tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post9190884802227741419..comments2024-03-11T07:53:25.838-04:00Comments on Spirituality, Dreams and Prophecy: Christianity, Reincarnation and Emanuel SwedenborgDoug Webberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-63141360962777240932018-06-02T07:13:47.245-04:002018-06-02T07:13:47.245-04:00Your love has conquered me. Now I belong to you.Your love has conquered me. Now I belong to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-38841345511604647762017-02-20T22:59:02.167-05:002017-02-20T22:59:02.167-05:00Hello Lee, not sure if you are following this blog...Hello Lee, not sure if you are following this blog, but someone left a comment for you below on this blog post concerning reincarnation.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-47599815661959566002017-02-20T22:57:56.677-05:002017-02-20T22:57:56.677-05:00Hello Adri, you are probably correct in your viewp...Hello Adri, you are probably correct in your viewpoint concerning hypnotism. Swedenborg confirms that in several instances spirits can become immersed in the memory of another person to the point where they think they are that person. Also that associated with each human soul there are a group of souls who have similar personality traits. Thus in hypnotism, they are tapping into these collective memories.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-85907293586807726712017-02-20T16:37:12.545-05:002017-02-20T16:37:12.545-05:00Hi Lee, this is an article that was altered by you...Hi Lee, this is an article that was altered by you??<br />http://webhome.idirect.com/~abraam/documents/Reinc_Theory.pdf<br /><br />Just one more point. When using hypnotism as a reason to see more than one life of a person on the couch, I believe that it is a misinterpretation of the person on the chair. I think he is then communicating with a spirit who is present with the person on the couch (who himself is 'disconnected').<br />Reincarnation does not at all make sense to me, for a God who wants the most number of people possible to come to heaven. Not to go back and forth.<br />Just a thought.Adrihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17864926825348697187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-80629254968125307312014-03-24T13:18:59.813-04:002014-03-24T13:18:59.813-04:00(. . . continued)
Even though Swedenborg did not ...(. . . continued)<br /><br />Even though Swedenborg did not have access to detailed knowledge of the reproductive process, today we do. And we can be much more specific about the sperm as the identity-carrying vessel, and the semen as the fluid designed to provide a means to deliver the sperm to its initial destination, from which the sperm continues the journey under its own power.<br /><br />We can also be more specific about the ovum, or egg, as the identity-carrying vessel in the female, and the menstruum in utero as the receiving vessel that provides the fertilized egg a means to implant itself and begin the process of division and specialization until the complex umbilical system can be developed and become functional.<br /><br />All of this provides us with huge advances in our ability to understand the process of human reproduction, both physically and spiritually. Using the principles Swedenborg provides us about the relationship and interaction between the spiritual and the physical, we can develop a much more precise and complex theory of the origin of individual human souls than Swedenborg was able to provide us here on earth due to the limits in our knowledge of human physiology in his day.<br /><br />In light of those principles, it's clear that the seed (today, the sperm and the egg) itself is not the soul. Rather, it is a vessel capable of carrying the soul-material from both the father and the mother to the point of conception, at which point the partial scions from the souls of the father and the mother combine to form a full (but as yet undeveloped) soul, which is the unique identity behind the new, unique human being that has now been conceived.<br /><br />This is still a simplified picture of a very complex process. But to my mind at least, the general outlines of what happens are fairly clear. And it points to the soul being formed as a unique entity in its own right at the moment of conception. Of course, at that point it is still undeveloped. But it has the spiritual genetic fingerprint that establishes it as a unique, new being that can develop into a unique, new human being.<br /><br />I have no problem with the idea that Swedenborg could be wrong on some of his statements--especially those that depend on the science and culture of his day. As with all revelation, the purpose of his writings is not to teach us about science, history, and culture, but to provide us with spiritual knowledge and understanding, and to lead us toward lives of active love for God and for our fellow human beings. Swedenborg used the science and culture at his disposal to deliver a spiritual message. It's best not to confuse the spiritual truth he was conveying with the scientific and cultural vessel in which he delivered it.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-4342953833174131582014-03-24T13:15:43.301-04:002014-03-24T13:15:43.301-04:00Hi Doug,
