Rules for Debating

I Wonder if I should Post Something that I Came Across Recently that is Actually sort of Interesting.  It is a Debate Flow Chart that has some rather Interesting Guide Lines on it.  If you want a Larger View of it, just Click Here.



This came from the Blog of someone Known as Soapbox or the Soapster.  In my Initial Comments on his Post, it is apparent that I was not real Trusting at First, due to the Fact that so many of the Ideas and Rules are Subjective and thus, without a Referee, these Rules may not Work too Well.  For Example, rather someone's Argument is shown to be Faulty is Often a Subjective Call, as well as Judgments about rather or not our Opponent is being Rational and Following Reason.  Whether or not One Position is more Realistic then another, or the Evidence Offered is Adequate are also Subjective Judgments, as well as the Judgment about whether or not an Argument has been Resolved or not, so that the Discussion can move on to the Next Point, or even whether or not a Certain Fact Presented is Accurate or Inaccurate.

This is why I Kept saying, in the Comment Section of Soapster's Post, "According to Whom?"  Because of the Subjective Nature of these Rules, without a Referee, if a Person Desires to be in Control of a Discussion, he could Use the Subjective Nature of these Rules to his Advantage.

Considering this, I decided that these Rules Really are Good, if Used in a Fair Manner, for I Find that when there are no Rules, the Discussion will Generally Degrade into Chaos, yet I also Decided to Add Two more Rules of my Own to the 4 that are Listed on the Flow Chart and here they are below.

5.) Do not Accuse Based on your Own Subjective Opinion about your Opponent's Ability to Reason.

And

6.) These Rules do Need to Apply to all Parties and not just to your Opponent.

Let me Know your Thoughts.

Also, I don't Know why this Post is Insisting on being the Last one on a Page.  Please do, though, Click on "Older Posts", for more  Posts and Of Course, do Read the Comments, for I have Placed more of my thoughts in the Comments Section.

What we've been doing with Our Out of Town Guest.

When I'm Away from the Computer for too Long, I sort of Lose my Train of Thought.  I will Probably be Rereading some things in Order to get it back again, so Please do Scan Down to see if there is any New Comments that you have not yet Read.

Since I haven't Posted in awhile, though, I thought I would share with you what I have been doing.  We had out of Town Company that Stayed for Three Weeks.  At First I thought that that was going to be a rather Long Time to have such Company, but Fortunately, it was only One.  My Husband's Cousin from Indiana was the One who Graced us with his Presence from Saturday, October 1 to Monday, October 24.  He is sort of a High Energy Person who caused me to be a little Busier than Usual.  We did a lot of Fun Stuff, such as Hiking, yet I still came home feeling rather Tired and after getting the Cooking, Cleaning Up and Laundry done, I was Craving some time to myself.  Being a Bit of a Loner, I Need more Time to Reflect then a lot of People do.  It was Fun, though.

The First Thing that the Guys did was took a Trip Up to some Property that we Own in Northern California.  My Husband had Asked his Cousin to help him Clean Up some of the Fallen Trees.  Prior to that, we were just Visiting and Hiking Locally.  They were gone from the 5th to the 9th.  Realizing that Three Weeks worth of Company may be a little much for me, I decided not to go.  Though I should have had 4 1/2 Days to myself, I Really Only had 2 1/2, for I spent the 8th and part of the 7th Cleaning House and Running Errands and on the Morning of the 9th, I Threw Something in the Crock Pot for the Guys Return in the Afternoon and Went to Church that Morning.

I was on the Computer just a Little on the 6th and 7th, but was Reluctant to start any Conversations that I was not going to be able to Finish.  I Bought myself some Cloths and I don't even Remember what else, but it was good to Relax and Reflect for just a Few Days.

The 10th was a Laundry day and then from the 11th to the 16th we were Out of Town.  We Traveled Up to Florence, Oregon to see my Husband's Brother and his Wife.  We had a Really good Visit, saw the Beach, some Sea Lion Caves, did some Fishing and Hiking, had a Truck Ride on the Dunes, etc.  We Traveled on the 11th and then were in Florence from the 12th to the 14th.  On the 15th, we Traveled Down the Coast and saw the Redwoods and Patrick's Point.  On the 16th, we sort of got Lost on this One Beach, (Clam Beach, Near Arcadia, California) which is another Interesting Story that I may Expand on in the Comment Section.

