Does it acknowledge the existence of a spiritual world or, the hierachy thereof? No, it does not. Does it acknowledge mysticism as a legitimate practice? I don't think so. And, just because modern science has found a way to palliate the symptoms of a diseased imagination with drugs, by no means suggests it has effected a cure. Albeit I will admit that by diverting the mind away from superstitious notions, it does tend to reduce the tendency of spirits which, really do exist, to have power over us. Back in the old days this would have been called possesion.

And yet isn't it the least bit peculiar that the Age of Enlightenment or, Reason, began about the time the Fourth Church came to a close in 1757? (with the advent of the Swedenborgian Church).

I too have recently been accused of the same thing, of being the "attention whole," and yet all I have done is try to make my views known. Thus far I have yet to gain one thin dime out of the "whole affair." However, if I didn't have anything legitimate to say, then yes, the description might very well apply. Of course who's to say -- just to leave Jesus and the Virgin Mary out of it for now -- Dionysus wasn't the legitmate son of Zeus when He slept with Dionysus' mother Semele? While indeed, Semele was accused of having an illicit affair outside of wedlock (by her sisters) which, is why Dionysus later returned to drive the woman of the local community mad. Such as was reported by Euripides', The Bachae, anyway.

Of course in getting back to the apparent Church of Today, with all the grandstanding and noise that it makes with, little or no substance behind it, what exactly does it have to offer in the legitimate sense?

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

It does not dismiss them a priori, as you imply. It simply recognizes the truth--that there is no evidence at all for a spiritual world. Iacchus, what you fail to realise is that science would recognise a spiritual world, given evidence that one exists. I know it makes you feel better to think that mean old science denies what is obviously true...but the truth is far different.Given that the church numbers came after the age of enlightenment was already a well-known term, I don't find it peculiar at all. The church-namers used a familiar marker.Tell me...do you honestly believe all this? No, better...please tell me, Iacchus, just one myth you do not believe in. (or do you believe them all to be true?) And then...why not?Um...the same as the Swedenborgian church...that is, nothing.

LOL! What's the point in believing in anything if the most you can say is it's all in your head? Doesn't that sound the least bit foolish to you? Don't you think if people understood this, they would stop going around professing things in His name? Hey, I know what you would like to believe.

Actually this was a term I came up with up, after first thinking about it and then discovering that the Age of Enlightenment began in the early 1700's. And if true, which it is -- that which supersedes everything which came before -- what else could the Swedenborgian Church possibly signify?

I believe that a majority of myths if, not outright true, do have some basis in reality. But first you have to believe in the reality of a God which, is more than a myth.

Yet I would go so far as to suggest you don't know who you're criticizing.

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

You want the real point? Religion offers a tremendously powerful way to manipulate and govern people. There is tremendous incentive to maintain the structure of a church--look at the money some churches take in--even if you have no belief whatsoever in what you are preaching.

Iacchus, you are beginning to sound panicked. You cannot admit the possibility that your belief system is all an illusion. Lady MacBeth said it best:"it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."I agree. Once you believe a big lie, it is easier to believe a lot of smaller ones.Hey, I come here because you are trying to present a world-view very different from my own. I am more than willing to learn, but I am not willing to shut my eyes and have people lie to me. I challenge the things you say; if there is something to them, you will be able to rise to the challenge and defend them. Thus far, you have not. I stay here for two reasons. There is still the chance that something you will say will finally make sense, and I will learn something. Or, alternately, so that others reading this site will know that there are holes in your philosophy you could float a barge through, so that they can learn to critically examine, rather than simply swallow, bizarre philosophical and religious ideas. Hey, maybe I'll keep somebody out of a cult.

This whole site is absolute nonsense.

This baloon had some kind of weakly conceptual revelation, and decided that no one else has ever wondered about the nature of the universe, and thus his original revolutionary views must be correct.

Not only correct, of course, but widely misunderstood.

I mean, Swedenborg lived during the enlightenment, so his "church" must have been responsible for it, right?

What a lot of bolix, and, Cuttlefish, we seem to be the only people coming here, so I reckon if we both just gave up this guy would soon wise up to himself, or just live the rest of his life spouting crap that no one else will listen to.

