tom collinge:Which is why we also need Bell's book in Vyrso. This way we can read what he wrote instead of letting other people tell us what he wrote. Because Logos gave away a book the only has one side of this conversation, Logos should also give away the other side of this conversation.
Agreed Good recommendation, Tom.
www.logos.com/support/logos5/mac/logging
Here is Francis Chan on his book:
Where whims and fancies sit in the seat of judgment, a man’s opinion is only so much wind, therefore take no more notice of it than of the wind whistling through a keyhole. ~ CHS
Jack Caviness: tom collinge:Which is why we also need Bell's book in Vyrso. This way we can read what he wrote instead of letting other people tell us what he wrote. Because Logos gave away a book the only has one side of this conversation, Logos should also give away the other side of this conversation. Agreed Good recommendation, Tom.
It is not logos who gave the book away for free, it was done by the publisher. Amazon and B&N had the same promotion. I doubt that we are in aposition to demand that resources be made available for free (even if they were all from the same publisher).
Beggars are not choosers even in the 21st century
Alain Maashe:It is not logos who gave the book away for free, it was done by the publisher. Amazon and B&N had the same promotion.
Thanks, I did not know this.
tom collinge:I would rephrase "It's more likely a christian standing up to a truth of scripture" to "It's more likely a christian standing up to a truth that he believes is in scripture." I would also say that Rob Bell is doing the same thing, standing up to a truth that he believes is in scripture.
Thanks, Tom. Much better tone for the forums.
Logos4catholics Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."
While I agreed with Tom's recommendation, it does not matter to me whether the book would be free or not. I would just like to see it in Vyrso or Logos.
Paul, thank you for that link. That was fantastic.
Jack Caviness:Paul, thank you for that link. That was fantastic.
Kenneth, I forgot to thank you for earlier insightful post, Thanks.
**************
Paul, thanks for the link.
Near the end Chan states [time:8:27]):
“I just want to present this fairly and I don’t want to misrepresent Him” – it is a shame that he only promotes the book for about a minute. but from what he stated it makes me wonder if there are two versions(?).
He does seem honestly sincere, but why did he not make it clearer that he was going to tear and rip another in his book.....and that the book is addressing what another stated as opposed to what he read and studied.....there were other videos on youtube that I thought were more informative but I won't post the link.
Still it appears misleading.
Thanks again.
[[Maybe my "presuppositions" were too high just from reading the review from Vyrso/ what was it that Chan stated about sheol-hades again......]]
I'll add another quote that Chan used, I think that it is totally out of context to what Bell is supposed to have stated in his own book "Love wins", Chan states and quotes:
Most recently, Rob Bell said that hell is not "about someday, somewhere else,"3 but about the various "hells on earth" that people experience in this life—genocide, rape, and unjust socioeconomic structures.4
the note #3 is the page from Bell's book (i suppose) but #4 is the kicker that shows from Chans own notes that he {edit added}possibly{edit added} uses it out of context:
[...] It is important for Bell that we "don’t take Jesus’s very real and prescient warnings about judgment out of context, making them about someday, somewhere else" (p. 81). [...]
So, what was the intention of that book again? Did I miss something.../? Thanks. [[ppsstt. I am not advocating Bells book-I have never read it, nor do I support Bell since I do not know what He claims]]
So, what was the intention of that book again? Did I miss something.../?
Thanks.
[[ppsstt. I am not advocating Bells book-I have never read it, nor do I support Bell since I do not know what He claims]]
Here is a video where Rob sums up his book:
Not writing to anyone in particular here, but this discussion is going beyond the purpose of these forums.
The forums exist to help us use Logos software, not to discuss at length the merits or demerits of the theological positions, or arguments of authors of the resources Logos sells.
Help links: WIKI; Videos; Logos 5 FAQ (Phil. 2:14, NIV)
Thanks Richard.
But it has gone rather well here: Would you not agree?
And just so I understand correctly, when someone asks which resources is best for such and such and they ask in the "general" that nobody ever gives their reply from a perspective of their own beliefs based on the resources that they currently have?
Anywho, no one has really gotten into any theology, demeritization of another, or an argument of authors. I am impressed with the civility that has been shown forth from the users and comments generated from the same. Mindful that we are addressing a book - accessible through Logos Bible Software {and the book is searchable at that]......
