|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Sept 30, 2012 19:17:13 GMT -5
Hey, let's get this thing going!
I like the way Bell organized the book, and I think his chapter order lends itself well to discussion. I think the best way on this one is to kind of go chapter-by-chapter, so I'll try to direct us that way.
The big question of chapter 1 seems to be ... which Jesus? Bell is asking us to question Jesus' agenda on earth, which will set the stage for the age to come. Y'all agree? So..what do you think of this quote?
"Often times when I meet atheists and we talk about the god they don't believe in, we quickly discover that I don't believe in that god either. So when we hear that a certain person has 'rejected Christ,' we should first ask, 'Which Christ?'"
|
|
shushy
Royal Member
Warning
50%
Posts: 8,009
|
Post by shushy on Oct 1, 2012 5:44:26 GMT -5
Hey, let's get this thing going! I like the way Bell organized the book, and I think his chapter order lends itself well to discussion. I think the best way on this one is to kind of go chapter-by-chapter, so I'll try to direct us that way. The big question of chapter 1 seems to be ... which Jesus? Bell is asking us to question Jesus' agenda on earth, which will set the stage for the age to come. Y'all agree? So..what do you think of this quote? Are you discussing a book? If so havent read it. Jesus agenda was to direct people back to the father, to teach about the Kingdom of heaven. He only did what he saw the father doing. The age to come? Some call it the golden age. I will name it the glorious age or the Age of Glory. I hope you are well diet.
"Often times when I meet atheists and we talk about the god they don't believe in, we quickly discover that I don't believe in that god either. So when we hear that a certain person has 'rejected Christ,' we should first ask, 'Which Christ?'"[/quot
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 1, 2012 9:37:02 GMT -5
Hey, let's get this thing going! I like the way Bell organized the book, and I think his chapter order lends itself well to discussion. I think the best way on this one is to kind of go chapter-by-chapter, so I'll try to direct us that way. The big question of chapter 1 seems to be ... which Jesus? Bell is asking us to question Jesus' agenda on earth, which will set the stage for the age to come. Y'all agree? So..what do you think of this quote? "Often times when I meet atheists and we talk about the god they don't believe in, we quickly discover that I don't believe in that god either. So when we hear that a certain person has 'rejected Christ,' we should first ask, 'Which Christ?'" I agree with his statement completely, that God is not like mainstream Christians believe at all. I think we make "an idol" of who we think God to be based on what we hear in church, and not be getting into Scripture to know him ourselves. I am finding this book very difficult to read. I feel like I reading "emotionalism" and (as my husband likes to put it sometimes) "rah-rah", rather than a good scriptural basis for his subject! I'm going to have to go back and re-read the first chapter for our purposes, because I don't even remember what it said.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 1, 2012 9:37:53 GMT -5
Hi Shushy! The book is Love Wins, by Rob Bell.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 1, 2012 9:40:44 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm with you on that, Sylvestra. It's very colloquial, I think he writes the way he preaches, the style is hardly scholarly, which does tend to undercut his authority.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Oct 1, 2012 15:25:26 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm with you on that, Sylvestra. It's very colloquial, I think he writes the way he preaches, the style is hardly scholarly, which does tend to undercut his authority. I’ve only just read the first chapter, never heard of this guy before, so I don’t really have an opinion of him yet. However, so far, I really don’t mind his informality and the colloquialisms. (I know, I know, perhaps because I was raised in an environment where “authority” was all too often equivalent to “pompous-ass”, I may permanently have the junior high school rebel trapped inside of me.) I think there is potential that I might personally like this guy (need to check him out on youtube). What I love is the questions. Interestingly, I have found that the questions I ask are more fundamental to the quality of my life than any answers. If my epitaph read “A lover of questions”, I would be satisfied. Two of my favorite quotes: "An unanswered question is a fine traveling companion. It sharpens your eye for the road." - Rachel Naomi Remen, M.D. "Be patient with all that is unresolved in your heart and try to love the questions themselves. Do not seek for the answers that cannot be given, for you wouldn't be able to live them. And the point is to live everything, live the questions now, and perhaps without knowing it, you will live along someday into the answers." - Rainer Maria Rilke, poet
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 2, 2012 16:31:24 GMT -5
I am only a little more than half way through the book. I do like the style, and it's written as if Bell is speaking, it's an oratorical style. At times I tend to rush through because the content is not that deep. But there is some gold there. Bell makes some major points, under the theme that it matters more what we do here, than what we are hoping to do in a nebulous ill-defined eternal life. One key example of this is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in which he rightly places the focus on looking after the beggar by the gate. The idea that the rich man is wanting Lazarus to serve him, when he asks for water, is a novel one. And of course, Lazarus can no longer serve the rich man. So that extends into the difficulty of the rich man entering into heaven because of who he has become. In one of my favourite passages, Bell vividly expresses the power that we hold as individuals to create a heaven or a hell right here on earth. His idea that the linear progression of time will not hold in the after-life also registers strongly with me. I have often wondered what I would do after 10,000 years or so, as by then I will surely have watched all the Hogan's Heroes reruns 1000 times each. And still barely scratched the notion of infinite time. But Bell argues that the concept of infinite time doesn't exist in the Bible, and I can relate to that.
