@fredsbend Though there are exceptions, most often people experience spiritual things only if they already believe in and expect spiritual experiences.

As annoying as it is to atheists, agnostics, and skeptics to say so, spiritual reality just doesn't work the same way material reality does. Spiritual reality operates according to the state of mind of the experiencer. Those who reject spiritual reality, or are highly skeptical of it, will most likely not experience it at all.

This is not a matter of judgment on God's part. It's a matter of respect for the free will of us humans to believe or not believe in God and spirit pursuant to our own choices and decisions on the matter.

I've heard people tell me about highly spiritual experiences at the time a loved one died, and I've heard people say that they felt nothing at all, or that it was a very negative experience. What people feel and how they respond to the presence of death varies all over the map.

For some of my own views of death and some of my thoughts in the wake of my own parents' deaths two or three years ago, see my article, "When Death is a Celebration."

@LeeWoofenden Believe it before you can prove it. Sounds ridiculous.

@LeeWoofenden I don't buy this at all. Any kind of spiritual experience does not automatically infringe on your free will any more than if I show up at your door unannounced and start preaching.

@fredsbend That's how science works, doesn't it? You have to have a hypothesis first, which is something you believe based on previous experience. Then you set about to prove that it's right . . . or wrong.

That's not what your previous message said.

@fredsbend You can easily reject a sidewalk preacher as a crazy man. It's a little harder to reject a direct spiritual experience. Thing is, those who are highly skeptical will find a way to reject a spiritual experience, causing their skepticism and atheism to get stronger, not weaker.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . .

@LeeWoofenden Right, we just talked about that in another room. Some will still not follow God even when faced with His Glory.

God will not force us to believe through miracles and such. Jesus couldn't do miracles where people didn't believe.

Therefore, it is clearly not an infringement of will for Him to give spiritual experiences freely.

Instead, He is quite stingy.

@fredsbend Yes. That's why it has to be a freely made choice on the part of us human beings. God will not force us to believe.

From my perspective, we're swimming in spiritual experience all the time. It's just that we don't usually recognize it as such.

Who's to say that God didn't warn everyone about the Flood, but Noah was the only one who listened to that "craziness'?

@LeeWoofenden I'm not asking to be forced to believe. I'm asking God to seem real in my life. Everything I look at does not hint at His goodness, creation, or even His existence.

Personally, I don't see how anyone can look out at the incredible universe we live in and not have a sense of wonder and awe about it. How much more do we really need?

@LeeWoofenden To which I reply that God is apparently not an effective communicator.

If someone can look out at that and say, "Ho hum, there is no God," I don't know what will be convincing.

The question is, are we good listeners?

When eternal life is on the line, He communicates in such a way that only one person believes Him? Come on.

I'm not trying to rag on you. Just to say that the evidence is all around us if we care to see it as such.

@fredsbend What one person are you talking about?

@LeeWoofenden Oh, I'm still quite awestruck. But I don't see the beauty in that which is inherent in a beautiful painting or sculpture. It doesn't look made, orderly, significant, meaningful; it doesn't convey a message; it doesn't relate to humanity other than that it coexists next to humanity.

@LeeWoofenden Your Noah example.

@fredsbend But isn't that your attitude toward it? Others look and see incredible beauty and order in the universe, and consider that such an intricate design must have an intelligent designer.

It seems to me wholly preposterous that such incredibly vast order and beauty could have come about entirely by chance, with no designer.

@LeeWoofenden Which we can discuss in the Creationism room if you want. Yes, others reach that conclusion. I find that conclusion wanting and sometimes based on invalid assumptions.

@fredsbend Gotcha about Noah. :-) Of course I don't see Noah as a single individual, but as a figure representing a whole community or society of human beings. I read those early stories not literally, but as mythical stories of early human cultures.

@fredsbend Now here's a conundrum: How do you determine whether an assumption is valid? Isn't an assumption by nature something that you assume to be true without any convincing evidence that it's true? If there were evidence for it, it wouldn't be an assumption.

@LeeWoofenden That does change things significantly, but the question remains. If God were an effective communicator, I would expect there to be more believers. Rather, there is a vast dearth of Christianity throughout history. Billions have perished without even knowing of Christianity and from my reading of the Bible, they will be sent to Hell.

I'd be happy to take it to the Creationism room if we're walking on Affable's grave a little too much here. I joined after he had already died, so I don't have as strong a sense of his presence, and absence, here as you do.

An all-loving God would try harder, not say "Well, you wouldn't believe anyway."

@LeeWoofenden It's not that. Just an effort to keep things organized.

@fredsbend From my perspective, that is an incorrect reading of the Bible. The most popular post on my blog is all about that:

leewoof.org/2012/11/05/…

My believe is that God is present and active in all of the religions of the world, and that all people who believe in God as their religion teaches them, and live good lives of love and service to their fellow human beings according to the teachings of their own religion, will be saved and go to heaven.

@fredsbend I haven't noticed that any of the chat rooms here are particularly organized or on-topic . . . .

@LeeWoofenden I was an annihilationist before I lost faith. I don't believe the Bible describes an eternal torment for anybody.

@LeeWoofenden It's not a rule. Just me making it up as I go.

Plus, others interested in the topic will read that room, so they might respond, bringing other perspectives to the table.

@fredsbend Well, as you might expect, I have a different view of hell as well . . . .

Do you want to move over there?

@LeeWoofenden I've heard this before. What might it be called? Not Universalism? Is there a descent answer to what its Biblical basis is?

@LeeWoofenden If you want to talk about intelligent design, sure.

We can stay here for 'hell' and all that.