Yet thanks again for reminding us...
Room4more: But it has gone rather well here: Would you not agree? And just so I understand correctly, when someone asks which resources is best for such and such and they ask in the "general" that nobody ever gives their reply from a perspective of their own beliefs based on the resources that they currently have?
I agree it has gone well. Though that's the exception, which is why this is discouraged.
It is also expected that one might give a reply about a book based on some observations and one's own perspective. However, this discussion has gone on for 3 pages now, much of the discussion based on a single point (Chan's interaction with Bell). The point that the book was a refutation of Bell more than a study on Hell was made on the 1st page, and certainly by the 2nd.
Time to move on. (IMHO, of course)
Richard DeRuiter: I agree it has gone well. Though that's the exception, which is why this is discouraged.
Richard DeRuiter: It is also expected that one might give a reply about a book based on some observations and one's own perspective. However, this discussion has gone on for 3 pages now, much of the discussion based on a single point (Chan's interaction with Bell). The point that the book was a refutation of Bell more than a study on Hell was made on the 1st page, and certainly by the 2nd. Time to move on. (IMHO, of course)
I am a little confused here; Is it the number of pages? or, Is it the culpability/integrity of the writer, and his ability to interaction with another? I.E. >to properly quote another, and in context, to a point that is trying to be established but the quote and the point are not congruently made? I did make another 'observation' and on this page.
Yet, if we did get into the Scriptures that were used, then I agree that there might be some theological discussions, possibly some in referral to the Greek/Hebrew definitons....
But, again I am intrigued by the restraint that has been demonstrated, Thus showing that we can have a discussion and maintain a form of decorum that can be commended. By this count I think that many have read the book and have read for themselves. Rob Bell said in one of the videos that I did watch that he was impressed with the responses from his book but was even more impressed with those made by people who did NOT read his book[paraphrased].
So if you think that we should move on, then which page would you suggest?
Room4more:if you think that we should move on, then which page would you suggest
No particular page. We're just bored with the discussion. Nothing more to be proven. I guess things get more "interesting" when the flames start being thrown, and I'm not recommending that. It's good that there's been none of that here. But seriously, it's not very interesting whether this guy misquoted or misrepresented the person he's claiming to refute or not. You made your case. Nothing more can be said about it that adds to the discussion. People should read the original book he's responding to if they're still concerned about it. And others who have read only Bell but not Chan who are concerned to know whether you're right or not should read Chan. Others who couldn't care less should stop coming back to see what new stuff has been posted on this thread because it's no longer adding anything enlightening for anyone.
How to Ask for Help | Logos Wiki | My Machine Specs | My Blog
Others think that we should discontinue this discussion.
So with closure:
Since I started without bias; When I first started reading I thought that Chan was going to give the message that he received. It stated out well, but then I got to his first quote of Bell, and to be totally honest, I could not make out whether he was supporting or criticizing Bell, so I had to spend some time there reading his notes and going back and forth and back and forth and still I am not sure. So I just left it to continue on…
There were other quotes that I still had some difficulty grasping whether it was critique or supportive. Then, from my honest personal opinion, it just seem to go downhill.
But I could be wrong, others may glean something from it, I know that there was a few things that I did.
I do think that it is of great importance that should one choose to write about another, that it should be clearly stated that that is what they are doing and that is their full intention and not use some “God has impressed this upon my heart to do” - misleading to the readers. Also, that should we endeavor to do this that the quote(s) should be congruent and in proper perspective to the issue we are addressing.
Truly, enlightenment comes from being able to get the facts properly set forth, coherently, and addressing an issue. Not using God as a vehicle to bash, belittle, or even condemn another. There may be followers of both camps privy to information that is not set forth in the writ, and that I do not know, some may feel influence and others too outraged to speak, and vice-verse.
To me, the book was a good ‘eye-opener’, I could almost read it with open eye's wide shut.
Thanks again everyone who commented, and for those just reading and not commenting....
...
Super Tramp:
That'll be the day!
stone the crows - sound like rob bell himself has joined the forum rob, u can back off - we hear your claims, we will read the book and make our own mind up!