To answer the question about the kind of God atheists don't believe in. This is why Bell's book works for me. The church has created a God and Christ, or I should say, many of the churches have created a God and Christ that truly godly people cannot believe in, and that ungodly people can believe in. I feel that in many cases the religious authorities within the church have created an impediment to belief for those who truly care and who truly love. Rather they have created something, that in return for supporting the organization, its goals and employees, makes people feel secure, but that other than that, isn't much good to anyone. That is a bit harsh, isn't it? It would be better to say that every church has some of that mixed into it; some a lot of it, some not so much. Bell is trying to make it possible to believe, by removing some of the impediments, like the fear of eternal damnation. Some people argue that this line of thinking makes it all easier, but it doesn't, it makes it harder. Many church goers, who perceive falsehood deep inside, only half believe, and are only half committed, but if we truly have Christ in our lives, we have to be fully committed.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 2, 2012 16:52:09 GMT -5
I am only a little more than half way through the book. I do like the style, and it's written as if Bell is speaking, it's an oratorical style. At times I tend to rush through because the content is not that deep. But there is some gold there. Bell makes some major points, under the theme that it matters more what we do here, than what we are hoping to do in a nebulous ill-defined eternal life. One key example of this is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in which he rightly places the focus on looking after the beggar by the gate. The idea that the rich man is wanting Lazarus to serve him, when he asks for water, is a novel one. And of course, Lazarus can no longer serve the rich man. So that extends into the difficulty of the rich man entering into heaven because of who he has become. In one of my favourite passages, Bell vividly expresses the power that we hold as individuals to create a heaven or a hell right here on earth. His idea that the linear progression of time will not hold in the after-life also registers strongly with me. I have often wondered what I would do after 10,000 years or so, as by then I will surely have watched all the Hogan's Heroes reruns 1000 times each. And still barely scratched the notion of infinite time. But Bell argues that the concept of infinite time doesn't exist in the Bible, and I can relate to that. To answer the question about the kind of God atheists don't believe in. This is why Bell's book works for me. The church has created a God and Christ, or I should say, many of the churches have created a God and Christ that truly godly people cannot believe in, and that ungodly people can believe in. I feel that in many cases the religious authorities within the church have created an impediment to belief for those who truly care and who truly love. Rather they have created something, that in return for supporting the organization, its goals and employees, makes people feel secure, but that other than that, isn't much good to anyone. That is a bit harsh, isn't it? It would be better to say that every church has some of that mixed into it; some a lot of it, some not so much. Bell is trying to make it possible to believe, by removing some of the impediments, like the fear of eternal damnation. Some people argue that this line of thinking makes it all easier, but it doesn't, it makes it harder. Many church goers, who perceive falsehood deep inside, only half believe, and are only half committed, but if we truly have Christ in our lives, we have to be fully committed. I have not read the book, but it sounds very interesting. I like your thoughts on what you have read so far. As a person who does not like religions I can certainly relate to how it takes people further away rather than closer. It seems to me that all the rules and dogma tie our hands to further understanding or revelations in the spiritual realm. Once someone has told us that this is the way it is and this is what you have to do to get they way it is, it seems to me that you stunt the spiritual growth of people.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 4, 2012 21:16:19 GMT -5
I found this quote in chapter 2, about the painting in his grandmother's house:
"the fundamental story it tells about heaven--that it is somewhere else--is the story that many people know to be the Christian story."