But just for the record, there is, of course, a spiritual world. It's the world of the intellect, for the act of understanding is not a physical phenomenon. Still, you probably wouldn't agree with that.

I suggest, if you want a rational opponent with which to challenge and expand your own views, that you should read some Bernard Lonergan.
Insight is his great work, and extremely enlightening, particularly in arguing rationally and scientifically, in fact using the actual foundations of scientific thought itself, to argue against materialism, where there is no such thing as meaning. Better than headbutting a brick wall by arguing with this nonsensical farce.

But then, Swedenborg would disagree, wouldn't he.

__________________
"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."

Correct; I would not agree with that. But what a refreshing change to read something understandable, from one who understands what I wrote.

Hey, don't mind me, I was never here. It must have been some weird dream that someone else had. That's all I can figure?

Hmm ... definitely an epithet of Dionysus!

No, coinciding with it would be the more appropriate way to put it.

Well, nobody is twisting anyone's arm to stick around if, you catch my drift?

Yes, thought definitely does have its spiritual origins. In fact without the spirits living their lives through us, we would be unable to think.

Would it make you feel better if I did?

That's hard to say, considering I haven't read the book myself.

Again, that's hard to say.

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

Actually, I couldn't agree with you more. In fact the Bible clearly states this when it says, "Many will come in my name, to lead many astray." ~ Matthew 24:4-5 While here I had just turned on one of those evangelical stations on TV last night only to realize how sad the whole affair is.

And, did you know that life is just an illusion?

With respect to what? Or, are you implying that just because I may be unfamiliar with Shakespeare that I'm ignorant?

Actually I'm not sure it works that way. I've heard that once you accept a small lie, it's much easier to work your way up. For example, take the notion of sticking a frog in boiling water (the big lie). He would jump right out if you stuck him in immediately. However, if you stuck him in when the water was cold, and began to boil it gradually (one little lie at a time), eventually your frog is cooked!

Fair enough, I guess?

And, are you sure that these great big holes you're referring to aren't the ones that exist between your ears?

By the way, what purpose would religion serve without an afterlife? Certainly there would be no need to take into account the suffering in this world would there? For when we die it will have ceased. So why the need to keep people from doing stupid things, such as following a cult? What repercussions would there be, especially if it was all final and didn't really matter? Sounds to me like just as a good a reason for doing something crazy as anything else.

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

Aw, isn't that sweet? He's trying to act all tough and stuff....Do you even read what you write? I already told you that the purposes were purely to manipulate people. Wow...you really need to learn something on the sociology of religion. Do you really think that the existence of religion proves the existence of an afterlife? I am stunned.

Oh...and did you change the title of this thread?

No, just being silly.

No, let's not misconstrue the one with the other here. If, in fact the only true purpose of religion is to hoodwink the livelihood out of other people -- and certainly the potential is there -- then yes, I would have to agree with you. However, this is where we part company.

Well, since the original thread, The Advent of Dionysus, was not going anywhere until after he posted, I figured the least I could do was split it and rename the new thread after him.

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

Well, at least there is evidence for this purpose. And I would (surprise!) disagree that this purpose can be equated with "hoodwinking". It is "governing", no more or less. It could promote good, very easily. The fact that it is built on a lie does not make it a scam.Hmm. I disagree with the split, simply because his first post is more impactful when seen in contrast to what went before. But hey, it's your house.

Then I must wonder why you employ the same kinds of arguments employed by those evangelical stations. Admittedly, you do not do so for money (putting you one step above them) but you quote biblical scripture just as they do, as if that proved anything. Everyone is ignorant. We are all ignorant of different things. The wise man knows his ignorance. The fool denies it.

But what Diggy was saying, if I interpret him and Willy the Shake correctly, is that those who try to tell us ultimate meaning are all unaware of their ignorance. They all (like TV evangelists) rant and rave, but in the end have no more knowledge of meaning than the lowliest knave.

