Oh Truman!! Your link disappointed me no end. I was expecting
THIS!

Well I have to admit I have heard it put more eloquently. In fact I was trying to find it in Joseph Campbell's, The Power of Myth, but I didn't feel like spending two hours looking for it.

However, it does bring up the time when I was explaining this to my roommate, and I said, "Hey did you know a cat has three names?" And I'm looking at him thinking, "Now if he had a cat what would he name him? Hmm, how about Ralph?" and I said, "Well let's say you had a cat and his name was Ralph?" And he said, "Wait a second, I had a cat named Ralph!" Isn't that weird?

__________________
Hey, did you know that a cat has three names? ... 1) The name that his master calls him ... 2) His scientific name and ... 3) The name that nobody knows but the cat himself? Meow ...

How did you come to this conclusion? Did I not tell you earlier that I am a Christian? Are you familiar with the Apostle's Creed? Especially the concluding paragraph?

"And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the Forgiveness of Sins, the Resurrection of the Body and the Life Everlasting."

That's Hinduism, not Christianity. In Christianity the point is to be saved from your sins. The consequence of being saved from your sins is to be re-united with God and enter the realm of eternal life here and now. You don't have to wait for an after-life to know God now.


I don't know that Plato had any concept of hell. That idea is a creation of medieval Christianity. What he did believe is that every concrete, everyday, physical, material object, both animate and inanimate, both natural and manufactured, is a temporal, material and imperfect expression of an eternal, spiritual and perfect idea or form.

So, for example, each of my six cats is an ephemeral, imperfect expression (a shadow) of an eternal and perfect form of a cat which exists in the heavens. What makes a cat a cat rather than a dog or a snake is that it reflects the form of a cat. A dog reflects the eternal form of a dog, a tree the form of a tree, a knife the perfect, eternal form of a knife, and so on. A human, of course, is human insofar as s/he reflects the perfect eternal form of humanity in heaven.

Plato saw wisdom as coming to know the forms directly, through contemplation, rather than indirectly through their shadowy and imperfect earthly counterparts. Above all, the highest wisdom was to attain to a direct, unmediated knowledge of the Form of the Good which for Plato was a definition of God.

Later developments of Plato's ideas in the neo-Platonism of Plotinus and in Christian theology did develop the hierarchy from heaven to hell you speak of, but I don't know that it would be correct to attribute these concepts to Plato himself.

Plotinus certainly did believe that the soul is an immortal spark of divinity trapped in the prison of a material body, from which it would be released at death to return to the spiritual realm of divine being.

His concept of the immortal soul was adopted by the early medieval church which was heavily influenced by Platonic ideas, but had no knowledge of Aristotle's work--which might have provided a balance. The Church also developed to the full the concept of the Great Chain of Being which linked all entities from the lowest denizens of hell to the seraphim closest to God in rank order. The things of earth fell in the middle of this hierarchy, with humanity at the highest point of earthly beings just below the lowest of angelic spirits.

Of course, the Church also had to struggle with the biblical testimony of the resurrection --- which really does not fit into Platonic concepts at all. Platonism works much better as a philosophical underpinning for re-incarnation than it does for resurrection.


Oh, I think so---in fleeting moments. It comes and goes and will stay only at the end of time. The Puritans came to America to build the new Jerusalem. For American slaves emancipation was an experience of the new Jerusalem. William Blake saw it obscured by the industrial revolution in England.

And did those feet in ancient time
walk upon England's valleys green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
in England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did that countenance divine
Shine out upon these barren hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark, satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold,
Bring me my arrows of desire,
Bring me my spear, O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I shall not cease from mental strife
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.

No I don't know anything of the sort and I don't think you do either. Don't confuse knowing with believing.

As for the book of Revelation, you can interpret it as you like, but that is only your opinion, not fact.

The fact is that it was written to churches in Asia Minor experiencing oppression under the Romans. In apocalyptic style it tells of the eventual defeat of the forces of oppression and the triumph of God's elect. The imagery is geared to make sense to first-century Christians and clearly points to Rome, and in particular the emperor, as the "beast".

Now, lots of people have given it many intepretations since, and there is nothing wrong with that. No more than with staging Hamlet in modern dress. But an updated Hamlet is not to be confused with Hamlet as Shakespeare saw him, and re-interpretations of Revelation are not to be confused with what John was writing.