That definitely resonates with me. I have many conversations online about what it means to be a Christian, and a great number of people talk only about getting to heaven...some faraway place of their dreams. Bell's view of heaven is very "earthy" (yeah, ok, I like that word!) recognizing that Jesus wasn't talking about someplace far away with his vision of a "kingdom of God" but of God reigning right here on earth.
About "life in the age to come," he says "if this sounds like heaven on earth, that's because it is. Literally."
How many agree?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 4, 2012 22:35:56 GMT -5
I found this quote in chapter 2, about the painting in his grandmother's house: "the fundamental story it tells about heaven--that it is somewhere else--is the story that many people know to be the Christian story." That definitely resonates with me. I have many conversations online about what it means to be a Christian, and a great number of people talk only about getting to heaven...some faraway place of their dreams. Bell's view of heaven is very "earthy" (yeah, ok, I like that word!) recognizing that Jesus wasn't talking about someplace far away with his vision of a "kingdom of God" but of God reigning right here on earth. About "life in the age to come," he says "if this sounds like heaven on earth, that's because it is. Literally." How many agree? I agree that could have been the message. Mainly because he also said the Kingdom of God is within you.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 7, 2012 11:39:03 GMT -5
I found this quote in chapter 2, about the painting in his grandmother's house: "the fundamental story it tells about heaven--that it is somewhere else--is the story that many people know to be the Christian story." That definitely resonates with me. I have many conversations online about what it means to be a Christian, and a great number of people talk only about getting to heaven...some faraway place of their dreams. Bell's view of heaven is very "earthy" (yeah, ok, I like that word!) recognizing that Jesus wasn't talking about someplace far away with his vision of a "kingdom of God" but of God reigning right here on earth. About "life in the age to come," he says "if this sounds like heaven on earth, that's because it is. Literally." How many agree? Many years ago I heard a conversation on a late night open talk show that has stuck with me ever since. A caller was remarking that people should worry about an eternity in Hell, and the host, who was not a Christian, stated that we had Hell in many places right here on Earth, so why worry about one in the after-life. I see Bell tending in the same direction. I can't relate to a nebulous heaven/ hell; the concepts themselves have to relate to what's going on right here. Otherwise life barely makes any sense at all. I think Bell is at his best when talking about how we have power to make a heaven or Hell of our lives or the lives of others. I believe this is chapter 4 in the book .. one chapter I would recommend anyone to read.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 7, 2012 12:10:00 GMT -5
I found this quote in chapter 2, about the painting in his grandmother's house: "the fundamental story it tells about heaven--that it is somewhere else--is the story that many people know to be the Christian story." That definitely resonates with me. I have many conversations online about what it means to be a Christian, and a great number of people talk only about getting to heaven...some faraway place of their dreams. Bell's view of heaven is very "earthy" (yeah, ok, I like that word!) recognizing that Jesus wasn't talking about someplace far away with his vision of a "kingdom of God" but of God reigning right here on earth. About "life in the age to come," he says "if this sounds like heaven on earth, that's because it is. Literally." How many agree? I agree that could have been the message. Mainly because he also said the Kingdom of God is within you. If you accept this, then one question for Bell is whether the kingdom can ever be extinguished so that you are "ex-human". Apparently even Martin Luther thought you could get a second chance, after lifetime. This pages in the book are a bit sketchy though. I think that Bell doesn't come to any absolute conclusion, other than finding lots of evidence to reject eternal damnation. Beyond that I don't think he greatly cares about exactly what heaven will be like. But I haven't finished the book.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 8, 2012 17:47:12 GMT -5
I think people probably have more opinions than they're expressing, here. So let me state it like this: I think most Bible scholars (both liberal and conservative) agree that when Jesus was speaking about the age to come, he was speaking about life on this earth. He was talking about a God-controlled way here on earth, which would be showered with riches; plentiful food and wine, etc. Most people, however, interpret such verses to speak of life after death. Why is this? Is it because we internet readers live so well already that we find nothing exciting about enough food for everyone? Is it because we are hesitant to give up what we have, so that by sharing, the Kingdom of Heaven can begin? Why do we shun this earth and dream instead about life up in heaven? And in doing so, are we ignoring the original message and dream of Jesus?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 9, 2012 17:53:49 GMT -5