Once we Finally Got on the Road again, we Traveled in land, over the Mountains, and Visited the Big Foot Museum in Willow Creek.  We Even Stopped for a Minute along the Stream to Try Out our Guest's Medal Detector and do some Gold Panning.  No Luck.  We're just Amateurs having Fun.

On the 17th, we Picked up Our Dog from the Boarding Facility, Took him for a Long Walk and then Spent the Rest of the Day Helping my Father-in-Law who has the Beginnings of Dementia and Needed Help with some things.  Not too Surprisingly, the 18th was another Landry day and guess who got Elected to do it all, while the Guys Spent that Day Gold Panning?  Still no Luck, even though they were Accompanied by Experience Gold Panners this time.  Apparently, though there has been Gold Found in the Area that they went to, Gold Prospecting has Picked up to the Point in which it has Made Finding the Gold more Difficult.

On the 19th, we Took our Dog on a Long Hike on a Trail Near by that Allows Dogs.  On the 20th, we went Gold Panning again in a Stream, yet again Found Very Little.  It was Discouraging.  Our Guest was Hoping for so much more then that, since there are Indeed Gold Claims Along this River, yet we are still Amateurs and it Turns Out that this is Really Hard if you do not Know what you are Doing or where to Look.  Later in the Day, we Hiked Quite a Distance Along a Flume.  Just in Case you haven't Guessed, Our Guest Loves to Hike.

On the 21rst, the Guys did a Day Trip up to Mount Lassen and I really should have Gone Along to this One, cause they went on some Trails that I had Never been on and it sounded really Neat.  Instead, I stayed Home and did some more House Work and Landry.  If Only I was more of a High Energy Person, I could have done more of this in the Evenings after returning from all our other Activities and then Cooking and Cleaning Up the Kitchen, but I have Never been a High Energy Person. 

On the 22nd, we Visited a Gold Panning Museum that is not Far from here and our Guest wanted to Look at Travel Trailers, even though none of us can Afford to Make such a Purchase right now.  That is unless we Find Ourselves some Gold.  lol.  After Church, on the 23rd, we did a 3 1/2 Hour Hike around a Lake.  We were not in Agreement over rather it was 8 or 9 Miles that we Hiked.  On the 24th we Took our Guest to the Airport.

Black & White, Nature vs. Nurture Debate & Sigmund Freud

Well, I've gotten Side Tracked from my Swedenborg Series (the Next Two Posts Below).  I was going to do Three or Four Posts on him, but Only Ended Up doing two.  There may be more Later, yet for now, I'm Focused on Sigmund Freud and am Amazed to what Extent People who Write about these Historical Figures are Black and White in their Thinking.  For example, why do People Think that when it comes to Nature vs. Nurture, we have to Settle for one or the other and that it can't be a little of both.

This Post is sort of a Critique of an Article that I've read about Sigmund Freud.  Here is the Link to the Article that I'm now Responding to.  It covers all sorts of things relating to Sigmund Freud, yet if you Found this Post by way of a Web Search and are Primarily interested in the Nature vs. Nurture Debate, please feel Freed to Skip Down to the Part that contains the Heading "Black & White Thinking in the Article (Nature vs. Nurture)".  To Answer the Very First of your Questions, though, Freud's Focus was Very Strongly on Nurture.

The Author of said Article is Anti-Freud & Anti-Nurture.
I Wonder if it will Surprise the Friend who gave me this Link, to Realize that when I Read it all the way through to the End, what I mainly saw was Bias and Black and White Thinking.  I'm not even Particularly a Lover of Freud, yet I still Found the Final Conclusions in this Article to be Excessively Anti-Freud, or Actually more Specifically, Anti-Nurture in relation to the Nature vs. Nurture Debate.

The Positives Relating to Freud
In the First Part of the Article, a lot of Freud's Ideas are Explained and Only Some of them are Argued against.  For Example, the Article Admits that "Most People, including many who Reject other Elements of Freud's Work, Accept the Claim that Part of the Mind is Unconscious and that People Often Act for Reasons of which they are not Conscious."  The Article Actually calls Freud's Idea about the Unconscious "A Ground Breaking Idea".

The Article also says that the Idea that the Mind is not a Monolithic or Homogeneous thing Continues to have Enormous Influence on People Outside of Psychology.

