Transfered from Introduction Thread

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I generally disagree with most of what you said but this is a world where everyone has an opinion to include mine. You can't undermine how people f e e l about what happened to them under WL..it is real to them... As far as I am concerned Lee taught another gospel and not the gospel of JC.

Err ... excuse me Dave ... but from all I have read of your posts, I'm not sure if you have a clue what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is, or what "another" gospel might me.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Err ... excuse me Dave ... but from all I have read of your posts, I'm not sure if you have a clue what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is, or what "another" gospel might me.

I don't think your post deserves a response from me but what troubles me most about your post is your agreement with Bro Cox

Originally Posted by Paul Cox

I have come to really appreciate our heritage from Watchman Nee, and yes, even Witness Lee. We were taught many things that have kept us. Even though Lee was mostly doctrine and turned out to be far removed from much of his message he taught us, the truth is nevertheless the truth.

You appreciate Nee and Lee... Are you kidding me? I agree that the truth is the truth but it is not coming from Witness Lee and I do not appreciate WL's teachings whatsoever. The confusion he brings with the mingling of God and man, the Triune God confusion, etc. He brought confusion to the LC and not only with his doctrinal teachings to include how churches should be administered (i.e. by him) but his personal life was a mess. More power to you if you agree with that stuff. I'm not drinking the kool-aid.

I may have mentioned this elsewhere but I was listening the other day to a sermon from Bill Freeman long after he left the LC and his intonation and talk was so similar to Lee I was very surprised. He is not the only person affected in the same way. What appears to have happened to many who were followers of Lee and close to Lee at one time is that they can't get him out of their heads and until they do they are forever lost in a limbo land. Run, don't just walk away from Lee's teachings.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

While I agree that we should welcome back our brother Paul with open arms I think Dave's gospel of caring for the poor, the sick, the needy, and outcasts is closer to the gospel of Jesus Christ than that of Witness Lee.

Then I'm confused because Dave seems to be at odds with "fundamental" Christianity, and they have done more for the poor, the sick, the needy, and outcasts than any other religion in mankind's history. Who else has started hospitals, universities, faith-based initiatives, church outreach programs, discount clothing, Alcohol Anonymous, overseas missions, schools, etc. Without fundamental Christians burdened to translate the Bible, many indigenous languages would not even have a written form of communication.

If Dave cared so much for the "poor, the sick, the needy, and outcasts" he would welcome poster Paul Cox, and perhaps even tried to understand what he was saying.

But he didn't because he apparently can't.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then I'm confused because Dave seems to be at odds with "fundamental" Christianity, and they have done more for the poor, the sick, the needy, and outcasts than any other religion in mankind's history. Who else has started hospitals, universities, faith-based initiatives, church outreach programs, discount clothing, Alcohol Anonymous, overseas missions, schools, etc. Without fundamental Christians burdened to translate the Bible, many indigenous languages would not even have a written form of communication.

If Dave cared so much for the "poor, the sick, the needy, and outcasts" he would welcome poster Paul Cox, and perhaps even tried to understand what he was saying.

But he didn't because he apparently can't.

What has Paul Cox' posts have to do with feeding the homeless etc. I have already stated my disagreements with Bro Cox.

In regards to helping the poor etc I agree that Christians everywhere are a giving and caring group of people. I just have not seen the same emphasis from you or many others on this forum as to your caring about the poor, homeless etc. You just quote other groups who care. I know in my city our church is very involved with the Food Pantry to feed the needy, we are part of a county wide effort to feed the homeless every day, my wife has been involved in the Free Medical Clinic we offer to the homeless in our city. I could go on but my point is that you seem to care more about "right belief" than about people whereas Christ's emphasis in the NT was about the poor and needy. "Right belief" has an outcome and I don't care what you believe if you aren't actively involved in caring about the people in your area who are unfortunate then I don't understand your Christianity. Read your Bible: Matt 25:31-46; 2 Cor. 8:1-15; Acts 4:34-35; Acts 2:45; Phil. 4:16, 19; Titus 3:14; 1 John 3:17 and many more. Christianity is much more than you have made it to be. You seem to have a small Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

In regards to helping the poor etc I agree that Christians everywhere are a giving and caring group of people. I just have not seen the same emphasis from you or many others on this forum as to your caring about the poor, homeless etc. You just quote other groups who care. I know in my city our church is very involved with the Food Pantry to feed the needy, we are part of a county wide effort to feed the homeless every day, my wife has been involved in the Free Medical Clinic we offer to the homeless in our city. I could go on but my point is that you seem to care more about "right belief" than about people whereas Christ's emphasis in the NT was about the poor and needy. "Right belief" has an outcome and I don't care what you believe if you aren't actively involved in caring about the people in your area who are unfortunate then I don't understand your Christianity. Read your Bible: Matt 25:31-46; 2 Cor. 8:1-15; Acts 4:34-35; Acts 2:45; Phil. 4:16, 19; Titus 3:14; 1 John 3:17 and many more. Christianity is much more than you have made it to be. You seem to have a small Christ.

