Because, head-the-ball, you have never ever attempted to study any other examinations of the matter. You admit that yourself. For the record, I notice a strain of what you're saying in the works of Bernard Lonergan, but in an altogether more rational, objective, and concrete expression.

What makes you think that because of some ill-conceived experience you had while reading some mediocre thinker, you somehow know the secret of the universe, you just, handily enough, find it difficult to talk about.

As i've mentioned before, expression, even mental expression, is an integral part of knowing anything at all. If you think, you know something, but you just can't talk about it, chances are you know nothing at all.

You substitute "knowing" for "having a vague insight based on some spiritual experience".

I actually believe in spiritual revelation, but accept that it's a different thing entirely from knowledge. At a generous reading, one could surmise that you've been graced with some spritual awakening, which will see you in good stead for the rest of you life. But that is an entirely personal thing. If you don't have the associated KNOWLEDGE, then you've absolutely no basis on which to profess to teach the contents of your revelation.

On the other hand, of course, chances are you're just one of millions of half heads with access to the internet and no meaningful lives in the real world.

Still, all the best.

__________________
"Thoroughly understand what it is to understand, and not only will you understand the broad lines of all there is to be understood but also you will possess a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon all further developments of understanding."

Unfortunately, the problem with this is that so much of it is not based upon that which is readily seen. This is why the Bible advises us not to "cast our pearls before swine" so to speak.

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

It's called willful ignorance on my part -- or, discernment if you will -- by which to screen the garbage-in from garbage-out and, is really none other than the empirical method prescribed by Science, except on a more personal level. Indeed, how else do we gain the means to understand that which was meant to be understood on a personal level? Meaning, what are we to resort to if Science is unable to provide the answer?

This is called revealed faith, by means of spiritual insight, and is not contingent (necessarily) upon what it says in the Bible.

Hmm, this is my 479th post by way. I wonder what that could possibly mean?

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

Yet another inadequate reply......

here's an even better one.

What a load of big hairy oul bollocks.

Sometimes that's the most reasonable thing to say.

__________________
"Thoroughly understand what it is to understand, and not only will you understand the broad lines of all there is to be understood but also you will possess a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon all further developments of understanding."

I wonder what ever happened to, "Still, all the best."

"Big hairy oul bollocks" in no way invalidates or sullies "all the best"
Good luck.

__________________
"Thoroughly understand what it is to understand, and not only will you understand the broad lines of all there is to be understood but also you will possess a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon all further developments of understanding."

It is indeed willful ignorance, I will give you that much. It has nothing to do with the scientific method, however; we do not discard things because we disagree with them, we discard them when the evidence leads us to do so--even if they are theories we are fond of.You have no knowledge of experimental psychology, then? Is this another case of willful ignorance? Do you not want to know that we really do have a science of human experience? One that began over a century after Swedenborg's death (such that he had no opportunity to benefit from their knowledge), and which has been at work for over a century building knowledge upon knowledge, not by discarding things they personally disagreed with, but by following the evidence.

Your ignorance of Science makes your last sentence particularly amusing. You really have no clue whether science can or cannot provide the answer, because you are willfully ignorant of science!

Or, perhaps the most important thing here is that I should even attempt to document this? If, in fact there's anything to what I have to say. I'm sure there's got to be at least one or two people who are capable of making any sense out of all of this.

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

Niether do I. In fact you're mistaken if you don't think it involved a great deal of internal evaluation on my part.

Either the lineage is there or it isn't there. And if it is, then you'd have to be willing to accept that it was by God's decree that Swedenborg be a witness to the whole affair (the fulfillment of the Book of Revelation).

I believe in cause and effect, just like Science.

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

But what have you evaluated. You've admitted that you know nothing about science, philosophy or theology, yet somehow you've critically evaluated all the sources enough to claim that only Swedenborg can give an adequate account of God.

You're full of shite kiddo.

__________________
"Thoroughly understand what it is to understand, and not only will you understand the broad lines of all there is to be understood but also you will possess a fixed base, an invariant pattern, opening upon all further developments of understanding."

And if there is nothing to what you say, is this all a collossal waste of time?

(I'd say no, not if you come to that realization and learn from it....)

Whether "the lineage" is there is utterly irrelevant. There could be an unbroken string of "lineage" and it all could be trash. You have introduced a problem here--you need to prove a "lineage" for your own view, and you need to demonstrate that such a lineage is meaningful for the rest of the world. (of course, you need not do anything for the rest of the world--and in turn, we need not give a rat's behind for your ideas.)

As for the second sentence, it is a complete non sequitor. Let us suppose there is a "lineage". Why on earth must I think a god of any sort "decreed" anything at all? You may believe this, but you have not demonstrated anything of the sort!

I am, as always, perfectly willing to be shown that I am wrong. Tell me, please, why this "lineage" is so important, and how it demonstrates that god decreed Borg was a witness. (please do not merely tell me why he believes this, tell me why it is true.)