@fredsbend Here is my popular formulation of its biblical basis, from a Swedenborgian perspective, of course: "Is Jesus Christ the Only Way to Heaven?"

@LeeWoofenden You are quite fond of Swedenborg, aren't you?

Does he have a theological following? Is Swedenborgian a recognized term or movement?

@fredsbend Umm . . . I guess so . . . I'm a Swedenborgian minister, in a long line of Swedenborgian ministers. ;-)

I thought he was mostly ignored by the rest of the theological community.

@fredsbend Besides, I've never found any other theology that even comes close to Swedenborg's theology. As a teenager I considered jumping ship, but really didn't find any better place to jump to.

Like I said before, I've read of him, but none of his works. I've never seen him quoted, except the rare thing here and there.

@fredsbend Well yes, of course he was, because he challenged their most basic doctrines and assumptions. Theological communities don't like that, no matter how "open" they may claim to be. And most of them make no such claim.

@LeeWoofenden I find that most can handle challenges on almost everything except the nature of Christ or God.

Swedenborg charted a theological course almost wholly independent of all of the reigning theologies in Christendom.

I'm under the impression Swedenborg challenged both regularly.

@fredsbend The nature of Christ and God is precisely where Swedenborg took aim at the very foundations of traditional Christianity. That's why they don't like him.

Have you read my response here:

That's the sort of challenge trinitarian Christians (which is almost all of them) just don't appreciate very much--even if they're sometimes polite about it. ;-)

Swedenborg was much less polite in his attacks on the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons. So they really didn't like him.

@LeeWoofenden The Trinity is never discussed in most circles. Just touted at the foundation of Christianity. Therefore, they believe right from the start that if there is no Trinity then there is no Christianity.

I don't think a single Trinitarian would say a unitarian of any flavor is heaven bound.

@fredsbend Right. And Swedenborg said that that the Council of Nicaea and the establishment of the doctrine of a Trinity of Persons in God was the beginning and the basis for the destruction of the Christian Church.

I haven't looked at it much, but I recently decided that there is something to the unitarian arguments, rather than blindly believing that they are obviously crazy and incapable of sound exegesis.

@fredsbend The Athanasian Creed explicitly says that anyone who doesn't believe in the Trinitarian doctrine outlined in the creed cannot be saved.

However, as I point out in the above response, Swedenborg was not a unitarian as that word is generally defined. He accepted the full divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Honestly, I pulled my punches as much as I could in that answer, because this is a site for polite discourse. My real opinion is that the Trinity as almost universally accepted in Christianity today has less than zero biblical basis.

Swedenborg's theology runs circles around what those old bishops came up with in the fourth century under the watchful eye of Constantine's sword and army.

@LeeWoofenden And the council of Laodicea says that Judaizers of the seventh day are to be acursed (worse than excommunicated, which means hell bound). Most of the councils have their issues.

What exactly is a swedenborgian minister? Is there a school? An ordination?

@fredsbend I distrust any creed or council that ends by saying "Anyone who doesn't believe this is going to hell." Isn't that God's decision, not the decision of some human council?

lol

@fredsbend Yes. The Swedenborgian Church is really pretty ordinary organizationally. It's like a little tiny Protestant church that rejects all the foundational doctrines of Protestantism.

However, I'm not very active in the church these days. My wife and I are about to set out on an independent course. I'm still and ordained minister in the church, but except for occasional supply preaching and a few teaching and lecturing gigs here and there, I no longer work for the church in any official capacity.

Once we move, my connection to the church will grow even thinner.

What I love is the teachings behind the church. That's what my life is devoted to, not to the church organization.

@fredsbend Incidentally, re: Affable and his current state, though many conservative Christians think Swedenborgians are going to hell, Swedenborgians think all people who live good lives according to their own religion and belief are going to heaven.

So based on what I know of Affable from the memorials here, I think he's heading to heaven right now.

It really does sound like he was a super decent guy.

@LeeWoofenden He was, indeed.

@LeeWoofenden How does this work if the religion happens to be particularly nasty? Child sacrifice inherent in some ancient religions, racism inherent in Christianity Identity, and if we call Atheism a religion, as some do, well, now I'm just confused. It sounds like universal salvation for all good persons that simply do the best they can with what they have.

@fredsbend Well, of course, it gets complicated. Nobody said it was simple. But God's a complex guy, and is able to handle all of our idiosyncrasies.

Basically, it depends on whether a person is living according to his/her conscience.

@LeeWoofenden So is the only sin that which you believe is wrong?

What about me, who believes that nothing is inherently wrong or right?

gtg for now.

For a biblical tie-in, see Romans 2:1-16. This is what Paul wrote about how non-Christians are saved before he wrote the stuff about salvation by faith in Jesus Christ.

Traditional Christians seem to skip over this passage altogether, as if it didn't exist. Or if they do read it, they ignore and deny its obvious meaning.

@fredsbend Cya then. TBC later, I hope.

@fredsbend I suspect you still have some moral compass by which you guide your actions and determine whether a particular thing would be right or wrong to do.

@LeeWoofenden Yes. I would like to talk about ID in the creationism room later too. Perhaps give a diatribe on it there. Well at least a message or two.

@fredsbend Sounds like fun! Looking forward to it.

@LeeWoofenden Yeah. But it is far from the absolutism that Christianity espouses. I don't believe in absolute truth or morality.

@fredsbend As I see it, the only absolutes that exist are in the core of God--to which we do not have any direct access. Everything we have is relative to that absolute. So all we have are relatives--though they can be closer to or farther away from the absolute.