The Opposite Game

[evildave]

I betcha that for nearly any given Christian assertion made by one church, there's a Christian church with an opposite, or conflicting assertion.

Most of them agree there was some guy that they call 'Jesus'. From there on, it simply gets a bit vague.

[Brown]

Originally posted by evildave
Most of them agree there was some guy that they call 'Jesus'. From there on, it simply gets a bit vague. There's some basis for saying that some of them don't even agree about the "there was some guy called Jesus" part. It has been suggested by some authors that some in the early church felt that it was unimportant whether Jesus really existed or not.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by evildave
I betcha that for nearly any given Christian assertion made by one church, there's a Christian church with an opposite, or conflicting assertion.

Most of them agree there was some guy that they call 'Jesus'. From there on, it simply gets a bit vague. Well, you have the three degrees (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=37): (1) radio (the Roman Catholics), (2) black and white TV (The Reformation) and, (3) color TV (the True Church), of which the 3rd degree (http://www.swedenborg.com) is the only true representation.

[UserGoogol]

The Reformation isn't a religion. It was a period in time during which many new forms of Christianity were created. So your analogy is stupid.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, you have the three degrees (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=37): (1) radio (the Roman Catholics), (2) black and white TV (The Reformation) and, (3) color TV (the True Church), of which the 3rd degree (http://www.swedenborg.com) is the only true representation.

Besides what has alrady beeen said about the Reformation being a time period and not a church, there is also the fact that they ALL consider themselves "The True Church".

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by UserGoogol

The Reformation isn't a religion. It was a period in time during which many new forms of Christianity were created. So your analogy is stupid. Indeed, this is why we have so many denominations, because when the printing press was first invented, and the Bible became available to the masses (in black and white so to speak), there was no official translation at the time. So, we found everybody disagreeing with each other. While it wasn't until the official translation came along (the advent of color) that we could dispense with all the nonsense. However, most of us aren't even aware that the color option (http://www.swedenborg.com) exists.

As for the Roman Catholics? Well, they had to settle for what was preached to them in Latin (hence the notion of radio), and they couldn't understand anyway. Albeit the Roman Catholic Church, in its attempts to force religion down everybody's throats, served to establish Christianity as an official entity ... much in the way radio served to establish tele-communications. ;)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Indeed, this is why we have so many denominations, because when the printing press was first invented, and the Bible became available to the masses (in black and white so to speak), there was no official translation at the time. So, we found everybody disagreeing with each other. While it wasn't until the official translation came along (the advent of color) that we could dispense with this nonsense. However, most of us aren't even aware that the color option (http://www.swedenborg.com) exists.


Well, the printing press had been around for nearly a century before the "Reformation", so it was hardly the sole cause. The reformation ultimately had a lot more to do with the question of who had ultimate power in the church; the Pope, local kings, or local bishops, than with disagreements over translations of the bible. There were disagreements over doctrinal matters (i.e. the baptizing of infants vs. the baptizing of adults or whether or not the bread and wine of the sacrament became the flesh and blood of Christ in a literal sense) but any disagreements over translation.

And there is still no "Official translation" Many different churches use different translations and call them "official"

[Iacchus]

Okay, I almost said "interpretation" but, it still pretty much means the same thing. Someone still has to come up with -- due to all the symbolism involved -- an "official" interpretation. Which, is why everyone seems to want to argue about it.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Okay, I almost said "interpretation" but, it still pretty much means the same thing. Someone still has to come up with -- due to all the symbolism involved -- an "official" interpretion. Which, is why everyone seems to want to argue about it.

Well, the bible is so vaguely written that you can interpret it to mean anything you want. Hate gays, blacks, or women? You can find your hatred confirmed. Think everyone in the world ought to live in peace and harmony? You can confirm that too? Hate Jews? Well, Jews killed Christ. Like Jews? Well hey, Jews are God's chosen people.

The Bible was written by different people with different agendas at different times, so that sort of thing is to be expected. Finding a single, unified, interpretation however is not.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Well, the bible is so vaguely written that you can interpret it to mean anything you want. Hate gays, blacks, or women? You can find your hatred confirmed. Think everyone in the world ought to live in peace and harmony? You can confirm that too? Hate Jews? Well, Jews killed Christ. Like Jews? Well hey, Jews are God's chosen people.

