While I do not believe in reincarnation, I do believe in the pre-existence of souls. Our ontological pre-existence does not imply conscious pre-existence. It is radically different from the pre-natal existence of Jesus as God and as the Word of God. Even though we have did not become fully conscious until a few years after birth, we have always existed in the mind of God. We were not created by the will of a man and a woman.
Conception is the moment in time when an individual, pre-existent, pre-conscious soul is joined to a body. The association of a soul with a moment of conception and, consequently, with a physical body and a DNA heritage is accidental. God has the broad outlines of a destiny and a role in His kingdom planned for each one of us. God will find an suitable moment of conception to match this plan for us with the memetic (cultural) and genetic (DNA) attributes of a human couple. The relation between a couple's decision to have sex and the infusion of the fertilized egg with an immortal soul is, therefore, synchronistic rather than causal.
A related belief of mine is that the souls of aborted and miscarried fetuses do not simply disappear. These develop in the spirit world into full human beings, as do the souls of children who die. I have gotten into argument with some fellow-Swedenborgians (see comments on this blog post) on this issue. These folks (not Edward Sylvia, the author of TheGodGuy Blog) think that, although fetuses have souls, they do not develop into human beings in the spirit world if aborted or miscarried. There is nothing in Swedenborg's writings which warrants such a conclusion. On the contrary, this is contrary to divine love and justice. Of course, the consciousness (or pre-consciousness) of a newborn is not the same as that of a two-month old, or of a first-trimester fetus.
A related belief of mine is that the souls of aborted and miscarried fetuses do not simply disappear. These develop in the spirit world into full human beings, as do the souls of children who die. I have gotten into argument with some [...who...] think that, although fetuses have souls, they do not develop into human beings in the spirit world if aborted or miscarried. There is nothing in Swedenborg's writings which warrants such a conclusion.
ReplyDeleteBut there is something in Swedenborg's writings which does (or seems to) not warrant the conclusion that there is nothing in Swedenborg's writings which warrants such a conclusion.
Swedenborg's writings do convey the strong impression that a minimum of three things are required (on humanity's side) for the development of a human being: a) a physical body; b) the faculty of understanding; and, c) the faculty of will.
And according to Swedenborg's writings (and common sense), an aborted fetus lacks all three. (Swedenborg's writings specifically state that a fetus lacks both the faculty of understanding and that of will, while common sense says that an aborted fetus likewise lacks the same, as well as a physical body.)
So, how can something without a body, without the faculty of understanding and without the faculty of will develop into a 'full human being'?
It sounds like you are asserting both a 'cause' and an 'effect', despite the fact that connecting 'means' are nowhere to be found.
I'm not attacking your belief, just questioning its rational basis. And based on what I've seen from you, I'd be surprised if an intelligent, well thought out response wasn't forthcoming.
Glenn
Maybe those who die as fetuses are ALREADY angels:
ReplyDelete"HH 228. THE POWER OF THE ANGELS OF HEAVEN
That angels have power cannot be comprehended by those who know nothing about the spiritual world and its influx into the natural world. Such think that angels can have no power because they are spiritual and are so pure and unsubstantial that no eye can even see them. But those who look more interiorly into the causes of things take a different view. They know that all the power that a man has is from his understanding and will, for apart from these he is powerless to move a particle of his body. The understanding and will are his spiritual man. This moves the body and its members at every command. For whatever the man thinks, the mouth and tongue speak, and whatever he wills the body does; also giving strength when desired to do so. A man's will and understanding are ruled by the Lord through angels and spirits. So also are all things of his body, because these are from the will and understanding; and if you will believe it, without influx from heaven man cannot even move a step. That this is so has been shown me by much experience. Angels have been permitted to activate my steps, my actions, and my tongue and speech, as they would, and this by influx into my will and thought; and I have learned thereby that of myself I could do nothing. They said afterwards that every man is so ruled, and that he can know this from the doctrine of the Church and from the Word. For he prays that God may send His angels to lead him, direct his steps, teach him, and inspire in him what to think and what to say, and other like things. Yet when man thinks within himself apart from doctrine, he says and believes otherwise. These things have been said to make known what power angels have with man."
Aborted fetuses sure SEEM real. Their affect on humans is immense. They "direct steps, teach and inspire". If Swedenborg says they don't develop in heaven as do babies who have drawn a breath, I will probably defer to him. But ... then ... (I've held one) ... I will decide they were already angels. They don't have to "develop into a full human being". That is so yesterday for them.
This (HH 228) is a beautiful passage.
ReplyDeleteA man's will and understanding are ruled by the Lord through angels and spirits. So also are all things of his body, because these are from the will and understanding; and if you will believe it, without influx from heaven man cannot even move a step. That this is so has been shown me by much experience.
Any one who has experienced 'flow', being 'in the zone' or any other state howsoever named, wherein everything meshes nicely, timely and fluently, can certainly recognize that there are times when they are less the doer and more the instrument through which something is done, happens and/or occurs.
However, and to get back on track, what about this:
Angels in heaven are not superior to people, but are their equals, and therefore they are the Lord's servants the same as people; and the reason is that all angels were once people, born in the world, and none were created angels directly, as can be seen from what we wrote and showed in the book Heaven and Hell (London, 1758). AR 818 (Rogers)
With this in mind, one cannot help but to wonder how an aborted fetus can be said to be or have been a person born in the world, and how something not born a person in the world can be said to be (or be able to become) an angel (as Swedenborg defines 'angel').