Thanks for the nice summary of Swedenbor...Hi Doug,<br /><br />Thanks for the nice summary of Swedenborg on "seed." Of course, the seed itself, being material, is not the soul, nor is it the origin of the soul. Rather, it is built by the soul as a material housing for the soul, in order to convey it to union with its counterpart from the other parent.<br /><br />It's important to understand that Swedenborg uses the generic term "seed" because knowledge of the physiology of reproduction was not sufficiently advanced in his day to clearly identify the sperm and its functions. He does speak of the ovum and its function as far as was then known. However, even in this there is some mixture of earlier beliefs about the body being formed from the entire menstruum in utero under the influence of the soul that is borne there by the male seed. The physiology of reproduction was, so to speak, in an embryonic state at that point in the history of science. This made it impossible for Swedenborg to speak with any precision about the physical counterparts of the spiritual process of reproduction.<br /><br />I've read Swedenborg's earlier unpublished scientific draft on the reproductive organs fairly carefully on these points in conjunction with my work on the notes for the New Century Edition volume of his work Marriage Love. As brilliant as his earlier scientific inquiries were, there is much there that has since been disproved. For example, Swedenborg speculated that the "seed" traveled along a pathway in the woman's body that is now known to be an impassible suspensory ligament.<br /><br />The issues involved are also complicated by the fact that Swedenborg's draft on the reproductive organs was written about 1734 (but never published), whereas Marriage Love was written and published 34 years later, in 1768. Even in that time, the science of reproduction was advancing. Though the science embodied in Swedenborg's theological works is based largely on that of his earlier scientific works, developments that happened in the decades between do also make their way into the theological works, making it difficult to pin the science down exactly on some points.<br /><br />(continued . . .)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-36507805297835860522014-03-23T22:47:09.495-04:002014-03-23T22:47:09.495-04:00Wanted to follow up on this, where Swedenborg said...Wanted to follow up on this, where Swedenborg said the soul originates from the seed of the father. I just did a complete search on "seed", and the picture is a bit more complicated. To summarize:<br /><br />1. Swedenborg states that the soul does NOT originate from the seed or the ovum, but from a spiritual influx. This is in direct disagreement with the idea that the soul originates from the seed of the father, which he probable borrowed from others. I knew I read it somewhere, finally found it: "Who at this day does not believe that man springs from the seed and the ovum according to nature? and that there is in the seed from the first creation the ability of producing itself into such forms, first within the ovum, next in the womb, and afterward of itself, and that it is not the Divine which continues to produce? The cause of its being so believed is, that no one knows there is any influx from heaven, that is, through heaven from the Lord" (Heavenly Arcana, n. 4322)<br /><br />2. Something spiritually prior must exist before the seed: "Unless there were such an eminent perfection in prior and simple things, neither man, nor any animal, could exist and afterward subsist from seed" (DLW 204)<br /><br />3. The seed is merely a receptacle of life (DLW 269)<br /><br />4. Seeds are impregnated with a substance of a spiritual origin (DLW 310)<br /><br />5. "nature contributes nothing at all to the production of plants and animals, but ...all are produced by that which flows in from the spiritual world into the natural" (DLW 344). Also, the image of creation originates from the spiritual, not the natural (DLW 315)<br /><br />6. There is this odd passage where he says "as the soul descends the truth descends" and "that while this is being done the whole soul forms itself and clothes itself and becomes a seed" and the soul can exist in the smallest of receptacles (the seed) as much as the fullest receptacle (the body) (ML 220).<br /><br />7. Finally, Swedenborg mentions "a secret from heaven" concerning conception between a disunited married pair. He then repeats "the soul is procreated; but in its descent, while it is becoming seed, it is covered over by such things as are of his natural love" (ML 245)<br /><br />So my conclusion, at this point, is at conception there is a spiritual influx of the soul. I can go a little further with a bit of speculation, but at this point I am "agnostic" in such matters and wont publicize them. I will only point out, that if Swedenborg was wrong in some of his statements (which these statements obviously prove), he was wrong on perhaps some other points.