"Right belief" alone can save us, as Paul says in Eph 2.8, "For by grace we have been saved thru faith." Good works can never save us. Only faith in Christ's death and resurrection can save us. (Too many verses to mention.)

Dave, it is very unfortunate that you have left the faith and attached yourself to the Unitarian Universalist movement, which cares nothing about faith or love towards Jesus Christ our Savior. Our Lord's great commands are to love God, and to love our neighbor. Unfortunately the Universalists have forsaken the first command, and decided to focus only on the second command. While better than not, to care only for good works, thinking that by them you can be saved, is perhaps the greatest deception.

For those not familiar with the movement, here are the seven Principles and Purposes --

We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association, covenant to affirm and promote

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice for all;
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part

The movement is devoted to New Age humanism, and only borrows from the Scripture to provide legitimacy to their cause. There is nothing in their mission statement which even acknowledges God exists.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"Right belief" alone can save us, as Paul says in Eph 2.8, "For by grace we have been saved thru faith." Good works can never save us. Only faith in Christ's death and resurrection can save us. (Too many verses to mention.)

Dave, it is very unfortunate that you have left the faith and attached yourself to the Unitarian Universalist movement, which cares nothing about faith or love towards Jesus Christ our Savior. Our Lord's great commands are to love God, and to love our neighbor. Unfortunately the Universalists have forsaken the first command, and decided to focus only on the second command. While better than not, to care only for good works, thinking that by them you can be saved, is perhaps the greatest deception.

For those not familiar with the movement, here are the seven Principles and Purposes --The movement is devoted to New Age humanism, and only borrows from the Scripture to provide legitimacy to their cause. There is nothing in their mission statement which even acknowledges God exists.

That is the first time I have ever heard that statement I have just placed in bold. I don't have the time to respond to the other nonsense. You are making stuff up. Honestly I don't know what you believe other than make statements on this forum. Really, what do you believe and what is the outcome of your beliefs? If I was to "assess" you based on everything you have posted you don't really attend any church regularly, you don't read the Bible frequently, you don't even pray very often and yet you can condemn me. I get the sense that your life is a mess. My wife and I have a great relationship, we do things together (e.g. hiked the Inca trail, hiked down the Grand Canyon, kayaked in Alaska, trekked in Cuba as well as kayak and fish near our home along the Atlantic Ocean etc) and try to live out the life of the things Jesus emphasized in his Ministry. We have recently been caring for a couple who lost their 19 year old daughter. I haven't heard one word about you and of course UntoHim doesn't want to say anything about his life. You want to attack me for things that you are clueless about. Let's get back to the issues of this thread and get away from your personal stuff against me because it is unproductive. Please. What is wrong with you?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

If I was to "assess" you based on everything you have posted you don't really attend any church regularly, you don't read the Bible frequently, you don't even pray very often and yet you can condemn me. I get the sense that your life is a mess. My wife and I have a great relationship, we do things together (e.g. hiked the Inca trail, hiked down the Grand Canyon, kayaked in Alaska, trekked in Cuba as well as kayak and fish near our home along the Atlantic Ocean etc)

You are right, my life is a mess, and I'm only a sinner saved by grace.

And oh yeah I hiked the LHHT, biked the GAP, and climbed many a hill, but not nearly as exciting as you, but I did go to the Grand Canyon with my wife.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

That is the first time I have ever heard that statement I have just placed in bold. I don't have the time to respond to the other nonsense. You are making stuff up.

You never read this stuff? Really?

Let me refer you to the following from the Unitarian Universalist Wiki site:

Unitarian Universalism is often referred to by its members as a living tradition, and the principles and purposes have been modified over time to reflect changes in spiritual beliefs among the membership. Most recently, the last principle, adopted in 1985 and generally known as the Seventh Principle, "Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part", and a sixth source (adopted in 1995), "Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature" were added to explicitly include members with Neopagan, Native American, and pantheist spiritualities.