Ok, so the Id, Ego & Super Ego has been Questioned and Rejected by some and Freud is Criticized for giving too much Importance to One or the other of these Factors, yet his Contributions to the Field of Psychology were Significant and can not be Discounted so Easily.

The Negatives
The Main Conflict has always been Relating to Freud's Over Emphasis on Sex as the Motivator of all Creative and Productive Behavior.  The Fact that Freud Expanded his Sexual Idea to Include all of our Creative Instincts and the Idea that Children are Sexual Beings has been Under Attack since the Very Beginning and his Idea of the Sexual Instinct and the Death Instinct has been Challenged as well.  Ideas such as the Oedipus conflict; Oral, Annal & Phallic Fixations, as well as Penis Envy (Another one that was not Mentioned in the Article) were all Controversial from the Start.  Freud was just Plain too Focused on Sex, to the Exclusion of other Social Motivators and I would Add Intellectual Motivators as well.  This Part of the Conflict is in No Way New.  These Ideas were Rejected by Most Psychologists a Really Long Time Ago.

It also doesn't Surprise me to Read that some Guy named Lydiard H. Horton Claimed that Freud's Dream Theory was "Dangerously Inaccurate".

Towards the end of the Linked Article, the Author was quite Negative, Making all Kinds of Generalized Negative Statements against Freud's Over All Theory, Research and Practice and "a Large Majority of Freud's Work".

Freud's Model and Theory of the Mind and his Basic Methods and Theories are Rejected by Some Clinical Psychologists and by Most Experimental Psychologists and Psychiatrists.  Many Clinical Psychologists, though, have Modified his Approach and Still Use it.

When the Article begins to talk about Freud's Psychological Theories being "Hotly Disputed Today", that he is Regarded as a Charlatan by some, that Psychiatry and Psychology has been "Recast as Scientific Disciplines", that his Influence is Lessening in Psychiatry and that his Theories have been Repudiated and Replaced by the Ideas of Emil Kaepelin, some of the Positives that were said earlier in the Article seem to have been Forgotten.

Back to the Positives
What about the "Ground Breaking" Idea about the Unconscious Mind and how it Influences Behavior; an Idea that Most People do still accept?  And What about the Idea that the Mind is not Homogenius or Monolithic?  And What about the Fact that Some Clinical Psychologists have Modified Freud's Approach and Developed a Variety of Models and Therapies that are Similar?  And What about the Fact that even many of those who have Rejected his "Model of the Mind" have still Adopted Elements of his Therapeutic Methods and that even the Use of "Talking as a Form of Therapy" is Accredited to Freud?  And What about the Fact that some People, even Today, still Seek Out Freud's method of Psychoanalysis as Part of a Process of Self-Discovery?  Also, What about his Research in Relation to Cerebral Palsy, in that he disagreed with William Little about the cause of it and that his Opinion is the One that was Confirmed by Research in the 1980s?  Yes, Freud was the One who Discovered that Birth Complications were a Symptom, not the Cause of Cerebral Palsy.

Ok, so Most of Psychiatrists and Psychologists Today Reject Traditional Freudian Psychoanalysis the way it was Originally done, yet what about all the Positives?  This Article Appears to be Throwing the Baby Out with the Bath Water.  For Example, the Article Mentions how Experimental Psychologists and Psychiatrists Often Rely more on Drugs then on Talk in their Treatments and this is True, yet Considering all of the Negative Side Effects of these Drugs, the Total Emphasis on Drugs is way more Negative, than Positive.  Talking has never Stopped being a Good Idea, even to those Clinical Psychologists who have Rejected Freud's Model of the Mind.

Black & White Thinking in the Article (Nature vs. Nurture)
So what was it about this Article that I found to be inappropriately Black and White?  Well, the Statement "Freud's Notion that the Child's Relationship to the Parents is Responsible for Everything from Psychiatric Disorders to Criminal Behavior has also been Discredited." is Only True because of the Word Everything.  Never Mind, though, that the Suggestion that "Everything" is the Result of Genetics is just as Inaccurate.  Ok, so maybe we shouldn't always "Blame-the-Parents" for "Eveything", yet what I've Found to be Equally True is that Continually Blaming Oneself isn't Helpful either and also, to Suggest that Genetics and Biology Explains "Everything" and that there is no such thing as the Influence of Nurture is no more Accurate than the Opposite Extreme.