I think people probably have more opinions than they're expressing, here. So let me state it like this: I think most Bible scholars (both liberal and conservative) agree that when Jesus was speaking about the age to come, he was speaking about life on this earth. He was talking about a God-controlled way here on earth, which would be showered with riches; plentiful food and wine, etc. Most people, however, interpret such verses to speak of life after death. Why is this? Is it because we internet readers live so well already that we find nothing exciting about enough food for everyone? Is it because we are hesitant to give up what we have, so that by sharing, the Kingdom of Heaven can begin? Why do we shun this earth and dream instead about life up in heaven? And in doing so, are we ignoring the original message and dream of Jesus? I didn't quite pick this up in Bell's book, but then I'm not finished. But sure, we should be trying to create more of heaven here on earth. I see heaven as being very similar to the best that is here on Earth. When you talk about one, you talk about the other; it's not a case of either/or for me. I think that's what Bell is getting at. In chapter 4, Bell quote Psalm 30, ? “God’s anger is but for a moment, His favour is for a lifetime.” This to me verifies that we can know what heaven will be like since we are experiencing his favour in lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 13, 2012 9:34:37 GMT -5
I wonder what people think about Bell refusing to accept the claim of many Christians that Hell is eternal. Do you buy Bell's argument, one of which is that there is no evidence in Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 14, 2012 10:35:24 GMT -5
I wonder what people think about Bell refusing to accept the claim of many Christians that Hell is eternal. Do you buy Bell's argument, one of which is that there is no evidence in Scripture. Do you mean that Bell is saying there is no evidence of hell being eternal torment in scripture? If that is what you saying, I agree with him completely! However, I haven't gotten that so much from his book, but from other sources. I'm just not finding his book "deep" enough and documented enough to remove all doubt that hell is not eternal torment. The book so far is like an appetizer to the subject, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 14, 2012 18:31:18 GMT -5
I wonder what people think about Bell refusing to accept the claim of many Christians that Hell is eternal. Do you buy Bell's argument, one of which is that there is no evidence in Scripture. Do you mean that Bell is saying there is no evidence of hell being eternal torment in scripture? If that is what you saying, I agree with him completely! However, I haven't gotten that so much from his book, but from other sources. I'm just not finding his book "deep" enough and documented enough to remove all doubt that hell is not eternal torment. The book so far is like an appetizer to the subject, IMO. He deals with the subject in chapter 3, and I think, goes through all the significant and familiar references to Hell in the Bible. The section on Lazarus, pages 74 to79, was especially good, I thought. At the conclusion of chapter 3, Bell states, "Jesus isn't talking about forever as we think of forever. Jesus may be talking about something else ..." the "something else" is to be explained in the chapter 4. Well, not really. In that chapter Bell hints at a restoration, a second chance and other ideas of that nature, Biblically based, but he doesn't specifically endorse any of these ideas. That's intentional. He concludes "Will everybody be saved, or will some perish apart from God forever because of their choices? Those are questions, or more accurately, those are tensions we are free to leave fully intact. We don't need to resolve them or answer them because we can't, and so we simply respect them, creating space for the freedom that love requires". But I don't disagree with you at all; this is not a book that presents a lot of detail, but at a high level I think it's very good.
|
|
|
Post by Dubious Disciple (xdc) on Oct 15, 2012 19:27:12 GMT -5
I think it's important to understand a little about Bell. He's considered sort of the face of emergent Christianity; a new trending version that focuses more on the here-and-now than on the future. It makes sense that his theology would be that "love wins" in the end and everybody gets to heaven, because otherwise, our focus cannot be on living a Christ-like life today. We'll be forever evangelizing instead of serving.
I can't say that I have a "position" in the debate, since it seems to me that the Bible contains multiple opinions about the afterlife, none of which have enough evidence to convince me. So, it's just an interesting theological discussion for me.