The Bible was written by different people with different agendas at different times, so that sort of thing is to be expected. Finding a single, unified, interpretation however is not. However, when you have the Roman Catholic Church ramming it down everybody's throats, no interpretation is necessary, albeit it does serve to make everybody believe the same thing (correct or not). In which case, as I suggest, these are only the first and second degrees.

[evildave]

You don't like the RC church ramming its interpretations down everybody's throat? What would you prefer? The 'true' church ramming its interpretations down everybody's throat? Or the other 'true' church around the corner ramming its interpretations down everybody's throat? Or the other 'true' church across the street from that one ramming its interpretations down everybody's throat?

Any way you want to dissect the problem of which 'Christian' to listen to, there's nothing more than some guy's word about what their particular version of the Bible means.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by evildave
You don't like the RC church ramming its interpretations down everybody's throat? What would you prefer? The 'true' church ramming its interpretations down everybody's throat? Or the other 'true' church around the corner ramming its interpretations down everybody's throat? Or the other 'true' church across the street from that one ramming its interpretations down everybody's throat? That's the whole point, the True Church (http://www.swedenborg.com) doesn't go around ramming it down everybody's throat which, is why very few people know about it. It isn't necessary, because it's pretty much self-explanatory ... being in color that is.


Any way you want to dissect the problem of which 'Christian' to listen to, there's nothing more than some guy's word about what their particular version of the Bible means. Actually this was something that happened over 230 years ago, and it's pretty well documented if, anyone should care to read up on it. The guy actually claims that the Book of Revelation was fulfilled in the year 1757 (http://www.swedenborg.com/AboutSwedenborg-KeyConceptsInSwedenborgsTheology.asp#radicalclaim) .

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
That's the whole point, the True Church (http://www.swedenborg.com) doesn't go around ramming it down everybody's throat which, is why very few people know about it. It isn't necessary, because it's pretty much self-explanatory

Really? Gosh - I swear I thought that Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, Protestants just knew that their brand of Christianity was the "One True Church(Tm)".

... being in color that is.

It's quotes like these that I sometimes bring into question your sanity. What on earth are you on about?

Actually this was something that happened over 230 years ago, and it's pretty well documented if, anyone should care to read up on it. The guy actually claims that the Book of Revelation was fulfilled in the year 1757 (http://www.swedenborg.com/AboutSwedenborg-KeyConceptsInSwedenborgsTheology.asp#radicalclaim) . [/B]

Oh vei! Yet another interpretation - This one, of course, is obviously the "Truth(Tm)". Why? Because...it..is!

[Z]

You only have a roughly 1 in 34,000 chance of having the right 'True Church' of Christianity there, Iacchus... Pretty low, really.

Besides, if I understand my history correctly, the True Christianity died out in 2 C.E.

Yeshua ben Joseph must be sooooo proud...

[RabbiSatan]

You only have a roughly 1 in 34,000 chance of having the right 'True Church' of Christianity there, Iacchus... Pretty low, really.

Lets not forget our favourite Revelations verses 14:3 and 14:4! Where only 144,000 celibate males that ever lived will go to heaven - That's right! No females, no hermaphrodites which God made you to begin with and automatically condemned you to hell, no man who's had sex, and especially no women!

Hhmm........thinking about it.....Hey! I'm young! I'm only 17! I'm a boy! I haven't had sex yet - I JUST MIGHT MAKE IT INTO HEAVEN!! WOOHOOO!!!




But then there's still that problem about 1 in 34,000....dang....

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Really? Gosh - I swear I thought that Catholics, Jehova's Witnesses, Mormons, Protestants just knew that their brand of Christianity was the "One True Church(Tm)".

It's quotes like these that I sometimes bring into question your sanity. What on earth are you on about?

Oh vei! Yet another interpretation - This one, of course, is obviously the "Truth(Tm)". Why? Because...it..is! Actually, you'll probably never hear from these people. However, since you insist on slinging the crap, you might consider doing a little research, unless of course your only purpose for posting here is to prove how ignorant you are (at least to me anyway ;)).

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Actually, you'll probably never hear from these people. However, since you insist on slinging the crap, you might consider doing a little research, unless of course your only purpose for posting here is to prove how ignorant you are (at least to me anyway ;)).

All sarcasm aside - how about you answer the valid points that have been raised in this thead?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

You only have a roughly 1 in 34,000 chance of having the right 'True Church' of Christianity there, Iacchus... Pretty low, really.But how many claim the Book of Revelation has been fulfilled? There's only one that I know of. And yes, I have done my research. While the thing is, the Book of Revelation is all about the end of era, and hence Church, not the end of the world.