Six Sources

Unitarian Universalists place emphasis on spiritual growth and development. The official statement of Unitarian Universalist principles describes the "sources" upon which current practice is based:

Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;

Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;

Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life; and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit.

Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

Sorry, Dave, but with a statement of purpose like this, littered with New Age theology and practices, I'm thinking that you have no place critiquing Witness Lee and the Recovery. At least they are in the same ball park as the Bible. What you are in, however, is another story altogether.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You never read this stuff? Really?

Let me refer you to the following from the Unitarian Universalist Wiki site:
Sorry, Dave, but with a statement of purpose like this, littered with New Age theology and practices, I'm thinking that you have no place critiquing Witness Lee and the Recovery. At least they are in the same ball park as the Bible. What you are in, however, is another story altogether.

I beg to differ. Anybody who knows what it's like to be influenced/effected/affected/turned upside down (some might even call it brain-washed) in Witness Lee's church -- has a place to be talking about it.

There are so (so, so) many who have left the Recovery and left the Christian faith altogether. (I'm not even going to touch the debate re the "legitimacy" of the Unitarian denomination.) If anything, some of us may have more of a place to speak of these things, because we've been thrown "further afield" from what we once knew.

And that oughta be of interest to anyone who's interested in the Lord's Recovery, it seems to me.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by rayliotta

I beg to differ. Anybody who knows what it's like to be influenced/effected/affected/turned upside down (some might even call it brain-washed) in Witness Lee's church -- has a place to be talking about it.

There are so (so, so) many who have left the Recovery and left the Christian faith altogether. (I'm not even going to touch the debate re the "legitimacy" of the Unitarian denomination.) If anything, some of us may have more of a place to speak of these things, because we've been thrown "further afield" from what we once knew.

And that oughta be of interest to anyone who's interested in the Lord's Recovery, it seems to me.

I agree with Ray on this. Also, I guess people have never heard of the UU Christian Fellowship http://www.uuchristian.org/ In addition, I have outlined my journey several times on this forum.

Ohio has stated that although I spent 8 years (very active) in the LC, spent nearly three years in Bible College studying the OT and NT but because I don't hold to his specific beliefs I shouldn't post on this forum and I don't understand the teachings of WL or WN. Where does he come up with this stuff? Also I have previously noted that once I left the LC I worked with Ministers in the AOG teaching the Bible and I worked with other denominations for a couple years. After that I focused on my career and family since I couldn't in good conscience continue to work in the Christian community.

If someone was seriously involved in the LC they have encountered problems of some nature since they left. You can't escape it. Read the book Snapping. Actually I think I am one of the fortunate ones as I have heard about the problems of others who have left. I am comfortable where I am and I am not going to allow someone like Ohio who knows little about me define what I believe. It baffles me since Ohio is now an expert on UU that he doesn't realize that you could be a Christian and be involved with our denomination. Why, because we don't have a creed which defines a person's beliefs when they walk in the door. Of course, I don't even know if Ohio actually attends a church or is actively involved in a church as I am. For all I know he doesn't attend church but is like a lot of so-called Christians---Bible couch scholars---don't give their time to church but think they know it all. Unless you are involved in your faith at your church with others your opinion is certainly disconcerting. Remember---in Revelations---it is better to be HOT or COLD or Jesus will spew you out of his mouth.

Ohio uses this quote, "Neopagan, Native American, and pantheist spiritualities" to apparently scare everyone but outside of some curiosity of native American writings I have never read about any of those ideas nor do I care to. As I have stated elsewhere, I have an open Bible (NRSV) sitting in front of me all of the time and I use it frequently.

What I like about the UU is the freedom of belief within the limits of the basic principles which most everyone can agree with e.g. the worth and dignity of every person. I just can't buy into any church that tells me I have believe what they say or else I am not welcomed or a church that tries to shove their ideas down your throat. I just don't see the difference between those churches and the LC although the LC was just more extreme.

It's hard for me to understand how Jesus would have wanted to establish the Christian churches we have today. How can this mess we call Christianity be defended? It was divided almost immediately in Acts and consolidated to some degree at the time of Constantine but has remained significantly divided since then even among Evangelicals.