An interesting topic: restoration. On page 87, Bell quotes a number of Bible verses, and says "I list them to simply show how dominant a theme restoration is in the Hebrew scriptures." Even Sodom and Gomorrah's story isn't over. Is this evidence that love wins? "Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?"
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 20, 2012 12:19:01 GMT -5
I think it's important to understand a little about Bell. He's considered sort of the face of emergent Christianity; a new trending version that focuses more on the here-and-now than on the future. It makes sense that his theology would be that "love wins" in the end and everybody gets to heaven, because otherwise, our focus cannot be on living a Christ-like life today. We'll be forever evangelizing instead of serving. I agree with your last statement! I also believe that our purpose in "serving the Lord" changes when eternal torment is taken out of the picture. We no longer serve because of the fear of damnation!I can't say that I have a "position" in the debate, since it seems to me that the Bible contains multiple opinions about the afterlife, none of which have enough evidence to convince me. So, it's just an interesting theological discussion for me. An interesting topic: restoration. On page 87, Bell quotes a number of Bible verses, and says "I list them to simply show how dominant a theme restoration is in the Hebrew scriptures." Even Sodom and Gomorrah's story isn't over. Is this evidence that love wins? "Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?" As I've said before, I think this book is a good appetizer and can be thought provoking. The word "provoking" seems to me to require further study from others. SO, at this point I'd like to share some others thoughts on this subject. These are the readings that convinced me..... The first three are available to be read on line. Booklets: gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/if-god-could-save-everyone-would-he/gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/a-short-history-of-universal-reconciliation/Books: (I would recommend at least the first six chapters of the next book.) gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/creations-jubilee/(The next book takes every possible question or argument against "hope beyond hell" and answers it.) www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Hope+Beyond+Hell
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 20, 2012 12:42:33 GMT -5
The book so far is like an appetizer to the subject, IMO. I like your metaphor, Sylvestra! I too love to read in the "academic" realm, but I'm gaining an appreciation for the books - many serious novels included - that serve to open our minds to new ideas. "Proving" is the modern mode of operation, and yet, as other comments on the books suggest, living with the questions, keeping open, is powerful! Sometimes I read a book like this that brings new questions to entertain, which begin to inform my thinking. At other times, a book like this - and I believe this one will be in this latter category - serve to express in a very simple, every day life way ideas which I have already apprehended, in a more "intellectual" format. I'm glad for this kind of book, as I know that not everyone can bend their minds around the academic stuff - I have always thought backwards or inside-out or something anyway, which seems to lend itself to new ideas in whatever form them come . . . I do have the book on order, having grown intrigued after discussing it privately with a member here. The question is whether I will be willing to interrupt my reading of "deeper" books . . . and I think I will.
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 20, 2012 12:58:47 GMT -5
The book so far is like an appetizer to the subject, IMO. I like your metaphor, Sylvestra! I too love to read in the "academic" realm, but I'm gaining an appreciation for the books - many serious novels included - that serve to open our minds to new ideas. "Proving" is the modern mode of operation, and yet, as other comments on the books suggest, living with the questions, keeping open, is powerful! Sometimes I read a book like this that brings new questions to entertain, which begin to inform my thinking. At other times, a book like this - and I believe this one will be in this latter category - serve to express in a very simple, every day life way ideas which I have already apprehended, in a more "intellectual" format. I'm glad for this kind of book, as I know that not everyone can bend their minds around the academic stuff - I have always thought backwards or inside-out or something anyway, which seems to lend itself to new ideas in whatever form them come . . . I do have the book on order, having grown intrigued after discussing it privately with a member here. The question is whether I will be willing to interrupt my reading of "deeper" books . . . and I think I will. Alan,.....glad for your input!! I don't claim to be an intellectual at all, and certainly not on the level of you, what, DD, etc!! I also greatly appreciate the book "Love Wins" because of the FACT that it is "appetizer" level!! I think there are many who might read this out of intrigue for what they've heard, and even if they don't want to dig deeper (either from lack of interest or ability), things they hear and experience in the future will bring back what they read! I think that is a big plus, and makes Bell's book valuable in itself. I wouldn't call my referral book list deeply intellectual either, and aren't too deep for ME to understand! Stephen Jones book and booklets also open new avenues of thought aside from the "God wins" issue
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 20, 2012 13:12:55 GMT -5
Alan,.....glad for your input!! I don't claim to be an intellectual at all, and certainly not on the level of you, what, DD, etc!! I also greatly appreciate the book "Love Wins" because of the FACT that it is "appetizer" level!! I think there are many who might read this out of intrigue for what they've heard, and even if they don't want to dig deeper (either from lack of interest or ability), things they hear and experience in the future will bring back what they read! I think that is a big plus, and makes Bell's book valuable in itself. I wouldn't call my referral book list deeply intellectual either, and aren't too deep for ME to understand! Stephen Jones book and booklets also open new avenues of thought aside from the "God wins" issue Well, I do find that I can enjoy and learn much from the likes of Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard, Tillich, Moltmann, Niebuhr . . . but, lest I begin to think myself an intellectual, I just remember that someone was actually able to WRITE this stuff, and I'm only reading and comprehending . . .
