The following entails the discussion about the nature faith vs spiritual ignorance. Meaning how is it possible to be spiritual if, in fact faith implies believing blindly?

Excerpt from the thread, A Flaw in the Theory of Evolution ...

No, I couldn't resist it. For to have Jesus say, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do," is to say forgive them their ignorance for not being spiritual, otherwise they wouldn't have done this to me.

So all you have is the possibility that something exists only because you believe it exists? What a joke. That's not only ignorance but stupid. And what exactly do you think Jesus means when He says, "the blind leaders of the blind" or, "Many will come in my name to lead many astray?" Don't you think He's referring to "blind faith" here, and admonishing us not to believe in Him this way?

And when He asks the disciples who they think He is, and Peter replies, "Thou art the Christ, the living son of the living God," and Jesus says, "Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to you, but my Father which is in heaven ... from now on I will call you Peter, and upon this rock (what Peter means) I will build my church." Now doesn't that give some indication about the type of faith He's looking for? ... i.e., that which is rock-solid and self-revealed, meaning self-evident? It's like I've mentioned before, how do you know 1 + 1 = 2 if, it weren't self-evident? How do you know the truth of anything in other words? How do you know Jesus Christ is who He says He is, unless you can see it for yourself?

So doesn't that sound like He's looking for people whose common sense is still intact? Which, couldn't be further from what you see in today's church ... i.e., "blind leaders of the blind?"

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

Stupid? LOL...other than a book that people believe in because it tells them to believe in it (i.e., through blind faith), you have nothing. Your "self-evident" proof simply is not there; this is the very definition of blind faith.

Re-examine your "evidence", Iacchus. You do it a disservice by calling it anything other than it is. It's faith, and a whole lot of verbal gymnastics trying to make it look like more.

And why shouldn't we be just as stringent with our own observations on the inside, as Science is with its observations on the outside? Are you saying such a thing is not possible? If not, then how would we ever know?

Of course that's beginning to sound more like the Agnostic's point of view now isn't it?

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

I wasn't sure where to put this but Hebrews, Chapter 11, tells us about faith.

Hebrews, Chapter 11

This document takes Hebrews, Chapter 11 (verse by verse):

Verse by Verse

Dateline November 5, 2004:

The "Faith vs. Spirituality" thread was today, the scene of another bizarre drive-by linking by the enigmatic poster known as Pegasus. The F vs. S thread had been living a quiet existence, bothering nobody for more than six months, so investigators are baffled by Pegasus's choice of victim.

"It's like he's just a random Linker," said one witness. "That thread wasn't hurting anybody." Another shaken poster said, "I noticed a movement in that old thread, and as I got there, two links rang out. I never heard Pegasus say anything else."

Authorities are baffled by the actions of this drive-by linker, although the modus operandi is well established. We asked inspector G. Berry who has been following the actions of Pegassus. "This is a very enigmatic and taciturn poster," Said Berry. "We don't really know a thing about Pegasus because she never says anything when she links. We don't know why she links, so it's hard to establish a pattern. We do know that She has been following a character called Iacchus all around the internet, so perhaps this random linking is due to some frustration in her relationship with Iacchus. But I don't have a lot of evidence for that theory."

Whatever the motive, Dionysis residents all expect Pegasus to strike again and, like always, not leave a clue as to her meaning or motive. G. Berry summed up the frustration felt by all here. "I just wish she would say something," Berry shrugged "anything to let us know what is on her mind. Because this "link-and-run" spree is not helping things around here at all."

I don't how you come up with these posts but keep 'em coming. I really got a kick out of it. I "link and run" partly because I'm at work and I don't always have time to come with anything more substantial. Another reason is that it's just a way of letting Iacchus know I'm paying attention even though I'm not always posting. You should write a book one day. I'm sure it would be a big success. It was really sweet of you to take the time to compose this little gem--and it is a gem.

Well, when you put it that way, it sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking which, I'm not sure is like that at all? That's one reason why I didn't bother to respond to the post, because I wasn't sure what to think? What do you think it means? And what do they mean by "evidence of things unseen?" Does that mean you have to accept it blindly or, does it mean it doesn't manifest itself outwardly in the external sense? ... albeit you're still able to acknowledge it in yourself?