Most Christians seem to believe that when they die they go to heaven to be with Jesus and their loved ones. However, that is not taught in the NT. Until Jesus returns nothing is going to happen. Everyone will remain in their graves. Guess what, is Jesus returning? Hasn't happened in 2000 years but I know Christians say, any minute now. It's all a matter of faith and that's great but it would have been nice for the Apostles or Jesus to give us a little forewarning that it could be up to two to three milleniums before he returns.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

Most Christians seem to believe that when they die they go to heaven to be with Jesus and their loved ones. However, that is not taught in the NT. Until Jesus returns nothing is going to happen. Everyone will remain in their graves. Guess what, is Jesus returning? Hasn't happened in 2000 years but I know Christians say, any minute now. It's all a matter of faith and that's great but it would have been nice for the Apostles or Jesus to give us a little forewarning that it could be up to two to three milleniums before he returns.

I think through this argument periodically, but arrive at a place that is not so apparently down about it. Besides, long before there was anything written which could be construed as a literal end to this age, there was a command to be fruitful and multiply, and to bear the image of God in the earth. Since I am still alive in this age, I feel that this is the important thing to me. If I take care of that, then I should have little worry about whatever all that metaphorical writing about end times means. And I should have little concern about whether I spend time in some kind of limbo or go directly to "heaven." Funny thing is that the promises of the future are not the significant part of the commands and promises. Yes there are many comments about the kingdom of God (or of heaven) but that appears to be at least partly about now and not just the future.

As for the complaint about the status of your current belief, I think it is irrelevant. If we limit the discussion and critique to only those who already hold to a relatively similar position on everything, then where do we think we are likely to go besides sideways? I think that the fact that so many are so argumentative about what they think they got that is so positive from Nee, and even Lee, suggests to me that they have not separated themselves from what I have come to believe were serious enough errors to make their entire bodies of work worthy of the rubbish heap. That does not mean they never said a true or positive thing, but the process of allowing the uninformed to even try to look for it there is a serious mistake. And continuing to pine over the alleged positive received is to risk retaining serious error.

In short, I think that too many among us really thing the Local Church system was pretty much OK except for [fill in the blanks] and we should try to reform it. But it was never OK. It may have seemed good in experience in the early days, but what provided that experience. And is experience the measuring stick for God's move and blessing.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think through this argument periodically, but arrive at a place that is not so apparently down about it. Besides, long before there was anything written which could be construed as a literal end to this age, there was a command to be fruitful and multiply, and to bear the image of God in the earth. Since I am still alive in this age, I feel that this is the important thing to me. If I take care of that, then I should have little worry about whatever all that metaphorical writing about end times means. And I should have little concern about whether I spend time in some kind of limbo or go directly to "heaven." Funny thing is that the promises of the future are not the significant part of the commands and promises. Yes there are many comments about the kingdom of God (or of heaven) but that appears to be at least partly about now and not just the future.

As for the complaint about the status of your current belief, I think it is irrelevant. If we limit the discussion and critique to only those who already hold to a relatively similar position on everything, then where do we think we are likely to go besides sideways? I think that the fact that so many are so argumentative about what they think they got that is so positive from Nee, and even Lee, suggests to me that they have not separated themselves from what I have come to believe were serious enough errors to make their entire bodies of work worthy of the rubbish heap. That does not mean they never said a true or positive thing, but the process of allowing the uninformed to even try to look for it there is a serious mistake. And continuing to pine over the alleged positive received is to risk retaining serious error.

In short, I think that too many among us really thing the Local Church system was pretty much OK except for [fill in the blanks] and we should try to reform it. But it was never OK. It may have seemed good in experience in the early days, but what provided that experience. And is experience the measuring stick for God's move and blessing.

OBW, that was my original post in response to Bro Cox. If we continue to believe that Nee and Lee are beneficial then we have missed the boat. Read anything they have written with critical eyes rather than open arms. We were all mesmerized by Lee at one point as someone who knew WN and continued the ministry in Taiwan and then the US but we didn't know the background that brought him here. He not only brought his past with him but his past bled into the US. He corrupted all the churches here. Paul, back in the day, would be writing to these "local churches" to stay away from those who corrupt you (Lee and Nee) and Satan will deal with them. Why did Lee look the other way when his son was involved in well documented immorality? (Gal 1:8; 2 Corinth 11:4; 1 Corinth 5:5)

[awareness]

Hey look! Cuz we're bad boys we got tossed into the dungeon. I'm splitting a gut here.

Why all this advertising for the UU church?

But I have to express appreciation for living in Kentucky. I thought it was bad enough that I have to love my evangelical and fundamentalist neighbors. But it could be much worse. If I lived in another area, outside the Bible belt, I could be stuck having to love my Neopagan, Native American, and pantheist neighbors.