Make your own meaning, but don't try to foist it on others.I've heard this analogy before. It has nothing to do with lies. If you've ever been in a hot tub, you know that they have timers to keep people from succumbing to the relaxation of the jets until they slip in and drown. It has nothing to do with "lies".

If I wanted, I could tell the same story and say that the little lie was Santa Claus, and then they work their way up to God. It would be BS, just as your frog story is.
A reasonably good flame. Not particularly original, but timely. I give it a six.
A very important point. Why does religion hold any power at all? Because it threatens you with the afterlife, that's why. What would you care about a God that had, based on all observations, no power to fix things in this life, unless you thought He had power to fix things elsewhere? It is all about enforcement. The reason religion exists as a moral template is to make you behave or else. "Or else what?" you might ask? "Or else you will burn in the fires of hell", religion might answer. Or, if you are Buddhist, you might say, "Or else you will be reincarnated as a pig". Religion is all about "or else". That is the only thing that gives it power.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I believe humans need moral guidance. I just wish they could accept it without fear of punishment.
[QUOTE=Iacchus32]

Well, when I quote the Bible, it's usually for the sake of illustrating that there is context to found if, in fact that's what you're looking for. Meaning it's not a worthless venture as some may assess.

Are you saying we all live in isolation then, and there's no point in trying to communicate what we know to others? Granted, it quite often feels this way, even as I continue to question whether or not I should waste my breath. And yet, should we allow that to detour us if, in fact we've had a genuine revelation? I'm not trying to force anybody to accept anything if that's what you believe.

Tell that to all the folks who wind up in prison. In fact, this one experience is the closest thing there is to hell on earth.

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

Certainly there are some good things in the Bible, but more often than not, I see it being used as some sort of unimpeachable authority to support one's own viewpoint. The fact that many people with different viewpoints do the same thing indicates to me that it is not an unimpeachable authority, but just a book of some interesting ideas. I can quote scripture to support my point too, and I'm an atheist. What does that say about scripture as a source of truth?
Well I apologize then. It is just that when you use the word "know" in such a way, it sounds cocky. I don't like cocky.

But how does one "know" if they have had a "genuine revelation"? How do you get it certified? I know it feels great and you want to share it with others, but that doesn't make it true.

Here's an example. Back when I was in the early stages of questioning my Christianity, I hit upon the idea that Jesus had come from the future. That seemed to explain so much. His knowledge of future science enabled him to work "miracles". His knowledge of what would happen enabled him to give prophesy. Artificial insemnation could explain the virgin birth (I assumed some sort of high-tech fertilization that could occur without the mother's knowledge). They could even "beam him up" explaining the disappearance from the tomb. And it gave him a motive too. Jesus (or the Jesus Consortium) saw the terrible condition of the world in the future and decided that something had to be done, so they sent someone back to the past to instil some good moral principles. (Years later, The Terminator totally ripped off my idea. )

This was a brilliant revelation (in my opinion) and I was anxious to share it with others. The first "other" I decided to share it with was a guy in my church with whom I had had many "deep" discussions. I thought he would be thrilled. He wasn't. He looked at me like I was crazy. In retrospect, He was right. The paradox of reverse time travel makes the scenario impossible. But I was crushed that others could not see the logic and "truth" in my revelation. I got over it.Hmm... "Hell on earth". Nice imagry, but of course, one would have to know exactly what "Hell" was before it could be accurate.

However, the idea that people would not be good without the threat of punishment is somewhat flawed. If it were so, then one would think the prisons of America would be overflowing with atheists. Just the opposite is true. Relative to the general population, the percentage of avowed atheists in prison is very small. Lots of Christians though.

I would say though that a good moral code makes people less likely to do bad things. I would disagree that Christianity is a better source of that than others. I think that simple empathy (the "golden rule", if you like) is the best moral code.

Perhaps that there are certain predicaments to the human condition which we all can identify with?

Well, I would prefer not to speak of it in these terms, and yet the only other choice I seem to have is to shut my mouth.

Of course nowadays Jesus would no doubt know of such things. While it's also important I think, for the story to remain in context with the times that it's told. For, in order for us to get to the point to where we can say we now live in the future, we would have to live through the present, as if we were living our own lives that is.

