Rocky

A TED talk by a former JW.

Truth.

Are you okay?

Selah... and again, Peace. I truly enjoy reading your perspective on the things of God.

Seriously Mark? I'll repeat what I have said before, "I do not speak for Bell." If you want to know what Bell sees, ASK HIM. You seem to suggest that you have a handle on the Book of Revelation. Perhaps you can reach him and try to educate him with your immense knowledge. Bottom-line, I'm disappointed in your ("not-so") subtle attack on him.

Did you mean to post this in the other thread? Respectfully, I don't see how the post relates to this thread.

Peace! I may or may not agree with any or all of your points. However, I can't say that I know with a degree of certainty that could possibly cause me to debate, argue or bicker any of those points. Where I rest is that it's bigger than us (me). To me, the value is in seeing how you (or Rob Bell, or anyone else) articulates it and pondering it over and over.

Which is to say, overall, that life is complicated and so is God and Christianity. My apologies if I didn't get that right. I very much agree with at least some of what you wrote there. Paradox(es)... absolutely. To me, the bottom-line is that God is bigger than what any human or humanity in the aggregate can comprehend. That's part of the nature of paradox -- trying to put in human understanding what may be beyond our grasp to neatly put into a box... or an ancient book. Which is one of the big reasons why I resist fundamentalism. I'm not convinced that Bell misinterpreted anything in particular. Rather, I think he's trying to grasp what's beyond our human capacity to grasp. I do see your point about Bell's thesis seeming to make Christ's sacrifice extraneous. I don't know how to reconcile that with anything at this point. Your post does a great job, IMO, of trying to weave together related, complicated ideas. I appreciate that.

For perspective only on "all the people who ever lived."

Are you saying that -- There's no 'reason' for 'LIFE', so there's no reason to exist after 'life' in any form -- IS a flat statement of fact that is accurate? That seems like a philosophical question/statement. IF you believe and claim it is a statement of fact, please support the claim. It seems odd to me. Maybe if you explain your reasoning, it will help. Thanks.

How right you are. One doesn't need an advanced degree in psychology to recognize how Wierwille personified narcissism. One also doesn't need to spend much time reviewing the dark history of his ministry in order to find parallels to Paul's admonition to Timothy regarding what was the actual root of all evil. What Are the Traits of a Narcissist? It’s easy to slap the “narcissist” label on someone who spends a bit too much time talking about her career or who never seems to doubt himself, but narcissism is more complicated than it may seem: It’s not a surplus of self-esteem, but more accurately encompasses a hunger for appreciation or admiration, a sense of specialness and a desire to be the center of attention, and an expectation of special treatment reflecting perceived higher status.

Indeed. Peace to you (and to Mark, and to WW).

I very much appreciate and relate to the various points you made above. From my perspective, I just don't see how we can truly appreciate with depth of understanding about what's recorded in the Bible without understanding the history and culture of the people who wrote it down. To a degree, I have to credit Wierwille's introduction of Orientalisms for that. Even so, he approached that field of study apparently in the same way he did with the text of the book itself. Which I believe was overwhelmingly myopic. Your description of your friend's experience with Rob Bell offers insight not just on Bell, but the cultural environment in which he developed. To me, that's as fascinating as any of the rest of it (i.e. the text of his book). Importantly, the reactionary approach his critics took to ostracize him (label him a heretic) speaks to the box those people put God and themselves in. The bottom-line, to me, is that now we see as through a glass, darkly. But then, face to face. In the meantime, some people are curious enough to challenge the limits (blinders) religion has put on people.

How incredibly human. It seems a similar pattern has been identified in current affairs in the news lately. But I won't go into the current affairs situation. But yes, that looks like rationalization. Rationalization is an unconscious defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[1] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings, for example guilt or shame).

Wow!... copy a bunch of the comments from the other thread and suddenly you've got a hot topic.

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.