But those who look more interiorly into the causes of things take a different view. They know that all the power that a man has is from his understanding and will, for apart from these he is powerless to move a particle of his body. The understanding and will are his spiritual man. HH 228 (quoted in the comment just above)
The understanding and will also are his soul.
Man's soul, which lives after death, is his spirit**, and is in complete form a man; the soul of this form is the will and understanding, and the soul of these is love and wisdom from the Lord; these two are what constitute man's life, which is from the Lord above[.] DLW 394
If this is true, then to speak of a disembodied individual soul which hasn't ever previously occupied a physical body is to speak of something without meaning (in the context of Swedenborg's writings).
It was said in the first comment above that, "Swedenborg's writings specifically state that a fetus lacks both the faculty of understanding and that of will".
It is known that there are two faculties of life in man, the will and the understanding... So long as man remains in the womb he does not have these two faculties; as it has been shown above that nothing whatever of will or of understanding belongs to the fetus in its formation. DW 5 (Whitehead)
That is, the fetus does not yet have a soul (although, in the interests of fairness and truth, it should be pointed out that if one reads further along in the number, something can be found which seems to strongly suggest the presence of ambiguity and wiggle room).
Whether Swedenborg is correct or not, and whether one accepts or rejects what Swedenborg has to say (regardless of whether or not it is correct), is entirely irrelevant to the fact that there are indeed some things in Swedenborg's writing which not only warrants the conclusion that an aborted fetus does not develop into a full human being in the spiritual world, but also justifies the conclusion's validity.
And here it is important to recall that though they are often consonant, truth and validity by definition are not synonymous. The point that I initially addressed was not whether it is true that an aborted fetus does not develop into a full human being in the spirit world, but whether there is anything in Swedenborg's writings which warrants the assertion. I believe there is, and believe I have shown that there is.
Glenn
** See below.
** "Man's soul, which lives after death, is his spirit" (DLW 394).
ReplyDeleteSince "man's mind is his spirit, which lives after death" (DP 196), it follows that the mind is the soul, and the soul the mind.
And since the mind "consists of will and understanding" (AC 116 & DLW 239), so too do the spirit and soul (which are the mind).
That is, it is the understanding and will which are man's mind, makes his spirit and are his soul.
Moreover, whether we speak of man, or of his mind, it is the same; for man is not man from the form of his body, but from his mind; and man is such as his mind is, that is, such as his understanding and will are[.] AC 7848
Thus, where there is a lack of understanding and will, i.e., where there is a lack of the capacities to understand and will, there is no mind, there is no spirit, and there is no soul. In other words, there is no 'person', 'spirit' or 'entity'--embodied, disembodied, or otherwise.
I would like to make clear that I have not taken a stand, one way or the other, either for or against abortion.
And while I have not ever held an aborted fetus in my hands (and have never seen one (except in photos)), the truth of what has been said above would not be any different if I had.
At the same time, I can readily acknowledge that if I had, I might have been hesitant, and perhaps unwilling, to give voice to the things that have been said (preferring instead to leave them for others to say). Human sentiment can be powerful, influential and even overwhelming.
The point of contention here is whether a breath makes or breaks a human spirit. Does a first breath endow a capacity for understanding and will?
ReplyDeleteMost abortions happen naturally and not intentionally. It's very common. Stillborn babies have never drawn a breath. But they have had a heartbeat in utero. They have a body. It's formed, pudgy and cute. That's not the body of the mother that is going to be buried. It's the body of the baby. It's not sentimental to see that the stillborn baby has a body.
So, if we go back a few months and think of a miscarried fetus - where can we draw a line? - it shares the same spiritual fate as that of the stillborn baby. It won't draw a breath. But it has a heartbeat and a body.
I will defer to Swedenborg if he indeed thinks there is no capacity for understanding or will. But that would mean those are conferred with the first breath. It's mysterious. I'm not really saying he's wrong. I'm just saying that if he's correct then that little proto-human must be something. If angels can appear on earth ... then that could be an angel. It would be an angel that had a human life beforehand. Been there done that. Now in heaven. But, sometimes comes to earth. I think Swedenborg allowed for that.
Why else do you think something human would have only a heartbeat (!) (love alone) and not breathe? No faith, just love. Sounds exactly like an angel.
Glenn and Sue, Thanks for the detailed comments. I am going to post a careful response soon. Please stay tuned. Roger
ReplyDeleteRoger, looking forward to hearing what you have to say.
ReplyDeleteSue, I don't know that there is any real point of contention here. When Swedenborg uses the term 'angel', he has a particular idea in mind. And (so far as I know) there isn't any law obligating you (or anyone else) to have the same particular idea in mind when you use the term.
A variety of definitions of 'angel' can be found in most any dictionary. One such definition is 'a kind and lovable person'. I would guess also that it isn't uncommon to use 'angel' as a synonym for 'adorable', 'cute' or 'lovely'.
The impression I get from Swedenborg's writings, however, is that he means more by 'angel' than a person (or formerly incarnated person) who can be said to be kind, loveable, adorable, cute, lovely, etc.
But that someone is using 'angel' in a way that Swedenborg himself did not, does not necessarily mean that it isn't an angel that is being talked about.