed, or Joseph Smith’s golden plates, or Neal Diamond Walsch’s New Age God? I must give the man credit though, for without him people such as Jung and the religion of Theosophy would not have been the same, leaving less good material to pave the way for 19th century spiritualism and ultimately our own watered down versions in the New Age markets.


DHC: Okay. Some Hindus have a "personal god" in the devotional path of "Bhakti", but I think it is more henotheistic (favoring one god among many). Atheistic texts do not constrain the definition of theism, but goes deeper than the most general to focus on a specific usage of the word to connote the Christian god, and more specifically the Christian God in the traditional sense with the most common affirmative traits (omni benevolence, omnipresence, etc). but explain the From “What is Atheism” from Douglas E. Krueger:

“Theism is often broadly defined as the view that there is at least one god. Monotheists hold that there is exactly one god, while polytheists claim that there are more than one. However, most theists in our culture [note: USA] are monotheists who assert that there is exactly one god, no more and no less. They further claim that this god has the traditional attributes of being omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omni benevolent (all-good), and transcendent (outside of space and time). These theists also claim that this god takes an active interest in human events, as opposed to, say, the god of deists, who has all the attributes of the god of the theists, but who is not involved in human affairs at all. Deists usually hold that the only evidence for the existence of god is the existence of the universe and its design, and perhaps the existence of moral values, yet they insist that these factors do not admit of any but the most general claims about the nature of god....
Because of its popularity, the view which will be most at issue in this work is the popular monotheistic view in which god is said to have the traditional attributes and is also supposedly concerned with human activity. This is a conception of god shared by Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other monotheists. Through this work I will refer to this kind of monotheism as theism, although much of the criticism will also apply to polytheism, deism, and other ids of belief in gods.” (Krueger, page 16”

Other books that do the same:

Martin, Michael. Atheism: A philosophical justification.

Smith, George. “The Case Against God” and “Why Atheism?”

Barker, Dan. “Losing Faith in Faith”.

Shermer, Michael. “How we Believe”.
etc.


I believe you missed my point when I declared there are no absolutes. I would be happy if I could remove all forms of “to be” from my writing, as Robert Anton Wilson has been able to do (Quantum Psychology), but that is impossible for me (others have done it, obviously). My thinking revolves around probability and what criteria we can use to assign levels of probabilities to certain propositions. Some things in life are not worth questioning, like gravity, and so I’d assign the highest probability to the prospect of death after jumping from the empire state building. But when we consider issues that cannot be tested, or where experts disagree, and empirical evidence is impossible, we are in quite another realm of inquiry. I follow the pragmatic “whatever works” model to a degree, but knowledge must be more than simply contextually justified (as Ayn Rand would claim). Real knowledge must also be true, and unfortunately, Truth is an ideal that is ultimately unattainable. And so, to repeat, have only the ability to make warranted assertions based on available evidence. There is no solid evidence for the soul consisting of pure Love.

A few mistakes?! My sources all agree on some of the following problems: Almost all of the books of the bible are anonymous, the gospels were written decades after the events they purport to record, we do not have any original documents of any of the books of the bible. Furthermore, the entire New Testament was written in Greek and nobody knows who translated the Aramaic of Jesus or if they were competent. At some points in the Church’s history, lying to promote its cause was encouraged (refer to Krueger for that one), and ancient documents critical of Christianity were sought out and destroyed (Gnostic for instance), and some manuscripts are different from other copies of the same book! Most of the books of the New Testament are known to be forgeries (Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity), the gospels are not independent accounts of the life of Jesus and the development of the bible undermines its reliability...

So I have seen enough reasons to dismiss the whole. Any sort of “Bible Code” makes the whole problem even more of a mess...

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: D.H. Cross ]

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: D.H. Cross ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

I'll accept this as a retraction of your previous insistence that: "You can't be a theist if you don't believe in the traditional sense of God! If you insist on another usage of theist then I suppose the whole matter becomes one of debate again."

As I've already noted: "In my opinion, [your arguments] are, at best, entirely secondary. They are arguments against a very specific and rather simplistic God. I can grant every one of your arguments and still walk away a happy theist." Your appeal to Krueger notwithstanding, the opinion stands.

D.H. Cross

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
<strong>I'll accept this as a retraction of your previous insistence that: "You can't be a theist if you don't believe in the traditional sense of God! If you insist on another usage of theist then I suppose the whole matter becomes one of debate again."</strong>[QUOTE]

Right, I see now. Damn it! I was misleading to phrase it as I did. And since writing that sentence I have spent several hours and many posts attempting to clarify what I meant to say! But I suppose that counts for nothing.

You are uncharitable concerning my mistake in an earlier post, RD if you mean to dismiss all of my arguments so summarily. My particular usage of the word is INCLUDED as a valid definition--in the dictionary--and well understood. I was obviously NOT talking about "all gods", but was focusing on the Christian conception of a personal god.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: D.H. Cross ]

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: D.H. Cross ]</p>

D.H. Cross

I repeat: "Of course, if you could prove to me that my use of the word was totally uprecedented that would be another matter. I guarantee that would not be the case."

I stand by what I said. My use of the word was NOT unprecedented. Yes, my statement that "one cannot be a theist if not believing in the traditional god" was wrong, because I disallowed the more general definition. However, that does not make my particular usage incorrect. Now...

Reasonable Doubt, what are your superior reasons for disbelief in God? I'd be interested to see them. How could you be a happy theist while granting all of my arguments? I am very curious to see.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: D.H. Cross ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

My primary reasons for disbelief in God(s) are identical to my primary reasons for disbelief in the Faerie Kingdom: the pervasive success of methodological naturalism and the persistent absence of evidence for the supernatural.
I see no value in playing devil's advocate - the New Age section of your local book store will give you plenty of examples. Your question is, however, interesting. That you would be "curious to see" how one could be a theist while granting your opening arguments seems to suggest that you are an atheist solely because you cannot envision a non-Christian deity. So, permit me to repeat my original questions:

• Do you believe in an impersonal God?
• Do you have any reason whatsoever to posit the supernatural?

Thanks, and take care.

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>