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 21, 2012 11:07:13 GMT -5
I think it's important to understand a little about Bell. He's considered sort of the face of emergent Christianity; a new trending version that focuses more on the here-and-now than on the future. It makes sense that his theology would be that "love wins" in the end and everybody gets to heaven, because otherwise, our focus cannot be on living a Christ-like life today. We'll be forever evangelizing instead of serving. I agree with your last statement! I also believe that our purpose in "serving the Lord" changes when eternal torment is taken out of the picture. We no longer serve because of the fear of damnation!I can't say that I have a "position" in the debate, since it seems to me that the Bible contains multiple opinions about the afterlife, none of which have enough evidence to convince me. So, it's just an interesting theological discussion for me. An interesting topic: restoration. On page 87, Bell quotes a number of Bible verses, and says "I list them to simply show how dominant a theme restoration is in the Hebrew scriptures." Even Sodom and Gomorrah's story isn't over. Is this evidence that love wins? "Will all people be saved, or will God not get what God wants? Does this magnificent, mighty, marvelous God fail in the end?" As I've said before, I think this book is a good appetizer and can be thought provoking. The word "provoking" seems to me to require further study from others. SO, at this point I'd like to share some others thoughts on this subject. These are the readings that convinced me..... The first three are available to be read on line. Booklets: gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/if-god-could-save-everyone-would-he/gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/a-short-history-of-universal-reconciliation/Books: (I would recommend at least the first six chapters of the next book.) gods-kingdom-ministries.net/teachings/books/creations-jubilee/(The next book takes every possible question or argument against "hope beyond hell" and answers it.) www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Hope+Beyond+HellI have the first two booklets by Dr. Stephen Jones and also another one titled "The Restoration of All Things" (thanks to you posting this information a year or so ago when we were discussing along these lines). Rob Bell makes a number of claims about what the Bible means when it states "eternal" or "Hell" and other terms of that nature, but Dr. Jones goes a lot deeper into a close textual analysis than Bell does. For someone who wonders about some of Bell's claims, and who is concerned with what Scripture actually says, Jones' work can be very beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 21, 2012 11:26:34 GMT -5
I like your metaphor, Sylvestra! I too love to read in the "academic" realm, but I'm gaining an appreciation for the books - many serious novels included - that serve to open our minds to new ideas. "Proving" is the modern mode of operation, and yet, as other comments on the books suggest, living with the questions, keeping open, is powerful! Sometimes I read a book like this that brings new questions to entertain, which begin to inform my thinking. At other times, a book like this - and I believe this one will be in this latter category - serve to express in a very simple, every day life way ideas which I have already apprehended, in a more "intellectual" format. I'm glad for this kind of book, as I know that not everyone can bend their minds around the academic stuff - I have always thought backwards or inside-out or something anyway, which seems to lend itself to new ideas in whatever form them come . . . I do have the book on order, having grown intrigued after discussing it privately with a member here. The question is whether I will be willing to interrupt my reading of "deeper" books . . . and I think I will. Alan,.....glad for your input!! I don't claim to be an intellectual at all, and certainly not on the level of you, what, DD, etc!! I also greatly appreciate the book "Love Wins" because of the FACT that it is "appetizer" level!! I think there are many who might read this out of intrigue for what they've heard, and even if they don't want to dig deeper (either from lack of interest or ability), things they hear and experience in the future will bring back what they read! I think that is a big plus, and makes Bell's book valuable in itself. I wouldn't call my referral book list deeply intellectual either, and aren't