Just because there were many Decades, in which "Genetic and Biological Causes of Psychiatric Disorders were Dismissed without Scientific Investigation" does not Justify now Dismissing the Nurture Part of the Equation.

Yes, it is well established that Genetic and Biological Factors have a Great Influence on Human Development and Behavior and Sure, Psychiatric Disorders are Generally Considered Diseases of the Brain whose Etiology is Principally Genetic and many such Diseases have been Demonstrated to be Impervious to Psychoanalysis, yet none of that means that there is no such thing as Nurture.  Or that Nurture has no Influence what-so-ever.

To Use the Controversy Over the Excessive Sexual Focus of Sigmund Freud to Push the Idea of Genetic Influences, at the Exclusion of Equally Important Nurture Influences is Absurd.

The Only Reason that the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual" or the "American Psychiatric Association" Reflects the Neo-Kraelinian Scientific-Biological Approach to Psychiatric Disorders is because Psychiatry has always been the Biological and Nature Branch of Psychology.  Clinical Psychology is still alive and well, though, and is still Focused on Nurture, just as much as Psychiatry is on Nature and their Focus is on Talking, rather then Drugs.

It almost sounds as if the Author of the Linked Article is Holding some Kind of a Grudge because Biological and Genetic Etiologies were "Largely Ignored during the Earlier Freud-Dominated Decade of the Twentieth Century".

Anyway, though this Article Mentioned a Number of Positives at the Beginning, the Concluding thoughts were Excessively Negative and made it sound as if all of Freud's Ideas are Under Attack, rather then just a few of them, and that even Believing in Nurture and not just Nature is an Idea of the Past, but such a Suggestion is not at all True.

The Scientifically Observable & the Non-Scientifically Observable
One Last Black and White Thought is this one...

"Proponents of Science conclude that this Invalidates Freudian Theory and Proponents of Freud conclude that this Invalidates Science."  

Just because Freud Claimed that many of our Conscious Thoughts and Actions are Motivated by Unconscious Fears and Desires, this does not mean that this Invalidates Science.  Oh Come On!  Statements Like this sort of cause me to Shake my Head.  Why does it have to be One or the Other?  How does the Existence of Something that can not be Directly Observed and Studied Scientifically Invalidate that which can be Observed and Studied?  And how does that which can be Directly Observed and Studied Invalidate that which can not be?  Why is it so hard to Imagine that both the Observable and the Non-Observable are True Realities, that that which can be Studied Scientifically and that which can not be can both be Valid Realities and that both Nature and Nurture Exist and Interact with each Other and Why are some People so Very Very Blind to the Idea of NOT One of the Other, but Both?

I just don't get it.  Black and White Thinking is so Prevalent on the Web these days that I Wonder sometimes if True Reasoning has been Totally Lost.

Swedenborg/Part 2/Christianity Intellect Compatible

This Post is the Second of a Three Part Series, or actually, it may be 4 or 5 Parts by the time I'm done, on a Link that BB-Idaho Left me, Relating to Religious History, or more Specifically Emanuel Swedenborg.  My Previous Post is about the Trinity, God's Wrath and God's Holiness.  This One is more about the Positives in Swedenborg's Theology and how the Basics Gospel Message does not have to be in Conflict with the Intellect.  The Basics are General Enough that there is a lot of Room for Various Forms of Intellectual thoughts and Ways of Understanding Things.  It is Only those who are Overly Dogmatic that cause Intellectual Conflict within those who Like to Think Things Through.

I am not One to Be Dogmatic about any Particular Theology among the Various Theologies that are Debated between those who Believe in Christianity.  That is as Long as there is Biblical Backing for whatever Theology is Proposed.  My Thinking is that Some Things are Obvious and some are not, so let that which is Less Obvious be Decided by Each Individual in their Own Way, in what ever Manner God Leads them.

May the Calvinists and Armenians Accept each other in Love and may God Reveal Truth to all of Us in His Own Way, yet we do Need to be Sure that what we Believe Matches with the Scripture, for if it does not, then the Belief can not Correctly be Called Christianity.

Anyway, since God's Holiness and God's Love is Actually Stressed more by the Church then God's Wrath, Swedenborg's Ideas about God's Anger, just by itself, is not really that Serious of a Conflict with the Christian Church.  His Idea about the Trinity and his Rejection of the"Born Again" Idea, though, are another Matter and this, no Doubt, was the Main Conflict that Caused the Lack of Acceptance of his Ideas by the Christian Church and the Trinity and Born Again Beliefs within the Church Still Stand Today.  Swedenborg's Doctrine on these Issues are a Serious Diversions from Christianity.  You can Read more about these Issues in my Previous Post.