I am not sure how to take this answer. Yes, it is consistent with the theory of evolution. I would see it as more compatible with science than what you are proposing and so forming a stronger bridge between science and religion. As for an immortal soul that is a purely religious concept which science does not deal with.

Oh, I'm a fanatic now, eh? That would surprise a lot of people who know me. Chalk it up to a presbyterian theology: Sola Dei gloria. And yes, it does mean God's signature is all over everything.


Again, I am totally mystified by your conclusion. How do you derive it from the foregoing?


No it is not. Believing that a person has a soul does not require believing that it was transplanted from somewhere else.

By the way, have you ever considered that rather than having a soul, your soul is your being?

As you say, to avoid infinite regression, there must be that which simply is and from which all other entities come. That which simply is needs no author and has no author. So yes, I am saying that God is not the author of Godself since God simply is without origin.

And if God is the Universe, as you stated earlier, then the Universe also simply is, without author or origin. So God is not the Creator of the Universe.

Well you are going to have to make more links for me to see the thread of your thought. I have no idea where you are coming from, and to help me understand it, you have to start at step one instead of step one hundred. Don't presume I know what assumptions you are making. And please, don't refer me to Swedenborg. He makes my head spin and I have no idea what he is talking about either.


Ever hear the difference between a mystery and a problem?

A problem is something to be solved.
A mystery is something to be experienced.


So?
Showing it to Swedenborg is not showing it to me. And Swedenborg doesn't show it to me either. He just asserts that it is.


Good! 'Cause I won't. And I won't accept what Swedenborg says either, unless it makes sense to me. So far, nothing he says makes any sense to me at all---no more than the others I mentioned.


In short, you do not accept the theory of evolution at all. Actually your posts show you don't even know what it is. But you cannot except the biological origin of humans from the biological process of evolution. And you certainly cannot divide man from woman and exempt man alone.

It really comes back to what I said earlier. Your theological problem is that you reject the possibility that humans (or at least men) are part of the natural world.


Then you are not a creationist, at least not a young-earth creationist. The 10,000 years is a figure named in young-earth creationist literature as a likely maximum age of creation, though I know of one who is willing to stretch it to 15,000 years while others use the Bishop Ussher dating of no more than 6,000 years.

You may be an old-earth creationist, since you accept the scientific calculations on the age of the earth and biological evolution for non-human species, but exempt humanity (or rather men) from evolution. Some old-earth creationists don't accept evolution at all, and some accept it in part.

LOL! You must have gotten to know him fairly well to judge his choice of names.

I have a copy of Campbells, The Power of Myth, which, I am ashamed to say, I haven't opened yet. So I'll be on watch for that passage.

But who could be as eloquent as Eliot.

Don't you just love that last bit?

On the thought, on the thought
On the thought of his name,
His ineffable, effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular NAME!


Whooooo---eeeeh! Just like an Indian raja building the beat up and up and up and up till it climaxes on the OM.

The Bible speaks of two types of afterlives.
Both, of course, require a ressurection from the dead.
One is a ressurection to an earthly life on a paradise earth.
The other is a ressurection to heaven.

However, is it speaking in terms of one and the same or, in terms of one that precedes the other? Because as I understand (in accordance with Swedenborg), there is what's called a world of spirits that exists between heaven and hell, where things get sorted out and are prepared for the eventuality of one or the other. While I understand that it's not altogether different from our world in appearance, and may in fact be what the Bible is referring to here.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Well after reading all this I had so much to object to that I'm not gonna bother to type it all up, so I'll keep it very short. Just the thing about man being at odds with 'Mother Nature' being a flaw in evolutionary theory. As long as we do not decrease our odds of surviving we're still following evolution. Humans are here, and are remarkably well at adapting, so we have adapted to the point where we can control pretty much everything. We have not decreased our odds of surviving (gotten close) so we're still here, but if we do, then we'll be naturally selected against, and will no longer be here. Nothing in evolutionary theory says we have to be in accordance with 'Mother Nature' (you're anthropomorphizing nature anyway here, it does not have a will, so things can't go against it's will). All we have to be able to do is survive, and so far, we are.

Also, something interesting about Eden being a physical, rather than spiritual place.