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-24649440551849633402014-03-15T17:15:46.450-04:002014-03-15T17:15:46.450-04:00Lee, if I told you of all the prophecies or forekn...Lee, if I told you of all the prophecies or foreknowledge of future events I have seen happen on a personal level you would probably not believe it. What I have observed, if you sit and do nothing, the future events (or your timeline) is planned out or foreseen far in advance. But when you take action, or change your course where the results will be practical in life, the timeline changes. Things are planned out in the smallest of details, yet it is up to us to change it through free will. Thinking does not change things, but action does. There are several cases in the Bible where things are planned out, but when people change due to free will, the future changes. For example:<br /><br />1. A prophecy is given by Isaiah to a king of Judah that he should prepare to die. The king repents, and 15 years is added to his life.<br />2. Jonah is sent to Ninevah and declares it will be destroyed in 40 days. The king and people repent, cancelling the prophecy.<br />3. God tells Moses he will destroy the Jews and raise another nation through his descendants. Moses intervenese, the future changes somewhat. So only the adults die in the wilderness, the children live on.<br /><br />There are some events planned out that cannot be changed. But how we react to them, or our attitude to them, is up to our free will. Sometimes events which take place which we regard as "bad", in the end turn out for the long term good.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-2485984444681984252014-03-15T12:43:12.428-04:002014-03-15T12:43:12.428-04:00Hi Doug,
Clearly I haven't mastered this comm...Hi Doug,<br /><br />Clearly I haven't mastered this comment system. Some comments that were meant to be together got separated from one another. I hope you (and other readers) are able to follow the thread of discussion even though it's been shuffled up a bit.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00367727416033291841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-83883953381583456502014-03-14T09:20:44.981-04:002014-03-14T09:20:44.981-04:00(. . . continued)
I do agree that the doctrine of...(. . . continued)<br /><br />I do agree that the doctrine of reincarnation is based on appearances of truth, and has lessons applicable to life. And for those who believe in it, it can have great meaning. It is not a good idea to wrench away from people the faith that sustains them and guides their lives, even if it includes ideas that are false. This may have been the reason Jesus simply indicated that reincarnation is false, rather than coming right out and flatly stating that it is false. People who believe in reincarnation can still read the Gospels and think of them as supporting their faith--which is a good thing.<br /><br />However, the fact that falsity can and often does function as truth for people should not lead us to jump to the conclusion that a particular false idea is actually true because we see it functioning as truth. If we are able to base our own faith on accurate representations or appearances of truth rather than on appearances of truth that do not accurately represent the truth, and are thus in themselves false, then we will have a more accurate picture of the material and spiritual universe in which we live. And that will provide us with a better guide for how to live our lives.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-49759992140240565332014-03-14T09:20:19.929-04:002014-03-14T09:20:19.929-04:00The thing is, if we start thinking that way, then ...The thing is, if we start thinking that way, then we can't say that anything at all is false. If we follow anything far enough backward and upward to its source, there will always be a truth there. That's because ultimately, everything comes from God, and God is absolute truth, with no taint of falsity.<br /><br />However, as things move down into human minds, they can and do get twisted into things that don't accurately represent the truth that is in God, and that are therefore in themselves false. Without this possibility, there could be no falsity, no evil, and no freedom, because everything would always be a genuine representation of the will and mind of God, and we would all automatically became angels because there would be no other possibility. (In fact, we would not, but would cease to exist at death like the lower animals, because without freedom and rationality, we cannot exist eternally as distinct individuals.)<br /><br />Just because reincarnation can be an image of a deeper truth or of a different phenomenon that does actually happen does not mean that it itself is true. And just because human beings both before and after death have experiences that give the impression of reincarnation happening does not mean it actually happens.<br /><br />Reincarnation as generally understood has a specific definition: the process of an individual soul being born into another body. From what I understand of spiritual reality, this simply doesn't happen, no matter how many appearances there may be that it happens, and regardless of the fact that if interpreted spiritually, it is an image of the spiritual rebirth process, and also regardless of the phenomena of group souls and of the interaction between the minds of beings in the spiritual world and the minds of beings in the material world.