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

I'm not sure what you meant when you said "Well, when you put it that way" or were you just talking about the the writer of the book of Hebrews? This was just the first chapter of Hebrews. Were you talking about their comments? There's also a sermon in the George MacDonald thread called "Faith, the Proof of the Unseen" so I don't know if you were were replying to that thread and put it here by mistake because it was really the same subject? George MacDonald's sermon was on the book of Hebrews, Chapter 11. Oh, well--I told you once that my mother said I would confuse God.

Thank you Peggy. I love to write, especially humor. I cut my teeth on humorous writers like Mark Twain, Ogden Nash, Dorothy Parker and Richard Armor. I've more recently been a fan of Dave Barry and Molly Ivins, but the stuff I write here is really just off the top of my head. Something strikes me as funny and I write it. I doubt I'll ever compile a book, but of course, if I do, it will always be missing "the lost play" that Iaccy "accidentally" deleted.

I really do wish you'd do more than "link and run" because I'm always interested in hearing other opinions. Then I rip 'em to shreds. But in a funny way. Really, though, I am not as bitchy as it might seem here. I just love humor and sarcasm. I would hope others would direct some towards me too.

Go ahead. Write a limerick down in the Flame Wars section. I love to be ridiculed.

Ah, Dionysus, the god of drama, maybe he had something to do with it?

Oh, don't mind Peggy, she's sort of our Divine Messenger around here, she just "poops" in and out whenever it strikes her fancy. Hey, did Shakespeare ever have any words to say on Pegasus? While here's something interesting, and it's the first time I've ever made the correlation ... Hence it would seem we have a triune connection to our Lord, the god of the mask. Just a coincidence you think?

Is goozleberry a Titaness? ... Rip 'em to shreds huh? And almost immediately after our advent in the Wine Country in Sonoma County, California. Hmm ...

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

While here's an interesting link ... Apparently Pegasus is mentioned in the first part of Henry the IV.

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

Thanks for the Pegasus Press link and the pen, ink and watercolor picture of Pegasus by William Blake. I imagine that you must have heard that William Blake had been attracted to the writings of Swedenborg but he later rejected them. I don't know the reason but I recall reading this bit of information on the internet. I would wonder if he really wholly rejected them or just in part. It seems odd that I couldn't find out why but I didn't spend a great deal of time researching it. There is also a book, Blake and Swedenborg: Opposition is True Friendship: The Source of William Blake's Arts in the Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg: An Anthology.

Actually this was brought up by Grace in the Swedenborgian Church thread ... and apparently had more to do with the Swedenborgian Church than Swedenborg himself.

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

An article, "Healing the Spirit: William Blake and Magnetic Religion" by Robert W. Rix taken from Romanticism on the Net (February 2002) explores some of the conflicts between Blake and Swedenborg. You are correct, part of the conflict has not so much to do with Swedenborg as some of the interpreters (note Paragaraph 16). Also read the abstract, Paragraph 1, 3, 17 and 18. You should really read the whole article. It seems that Blake had an interest in Austrian physicist, Franz Anton Mesmer, too.

Healing the Spirit: William Blake and Magnetic Religion

Wow, there's a lot of material there! It sounds like his initial falling out had more to do with the Swedenborgian Church though ...

By the way, I think you may have just found out where the word "mesmerize" comes from.

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

You may want to note that the thoeries of Franz Mesmer, were discredited even in his own lifetime.

I have an interesting book at the office, tracing Mesmer's influence--mostly to Freud and psychoanalytic theory, but also to some other areas. It mentions Swedenborg specifically, as an intermediate step (mostly unwilling) between Mesmer and the beginnings of Spiritualism in the US. I find this most interesting, since Spiritualism actually attempted to find empirical evidence (not completely, of course--trance mediums were every bit as subjective as Swedenborg's dreams).

Oh, I found it amusing that the (very enthusiastic) Swedenborg writer, cited heavily in this book in this brief section, was named George Bush. Are the 'Borg supporters on this board aware of this author?

Johny Appleseed, was a big fan and promoter of Swedenborg ... So was Helen Keller.

Yes, but he wasn't a Swedenborg fundamentalist was he?

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

um...so? I don't know--I was asking you if you had heard of him. Have you? (yes, I clicked the link.)

This one is called Argumentum ad verecundiam , from the list of logical fallacies you posted. Keep it up, Iacchy! I believe that if you try, you can commit every single logical fallacy on that list! Maybe you won't even have to try very hard.