Well, I'm afraid you need to get to know me in order to understand me, and thus far most everyone has failed miserably on this account. If you won't become the least bit familiar with what it is you're trying to criticize, then what's the point?

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

Um...Asking you to prove your points is an attempt to become familiar with them.

If everyone has failed miserably to get to know you, perhaps the reason is the aspect in common--you. Try answering the questions people ask you, and perhaps they will have a better understanding. If all you do is ask vague questions and say "things will be revealed in time", I'm afraid we have no real chance to get to know you. And for that matter, what you have shown thus far gives little incentive for independent effort to learn more about it. You are asking quite a lot of effort for no apparent reward.

Life is in the experience ... which, I'm afraid involves stepping onto the holodeck of another person's imagination if, you want to understand who or what that person is about. In fact there's lots of material in my book (written on a firsthand or personal level) which goes into this specifically. So, if you want to buy into what I'm doing, you're going to have to buy into the experience. In other words forget Science for a bit, for the experience of being human is far more important. And, if after reading the book you decide it isn't worth the medium it's printed upon, fine, but at least you won't be able to say you've approached the whole thing from the standpoint of not knowing what you're talking about.

Ever consider that your inability to approach God might stem from your unwillingness to accept Him on a personal level? You know, that the experience of God is more intrinsic to the experience of life? Indeed, why shouldn't it be?

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

No offense, Iacchus, but you have given me no incentive at all to read it. And if I need to "forget about science" to get through the door, I'll stay outside, thank you. If your view is correct, it will not disagree with science (or if it does, and your view is correct, science must change. Either way, if your view is correct, it is in no danger from science.). If you must give me this caveat...I am not tempted.Ever consider that your inability to understand me might stem from your complete ignorance about my life? I was a born-again christian, Iacchus. You don't get more willing to accept him on a personal level. Got another theory? Hey, here's one--

Ever consider that your inability to approach science might stem from your unwillingness to accept anything which you believe threatens your world view? Ever consider that you must not be terribly confident in your ideas if you are unwilling to expose them to light?

By the way, have I mentioned that Swedenborg was a Scientist? While here's an interesting link that Pegasus just posted in the Swedenborg Resources forum containing a lot of interesting aritcles about Swedenborg's theories and ideas.

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

Iacchus, he was a scientist (though some sites say his empirical work was not his strong point--and these are pro-Borg sites!) over 200 years ago! What was state-of-the-art then would not pass a freshman science class in high school today! Seriously, take a look at any science and see how much it has progressed over the last 50 years (let alone 200!)

If Swedenborg were alive today, he would not recognise the sciences he had been intimately familiar with 200+ years ago. It has progressed that much. Whereas, his philosophy...apparently, you swallow it hook, line, and sinker, even though it addresses a world that predates your great-grandparents! It is based on what is essentially archaic thought!

Maybe I am wrong about this. It is possible that Swedenborg is still worthwhile, and has in fact withstood 200 years of critical analysis! Could you point me to any literature in which Swedenborg is subjected to critical analysis, and comes out on top? With 200 years to choose from, there ought to be loads! (Look, for example, at the barrage that Darwin had to withstand! If Swedenborg has been subjected to a tenth of that, I will be duly chastened and publicly apologize!)

Excerpt from chapter 2, The Advent of Dionysus ...

Yes, and so we seem to be speaking of a drastic change which has occurred between now and then. For which reason I've suggested the Fifth Church (Swedenborgian) has come to a close and a Sixth Church instituted, in accord with the experience which happened in chapter 5.

Swedenborg's abilities as a Scientist was superseded by his abilities as a mystic. This is why his works have yet to be brought up to date, because we're speaking of something which is of a mystical nature, as opposed to that which can be readily researched by Science. However, his works clearly reflect that of his scientific aptitude which, is why I continue to bring this up. For his works are rational, very well thought out, with lots of attention to detail. Which of course sounds like an excellent place to do your research.

I honestly don't know. However, I think one reason why we don't hear too much from the Swedenborg Foundation, is that they don't go out of their way to sensationalize what they're doing. Indeed, why should a woman (the Church) feign the part of a whore, when in fact she's happily married?

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

I would argue that the science which had not yet been born when Swedenborg died (psychology) is the one which would have the greatest impact on his philosophy. His "mysticism" reflects unexplained experiences--unexplained within the science of his day, but not beyond the reach of a science of human experience.

When we speak of advances in science, we must not speak only of the branches he was familiar with (which would stun him today with the changes that have occurred) but also with the branches he would not be familiar with at all, but which to apply to his work.

As for the church playing the whore...that is an interesting way of putting it. I think most churches would call it evangelizing, and consider it a duty! If they honestly believe they are right, and that their being right is of any importance (oh, say, the difference between heaven and hell), they have a huge obligation to spread their gospel (to coin a phrase)...or, to use your metaphor, to play the whore.