Hell is none other than the place where those are detained who are incapable of behaving civilly towards others, regardless of what they believe. So yes, moral guidance would be the key here.

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

With or without a belief in a god...A third option might be to open your eyes and ears.If Jesus would know of such things now, why wouldn't he have known before? Omniscience is not supposed to come with such limitations. None other than this? Wait a minute...I thought you defined it differently on another thread...

Certainly it is true that things which rouse common feelings become quite popular (like Star Wars movies ). For me, beautiful poetry can do it, though some people can't stand poetry. But the point is that even though you may be deeply moved by a passage, it still isn't necessarily true! And I do not care those who use such emotional ploys to try to convince others of truth, especially when their "truth" is nothing more than "belief". In fact, I wish there were such a thing as Hell so that TV evangalists could be sent to the darkest corner of it for the crime of preying upon the emotional neediness of the elderly and the bereaved, the most vulnerable members of our society.
No. You could speak of beliefs or feelings or any of the non-cocky ways of expressing these things. Hubris is not the way to impress me. Also, I agree with what Diggy said about listening.
Yes, I am aware of the one-way progression of time now. But I was really hoping you would respond to and identify with my wonderful revelation. Don't you think it was very insightful for a such a young person? (I was about 15). Can you see how excited I would be to discover such a "truth"? Can you also see that it wasn't actually true, no matter how strongly I believed it?
Oh, I doubt that. Bad manners, while very annoying, is hardly a reason for sending someone to hell. If so, then your God has some really screwed up priorities, in my opinion.

Some things are more universal than others, for example the Golden Rule.

In fact I have no problem believing that such a place exists. By the way, I would suggest that you read Matthew 23, as it speaks of this very type of relationship and the type of judgment which was to be passed on to the scribes and Pharisees.

Yes, Dionysus was also called the god of confrontation.

Actually, I'm not sure what to say about this? Albeit I can see what you're saying.

It all depends on what you mean by bad manners. If it means blowing somebody's head off simply because they don't agree with you, that's bad manners. Or, if you wind up doing something which you wouldn't ordinarily do, simply because you didn't think you could get away with it (and yes, that would include murder), this is also a sign of bad manners.

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

Empathy, or as you call it, "The Golden Rule" is, in fact, more-or-less universal among humans, though it exists to varying degrees within individuals. This is probably because empathy is a trait which helps humans survive. But following the Golden Rule requires no faith, spirituality or religion.
I've read the entire bible. Perhaps you could discuss specific passages with relation to how they support your point.
Maybe he can get away with it because he's a God.

But if you want your point of view disseminated, I think your mission should be to convince, not confront. Don't you think it is a clever hypothesis that explains a great deal? Can you think of any holes in it? And more importantly, if a hypothesis has gaping holes in it, shouldn't the creator of that hypothesis welcome those who point them out?
LOL! Yeah, prison is just full of people convicted of Bad Manners in the First Degree.

I think calling murder "bad manners" is a wee bit euphemistic.
No. Manners specifically relate to courtesy, and not (necessarily) criminal behavior. If you are unable to distinguish between these, then I imagine you will never have to worry about serving on a Grand Jury.

Sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists suggest there may even be a genetic basis for this...game theory predicts it as the most successful outcome in cooperative ventures (which, for social organisms such as ourselves, are much of our lives). If they are right (and, unlike you, Iacchus, when I say "if" it does not mean "I assume this to be the case"), then the basis for the golden rule predates all of written history, possibly predates our species, certainly predates religion.Why does it not surprise me that you define "bad manners" in such a way that it makes the phrase completely meaningless?

Miss Manners, Chapter One: How to behave at a tea party.
Miss Manners, Chapter Two: Proper use of cutlery at dinner.
Miss Manners, Chapter Three: Not blowing people's heads off.
Miss Manners, Chapter Four: "Please" and "Thank you" are not optional.

You could have simply admitted that 'Berry had a point, and that you were wrong, but no, you had to re-define your answer to the point where it could no longer be recognized. I hate to say it, Iacchus, but that is terribly bad manners!