Thank you Lord for not subjecting me to such an impossibility. Besides, I know when you said love God and love your neighbor, you didn't know about Neopagan's, Native American's, and pantheist's (well maybe pantheists - since pantheism proceeded Jesus), so they aren't included in the neighbors I have to love. That's good. Cuz I'm already overloaded with loving all these Christian neighbors.

For that matter, thank you Lord that I have no local church neighbors. Then you'd be askin' way tooooooo much of me.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I think through this argument periodically, but arrive at a place that is not so apparently down about it. Besides, long before there was anything written which could be construed as a literal end to this age, there was a command to be fruitful and multiply, and to bear the image of God in the earth. Since I am still alive in this age, I feel that this is the important thing to me. If I take care of that, then I should have little worry about whatever all that metaphorical writing about end times means. And I should have little concern about whether I spend time in some kind of limbo or go directly to "heaven." Funny thing is that the promises of the future are not the significant part of the commands and promises. Yes there are many comments about the kingdom of God (or of heaven) but that appears to be at least partly about now and not just the future.

As for the complaint about the status of your current belief, I think it is irrelevant. If we limit the discussion and critique to only those who already hold to a relatively similar position on everything, then where do we think we are likely to go besides sideways? I think that the fact that so many are so argumentative about what they think they got that is so positive from Nee, and even Lee, suggests to me that they have not separated themselves from what I have come to believe were serious enough errors to make their entire bodies of work worthy of the rubbish heap. That does not mean they never said a true or positive thing, but the process of allowing the uninformed to even try to look for it there is a serious mistake. And continuing to pine over the alleged positive received is to risk retaining serious error.

In short, I think that too many among us really thing the Local Church system was pretty much OK except for [fill in the blanks] and we should try to reform it. But it was never OK. It may have seemed good in experience in the early days, but what provided that experience. And is experience the measuring stick for God's move and blessing.

Sober thoughts bro Mike. Thanks ....

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Most Christians seem to believe that when they die they go to heaven to be with Jesus and their loved ones.

And I have seen in the TV Christians claiming that we'll also be with our pets that passed on.

Originally Posted by Dave

However, that is not taught in the NT.

Christians believe a lot that's not clearly and specifically spelled out in the NT. Going to heaven is just one of them.

Here in the Kentucky area that's prolly the most question I here; "Are you sure you are going to heaven?" It's important to them. They want everyone to go to heaven.

And now you tell me that the New Testament doesn't teach such a thing. Back it up buddy.

Then where did such a notion of going to heaven come from? Did Christian's just make it up out of whole cloth?

Maybe they drew such a notion from the NT:

Mat_5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven

Mat_6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven

Mat_18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat_18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat_19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Did they use these verses, and more, to jump to the conclusion that we go to heaven when we die ... and then embellished it to say we'll be with our loved ones, and maybe pets?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

And I have seen in the TV Christians claiming that we'll also be with our pets that passed on.

Christians believe a lot that's not clearly and specifically spelled out in the NT. Going to heaven is just one of them.

Here in the Kentucky area that's prolly the most question I here; "Are you sure you are going to heaven?" It's important to them. They want everyone to go to heaven.

And now you tell me that the New Testament doesn't teach such a thing. Back it up buddy.

Then where did such a notion of going to heaven come from? Did Christian's just make it up out of whole cloth?

Maybe they drew such a notion from the NT:

Mat_5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven

Mat_6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven

Mat_18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Mat_18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat_19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Did they use these verses, and more, to jump to the conclusion that we go to heaven when we die ... and then embellished it to say we'll be with our loved ones, and maybe pets?

We have a sanitized Bible. The Bible is the same as it has been for centuries but it is sanitized by Christian Ministers and teachers who don't want to present their parishners with some of those prominent doctrines outlined in the Bible. No one is going to heaven until the 2nd coming. Of course, one of the confusing statements is Jesus' statement: "...today you will be with me in Paradise" Luke 23:43. However, despite the fact that this robber is now in Paradise Paul and John make it clear that until the 2nd Coming no one is going to heaven. Heb 9:27-28 1, Thess 4:13-18, 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, John 6:39-40 etc Also check out Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