Besides, if I understand my history correctly, the True Christianity died out in 2 C.E.

Yeshua ben Joseph must be sooooo proud... And what is that supposed to mean?

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But how many claim the Book of Revelation has been fulfilled? There's only one that I know of. And yes, I have done my research. While the thing is, the Book of Revelation is all about the end of era, and hence Church, not the end of the world.

Huh? You're going to say there any deny that Revelations explicitly details God's judgement on, and the end of, the world? Or - let me guess - It's all about what you want to "interpret" the data to mean?

Besides, you still haven't answered his question - There are roughly 34,000 brands of Christianity, each proclaiming to be the "True Church", thus, you have 1 in 34,000 of getting the correct Church - and that's not counting the various other world religions, each with their own thousands of sects.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Lets not forget our favourite Revelations verses 14:3 and 14:4! Where only 144,000 celibate males that ever lived will go to heaven - That's right! No females, no hermaphrodites which God made you to begin with and automatically condemned you to hell, no man who's had sex, and especially no women!Yes, I can see that you've taken the translation literally.


Hhmm........thinking about it.....Hey! I'm young! I'm only 17! I'm a boy! I haven't had sex yet - I JUST MIGHT MAKE IT INTO HEAVEN!! WOOHOOO!!!Oh, you're just a kid! Well anyway, do you know what Swedenborg states? "All people who live good lives, no matter what their religion is, have a place in heaven."

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, I can see that you've taken the translation literally.

Then let me guess - You're going to say that it has to be taken, "Symbolically"?


Oh, you're just a kid! Well anyway, do you know what Swedenborg states? "All people who live good lives, no matter what their religion is, have a place in heaven." [/B]

Jehova's Witnesses, and various other Religions on the planet claim to be the one absolute truth, and if you don't believe in them, that you'll goto hell - Who's correct then?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Huh? You're going to say there any deny that Revelations explicitly details God's judgement on, and the end of, the world? Or - let me guess - It's all about what you want to "interpret" the data to mean?No, I'm just telling you what it says in the book. The book is called, The Apocalypse Revealed, and is available through the Swedenborg Foundation (http://www.swedenborg.com). So, now have no excuse to argue with me about it, right?


Besides, you still haven't answered his question - There are roughly 34,000 brands of Christianity, each proclaiming to be the "True Church", thus, you have 1 in 34,000 of getting the correct Church - and that's not counting the various other world religions, each with their own thousands of sects. Like I said, how many claim the Book of Revelation has been fulfilled?

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I'm just telling you what it says in the book. The book is called, The Apocalypse Revealed, and is available through the Swedenborg Foundation (http://www.swedenborg.com). So, now have no excuse to argue with me about it, right?

Which are none other than Swedenbourg's own "true interpretation" of Revelations - Just like so many other "true interpretations".

Like I said, how many claim the Book of Revelation has been fulfilled?

And your point? Because Swedenbourg Claims that Revelations has passed, that somehow makes it more authorative and thus more likely to be the "True Church"?

The other "True Churches" are still there, and are waiting for the Rapture to come, as is evident with these fine folks (www.rr-bb.com).

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Then let me guess - You're going to say that it has to be taken, "Symbolically"?What you need to understand is, there's an external sense to the Word (that which natural or literal), and an internal sense to the Word (that which is symbolic or spiritual). And, that Swedenborg goes to great lengths to explain their difference.


Jehova's Witnesses, and various other Religions on the planet claim to be the one absolute truth, and if you don't believe in them, that you'll goto hell - Who's correct then? Now what did I just get through saying? "All people who live good lives, no matter what their religion is, have a place in heaven." This is something which Swedenborg has acknowledged.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Now what did I just get through saying? "All people who live good lives, no matter what their religion is, have a place in heaven." This is something which Swedenborg has acknowledged.

You still haven't answered my question. Other Christian Sects consider themselves to be the Truth, as do you - Who is correct then?

Even then - Which Major religion is correct?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

Which are none other than Swedenbourg's own "true interpretation" of Revelations - Just like so many other "true interpretations".That's a very interesting way of putting it. And yet, if there were a true interpretation, how do you think it would come about? Or, are you one of those people who are waiting for Jesus to appear out of nowhere?


