Rocky

How gracious of you.

You have (unspecified, but cited only one besides your own research project) other book on what you guess is the subject of Bell's book. I suppose making inferences based on the title, but for some reason seeming to have an aversion to reading the book that's the subject of this thread. For either or both of you Mark and wordwolf Love Wins on archive.org for borrowing.

oops, meant to edit not quote.

Well, since I'm not an expert on tangential topics that might be related, it seems that it would only be polite to stay on topic. Are you saying you refuse to read the book? I suppose that's your prerogative, but the book is not a difficult or long read and it easily obtainable in public libraries or online. How would you know if a tangential topic is related to the book, if you don't look at the book? If you're asking me to change the thread topic, I'd say it might be easier for others to simply start another thread with a different topic. Am I wrong?

You're welcome to find out here.

Define "aware."

Not as interesting as it would be if it was on topic, namely Rob Bell's book.

LOL... "almost." That seems like a figure of speech... understatement. Yeah, Bell seems to intentionally shatter our old notions so that we can actually consider the possibility that there's a (or multiple) different ways to look at the things of God. Thanks so much for contributing to this conversation.

How quaint! "Rejecting all falsity and being done with it now..." This reminds me of Wierwille's snow story. Something to con them (without having to at all deal with rational arguments or objections that naturally come up to challenge this new premise) into believing that this group somehow, MYSTERIOUSLY, now knows the truth that they didn't know over the last 40 to 50 years. God's plan for believers to fully function in the Body of Christ? If they hadn't had an ongoing failure of imagination, they might come up with something mind-blowingly distinct from the rut they've been in for (some of them) HALF a CENTURY. If they were to do that, they'd have to shatter old assumptions about how they define some of the jargon they used in that advert/notice. But if they do that, will they risk losing a substantial percentage of the former twi folks they have grabbed onto since they left the "Household?"

Right now, this book is available on Kindle for free. Amazon has a free Kindle app so, if you do not own (or want to read on) a Kindle device, you can do so on your computer. Thanks Mark, I'm downloading the book now.

I love the image you invoke in the first sentence. You might have the same question(s) as TLC, but you expressed whatever questions you have in terms of questioning the points Bell makes, rather than his motives. I appreciate that about you and what you write on this thread. The question(s) about free will seem to be basic (fundamental but not necessarily fundamentalist) to coming to grips with what we see in the Bible. I don't have "the" answer but I get why people ponder the question. My underlying concern with Christian churches/religions, including twi, goes to the issue of -- as Skyrider recently put it -- subjugation (or obedience). There might be some value to "freely availing" ourselves of fellowship(s) with like-minded believers. Such fellowship can, I suppose, give rise to positive group dynamics. But it can also very easily turn dark when the ideas motivating such a team (or subculture) are not so wonderful. I really am not in a position to parse or argue the specifics of the philosophical questions you (very reasonably) raise. I just haven't had my head into such questions, as you may have. But I have looked at various types of group interactions (from team sports to carrying out civic responsibilities) at least somewhat through the lens of what I learned early on in my adulthood from and about Biblical stories/topics. I find Bell's viewpoint highly intriguing in that regard. However, I also find your discussion quite valuable. Thank you.

Which part of the highlighted words/expressions/sentences that you wrote, did I misunderstand? Is that really "discussing his positions" or questioning his motives. By all means, please clarify. Now, let me clarify that I am in no position to speak for Rob Bell or answer for why he did or didn't do anything. I've never met him. Did I misunderstand that you were asking me why he "skirted the issue?" Or whether he "genuinely or perhaps purposefully... not thought it all the way through to [what would read to you like a more] logical or reasonable conclusion to the matter? If not, why not?" and, "Perhaps his "outside the box" thinking simply isn't as original or as "creative" as might be imagined..." is that a value judgment? Or did I misunderstand what you wrote there too? If so, again, please clarify.