<br /><br />If we want to define reincarnation differently than it is usually defined, than we can, of course, find a definition for it that represents something that actually happens, and say that it is true. However, when we do this, we are not talking about the same thing as people are normally talking about when they use the word "reincarnation."<br /><br />If I say "there's a horse in the barn," and you think I mean the animal people ride, whereas I actually mean a sawhorse, which just happens to be in the barn where I keep my cows, then what you hear is going to be false, because I'm using "horse" with a different definition than you are. You'll go to the barn so that you can ride the horse, see that the barn is full of cows, and say, "That's not true. There are no horses in the barn. Only cows."<br /><br />Just so, if we say to people, "reincarnation is not exactly false," and their definition of reincarnation is individual souls being reborn into new bodies, then they're naturally going to think we're saying that this does sort of or sometimes happen, when in fact it doesn't. We're just defining it differently. The result is not understanding, but confusion. I've read a lot of articles and comments that say things along this line: "Well, normally reincarnation doesn't happen, but in some special cases it does." That's what people are going to hear if we say, "Reincarnation isn't exactly false."<br /><br />(continued . . . )<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-69385152415048346482014-03-14T08:39:40.398-04:002014-03-14T08:39:40.398-04:00I would say things are known in advance, but not e...I would say things are known in advance, but not exactly planned out in advance. Missing the distinction between the two is, I think, the reason God-believing advocates of free will often reject the idea divine foreknowledge. (For example, years ago one of my fellow seminarians argued that God knows all the possible choices, or possible futures, but does not know which actual choices we will make, and which of the possible futures will actually take place.) If "fate" means "predetermined destiny," then it is a false concept.<br /><br />I agree that God plans myriad things in advance, and provides people to fill gaps in heaven. However, the idea that God plans our ultimate destiny implies that God causes us to think, believe, and do the things we do, which is predestination--a concept Swedenborg rejects. God provides for our lives, but does not actually plan, or cause, our choices--which are, in fact, free.<br /><br />The example I usually give is that if I hold a ball up in the air and let go of it, I know that it is going to fall to the ground, but I don't cause it to fall to the ground. That's an image of the difference between divine foreknowledge and predestination. God knows what we are going to do, but does not cause us to do it. We make the ultimate choice ourselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-80192993900942952252014-03-12T21:37:29.903-04:002014-03-12T21:37:29.903-04:00About foreknowledge of particulars of people's...About foreknowledge of particulars of people's lives before they are born - in addition to the passage of Jeremiah, I have seen case after case of just exactly that in the prophecies of Nostradamus. King Louis XVI of France, who was beheaded in the French Revolution, is a prime example. I published some of them in <i>The Decoded Prophecies of Nostradamus</i>. To explain it, Nostradamus may have secretly subscribed to Neoplatonic ideas of reincarnation, but kept that hidden due to the Inquisition. The bizarre thing is he also foresaw the life of a French nobleman who happened to be a Swedenborgian, and in the process wrote a little tidbit on Swedenborg himself. That, of course, took me by surprise. I had done the research on it before I knew about Swedenborg. So things are planned out in advance, and certain personality types will be born, with a particular fate, in order to "fill in the gap" in the spiritual societies of heaven.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-63006525157091783632014-03-12T21:22:15.964-04:002014-03-12T21:22:15.964-04:00The fact that Jesus does not answer true or false ...The fact that Jesus does not answer true or false in every single answer when it comes to reincarnation, is in fact an answer. For although each born individual is unique, the spiritual world interacts with the natural in such a way that a "group soul" will share memories with each other, and in the other life it will appear just as if you had lived multiple lives. I have seen some Near Death Experiences where this is the case. Even Swedenborg described the societies that dwell together as a star in heaven, and are together because they share like personalities. A group soul will form, which will form an image of a human, and as the NT states, we will become as a cell in our own body. Each cell has its own nucleus, and yet is part of a larger system that has one brain. So the religious teachings surrounding reincarnation are not exactly false, they are based upon an appearance of the truth, and are applicable to life. Which is why Jesus did not come out and say "Hey that is false" or "That is wrong". Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-6827037567330186152014-03-12T18:54:09.525-04:002014-03-12T18:54:09.525-04:00Okay, I thought Blogger automatically turned URLs ...Okay, I thought Blogger automatically turned URLs into links, but apparently it doesn't. So here's that URL as an actual link:<br /><a href="http://leewoof.org/2014/03/07/the-bible-emanuel-swedenborg-and-reincarnation/" rel="nofollow">The Bible, Emanuel Swedenborg, and Reincarnation</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00367727416033291841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-48658554236523823922014-03-12T12:34:07.138-04:002014-03-12T12:34:07.138-04:00Also in my original comment:
