Ruling Love

[Iacchus]

Excerpt from Emanuel Swedenborg's (http://www.swedenborg.com), Heaven and Hell ...


479. Man after death is his own love or is own will.

This has been proved to me by manifold expereince. The entire heaven is divided into societies according to differences of good of love; and every spirit who is taken up into heaven and becomes an angel is taken to the society where his love is; and when he arrives there he is, as it were, at home, and in the house where he was born; this the angel perceives, and is affiliated with those there that are like himself. When he goes away to another place he feels constantly a kind of resistance, and a longing to return to his life, thus to his ruling love. Thus are affiliations brought about in heaven; and in a like manner in hell, where all are affiliated in accordance with loves that are the opposite of heavenly loves.

It has been shown above that both heaven and hell are composed of societies, and that they are all distinguished according to differences of love. That man after death is his own love might also be seen from the fact that whatever does not make one with his ruling love is then separated and as it were taken away from him. From one who is good every thing discordant or inharmonious is separated and as it were taken away, and he is thus let into his own love. It is the same with an evil spirit, with the difference that from the evil truths are taken away, and from the good falsities are taken away, and this goes on until each becomes his own love.Please be advised that there are two translations here, the original which was translated from Latin in 1812, and reflects Swedenborg's mind as a scientist; and the newly revised edition which was translated recently, which has more of an inspirational appeal. I prefer the original translation myself, which is what I've quoted above.

[Yahzi]

This has been proved to me by manifold expereince.
Experience? This guy has experience of the heavens? What, did he die and go there? Send a remote probe? Get brochures?

Emanuel begins by citing his experience as his evidence, and then proceeds to discuss things he cannot possibly have experience of.

I can see how he qualifed as a theologian.

[Iacchus]

Experience? This guy has experience of the heavens? What, did he die and go there? Send a remote probe? Get brochures?

Emanuel begins by citing his experience as his evidence, and then proceeds to discuss things he cannot possibly have experience of.

I can see how he qualifed as a theologian.You obviously don't believe it's possible for it to have been revealed to him, right? However, when you look at the last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation or, some of the others books such as Ezekiel, it speaks of this very thing.

By the way, doesn't he present it in a plausible way, almost to where it sounds believable?

[Ellis14]

You obviously don't believe it's possible for it to have been revealed to him, right? However, when you look at the last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation or, some of the others books such as Ezekiel, it speaks of this very thing.
It always does. God's interaction with humans is always in the past, getting more intense the further back you go. Why does God not reveal himself to people today? And what about the Arabs who claim revelation as well? The problem with personal revelation is that there is no way to know who is genuine, who is lying, and who is just a plain crackpot! Skeptics thing the overwhelming likelihood is that they are either lying or deluded.
By the way, doesn't he present it in a plausible way, almost to where it sounds believable?
After you've heard a thousand "revelation" stories, they all start to sound the same. They start to sound less and less convincing and more and more symptons of the same problem: delusion.

[-X-]

this is an ideology that is not at all a bad one to follow, but one that i think the gentleman you are quoting mired up in a bunch of religious mumbo-jumbo...

but it basically breaks down to this:

"know thyself"

look into yourself and find out what that "ruling love" is, what it is you desire most in life and go after it... that's it. too much junk with angels and heaven and hell and all that other stuff...

and as far as revelation is concerned... man has consistently shown throughout the course of history that he only sees and hears what he wants to see and hear... otherwise you would already understand the fact that the concept of belief in a christian god would negate your free will and you would have left it by the wayside long ago... i don't want to get into a discussion about this in this thread... pm me if u want to discuss it further.. :D

[Yannis (J'ohn)]

You obviously don't believe it's possible for it to have been revealed to him, right? However, when you look at the last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation or, some of the others books such as Ezekiel, it speaks of this very thing.
There is a difference between experience and revelation, much like there is a difference between being shown how to ride a bicycle and actually trying to do it yourself (believe me, I should know ;) ).

By the way, doesn't he present it in a plausible way, almost to where it sounds believable?
Honestly, I don't know to which religion you link this "plausibility". If it is Hinduism, then that excerpt is actually a pretty good sum-up of some aspects of reincarnation, albeit in non-hindu terms.