I am Writing Now about some of the Positives within his Theology, though, for the Sake of Showing that the Christian Message can be Compatible with the Intellect.

So Laying that Conflict aside for Now, let's Look Now at some of what Swedenborg Said that I Find Way more Interesting than Controversial.  For Example, I Really Liked this Statement from the Linked Article...

"As we grow spiritually, our will, or emotions become God and neighbor centered.  Our understanding teaches our emotions how to love intelligently."

What a Beautiful Description of the Sanctification Process.  The Focus is on Growth and Understanding (a Process and I have no Trouble at all Viewing that as an Emotional process).  Some may not Like his Focus on the Emotions, yet I do not Find this Particular Idea to be in Conflict with the Christian Church at Large.  Pentecostals are Highly Emotional and Focus more on this Aspect then Other Christian Churches.  In a lot of Ways, it is much more Healthy to Focus on the Emotions, rather then on Trying to Force the Will through the Legalism of Works.  That is Basically what the Mood and Spirit of the Message of Grace, rather then Works, is all about.  God is Patient with the Flesh (Selfish, Unsanctified Emotions) and Offers Grace to us During the Sanctification Process.  The Sanctification Process Takes Time and that is the Whole Reason Why Grace is Necessary.

So Many of Swedenborg's Ideas have more to do with Sanctification, then with the Initial Action of Conversion.  The Sanctification Idea, though, is not an Original One, for it is Both Biblical and Christian.  Many of his Ideas are not in Conflict with Modern Day Christianity.  Here is another Good Quote from the Linked Article...

"Our rational mind is formed by study of the Bible, theology and by our life's experience.  This wisdom works on our emotions and modifies them into spiritual loves."

The Focus on the Mind is not an Idea that Goes against the Scripture, for it says...

"And be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."  (Romans 12:2, KJV)

Also, Any Verse that Focuses on the Reading and Studying of Scripture is a Mind Focused Scripture and Here are a Few of those...

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  (2 Timothy 2:15, KJV)

"Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."  (Psalm 119:11, KJV)

"This is my comfort in my affliction, for Thy word hath quickened me."  (Psalm 119:50, KJV)

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."  (Psalm 119:105, KJV)

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."  (Romans 10:17, KJV)

"That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word."  (Ephesians 5:26, KJV)

"You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you."  (John 15:3, NRSV)

I was Surprised in my Word Search, how many of the "Word" Related Verses that I Remember are from Psalm 119.  This Fact Inspired me to Read this Psalm again and though it is Quite Long, it is also a Really Neat One, for the Theme of it is not just Love for God, but Love for His Precepts, Statures and Laws.  In Other Words, the Love of Service and Obedience to God, as well as a Love for his Word.  It's Like Saying, I not Only Love You, but I also Love Serving You and I not Only Love You for Who You are, but also for "Your Words", or for what You have to Say.  I Love Your Laws.  I Love Your Words.  I Love what You have to Say.  I Love what You Stand for.  I even Love Obeying Your Laws.  That's sort of a Paraphrased Description of the Theme of this Psalm.  I Found it to be Quite Powerful and I was Moved when I Read it.

Anyway, Back to the Point, the Hearing and Reading of the Word is an Activity of the Intellect and doing this Helps us to Not Sin, Comforts, Quickens, Guides, Builds Faith, Sanctifies and Cleanses.  The Love of the Law that is Mentioned in Psalms 119 Describes the Full Maturity of our Love and Yes, this Love is Emotional.  This is not at all Unlike what Swedenborg said in what I Quoted above and Here are the Quotes again, with my Emphasis Added....

"As we grow spiritually, our will, or emotions become God and neighbor centered.  Our understanding teaches our emotions how to love intelligently." 

"Our rational mind is formed by study of the Bible, theology and by our life's experience.  This wisdom works on our emotions and modifies them into spiritual loves."