And your point? Because Swedenbourg Claims that Revelations has passed, that somehow makes it more authorative and thus more likely to be the "True Church"?It means The Reformation, with all its denominations, is a big fat lie, which it is. In fact when the last judgment was performed, it was performed on both The Reformation and, the Roman Catholic Church.


The other "True Churches" are still there, and are waiting for the Rapture to come, as is evident with these fine folks (www.rr-bb.com). Yes, and have you noticed the Reformation and the Roman Catholic Church no longer enjoy the world-wide power and prestige that they used to? Hey, nowadays you can't force anybody to go to church. ;)

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
That's a very interesting way of putting it. And yet, if there were a true interpretation, how do you think it would come about? Or, are you one of those people who are waiting for Jesus to appear out of nowhere?

No - I am a hard Atheist - as far as I am concerned - people have "interpreted" the Bible and other Religious scriptures as they saw fit and proclaimed it to be the Truth. And different "Interprative Truths" have survived to become what they are today. The ones that either didn't hold enough sway over people or didn't have enough power didn't survive.

It means The Reformation, with all its denominations, is a big fat lie, which it is. In fact when the last judgment was performed, it was performed on both The Reformation and, the Roman Catholic Church.

Again, this is Swedenbourg's interpretation - and which you have also failed to state as to why his interpretation is the "Truth" over the others.

Yes, and have you noticed the Reformation and the Roman Catholic Church no longer enjoy the world-wide power and prestige that they used to? Hey, nowadays you don't have to force anybody to go to church. ;)

You are implying that because the Catholic Church isn't the "True Church", and as a result, is losing it's memebers?

I disagree - As far as I see, it has more to do with the rise of education and religion not having an over-bearing presence in people's lives anymore, and as a result, has encouraged the rise of apatheism and thus a general decline of religiosity in the more educated parts of the world.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

You still haven't answered my question. Other Christian Sects consider themselves to be the Truth, as do you - Who is correct then?

Even then - Which Major religion is correct? 17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. ~ Revelation 2:17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+2) This is in reference to the church of Pergamos, the third chuch listed in Revelation 1-3 by the way. Hence the third degree. While according to Swededenborg, it signifies the highest aspect of worship to God. Why? Because they don't go around professing it to everyone else. It's more of a personal matter in other words.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is in reference to the church of Pergamos, the third chuch listed in Revelation 1-3 by the way. Hence the third degree. While according to Swededenborg, it signifies the highest aspect of worship to God. Why? Because they don't go around professing it to everyone else. It's more of a personal matter in other words.

......and your point is...?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

No - I am a hard Atheist - as far as I am concerned - people have "interpreted" the Bible and other Religious scriptures as they saw fit and proclaimed it to be the Truth. And different "Interprative Truths" have survived to become what they are today. The ones that either didn't hold enough sway over people or didn't have enough power didn't survive.While another way of looking at it, is to approach it from all angles, whether one seems more appropriate than the others or not, in which case it allows you to establish a more complete view. However, I would suggest it has more to do with The Reformation itself and, that it's all preliminary.


Again, this is Swedenbourg's interpretation - and which you have also failed to state as to why his interpretation is the "Truth" over the others.Because the Swedenborg Church was established at the time that the Book of Revelation was fulfilled, and in fact signified the advent of the New Church.


You are implying that because the Catholic Church isn't the "True Church", and as a result, is losing it's memebers?The Jewish Church was at once the True Church too, in which case that has no bearing on it.


I disagree - As far as I see, it has more to do with the rise of education and religion not having an over-bearing presence in people's lives anymore, and as a result, has encouraged the rise of apatheism and thus a general decline of religiosity in the more educated parts of the world. However, I would go so far as to say that it began with the Age of Enlightenment (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=65) which, began in the early 1700's ... about the time that the Book of Revelation was fulfilled in other words.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

......and your point is...? If you're looking for a church which tends to draw a lot of attention to itself, then you probably haven't found the True Church. 1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:

4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.

5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him. ~ Matthew 6:1-8 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+6)

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
While another way of looking at it, is to approach it from all angles, whether one seems more appropriate over the others or not, in which case it allows you to establish a more complete view.

Which one seems more appropriate, or which one seems more probable?

If you're saying that one should look at the situation and chose the "True Church" over what someone thinks to be appropriate - that hardly suggests that such a sect is the "Truth" - All the sects have their followers who "apropriately" chose that sect as the Truth.

If we look at it in terms of what's more probably - Tell me - which is more probable?