too deep for ME to understand! Stephen Jones book and booklets also open new avenues of thought aside from the "God wins" issue Actually it takes a great deal of intellectual and mental work to make things easy to understand. If something is hard to understand it could be because of not enough intellect, rather than too much. But some things are indeed too deep or beyond us, as you indicate. Take relativity as an example. Einstein's great feat was too boil the behaviour of energy and mass down to one simple formula. Almost anyone can understand the basic formula, but working through all the implications can be truly mind boggling. I think the process Bell has gone through is somewhat similar. He's done a great deal of work to make his book "simple". I don't view it as a scholarly work, so much as a 'credo' or as we might think of it, a complete life testimony. First, he's reboiled Scripture down to a few basics, or he's taken a hard look at the basics we have taken for granted, adjusted them, and then he's reworked through the implications of those basics, to see what that would mean for our lives. The book is not going to work if you don't buy into his premises. I think what DD says about Bell is right on, that there is a new trend ... "that focuses more on the here-and-now than on the future. It makes sense that his theology would be that "love wins" in the end and everybody gets to heaven, because otherwise, our focus cannot be on living a Christ-like life today. We'll be forever evangelizing instead of serving." If you buy into this view of the 'here-and-now' over the 'after life', then you'll probably like this book; it's going to be an affirming process, and also extend some of your views. This is what I've personally found this book to be. But by the way, I don't think Bell overtly states that "everybody gets to heaven". He seems also to be open to the idea of a final death. He definitely refuses to close on the question of what Hell is all about. Personally, that's enough for me. All I need to believe, is that no one is going to go to Hell for very flimsy reasons. And DD, you're bang on, that takes the emphasis off evangelizing and places it on service.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Oct 21, 2012 11:44:04 GMT -5
Alan,.....glad for your input!! I don't claim to be an intellectual at all, and certainly not on the level of you, what, DD, etc!! I also greatly appreciate the book "Love Wins" because of the FACT that it is "appetizer" level!! I think there are many who might read this out of intrigue for what they've heard, and even if they don't want to dig deeper (either from lack of interest or ability), things they hear and experience in the future will bring back what they read! I think that is a big plus, and makes Bell's book valuable in itself. I wouldn't call my referral book list deeply intellectual either, and aren't too deep for ME to understand! Stephen Jones book and booklets also open new avenues of thought aside from the "God wins" issue Well, I do find that I can enjoy and learn much from the likes of Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard, Tillich, Moltmann, Niebuhr . . . but, lest I begin to think myself an intellectual, I just remember that someone was actually able to WRITE this stuff, and I'm only reading and comprehending . . . Being an intellectual can be a curse. Let's take this away from the label 'intellectual', and just look at it as knowing that you are more learned on a particular topic. I'll give you an example, which is the 'classical music' forum on which I participate. I know nothing about music at a technical level, can't play an instrument or analyze music in technical terms. Yet I do listen to a lot of classical music, and am familiar with a large number of genres, works, composers and so on from the point of view of appreciation. Many of the participants on the forum are head and shoulders above where I am, some write as music critics, some play in orchestras. But I just put my opinion out there, and often take some shots because of not having the technical depth. And yet I do feel that I can offer a perspective on topics that some of the more learned ones don't have. The problem is that there are one or two of the 'know it alls' that don't understand this: that no matter what the topic, no one knows everything, and everyone has a unique voice and perspective that should be heard and might offer something new or different that has been overlooked. (I know I don't always show that here, but I do believe it.)