I Actually Liked Swedenborg's Ideas about Sanctification Enough that it made me Feel Sad that he did not also believe in the Trinity and in the Basic Gospel Message, Including the Idea of Being "Born Again".  It's too Bad that he Rejected these things because his other thoughts are Truly Excellent and not Out of Line with Christianity, or more Specifically, the Christian Idea of Sanctification.  Ideas such as; Balancing Self Love with Love for our Neighbors, being Created to be Useful to the World and to our Neighbors, the Good of Working to be Useful to Society and of Loving Useful Work; are not Ideas Unique to Swedenborg.  They are Very Basic Christian Ideas and Even his Ideas about Symbolism in Nature is not Out of Line with Christianity.  I've Heard Lots of Sermons along those Lines.

Yes, the Sun Represents God, or sometimes I've heard the Giver of Light, Described, not as the Sun, but "the Son".  That is God's Son, Jesus.  And Yes, the Light Represents Truth.  Jesus Compared Faith to the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31-32) and the Tree is a Symbol of Stability and Strength (Psalms 1) and the branches of the Vine are Symbols of something that is Connected to, Nourished by and Firmly Grounded in God (the Vine), and that can not Bear Fruit without God (John 15:1-8 and Further if Desired).

And Swedenborg is also not the Only One who has Ever Used Symbolism to Interpret the Old Testament Stories of the Bible.  That's Common and Very Christian.

When I came to the Part of the Article that Talked about "Rebirth", however, I realized that there was a Fairly Big Problem, yet Perhaps that will Need to be the Subject of Part Three.  For Now, I'm just Going to say that it is not about Reincarnation, but it is not about the Christian Concept of Being Born Again Either.  Stay Tuned.

Can We Trust Religious History?/Trinity/God's Wrath/Holiness/Swedenborg

Well, I'm now Allowing BB-Idaho to Inspire me to do a Post Based on the Last Link that he Left me and Here is the Link.  It is about the Theology of Emanuel Swedenborg, which BB Claims is Quite a "Different Kind of Christianity".  So Far, it Looks Like this is going to be the First in a Series of about Three Posts.

What has Frustrated me in the Past about Links that Relate to Religious History is that they Continually Give Credit to People who Hold so Called "New Ideas" that in Reality are not at all New.  This was how I felt about the Previous Link that BB Gave me, in which Saint Augustine was given Credit for the Original Sin Idea, rather then the Original Biblical Writer, Paul.  This Idea did not Originate with Saint Augustine, but with Paul and this Belief was Held by those in the Early church, when the Original Apostles that Knew Christ Personally were Still alive, Long before Saint Augustine was Born in 354 AD.

When I was Reading the Linked Article in this Post about Swedenborg, my First impression was that he too had been Given Credit for Some Things that may not have Really been all that New.  At First, I Thought that the Ideas of Swedenborg were Actually Quite Similar to those of Christianity and In Fact, Most of them are.  He may have a Unique Way of Explaining Things and he may have his Own Unique Emphasis on Certain Ideas, yet the Part of his Ideas that are not in Conflict with the Church are also not New.  As I Read the Article a Second Time, I Realized that it is what he has Decided not to Accept that has Caused the Conflict between him and the church.  The Conflict is not in what he has Included, but in what he has Excluded, such as the Christian Idea about the Trinity and about Salvation. 

Aside from the Trinity and the Basic Gospel Message Conflicts, that which is Really Good in this Article is Good because it was already Supported by Scripture, was very Possibly already a Christian Idea and had been for Centuries.  To say that all of these ideas are New, that the Modern Day Church has Rejected Every Part of his Beliefs and that Aside from the Trinity Idea and his view of the Basic Gospel Message, all of his Ideas are Unique from Present Day, or Even Traditional Christianity, is Misleading and gives Swedenborg Far more Credit then he Deserves.

You see, not all Christians are Shallow.  There are some that are Thinkers and to Assume Otherwise is to Miss a Big Chunk of what Christianity has to Offer.

A lot of Historical Writings can not be Trusted because they Misrepresent the Ideas of "Modern or Contemporary Christianity", Claiming that these Wonderful "New Ideas" of the People who these Articles are Honoring were not and are not "Accepted by the Traditional or the Current Christian Church".  They Confuse what is New and Controversial and what is not.

This Reminds me of a Verse in Ecclesiastes...