We have a sanitized Bible. The Bible is the same as it has been for centuries but it is sanitized by Christian Ministers and teachers who don't want to present their parishners with some of those prominent doctrines outlined in the Bible. No one is going to heaven until the 2nd coming. Of course, one of the confusing statements is Jesus' statement: "...today you will be with me in Paradise" Luke 23:43. However, despite the fact that this robber is now in Paradise Paul and John make it clear that until the 2nd Coming no one is going to heaven. Heb 9:27-28 1, Thess 4:13-18, 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, John 6:39-40 etc Also check out Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10

I'm not sure about the sanitized Bible. But I agree that the version of doctrines on certain topics is somewhat "creative" (maybe that is the right word). And the older the "tradition" the fewer of these creative things there are. Seems that outside of the Corinthians who were busy having a three-ring circus of tongues, singing, etc., and arguing over what kind of body they would receive in the resurrection, most were not as concerned about it as the modern Fundamental groups seem to be. And, once again, I am a part of that (and shake my head at some of the stuff that gets talked about when they get to discussing heaven).

As for the reference to Paradise, this may have been no more than a reference to what the Jews of the time considered the holding place for the righteous follower. And whether than means that there literally is such a place where, like the rich man and Lazarus, you are conscious of others, or we are simply not aware of anything until the time of the resurrection does not seem to be problematic.

And if someone says "But Jesus said the guy would be in Paradise with him, so it must be heaven" — well not really since Jesus did not "go to heaven" until after the resurrection. Where he went on that date was wherever others went — called Paradise — not to the place where the Father dwells. But he didn't stay that long, so even if it is a real place, he is not there anymore.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'm not sure about the sanitized Bible. But I agree that the version of doctrines on certain topics is somewhat "creative" (maybe that is the right word).

Great way to put it. Yeah but if a sweet little old lady after worship service tells you that you will be with pets in heaven all you can do is just pat her head smile and go on your way.

Truth is, when it comes to both heaven and hell what we get is creative hocus-pocus.

Not only do we have nothing well developed about going to heaven in the New Testament, from what I read in the canonical record, hell is thrown into the lake of fire. It's called the second death, or some sort. Then you better be in the book of life or, it's the lake of fire for you too. Then the new heaven (shiny new surely) and new earth. And no more tears.

Sounds like heaven to me, even if just the new earth.

So those that are in the book of life will be in what all of us today would call heaven.

So Dave is wrong. The NT does teach heaven ... it's just that we have to contrive another book of the NT, that is formed from gathering puzzle pieces of hints here and there, of verses from the NT ... to form conclusions for what it doesn't say outright ... forming in the end a non-canonical book, added to the collective-Christian-consciousness. Think Dante.

So let's thrown out our conceptions of heaven and hell too.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Great way to put it. Yeah but if a sweet little old lady after worship service tells you that you will be with pets in heaven all you can do is just pat her head smile and go on your way.

Truth is, when it comes to both heaven and hell what we get is creative hocus-pocus.

Not only do we have nothing well developed about going to heaven in the New Testament, from what I read in the canonical record, hell is thrown into the lake of fire. It's called the second death, or some sort. Then you better be in the book of life or, it's the lake of fire for you too. Then the new heaven (shiny new surely) and new earth. And no more tears.

Sounds like heaven to me, even if just the new earth.

So those that are in the book of life will be in what all of us today would call heaven.

So Dave is wrong. The NT does teach heaven ... it's just that we have to contrive another book of the NT, that is formed from gathering puzzle pieces of hints here and there, of verses from the NT ... to form conclusions for what it doesn't say outright ... forming in the end a non-canonical book, added to the collective-Christian-consciousness. Think Dante.

So let's thrown out our conceptions of heaven and hell too.

I prefer not to. I am willing to accept that there is something, but that it was not spelled-out in literal terms. I believe that there is punishment and there is reward, but again, the metaphorical constructs of Revelation do not provide details, just images. Given the dramatic scenes drawn, I am not willing to just write it off.

But all of this "can we just fly to wherever, or just suddenly be there" stuff just makes me want to puke. It could be. But it is a complete missing of the relevance of what is told. It is not there to pine away about, but to make us approach this life soberly. Whether it is literally life on golden streets v living in fire, or life in Rocky Mountain National Park v life in a condemned tenement house in Hoboken watching B-rated Bollywood movies for eternity, I think I know what I choose. And it isn't Bollywood. (No offense to Bollywood, but like a lot of things, when it is already the second-rated offering and it just isn't your culture, what do you expect?)

And the point is not to think about what I can layer onto the metaphors (flying, mansions, better golf, etc.)