What do you replace the traditional concept of hell with?
Do you have another concept of heaven and hell to take the place of the one that we have been taught by religion?
No, I don't. Realize that when I say that I don't have a concept to take the place of the one we've been taught it is the "package" I speak of, and not that I've just decided to throw out selected portions of the Bible I don't want anymore. :) I have some thoughts on how I had this "concept" handed to me so that for most of my life, whether before faith or after, I never even considered the possibility it could have been any other way. I also have thoughts on how most of the verses and passages in the Bible had been systematized in my perceptions so that I had to simply ignore the many discrepancies found in the forcing of random Bible verses together into a neat little package. I also have thoughts on how those same verses and passages find a much better meaning within their own context rather than being forced into a systematic study.
We have too many "replacements" in the realm of Christianity, we don't really need a replacement of a medieval religious concept. We simply need CHRIST. But we'll do it anyway. So, instead of the old hymns we have replaced them with contemporary Christian music. Instead of traditional worship services we have contemporary worship services. Though I may actually prefer some things that are more contemporary, the underlying motivation for these "replacements" is often the secret hope that God is more likely to be experienced by them. In other words, since the replacement is more to our liking then it must be more real or more spiritual, etc, ad nauseum. The sad fact of the matter is that the "church" has merely followed the ways of the world in this false hope that if more people like it then it must be the truth. I know, I know, what does that have to do with heaven or hell, huh? :)
And also what is the non-technical view of us being in Christ, rather that the technical one that we have also been taught by religion?
My earlier statement: "My former understanding of evangelism had been built upon the same system of doctrine that allowed me to see myself as NOT being in Christ except in a technical way."
I used "technical" to describe the scholastic, academic way religion approaches God so that we can intellectually hold a "position" or a stated "belief". That's exactly what I have done so many times that I lost count many years ago (I don't know what the total times would be, but they are still adding up! :). I can remember the WORDS that seemed to indicate that I held to the truth of "being IN Christ", but the INSIGHT the Father has given me into the REALITY of those words has been another story altogether. Such revelation has produced reactions that have had me screaming out "Blasphemy!".
"Non-technical" is not a so-called "view", but would more closely describe the simple realization of the reality. Both can be written down or spoken about and/or discussed, but the technical pretty much ends there, while the spiritual realization of something already made true by Christ cannot be contained by the words used to describe it - only witnessed to by them. It should be obvious that I have no problem with the use of verbal and/or written communication (as I write continuously), but the fact is that our words cannot produce truth or reality, but can only testify to it.
I wrote a country-flavored song back in '79 based on Eph 1:17 that went:
With my words, yes, I may teach you,
and with my song, your heart prepare.
But words and music cannot fulfill you,
so with this prayer I'll leave you there
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ
may give to you the spirit of wisdom
and revelation in the knowledge of Him.