As a Christian text, though, it doesn't sound very plausible to me. The author seems to be indicating that human souls that go to heaven turn into angels, and human souls that go to hell turn into devils. Which smacks of Catholic angelology and demonology more than anything else, really.

SBS :)

[Yahzi]

You obviously don't believe it's possible for it to have been revealed to him, right?
Having something revealed to you is not the same as experiencing it first-hand. This is obvious to any competent speaker of English. Yet here we are, watching a theist equivocate over the meaning of words. Again.

Is this the only argument you people have?

By the way, doesn't he present it in a plausible way, almost to where it sounds believable?
Not really. Lord of the Rings was far more believable.

[Weltall]

You obviously don't believe it's possible for it to have been revealed to him, right? However, when you look at the last book of the Bible, the Book of Revelation I'd always thought that Revelation was more the result of a mind that had partaken too much of the Holy Magic Mushrooms than anything else.
By the way, doesn't he present it in a plausible way, almost to where it sounds believable? It sounds more like something that QoS would have done a Nutwatch on back in the day. Actually she did one on a very similar topic, you might want to read it.

[Iacchus]

The following is the brief biography of Emanuel Swedenborg ...


A Brief Biography of Emanuel Swedenborg

Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) was born Emanuel Swedberg (or Svedberg) in Stockholm, Sweden, on January 29th, 1688 (Julian calendar). He was the third of the nine children of Jesper Swedberg (1653-1735) and Sara Behm (1666-1696). At the age of eight he lost his mother. After the death of his only older brother ten days later, he became the oldest living son. In 1697 his father married Sara Bergia (1666-1719), who developed great affection for Emanuel and left him a significant inheritance. His father, a Lutheran clergyman, later became a celebrated and controversial bishop, whose diocese included the Swedish churches in Pennsylvania and in London, England.
After studying at the University of Uppsala (1699-1709), Emanuel journeyed to England, Holland, France, and Germany (1710-1715) to study and work with leading scientists in western Europe. Upon his return he apprenticed as an engineer under the brilliant Swedish inventor Christopher Polhem (1661-1751). He gained favor with Sweden's King Carl (Charles) XII (1682-1718), who gave him a salaried position as an overseer of Sweden's mining industry (1716-1747). Although he was engaged, he never married.

After the death of Carl XII, Emanuel was ennobled by Queen Ulrika Eleonora (1688-1741), and his last name was changed to Swedenborg (or Svedenborg). This change in status gave him a seat in the Swedish House of Nobles, where he remained an active participant in the Swedish government throughout his life.

A member of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, he devoted himself to scientific studies and philosophical reflections that culminated in a number of publications, most notably a comprehensive three-volume work on mineralogy (1734) that brought him recognition across Europe as a scientist and philosopher. After 1734 he redirected his research and publishing to a study of anatomy in search of the interface between the soul and body, making several significant discoveries in physiology.

From 1743 to 1745 he entered a transitional phase that resulted in a shift of his main focus from science and philosophy to theology. Throughout the rest of his life he maintained that this shift was brought about by Jesus Christ, who appeared to him, called him to a new mission, and opened his perception to a permanent dual consciousness of this life and the life after death.

He devoted the last decades of his life to studying Scripture and publishing eighteen theological titles that draw on the Bible, reasoning, and his own spiritual experiences. These works present a Christian theology with unique perspectives on the nature of God, the spiritual world, the Bible, the human mind, and the path to salvation.

Swedenborg died in London on March 29th, 1772, at the age of eighty-four.
Also, if you follow this link which continues on About Swedenborg (http://www.swedenborg.com/presentation.asp?qsSubNav=AboutSwedenborg&qsContent=AboutSwedenborg-ExpandedBio), it covers his expanded biography, his theology and his works as well.

[Yahzi]

The following is the brief biography of Emanuel Swedenborg ...
Hmm. No where in there is a mention of his sight-seeing trip to Heaven.

You'd think something like that would be in your biography. Like Marco Polo and China, you know?