That God knowingly made / inspired the Bible to be vague so that there would be petty squablings among his creations as to which interpretation would be the Truth?

Or

That people have "interpreted" the Bible and other Religious scriptures as they saw fit and proclaimed it to be the Truth?

Considering that there's no such evidence for such a being in the first place, and that the God of gaps is continually shrinking as science is progressing, I find the latter more probable.

Because the Swedenborg Church was established at the time that the Book of Revelation was fulfilled, and if fact signified the advent of the New Church.

You're saying that this Church is the Truth because it was founded when Revelations was fulfilled - which itself was Swedenbourg's interpretation of when Revelations would be fulfilled - thus adding credibility to the Church?

Circular Logic - Not to mention self fulfilling prophesy.

The Jewish Church was at once the True Church too so, that has no bearing on it.

Once was the True Church? I thought there could only be one "True Church". How did it stop being the "True Church"?

If you're looking for a church which tends to draw a lot of attention to itself, then you probably haven't found the True Church.

How so? Wouldn't god have made it so that the "True Church" would have the most followers? After all - God wouldn't have made things as such so that he wouldn't send his creations off to Hell from the very beginning now, would he?

[Iacchus]

Sorry, no more tonight ... Maybe later, okay? Also, I botched up the previous post and hit the submit button too soon, so I coninued to edit it until just a few minutes ago. So you might want to re-look at it. Bye.

[RabbiSatan]

Very well - goodnight (It's early afternoon now here in Hong Kong - and I haven't slept yet).

[evildave]

Of course, *lots* of churches have predicted doomsdays and raptures, had the doomsday date deferred, or just passed, and then carried on, typically to continue to grow even after they blew their "end times" predictions. Possibly any number of them are right, and it "already happened". The Jehova's Witnesses have a doomsday every ten years or so, they all go into debt like there's no tomorrow, and... nothing happens again. The Seventh Day Adventists comes to mind, too. They predicted LOTS of second-commings.

"A brief Hostory of the Apocolypse"
http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm

A hilarious read! I can't recommend it highly enough. Lots of people's opinions about the 'second comming' having alrady happened in there.


Actually, you'll probably never hear from these people.
As for the Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons never seeking me out to tell me their "good news", get real! Representatives from both have been to my door many, many times.

[RabbiSatan]

I only knew about this (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9941/) site cataloguing the failed and upcomming doomsday predictions, but was a bit hard to navigate.

Thanks for the resource dave :)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by evildave

As for the Jehova's Witnesses or Mormons never seeking me out to tell me their "good news", get real! Representatives from both have been to my door many, many times. So? Who's referring to them? As far as I know, the people I'm referring to here, do not solicite from anybody.

[evildave]

Thinking about another topic when I posted the bottom half of that.

[Z]

Let us also keep in mind a few facts: the Book of Revelations was a hotly contested topic around the 4th Century C.E. and was only reluctantly included into canon; it is still, to this day, not fully accepted as canon by some churches. Plus, Revelations was one of several Armageddon / Apocalypse books written - almost all of which conflicted with each other.

Another fact is that there are several views on Rapture, the 'End of the World', etc... and the most common opinion about when the 'End' happened (if it happened already) puts the events predicted by Jesus at or about 60-70 C.E. with the 'death' of the Jewish church.

The Rapture, Revelations, Armageddon, etc... are all hotly contested and widely discussed (by Christians especially) but still amounts as nothing more than hot air and legends.

These ideas, though, are of particular concern to those of us who want no part of it, because just as Muslims (some) believe in Jihad and their own version of the End, as do some Christians and even Jews... this puts the non-believer in a potentially precarious situation. If a world-war between faiths sprung up, nothing would prevent the 'Faithful' from waging all-out, total annihilation warfare, since by each side's beliefs, after the Death of Man they would be upheld as righteous and resurrected into Heaven. Thus, to the Faithful, this world means nothing - pain, suffering, warfare, all mean nothing, as long as they maintain their faith.

This is why I speak out as often as possible against this idea of Apocalypse.