Gen.2:8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden
Notice that it is not the garden itself that is named Eden. One cannot speak of "Eden" as though it were synonymous with the garden.
The garden is planted somewhere in a land called Eden and the location of that land is eastward; eastard, that is, from Canaan, which is the focal point of reference of the Biblical story and the home of both the writers and the original readers of Genesis. Genesis is based, to some extend, on ery ancient traditions, but these tradiotns were not reduced to writing until the ninth century BC at the earlist. Some strands of the book were not written until several centuries later and the whole was not unified and put together into the form we now have until the fifth century BC.
The geographical references in Genesis must therefore refer to the situation as it was from the ninth to the fifth centuries BC (the Assyrian period and somewhat later) if they were to have meaning to the writer and reader.
Thus, if someone were to write a book, today, about the fourteenth century American Indians, he might well write of "the Indian tribes that inhabited what is now the US." To save space, he might speak of "the Indians of the US", taking it for granted that the readers would realize the US did not actually exist then. In ancient times, when copies of a book was produced by hand and not by the printing press, the need to economical with words was far greater. You would not expect anyone to write "And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in the land which we now call Eden."
So we must ask ourselves where Eden was during the Assyrian period; and the Bible tells us that quite plainly. It refers to Eden several times-not as a mystical primeval site of a garden in which Adam and Eve roamed, but as a prosaic everday land which was conquered by the Assyrians in the eighth century BC.

2Kg.19:12 Have the gods of the nations delivered . . . Gozan, and Haran and Rezeph, and the children of Eden which were in Thelasar?
Thelasar is the name of an Assyrian province, which extended on both sides of the middle reaches of the Euphrates River and was eastward from Cannan-about four hundred miles due east.

Then Genesis 2:10-14 goes further into allowing the first readers to know specifically where it was talking about.

So if you want to return to man's true home, head down to Sumeria, cuz that's where it'd be.

Thanks for the input, Wiseman. Christians (and sometimes non-Christians too) are often guilty of over-spiritualizing the bible, precisely because we have lost knowledge of the physical references in the bible.

It is a far more earthy, human and concrete book than most of us realize without taking time to study its original setting.

Even changes in the English language can trip us up. There is a passage in Proverbs ( I think) which is translated in the KJV as "Can two walk together if they are not agreed?"

I have heard many a spiritual application of this in terms of the need for harmony in the family and in the congregation, and the importance of having fellowship with those whose theology is sound.

But the original Hebrew is best translated into modern English as "Can two people walk together if they haven't set a time to meet?" Of course, that's what the KJV translators meant too, but we don't speak that English anymore.

FYI, have split this thread to create a new one called, The Kingdom of Heaven / Physical vs Spiritual ... Thanks!

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Wow...I leave for a while, and .... well, it seems nothing at all happened. Iacchus, have you added anything but Swedenborg to this argument since I last snooped around here? If so, could you please do me the favor of telling me why I should give the south end of a north-facing rat about his opinion?

Please, please, please....can we have anything from you other than bare assertion? I cannot help but think that you have retreated from your original claim (some sort of special category to humankind that exempts us from natural selection, if I recall correctly), but do not have the intestinal fortitude to admit it. So instead, you evade and invoke Swedenborg, rather than any form of evidence whatsoever.

Without an appreciation for mysticism, I doubt you would have much appreciation for Swedenborg.

The whole idea of this thread is based upon the notion that the world as we know it is not the ultimate in terms of human experience and, that in fact we have soul which, entails a spiritual life after death. Beyond that, I think everything is at a moot point as far as thread is concerned. If we could determine we had a soul, there would be no need to discuss this further.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?

Please re-read the opening post in this thread. Your above statement is quite some distance from the opening post for it to accurately represent "the whole idea of this thread." Perhaps it is the whole idea that you have been forced to pretend the thread is about...

However, we could discuss all the variations and myriads of examples of life which exist on this planet, and still neglect to acknowledge good old Sol up in the sky who, is basically responsible for it all. And, while I did bring up the notion of the fall of man and the Garden of Eden, your'e right, this is something which is not stated outright. Albeit I did feel there was enough to discuss the idea on its merits alone, and I still do, except the whole thing kind of got derailed due to gluadys' expertise on the matter. Also, I did bring up the notion of the soul early on, which I tried to maintain, but once again gluadys wouldn't hear of it, so I pretty much had to abandon that too. And needless to say, this was the point at which I gave up interest in trying to discuss it.

__________________
So when the body dies, and consciousness departs, where do "we" go? ... Off to define another "reality" perhaps?