[Yannis (J'ohn)]

The following is the brief biography of Emanuel Swedenborg ...
All right, that settles that he wasn't talking about Hinduism, but about Christianity, in some warped sense.

Thank you for clearing that up, Iacchus. :)

SBS :)

[Iacchus]

Hmm. No where in there is a mention of his sight-seeing trip to Heaven.

You'd think something like that would be in your biography. Like Marco Polo and China, you know?It does refer to it in his Extended Biography (http://www.swedenborg.com/presentation.asp?qsSubNav=AboutSwedenborg&qsContent=AboutSwedenborg-ExpandedBio) though ...

[Iacchus]

All right, that settles that he wasn't talking about Hinduism, but about Christianity, in some warped sense.

Thank you for clearing that up, Iacchus. :)

SBS :)Of course I keep hearing how warped Christianity is in the first place, so maybe what we're looking at here is Christianity in the unwarped sense? If the guy's not a nut case (which seems apparent from his biography) and, is speaking the truth, what else could it be?

[Yahzi]

It does refer to it in his Extended Biography (http://www.swedenborg.com/presentation.asp?qsSubNav=AboutSwedenborg&qsContent=AboutSwedenborg-ExpandedBio) though ...

this crisis issued in a mystical Christ vision of uncommon power

From that time until the closing days of his life, Swedenborg had almost daily "waking visions" of the spiritual world, including extended conversations with angels and spirits.

in which he described having witnessed this event in the spiritual world.
Nope, no experience, no visits, just all visions.

And of course he wrote a book on Marriage, even though he never managed to get married himself. Par for the course.

If the guy's not a nut case (which seems apparent from his biography)
Your comment seems to imply that Swedenborg is not a nutter. I encourage people to read this short bio: if it doesn't scream "nutter," then nothing does.

[Yannis (J'ohn)]

Of course I keep hearing how warped Christianity is in the first place, so maybe what we're looking at here is Christianity in the unwarped sense?
You are assuming that Christianity has an "unwarped sense" to begin with.

If the guy's not a nut case (which seems apparent from his biography) and, is speaking the truth, what else could it be?
To your question, a question: suppose a perfectly solemn person suddenly starts having (or claiming to be having) visions of metaphysical phenomena of another religion; would you accept those as openly you accept this fellow's ones?

SBS :)

[Ellis14]

Of course I keep hearing how warped Christianity is in the first place, so maybe what we're looking at here is Christianity in the unwarped sense? If the guy's not a nut case (which seems apparent from his biography) and, is speaking the truth, what else could it be?
False dichotomy.

There are other possibilities that you haven't considered: he is probably simply deluded.

[-X-]

he could also just be very very wrong.

like someone saying the square root of 81 is 8.

not implying untruth, but mistaken truth.

[graymouser]

Of course I keep hearing how warped Christianity is in the first place, so maybe what we're looking at here is Christianity in the unwarped sense? If the guy's not a nut case (which seems apparent from his biography) and, is speaking the truth, what else could it be?As per my custom religious experience dilemma, it could be:

-From the real God who wants to him to convert from his false Christianity, but he mistakenly attributes it to the Christian God.
-From Loki, who enjoys playing with his mind.
-From Satan, who wants him to believe in a false God and get himself sent to Hell.
-From Nyarlathotep, who wants him to believe in God, which will cause him to be sent to Hell by Cthulhu (who sends everybody who believes in God to Hell).
-From any other being who stands to profit from him believing in a false God or is generally indifferent to his belief system.
-From naturalistic causes (e.g., purely mental phenomena arising from the subconscious mind) that are misinterpreted as coming from God.

As you can see, there are always a lot of options for religious experiences.

-Wayne

[Iacchus]

Well, if we can't even begin to explain it in the rational sense, why bother?

Anyway, we must understand that it was customary for God to reveal Himself to people like this in the old days. So what other avenues should we expect Him to take? He's already shown up once in the flesh, but how many times do you think that should be necessary?