I covered those Bibl...Also in my original comment:<br /><br />I covered those Bible passages (but not the Jeremiah one) more fully in my recent article on reincarnation:<br /><br />The Bible, Emanuel Swedenborg, and Reincarnation<br />http://leewoof.org/2014/03/07/the-bible-emanuel-swedenborg-and-reincarnation/<br /><br />This article does cover some (though not all) of the ground you've covered in this article, while including some different ground as well.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-57685223972477796412014-03-12T12:31:34.317-04:002014-03-12T12:31:34.317-04:00Hi Doug,
I've now rewritten in two comments w...Hi Doug,<br /><br />I've now rewritten in two comments what I had originally posted in my very first comment on this article. I put them in response to my first comment so that they'd be closer to the top. It's like the hydra. The system chops off one of my comments, and two come back in its place. :-)<br /><br />I'm also going to make a third comment there pointing to my recent article on reincarnation, which I'd originally done in my first comment. In case it doesn't come through there, here's a backup:<br /><br />The Bible, Emanuel Swedenborg, and Reincarnation<br />http://leewoof.org/2014/03/07/the-bible-emanuel-swedenborg-and-reincarnation/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00367727416033291841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-66959957149833446442014-03-12T12:28:02.384-04:002014-03-12T12:28:02.384-04:00Another point that was in my original first commen...Another point that was in my original first comment, re: the Lord's statement in Jeremiah 1:4-5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations":<br /><br />It is not necessary for us to pre-exist birth for God to know us before we were born. From the eternal, divine perspective in which God exists, all things that to us are past, present, or future are present and known in one eternal present.<br /><br />This is tricky to express in natural language, which is inevitably time-bound. So the Bible has to use words like "before" and "after" in relation to God, even though they don't really apply to God. A common device in Hebrew that reflects this reality is that often future events are prophesied in the present tense, as if they are happening right now. Swedenborg says that this is because for God, they are present even though when they were written down in the human timeline they were still in the future.<br /><br />Swedenborg especially applies this to Old Testament prophecies about the glorification of the Lord while he was on earth. In answer to the implicit question of how these things could be presented in such a detailed fashion in the spiritual meaning of the Old Testament when none of them had yet happened temporally, Swedenborg replies that God saw them all from the eternity in which he is, and from that timeless perspective, placed them in the Word before (from our perspective) they had happened.<br /><br />In fact, for God, there is no change or learning or growth due to the Incarnation. For God, all those things have been, are, and will be eternally present. However, for our benefit, and also because of the nature of material reality, bound as it is to time and space, they had to be played out in a particular time and space in the material universe.<br /><br />This does have bearing on the false doctrine of the Son born from eternity. Those who framed that doctrine saw an appearance of something that they did not grasp, because their minds were bound by time and space. Only by lifting the mind above time and space can it be understood how the Son, though born in time, could be "before Abraham," as he said. Once again, the "before" and "after" language is necessary to express divine ideas in material ideas, the latter being bound by time, while the former are not. "Born from eternity" has no meaning in material time--and that is how those theologians thought of it. So the idea was false, even though there is a deeper truth behind it that they did not (and still do not) understand.<br /><br />Back to Jeremiah, to be plain, there is no need for Jeremiah's soul to have pre-existed his birth for God to have known him "before" (in human terms) he was born. This is just a material-language representation of the truth that God is eternally present in and aware of everything, past, present, and future, that to us only unfolds in time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-7016254810639755032014-03-12T12:13:44.834-04:002014-03-12T12:13:44.834-04:00Hi Doug,
