christian error about sin
Sometimes people long for God’s help but don’t ask for it because they think they only deserve divine judgment. This is because they have picked up the idea of ​​a deity who judges human sin. This orthodox line of Christian thought comes from Augustine and Luther. Those thinkers had the notion of our essential sinfulness for which we should be ashamed and feel condemned. This idea of ​​’original sin’ is that humanity is basically evil since the fall of Adam.

So, to them, God the Father seems like a rather punitive figure who wants retribution for humanity’s sinful behavior. consequently, God the Son is punished in our place. Approaching God can be hampered by a sense of shame and fear. If you feel unworthy of God’s love because of this Christian notion of ‘sin’, you may stop praying.

Emanuel Swedenborg on sin
Swedenborg’s point of view is that while it is true that we have selfish tendencies, we do not need to punish ourselves for them. We also have good trends. What counts is what we do with them.

William Bruce, a Swedenborgian, points out that there are many selfish suggestions and impure images that intrude into our minds from what we read, hear and see, and from what we already have in our memory. Its entry into thought does not corrupt us. It gives us the opportunity to discover their character, to know whether we like them or dislike them, to know ourselves and to exercise self-sacrifice, if we are willing to do so. What really matters is how we choose between them.

“What goes into someone’s mouth doesn’t contaminate him, but what comes out of his mouth, that’s what contaminates him.” (Matthew 15:11)

Feeling self-absorbed and guilt-ridden due to a feeling of condemnation prevents us from being kind to ourselves. Even today many churchgoers feel guilty about self-kindness because they assume this is undeserved and somehow the opposite of loving their neighbor. However, if we can’t be kind to ourselves, how can we expect to feel like we deserve help with our problems?

Christian error about the Holy Trinity
When the Christian Church was in its infancy, three individual persons in the Godhead had not been thought of. This was while the Apostles were living and preaching repentance throughout the world. Then, throughout the centuries, although they proclaimed one God with their lips, for some Christians there were three gods in the thought of their mind: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Christian churches since the 6th century explicitly declare three individuals of the Trinity. And the vestige of this assumption can still be found today in the mainstream churches.

When we have an idea of ​​the One, there is an intuition of unity. I am thinking of a unity of love and light. In other words, it is a distinguishable unit: an apparent paradox. Theologian John Hick says that the transcendent absolute, which cannot be expressed in words, is in a sense One. Similarly, basic to the philosophy of Plotinus and Neoplatonism, the soul and intelligence come from the One.

Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. However, many Hindus accept that the individual deities are expressions or representations of a single supreme spiritual power. The Islamic religion is particularly adamant about the unity of Allah.

Christian theologians themselves often admit that they have been unable to find a persuasive and rational explanation for three divine Beings. Consequently, they call this a mystery. However, this is a mystery that is a stumbling block for people these days who don’t believe in something they don’t understand.

Swedenborg on the Holy Trinity
I am drawn to the idea that the biblical narrative of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is a metaphor. To understand this literally as three divine individuals smacks of polytheism. Instead, I would suggest that we think of three essential dimensions of a human Godhead, whom Swedenborg called the Lord. After all, it could be said that there are three aspects to me: my higher self, my body, and my activity. Consequently, each of the divine figures referred to in the Gospels corresponds to a similar aspect of the one divinity.

So, as I understand it, the Father represents the innermost essence of love that we cannot fully comprehend. Is this idea similar to the Hindu idea of ​​Brahman as an unknowable source?

I suggest that the Son represents the light over love that to some extent illuminates our understanding and with whom we can humanly relate. Is this like the Hindu Krishna?

And to my way of thinking, the Holy Spirit represents the power of love to do good that can empower our lives. Is there something in common here with the Hindu concept of atman as the imminent Spirit that dwells in us?

That is why I would like to speak of the one Lord, within whom are these three aspects, represented by the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Christian error on the relevance of religious belief
When religious belief is dogmatic, it can lead to conflict and schism. Swedenborg’s point of view is that all people, regardless of their religious culture, can potentially find a heavenly state of mind. In other words, you don’t have to believe and belong to a specific faith to save yourself from unhappiness and vice. Instead, what matters is whether we lead our lives in accordance with our knowledge of love and light. What we believe can usefully guide us toward, rather than determine, our final judgment and destiny.