Of course without the capacity to disbelieve, neither would we have the capacity to believe so, I guess that's what it's all about ... :)

[Ellis14]

Well, if we can't even begin to explain it in the rational sense, then why bother?
Now you're talking! So let's not bother trying to explain God because he is irrational.
Anyway, we must understand that it was customary for God to reveal Himself to people like this in the old days. So what other avenues should we expect God to take? He's already shown up once in the flesh, but how many times do you think that should be necessary?
He hasn't shown up in the flesh because he doesn't exist. He also never revealed himself to anyone for the same reason. If he did exist, then showing up just once and settling the issue once and for all would do the trick, but that's not going to happen because he doesn't exist.
Of course without the capacity to disbelieve, neither would we have the capacity to believe so, I guess that's what it's all about ... :)
That's a very true but also rather obvious statement.

[Iacchus]

No, all this suggests is that people are prone to disbelief which, is very true. Why should things be any different now?

[Ellis14]

No, all this suggests is that people are prone to disbelief which, is very true. Why should things be any different now?
That is very very untrue. Humans beings are very prone to belief. We seek confirmatory information, by nature. Being critical and skeptically has not historically been conducive to evolutionary survival.

The deer when it hears a rustle in the bushes won't stop and wonder whether it just might be the wind, it will flee! Deers that stopped to think are dead!

Humans beings, whilst our intelligence has produced the ability to think logically, something that animals do not, we are very much geared up to believe. It is all too easy to believe. And once we believe, we seek out information that confirms out beliefs. This is called confirmation bias. We do not naturally seek to prove ourselves wrong. We are also more willing to believe things if they are pleasing, in keeping with our point of view, our worldview, our attitude, and with what we want to believe. This is called subjective validation.

Another problem that comes from human intelligence is something that animals do not possess: cognitive dissonance, and the ability to dispel such by rejecting disconfirmatory information. How is this done? Self-deception and wishful-thinking.

Humans are very prone to belief, and in order to avoid self-deception and erroneous beliefs, we are left with the necessity to think critically and logically; i.e.: to be a skeptic. (http://www.skepdic.com)

[Iacchus]

That is very very untrue. Humans beings are very prone to belief. We seek confirmatory information, by nature. Being critical and skeptically has not historically been conducive to evolutionary survival.However, if we are speaking of that which is untrue, we are speaking of disbelief, in which case I would have to agree with you here.

Ever wonder why we're prone to believe the worst about other people? And why do people seem to enjoy spreading malicious gossip and rumors about each other?

[Iacchus]

There is a difference between experience and revelation, much like there is a difference between being shown how to ride a bicycle and actually trying to do it yourself (believe me, I should know ;) ).Actually I have been in the spirit myself which, isn't altogether different from an extended dream, except that you are fully participating and are wide awake. Hmm, beginning to wonder where I ever got this notion of a soul? While here are a couple of links which relate my own experience ...

http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html

http://www.dionysus.org/x0901.html


Honestly, I don't know to which religion you link this "plausibility". If it is Hinduism, then that excerpt is actually a pretty good sum-up of some aspects of reincarnation, albeit in non-hindu terms.Actually, this sounds like a reasonable assessment, in that his heaven and hell are organically based, and are not presented in the extreme. How else could it be plausible then?


As a Christian text, though, it doesn't sound very plausible to me. The author seems to be indicating that human souls that go to heaven turn into angels, and human souls that go to hell turn into devils. Which smacks of Catholic angelology and demonology more than anything else, really.

SBS :)Except that he's asking us to understand how it works, as opposed to tossing out two opposite extremes, and allowing us to get diced in the middle if you know what I mean? Of course you do!

[Iacchus]

By the way, yesterday was the 232nd aniversary of Emanuel Swedenborg's death, in case anyone wants to know ... :)

[Yahzi]

Actually I have been in the spirit myself which, isn't altogether different from an extended dream, except that you are fully participating and are wide awake.
Here's a piece of advice I hope you take seriously: stay away from hallucigenics. You don't need them.

But you might want to realize that lots of other people have had some pretty trippy experiences just by sticking a tiny piece of acid-soaked paper in their mouths. Oddly, most of them were still capable of recognzing the difference between fantasy and reality afterwards.