[Iacchus]

So we have the Roman Catholic Church and The Reformation, both of which seemed to have waned and lost most of their prestige. Which, began about the time of the Age of Enlightenment (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=65). So what else is there, regarding any major developments within the Christian Church? And if in fact the Book of Revelation signified the end of an age or, era (of the Church), doesn't it seem plausible that it should happen at this time? (http://www.swedenborg.com/AboutSwedenborg-KeyConceptsInSwedenborgsTheology.asp#radicalclaim)

[Z]

Before I go out on any limbs, is there a link showing in more detail why Swedenbourg (sp?) believes what he does? What signs and biblical texts matched up to engender his faith that the Second Coming came and went? I'll need to understand the reasoning and logic of his claims before I address them.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Before I go out on any limbs, is there a link showing in more detail why Swedenbourg (sp?) believes what he does? What signs and biblical texts matched up to engender his faith that the Second Coming came and went? I'll need to understand the reasoning and logic of his claims before I address them. Yeah, you're the expert, right? ;)

Swedenborg Foundation (http://www.swedenborg.com)

Swedenborg Church (http://www.swedenborg.org)

Now, I can't guarantee you're going to specifically find what you're looking for online, however, the materials are available (for a nominal fee) through the Swedenborg Foundation. And, if that doesn't quite suit your fancy, then perhaps you can find them through a used book store or something?

[Z]

Thanks - seems copies of his text are freely available on-line - albeit, wisely, in a graphic format preventing causual copying of parts of the text. This at least removes the veneer of 'scam' that so many who offer 'intimate and vital knowledge for a fee' have.

No, I'm no expert, but I like to debate from an informed stance, not from gut-feelings or instincts. Without data on Swede's theory, I could not make any statement regarding it, pro or con.

Again, Thanks Iacchus - you actually came through for once.

[RabbiSatan]

How about replying to my post please Iacchus?

Originally posted by RabbiSatan
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Iacchus
While another way of looking at it, is to approach it from all angles, whether one seems more appropriate over the others or not, in which case it allows you to establish a more complete view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which one seems more appropriate, or which one seems more probable?

If you're saying that one should look at the situation and chose the "True Church" over what someone thinks to be appropriate - that hardly suggests that such a sect is the "Truth" - All the sects have their followers who "apropriately" chose that sect as the Truth.

If we look at it in terms of what's more probably - Tell me - which is more probable?

That God knowingly made / inspired the Bible to be vague so that there would be petty squablings among his creations as to which interpretation would be the Truth?

Or

That people have "interpreted" the Bible and other Religious scriptures as they saw fit and proclaimed it to be the Truth?

Considering that there's no such evidence for such a being in the first place, and that the God of gaps is continually shrinking as science is progressing, I find the latter more probable.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Swedenborg Church was established at the time that the Book of Revelation was fulfilled, and if fact signified the advent of the New Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're saying that this Church is the Truth because it was founded when Revelations was fulfilled - which itself was Swedenbourg's interpretation of when Revelations would be fulfilled - thus adding credibility to the Church?

Circular Logic - Not to mention self fulfilling prophesy.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jewish Church was at once the True Church too so, that has no bearing on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Once was the True Church? I thought there could only be one "True Church". How did it stop being the "True Church"?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're looking for a church which tends to draw a lot of attention to itself, then you probably haven't found the True Church.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



How so? Wouldn't god have made it so that the "True Church" would have the most followers? After all - God wouldn't have made things as such so that he wouldn't send his creations off to Hell from the very beginning now, would he?


And I'll ask again - which is the "True" interpretation / Church?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

How about replying to my post please Iacchus?

And I'll ask again - which is the "True" interpretation / Church?This is chapter one of my book, it's called The Church (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html). It might help for starters. And if you don't feel like reading it, don't waste my time. I'm tired of talking about it for now.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
This is chapter one of my book, it's called The Church (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html). It might help for starters. And if you don't feel like reading it, don't waste my time. I'm tired of talking about it for now.

The first chapter of you your so called "Book" addresses none of my points.

I'll ask again - which is the "True" interpretation / Church?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Thanks - seems copies of his text are freely available on-line - albeit, wisely, in a graphic format preventing causual copying of parts of the text. This at least removes the veneer of 'scam' that so many who offer 'intimate and vital knowledge for a fee' have.

No, I'm no expert, but I like to debate from an informed stance, not from gut-feelings or instincts. Without data on Swede's theory, I could not make any statement regarding it, pro or con.Fair enough. Now which site did you find this on? Are you referring to complete texts or sample texts? Because I haven't spent any time at the Swedenborg Church site (just found it the other day) and would be interested to know if they had this available. Of course at some point I'll have to break down and take a look if nothing else.