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."  (Ecclesiastes 1:9, KJV) 

The Trinity, though, is an Issue of Controversy, so much so that Groups that Reject it, such as Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, are often Referred to by the Mainstream Church as Cults.  There are also Other Reasons for this, yet I'm not Going to Get into that Right now.  In Fact, I don't even want to Get into a Lengthy Discussion of all of the Bible Verses that Support the Deity of Christ and therefore the Trinity Right Now, Except to say that Jesus Claimed to be God Often enough that He was Accused of Blasphemy and this was the Reason He was Crucified.

This Article Confused me a Little because on the One Hand, it States that Swedenborg Rejected the Idea of the Trinity, yet on the Other Hand, it Explains Swedenborg's Belief that "God Came Down to Earth as Jesus.", that Jesus was "Fully Divine" and that "God brings Healing Love to us in our Own form."  To me, this is an Unexplained Contradiction and it Makes me Wonder if Swedenborg was just Frustrated with the Way that the Trinity was Explained Specifically by the Lutheran Church that he was a Part of.

There have always been Different Theologies and Different Ways of Interpreting Things and this Includes Various Ways of Understanding the Trinity, Godhead.  The idea that Christ is, In Fact, God, though, is Key to Christian Theology.  The Way I Understand the Trinity is that there are Three Aspects to God, just as there are Three Aspects to every Person, that is the Mind (the Connection to the Physical Body), Soul and Spirit.

Sigmund Freud Divided the Person into the Trinity of the Ego, Super Ego and Id.  This is Similar to the Soul (the Will or Ego), the Conscience (the Super Ego, the Spirit or the Part of us that can be Connected to God if we are Willing) and the Id or Flesh (the Sin Nature, which is also a Part of our Temporal, Corruptible, Mortal Body).  The Descriptions of Freud of the Three Parts of the Trinity within the Person may be Different then the Descriptions of the Three Parts of the Person, as Described within the Bible, yet the Fact that they both Described a Trichotomy Indicates that there is a Trinity Reality within the Person that has Inspired Freud's Thoughts.  Because of this Trinity within us, it is not Really so Hard to Imagine People Talking to themselves, nor to Imagine Jesus Talking to the Father.  The Difference is that all Three of the Parts of the Human Person are Trapped Inside of the Human Body.  The Trinity that Makes up the Godhead, though, is not so Restricted because God is Huge and has the Ability to be Everywhere at Once.

Since the Trinity is Hard to Understand, it is not Surprising that there are some who have Rejected it, rather than Trying to Find an Explanation that they can Wrap their Head Around.  In my Opinion, though, this is Intellectually Lazy, as well as Arrogant.  It is Lazy because, though Difficult, the Trinity Idea is not Impossible to Understand and it is Arrogant, because Assuming that we Ought to be able to Understand Everything about something as Massively Huge and Powerful as God is, well, just Plain Foolish.

The Next Subject in Question is God's Anger or Wrath, an Idea that Swedenborg Rejected.

When I First Read this Article, I was doing so, Giving Swedenborg the Benefit of a Doubt, and Focusing on Similarities with Christianity, rather then Differences.  Because of this, I Over Looked, at First, the Fact that he had Basically Rejected the Basic Gospel Message that Christians Teach is the Key to Salvation.  After Reading the Article a Second Time, I Realized that he does not Accept the Idea of Being Born Again, as is Described within the Christian Church.  The Reason for the Rejection of this Idea, though, Appears to be his Aversion to the Idea of God's Wrath.

In Order to Reject the Idea of God's Anger or Wrath, One has to Deal with the Definitions of the Biblical Words that are Translated as Anger and Wrath.  I don't have Time for such a Study at the Moment, yet for the Most Part, God's Wrath is not what is Stressed in Christian Churches.

My Understanding of the Basic Gospel Message is more Based on God's Holiness, then on His Wrath.  Since God is Holy and Pure, He is not Able to Tolerate Impurity and that is why Sin Blocks our Fellowship with Him.  Generally, the Way this is Explained is with a Picture of two Cliffs on Either Side of a Canyon.  Since God is Holy and Man is not, there is a Great Canyon that Divides us from His Presence.

The Consequence of Our Sinfulness is Death, but when Christ Died on the Cross, His Blood was Able to Cleanse us and Justify us and this is why in the Picture of the two Cliffs and the Canyon, the Cross is Pictured as the Bridge that Allows us to Cross the Great Canyon that Divides us in our Sinfulness from God in His Holiness.

The Bible says, though, that...

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."  (1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV)

and

"No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day."  (John 6:44, KJV)

And this is Why there are some who will Never Understand this Message.