Since my very first comment on this arti...Hi Doug,<br /><br />Since my very first comment on this article has apparently been lost, I'll attempt to reconstruct it here.<br /><br />I think Jesus, though not explicit, is a little more definite than you suggest when it comes to rejecting reincarnation. In each case in which it comes up, he either denies it as operating or does not accept it but moves on to a more acceptable answer.<br /><br />In the case of the man born blind in John 9, when the disciples suggest that either this man or his parents sinned to cause him to be born blind, he specifically rejected both explanations, saying instead that this happened so that God's works might be revealed in him. In rejecting the idea that this man had sinned in a previous life to cause him to be born blind, Jesus is denying a cardinal premise of reincarnation, which is that current pain and suffering is caused by sins in previous life. So by implication he is rejecting the whole idea of reincarnation.<br /><br />In Matthew 16:13-20, in which Jesus asks his disciples who people think he is, and they report that some think he is John the Baptist or one of the prophets, he passes this answer over, in effect asking them for a better one.<br /><br />In John 3:1-21, when Nicodemus (probably rhetorically) asks if a man will really return to the mother's womb and be born again, Jesus explains somewhat metaphorically that he is not talking about another physical birth, but about a spiritual birth.<br /><br />All of this adds up to a fairly systematic denial of reincarnation on Jesus' part.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-51113067556462330142014-03-12T12:01:26.826-04:002014-03-12T12:01:26.826-04:00However, the substance that the spiritual body is ...However, the substance that the spiritual body is composed of is not material; it is spiritual. So it will have zero weight on material scales, and will not exist in the material universe.<br /><br />What might possibly have a slight amount of weight that we take with us when we die is the "border" (Latin limbus) of "the purest things in nature." I have heard of that experiment attempting to weigh the soul, and I am skeptical of it. However, if there is ever reliably shown to be a slight weight loss at death, it will be that border or limbus, not the soul itself, that accounts for the weight. That's assuming it is not accounted for by ordinary material processes.<br /><br />The whole concept of the limbus is a head-scratcher, and has been the subject of much debate among Swedenborgians.<br /><br />As for dark matter, scientists assume that it is made of some sort of physical matter, even if it is not ordinary matter. This would rule it out as the substance of the soul.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-16243607652486117382014-03-10T21:25:19.106-04:002014-03-10T21:25:19.106-04:00There are several passages in Swedenborg stating t...There are several passages in Swedenborg stating that our spiritual body is composed of a higher more refined substance. And I think when we discover it, we will realize there is nothing "religious" about it, heaven and hell are simply higher dimensions of reality where space and time do not exist. My latest speculation is that it may be dark matter. Dark matter does not interact with light, and is not made up of regular atoms from the periodic table, so it satisfies those criteria. Dark matter effects regular matter gravitationally. There was one researcher who tried to prove the existence of the soul by measuring slight weight losses at time of death. I think he was on the right track, but it has never been replicated, and it is a bit hard to define the exact "time of death." Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-82292944440626606942014-03-10T21:16:27.826-04:002014-03-10T21:16:27.826-04:00Hello Lee - I have published everything. Some of t...Hello Lee - I have published everything. Some of them are your Wordpress identity, so I don't know what happened to the first one. Last time I saw evidence of tampering and had found a hidden virus backdoor on my laptop. But this time no trace of that comment, I did not see any notification for it.Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-58537617109239824832014-03-10T13:48:14.278-04:002014-03-10T13:48:14.278-04:00About knowing of the soul directly, I think Sweden...About knowing of the soul directly, I think Swedenborg's DLW 432 comment means that we will not be able to study it directly through science, since it is a non-material reality, and science studies material reality.<br /><br />We can know it somewhat more directly through spiritual study and experience. In fact, in the broad definition of the soul as the human spirit, we experience it every day as our thoughts and feelings, and the mental and emotional landscape in which we live.<br /><br />However, in the narrow definition of soul, it is the highest element of our being, which is the immediate receiver of life from God. This soul is entirely above human consciousness. It cannot be studied directly even by the highest angels, who live in brilliant spiritual (not material) light. It is, in fact, the essential person, and the deepest possible "perspective" from which we could look at everything lower in us, but which itself we cannot see, except as in a mirror, because it is our essential being. It is beyond our ability to grasp or to change. It remains perfectly intact and uncorrupted even in the worst devils; and from it the highest angels get their unique individuality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-49215340647272172872014-03-10T13:40:43.471-04:002014-03-10T13:40:43.471-04:00(. . . continued)