Again, Thanks Iacchus - you actually came through for once. Hey, watch it. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

The first chapter of you your so called "Book" addresses none of my points.

I'll ask again - which is the "True" interpretation / Church? What have you got a ravenous appetite or something? Later. I need some sleep. In the meantime try this (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=57). Try this one too (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7).

[Z]

There's a chain of links on the Church site leading you to his writings. It is a bit annoying, in that what you get are pics of each page of his book (including the blank pages), and he tended to WRITE LARGE, thereby taking a lot of pages to say very little; also, his writing appears to be largely in the form of the 'run-on paragraph', where he quotes a piece, then explains what it signifies, all in one long extended sentance/paragraph.

Still, what do you expect from 18th century writers?

Unfortunately, so far I can't find where he has reasoned out that the Second Coming occured in 1757; what I can find is where he serves himself a series of logical loopholes so that his work cannot be discredited... Primarily, his concept that Revelations cannot be understood, unless God illuminates the text for you. Thereby meaning that if you don't understand Revelations, it's because God isn't letting you understand it; and if you don't believe in the Second Coming, well, that's God's fault too.

So far, it seems he took the easy way out. That, and placing all these wonderful apocalyptic events firmly in the heavenly realm, whereupon only 'those who believe' would perceive them. Convenient, eh?

Equally convenient, that in spite of the 'end' of the Church, there still seems to be a Church out there; both Catholic and Reformists are everywhere, although I would agree they are not the monstrosities they once were; they exist as 34,000 splinter faiths, which is hardly the sign of a 'healthy' Church.

However, I don't see where the remainder of Revelations has come to pass - of course, apparently, this is all supposed to occur in the New Heaven, Jerusalem, whatever, and is unseen to us Godless Heathens...

Still, I haven't finished the work yet. There is still much to read before making a truly informed decision.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What have you got a ravenous appetite or something? Later. I need some sleep.
No - I want you to address my points.

In the meantime try this (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=57). Try this one too (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7).
This is a classic example to anyone who is reading and following this thread, of why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

You send me on fools errands to find out the "proof", where you should be the one bringing the "proof" to the debating forum in the first place, and when I find that there is none, you send me on more errands.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

No - I want you to address my points.

This is a classic example to anyone who is reading and following this thread, of why the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

You send me on fools errands to find out the "proof", where you should be the one bringing the "proof" to the debating forum in the first place, and when I find that there is none, you send me on more errands. Can you believe this guy? He sure has been hanging around a lot lately. Maybe it's because I bothered to reply to any of his posts in the first place? My mistake I guess.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Can you believe this guy? He sure has been hanging around a lot lately. Maybe it's because I bothered to reply to any of his posts in the first place? My mistake I guess.

No - it is because you are making the claim that Swendenborg's Church is the True church / interpretation, whereas 34,000 other sects say that they are the True church / interpretation.

I have also asked you what is the True church / interpretation, why is you believe Swedenborg's is so, pointing out to you that the other members of the 34,000 sects know that their "interpretation" is true.

And all of which, you refuse to address my points on, and continually evade, just as you have done in plenty of other threads.

[Iacchus]

And you have to understand I don't do things just because somebody demands that I do. All this stuff you're referring to is old hat by the way, it doesn't mean anything. While most things that I know I've learned on my own, none of which involved forcing it out of other people. So if you don't like it too bad.

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And you have to understand I don't do things just because somebody demands that I do.

So, in other words, you're saying that skeptics shouldn't ask you to show this evidence, and that it's "comming, just wait..."?

Hhmm, where have I heard that before :rolleyes:

All this stuff you're referring to is old hat by the way, it doesn't mean anything.

Yes it does - 34,000 sects claim to be the objective, mutually exclusive "Truth(Tm)". Do you not see what is wrong with this?

While most things that I know I've learned on my own, none of which involved forcing it out of other people. So if you don't like it too bad.

Oh, no no no, you misunderstand me, I'm not trying to convince you, I know you're far, far gone already - I am posting strictly for the person who reads this and see that you won't address the relevant points.

[evildave]

'Forcing it out of other people'?

Most people who evangelize at me are only too willing to quote the scripture that they're going on about. They'll open up their little black book and quote chapter and verse, and say why it means what they say it means.

They don't usually force me to read whole long sections of their so-called 'sacred text' when they want to make a single coherent point.

For instance: you say 'the rapture' already happened. You claim that's 'unique'. I produce a nice list of at least 400 instances of other people who've historically claimed the rapture 'already happened'.