And sometimes the coercion is extremely subtle. When/after we (no doubt unconsciously) decided/accepted that Wierwille was THE authority on how to interpret the Bible, we did no longer, if ever, challenge when he taught that we were a people separate and apart from other groups. We accepted that we did NOT BELONG to community organizations, other religions/denominations/ourselves/affinity groups (like bee-keeping clubs or bird watchers, etc.). It didn't feel like coercion at first. But then we NEEDED the twi fellowships. And when we NEEDED them, we tolerated the abusive tactics/harassment. We were GROOMED to be abused. I appreciate your additional insight, brother Skyrider.

Lot's of speculation in that post about Bell's motivation and mine too. Perhaps the answer is much simpler than the sinister motives you insinuate. Perhaps it's a matter of just recently having heard about his book and found it interesting and wanting to share it. For Bell, perhaps it's that the issue is bigger than any of us and he isn't prepared to claim to be an authority. Reviews I read ahead of getting hold of the book indicated that Bell accomplished for many people helping them expand the range of what they can imagine. I believe he accomplished that marvelously. Thanks.

Oh myy, socks. I understand your point. I wish you had experienced or at least observed some of what caused the decision to have been made.

And yet, so many denominations within Christianity do NOT view life, and their adherents do not hold world views solely based on what Jesus taught and did and what we read in the NT. Bravo to you for having vigorous and hopefully very meaningful discussion around that very topic elsewhere. I still look forward to your sharings regarding Rob Bell's book, Love Wins on that other thread when you've had the opportunity to reread that book.

Once again, brother, you have nailed it. How does this happen again? That's the ultimate underlying issue. One way to look at possible answers to it is in this book. WHY we fall for it EVERY time... until we choose not to be conned, which goes directly to whether we prefer to be led. Another author, journalist Gail Sheehy published a book, 38-years ago, on finding one's own way, Pathfinders. Might be a good book for those tired of being led by wolves in sheep's clothing. Sheehy wrote a number of other books on subjects that can shed helpful insight. But what she doesn't do and hasn't done, is develop a series of classes that one must take to secure HER (the author's) living. None of the insights from either Sheehy or Konnikova relieve the very real human need for belonging. The con artists Skyrider exquisitely described above grab hold of that human need and try to sell themselves as the answer to that need. But if a person finds her/his own path, (s)he can also find others who share interests in the same or similar paths. That can make for a more fulfilling (self-actualizing) inner AND social life with great meaning. Anyway, thanks Skyrider for your salient post.

I'm not going to spend that much time listening to this guy's schpeel but I would again point you to Rob Bell's book, Love Wins. He addresses that issue (what hell is from examining biblical history). Not saying Bell's view is the last word, but it's reasonable to consider. As is, Mark S's research (linked in his comment above).

I agree, Bell doesn't seem to think he even needs (as a human) to account for everything. Perhaps one more reason to respect his position (at least as I see it). I find that refreshing. It contrasts with our experience with a religious organization that did seem to think it had or could figure out the answers to everything.

You'd maybe give him an "A" grade without reading it? What is your objection to reading Love Wins?

You've summarized above pretty much what I understood Bell to be getting at regarding "eternal" and a sense of time and that heaven is not somewhere else, but here already.

Socks, from what I've read about Bell (other than this book), he's no longer the pastor of a mega-church for that very reason. Christian theologians and religion academics did and still do consider him a heretic. But that's what I like about him. Put another way, he dared to think outside the box. Back in the late 1700s, with publication of one particular pamphlet, The Age of Reason, Part III, Thomas Paine previously a hero, became one of the most hated people in America. Why? He challenged the religious paradigms of the day (age). He dared to think outside the box and not only did he instigate the American Revolution, he challenged the superstition rampant in churches. I offer this NOT as political commentary, but only to offer historical perspective. One might at least say (I suppose I do, at least) that Bell didn't plagiarize. I can understand why you would have encouraged your friend to read the Bible and do so prayerfully.

Mark, didn't you already post a link to your website where you had previously posted this? Are you reading Love Wins and then commenting on it? Or are you reading comments on this thread and figuring out how your already posted research might relate to it?

And reading Rob Bell's book should take only a few hours. I hope you read it and provide you insight.

Perhaps you could capsulize the point you want to make here when you provided the link to your article. I'd appreciate it.