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 23, 2012 13:57:11 GMT -5
I became intrigued with this book through early comments, and after a bit of encouragement by what (on FB chat), I decided to purchase the book, and will attempt to jump into the conversation now, after finishing it last night: Actually it takes a great deal of intellectual and mental work to make things easy to understand. If something is hard to understand it could be because of not enough intellect, rather than too much. But some things are indeed too deep or beyond us, as you indicate. Take relativity as an example. Einstein's great feat was too boil the behaviour of energy and mass down to one simple formula. Almost anyone can understand the basic formula, but working through all the implications can be truly mind boggling. I think the process Bell has gone through is somewhat similar. He's done a great deal of work to make his book "simple". I don't view it as a scholarly work, so much as a 'credo' or as we might think of it, a complete life testimony. First, he's reboiled Scripture down to a few basics, or he's taken a hard look at the basics we have taken for granted, adjusted them, and then he's reworked through the implications of those basics, to see what that would mean for our lives. I agree - it is a particular gift to be able to present complex, profound ideas in a simple manner. I appreciate the scholars who delve deeply into the histories and contexts of "beliefs" (and perhaps Bell is one of them), and I value people like Bell, who can boil the ideas down to their essence and make them understandable for those not so "academically inclined." I loved the book, and found it to be easily digested, as it presents many ideas I have been engaging with this past year. There is much profound theological work that looks at these various views of God, heaven, hell, humanity, the Christ, etc. in the context of the particular cultural/historic settings in which they arose. Though I have read other, extremely helpful, background materials, I am currently finding theologian Douglas John Hall's trilogy - Thinking the Faith, Professing the Faith, and Confessing the Faith to be addressing many of these topics that have have been questions and tensions for me for years. And as I read Bell, I found myself repeatedly saying "Yes!!! He's put this so simply and clearly!" I noted this too, and feel he is wise in leaving it this way, as it doesn't seem to me that the scriptures don't really address "future states" in an absolute way. That would be problematic if it were a matter of a "formulaic," "hope I get it right," or "you have to believe this particular way" kind of salvation, but Bell's point is to move away from this "absolutism," with our future position being very specifically related to how we are responding to the Christ right now.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Oct 23, 2012 14:06:26 GMT -5
Being an intellectual can be a curse. Let's take this away from the label 'intellectual', and just look at it as knowing that you are more learned on a particular topic. I'll give you an example, which is the 'classical music' forum on which I participate. I know nothing about music at a technical level, can't play an instrument or analyze music in technical terms. Yet I do listen to a lot of classical music, and am familiar with a large number of genres, works, composers and so on from the point of view of appreciation. Many of the participants on the forum are head and shoulders above where I am, some write as music critics, some play in orchestras. But I just put my opinion out there, and often take some shots because of not having the technical depth. And yet I do feel that I can offer a perspective on topics that some of the more learned ones don't have. The problem is that there are one or two of the 'know it alls' that don't understand this: that no matter what the topic, no one knows everything, and everyone has a unique voice and perspective that should be heard and might offer something new or different that has been overlooked. (I know I don't always show that here, but I do believe it.) I have to agree with you in general, what, though I have focused on different words / ways of defining. For me, it becomes problematic when, because of an education, a person becomes seen as an "authority." While it is true that s/he has a in-depth knowledge of a particular field - and I highly respect that education and knowledge - the assignment of "authority" can tend to exclude other knowledge, which may be more experience-based. Then we end up talking about "those academics in their ivory towers." I like Edward Said's perspective on the intellectual - which he was! - as related in one of his autobiographical works (which I don't have in front of me right now - it's with my books that are still on Guam!). Said speaks of an intellectual's responsibility toward society, which will generally tend to mean bringing an interruption to established patterns of thought. I like this, and feel it goes with what Bell is doing here - kind of saying, "Wait. Let's think about this a minute. Maybe we need to ask some new questions, rather than insisting we have the right answers. Maybe we don't even need to have all the answers."
|
|
|
Post by Sylvestra on Oct 23, 2012 17:15:19 GMT -5
what and Alan, I enjoyed what you've written in the past couple of days! I was reading at stack of miscellany this afternoon, and then picked up the book again. At Chapter 5, I really began enjoying what Bell was saying immensely! I halted, and wondered what had changed and why suddenly I was enjoying it! ? As I delved into my mind, I realized that I had not "prepared my mind" to read about Love Wins, but just to find out what he was gonig to say next! I am going go back a reread this book without the prior thought that this is about eternal torment (or not), universal reconciliation (or not), etc.! In Chapter 5 Bell is dwelling on the blood/the cross, resurrection, etc. He brought a number of things together for me that I had never thought about, and I will now be interested to see how these things play into the subject "Love Wins"! Onward and upward!
|
|