Matthew 16:28
28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.


This one is the basis of a lot of people's assertion that Jesus already showed up. Of course, since Jesus was supposed to come back before that generation passed away, he's either 1900 years overdue, or he came back long before many of these doomsday predictions, and nobody noticed. But who's going to believe Jesus's (alleged) own words compared to their cult leader's words?

Of course, you can interpret those lines any way you like. For instance, one could make the absurd claim that some of the people who heard Jesus say that did not die. Or perhaps they had their tongues cut out before they died, so they didn't 'taste' it. Perhaps it's a pun or bit of colloquialism or euphymism in the native language it was spoken in? Or maybe it was just slightly mistranslated from "You will all surely die and crumble completely to dust long before I return"?

The point is, established churches disagree. Little Jesus cliques disagree. They all disagree. Swedenborg doesn't have any better say than the Pope or Martin Luther or Jimmy Swaggart or even Jimmy Roberts ('The Brethren'), for that matter.

[Iacchus]

Do you know how long it takes a tree to grow? It begins with sowing the seed and then allowing it to take hold and grow and mature of its own accord. The same thing as with the nature of befief. It doesn't just happen all at once and in fact can take a life time. So nobody's forcing anybody to do anything here. Not on my part anyway.

If you're not interested in what I have to say, then by all means, tune me out, don't follow the links, whatever, but don't expect me to tell you something in a way that's not the least bit similar to the way it was told to me. I doesn't work that way.

[Z]

Then don't post here if you don't want your faith dissected a million times.

Go prosetylise somewhere else, Judas.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Then don't post here if you don't want your faith dissected a million times.

Go prosetylise somewhere else, Judas. What did I do step on a serpent or something?

[evildave]

Actually for a tree to naturally grow, a lot of seeds are scattered randomly, and just occasionally one survives to sprout into a seedling, and just occasionally a seedling survives to be a sapling, and just occasionally a sapling survives to be a tree.

We're talking a survival rate for seeds of one in thousands upon thousands. Fortunately for trees everywhere, a tree will produce slightly more thousands of seeds than are eaten, or land on rock and rot, or don't get enough water, or whatever else short of producing a tree happens to seeds.

The point is, you shouldn't ever despair of finding believers for your cult just because you don't get any believers in one place. No matter how many seeds you drop on solid rock, none will take root there.

As far as 'Judas' is concerned, he served a critical function for the whole sacrifice-for-sin deal, so it's hardly fair to use his name for anything negative, if you believe Jesus lived and died for a reason anyway.

For me, no amount of bible quoting or re-interpretations of that source makes a difference. I don't accept the bible as an authoritative source of information, nor do I accept any interpretation thereof, nor any dogmatic religious assertions as a reliable source of information.

Random noise, yes. Infromation, no.

So what would a person's opinion about an interpretation about a bible passage mean to me? About as much as someone's opinion about why 'Green Eggs and Ham' is vitally important to me.

[Z]

DO NOT DISRESPECT DR. SEUSS! HIS IS THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD!!!

I have Green Eggs and Ham every day, and my Cat owns a number of striped hats...

:rr:

[evildave]

Now listen here, Sam I Am, I will not eat green eggs and ham. I will not eat them on a boat, I will not eat them in a float, I will not eat them with a spoon, and I certainly will not eat them in the gloom. The green eggs glow in the dark, and that is just not right.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by evildave

Actually for a tree to naturally grow, a lot of seeds are scattered randomly, and just occasionally one survives to sprout into a seedling, and just occasionally a seedling survives to be a sapling, and just occasionally a sapling survives to be a tree.However, a tree can only sprout from one seed which, is why I opted to drop the "s" from "seeds."


For me, no amount of bible quoting or re-interpretations of that source makes a difference. I don't accept the bible as an authoritative source of information, nor do I accept any interpretation thereof, nor any dogmatic religious assertions as a reliable source of information. The answer for anything however is what our hear tells us, and I believe the Bible is very dogmatic in that sense.


Random noise, yes. Infromation, no.

So what would a person's opinion about an interpretation about a bible passage mean to me? About as much as someone's opinion about why 'Green Eggs and Ham' is vitally important to me. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." ~ Matthew 11:15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Matthew+11)

[evildave]

He that hath brains, let him think.

[Z]

No no no, thinking is strictly prohibited in the Book of Common Ignorance, you know.