This is my theory as I've t...(. . . continued)<br /><br />This is my theory as I've thought it through so far. It's been decades since I studied mitosis and meiosis, so if I wanted to develop it much more specifically I'd have to brush up on the physiology involved. Meiosis is a very complex process. As I understand it, it is not entirely tied to the active genetic material of the parents. However, I do think the general outlines of this theory are sound.<br /><br />(Speaking of the complexities of meiosis, when my mother was in grade school, her science teacher taught the class that if both parents had the recessive trait, the child must also have the recessive trait. If, for example, both parents had blue eyes, the child would have blue eyes. The only fly in the ointment was that both of my mother's parents had blue eyes, but she herself had brown eyes. So she was pretty sure that what the teacher told the class was not correct.)<br /><br />As for the father contributing the essential element as posited in Aristotle's theory, what's left of that in modern genetics is that the father's genetic material does determine the sex of the child, and various sex-linked traits. This is certainly a significant part of the child's identity, which is determined by the father. However, it does not neatly parse into the father contributing the soul and the mother contributing the body as in the Aristotelian theory that Swedenborg adopted.<br /><br />Practically speaking, my theory would result in a person's spiritual makeup being derived from the spiritual makeup of both the father and the mother. Various parts of Swedenborg's theology would have to be modified to account for this. And of course, as I mentioned previously, the theology of the Incarnation would also have to be modified. And yet, I think the resulting modifications would provide a much more sound and workable system both for the Incarnation and for our individual regeneration. This is an area where the limitations of the science of Swedenborg's day put a crimp on his ability to clearly express in natural ideas the spiritual truths he was charged with delivering to the world.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9030257666913290314.post-58008588828667743422014-03-10T13:40:26.752-04:002014-03-10T13:40:26.752-04:00About the origin of the soul, my theory is a modif...About the origin of the soul, my theory is a modified version of Swedenborg's modified Aristotelian theory. Short version: Each individual soul does begin at conception as a unique combination of unique offshoots of both the mother's and the father's soul.<br /><br />This theory simply updates Swedenborg's theory on the origin of the soul to account for modern knowledge of genetics, looked at through the lens of correspondences.<br /><br />We now know that a person's genetic makeup is a combination of unique scions of each parent's genetic makeup, generated in each parent by the process of meiosis. The half-genetic material derived from each parent is not identical to either parent's genetic fingerprint, but rather is itself a unique variation drawn from the parent's available genetic material. At the time of conception, that half-genetic material is combined with the half-genetic material from the other parent, producing a unique full genetic fingerprint. At that point, there is a brand new unique, though as yet undeveloped, individual.<br /><br />Now, this process, like everything else in the material universe, must exist because it corresponds to an analogous spiritual process that is its source. So if we move one step up the correspondential ladder to the human spirit, there must be a similar, though spiritual, process going on to produce the new soul.<br /><br />Based on this principle, I believe that each parent's soul produces many potentially viable scions, or offshoots, of his or her soul, each of which is unique while also drawing on and derived from the parent's available genetic material in a complex process that is the source and spiritual correspondent of the process of meiosis. These offshoots are not in themselves viable souls. They are clothed in the vehicle of the sperm and the egg, and especially in the genetic material of the sperm and the egg. At conception, when the sperm and the egg combine, along with their genetic material, the offshoots of the souls of the two parents also combine, forming a unique human proto-soul. It is as yet undeveloped, but it contains the unique spiritual genetic blueprint for the new, as yet undeveloped human being that has just been conceived.<br /><br />(continued . . . )Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com