RE: "The Shack" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Fun] >> Books



Message

.Pammy -> RE: "The Shack" (4/18/2008 9:25:28 AM)

He isn't any of those things, but he IS all of them. That's the wonder and majesty of HIM.



groovymovieman -> RE: "The Shack" (4/19/2008 12:33:32 PM)

For those of you who are worried "The Shack" is heretical, take a look at this response that was posted by the publishers in regards to the many false accusations flying around about it. The bottom line, don't let other people tell you what to think of it. Read it for yourself and develope your own opinion.



wshepherd -> RE: "The Shack" (4/19/2008 2:33:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: groovymovieman

The bottom line, don't let other people tell you what to think of it. Read it for yourself and develope your own opinion.


I fully agree.



jazzact13 -> RE: "The Shack" (4/21/2008 7:33:03 AM)

--The fact that there isn't a hierarchy in the trinity because their is love for one another. Therefore there is mutual submission one to another.--

Perhaps you can give some biblical support to this "fact"? For my part, I can recall places where Jesus definitely seemed to view the Father as being over Him.

--It points out where there is genuine relationship hierarchy isn't needed.--

Again, where is this is scripture? Did Jesus have 'genuine relationship' with His disciples? Was He still over them? Is He still over us now, the Head of His church? Does the fact that the Bible commands husbands to be the head of their families imply that it commands a less-then-genuine relationship between spouses?

--Also the truth that God is not ticked at everybody but loves us. --

May I suggest making a bit of a biblical search on the wrath of God, and see that such a view as you give us here is far from the whole truth.

--I love the comment Jesus makes, "I'm not a Christian."--

Then what is He?



jazzact13 -> RE: "The Shack" (4/21/2008 7:45:24 AM)

--I hear you. How DOES scripture portray him? --

I think your own question gives you a partial answer, and if I may move the emphasis a bit, "How does scripture portray HIM?"

Scripture consistently portrays God as 'he'. Even the title "Father", which Jesus Himself uses, reinforces that.

As you say, we know that God isn't male or female, but we may say that if He does portray Himself in such a way an overwhelming majority of the time, then there are very good reasons for it.



CoeurdeLeon_ -> RE: "The Shack" (4/21/2008 7:49:00 AM)

Meh, not great. Certainly not "Pilgrim's Progress" for this age.

Sappy. Feel good. Heartwarming.
That's about it.

I wouldn't warn people away from it. Reading it won't hurt anyone. I just didn't think much of it.

I don't know if this was covered 'cause I didn't read all the long posts but, I was uncomfortable with the idea of "Sophia" being a separate entity. I know how it was explained away in the book, it just didn't sit well with me.



TheosCentric -> RE: "The Shack" (4/21/2008 8:30:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jazzact13

--I hear you. How DOES scripture portray him? --

I think your own question gives you a partial answer, and if I may move the emphasis a bit, "How does scripture portray HIM?"

Scripture consistently portrays God as 'he'. Even the title "Father", which Jesus Himself uses, reinforces that.

As you say, we know that God isn't male or female, but we may say that if He does portray Himself in such a way an overwhelming majority of the time, then there are very good reasons for it.

That and the language used in the Bible is most certainly a singular masculine. No indication of Him being female, despite Him most likely being neither male nor female, but if we are to call Him Father, why portray him as a woman. That absolutely does not make sense.

If the Bible refers to Him as a He, He should be a He. Once again, this raise red flags.

I don't care what the publishers are saying. They're going to throw out all sorts of accusations, such as it is contextual, our view of God is wrong, etc. It's not contextual, it's syncretism. My view of God comes from the Bible, not New Age philosophy.



.Pammy -> RE: "The Shack" (4/21/2008 12:24:09 PM)

I haven't seen this link here yet, so here it is:

http://theshackbook.com/

There's a forum there ("Interactive").



mosquito -> RE: "The Shack" (4/21/2008 12:45:02 PM)

There is an interview with the author here.

http://www.drewmarshall.ca/listen2008.html#080405


Todd



floydette -> RE: "The Shack" (4/21/2008 3:32:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheoCentric

quote:

ORIGINAL: jazzact13

--I hear you. How DOES scripture portray him? --

I think your own question gives you a partial answer, and if I may move the emphasis a bit, "How does scripture portray HIM?"

Scripture consistently portrays God as 'he'. Even the title "Father", which Jesus Himself uses, reinforces that.

As you say, we know that God isn't male or female, but we may say that if He does portray Himself in such a way an overwhelming majority of the time, then there are very good reasons for it.

That and the language used in the Bible is most certainly a singular masculine. No indication of Him being female, despite Him most likely being neither male nor female, but if we are to call Him Father, why portray him as a woman. That absolutely does not make sense.

If the Bible refers to Him as a He, He should be a He. Once again, this raise red flags.

I don't care what the publishers are saying. They're going to throw out all sorts of accusations, such as it is contextual, our view of God is wrong, etc. It's not contextual, it's syncretism. My view of God comes from the Bible, not New Age philosophy.

So, God is actually male?

And then he is a lion?

a rock?

the wind?



jazzact13 -> RE: "The Shack" (4/21/2008 3:54:15 PM)

Floydette, do read thoroughly what we wrote.



floydette -> RE: "The Shack" (4/21/2008 4:00:54 PM)

sorry jazz, I was responding to CC's post not yours. I didn't even have a chance to read yours.



floydette -> RE: "The Shack" (4/21/2008 4:08:50 PM)

ok, jazz, I re-read it. Even though CC said that God isn't male or female, how is it that the idea of God being "Father" is not a metaphor as well? And does God not have nurturing female-type qualities as well? If he is beyond what we see, or can grasp a hold of, then why not use a metaphor that will help us understand? Or perhaps a metaphor that helps break the small image of God that we may have?

spelling edit



jazzact13 -> RE: "The Shack" (4/22/2008 8:16:32 AM)

--Even though CC said that God isn't male or female, how is it that the idea of God being "Father" is not a metaphor as well?--

Who said it is not a metaphor? But then, I do not say it is "just" a metaphor. It is one of the strongest ways that God revealed and referred to Himself in scripture.

If we acknowledge that (and I'm not sure how it can argued against), then any attempt to redefine or reimagine that metaphor must at the least raise eyebrows. If, as the author seems to do, there is an attempt to 'feminize' the Father, then why? What kinds of baggage has that person put onto the notion of Father that simply should not be there?

Plus, Father is not the only metaphor He uses for Himself. One could point out the bridegroom, the husband, the husbandman or vineyard keeper, the warrior, the judge.

Modern attempts to 'feminize' seem more motivated by attempts to play PC games then to stay true to the biblical account.

--And does God not have nurturing female-type qualities as well?--

For one thing, it is only mothers that nurture? After all, it's not like men and women are completely different creatures, despite the often humorours hyperbole :-)

--If he is beyond what we see, or can grasp a hold of, then why not use a metaphor that will help us understand?--

But does the feminizing of the Father help us understand, or does it mislead? Do people want to soften the Father image so as to make Him more approachable in their own minds? But then, does that do justice to God?

For example, do these people want to feminize the Father because of some notion of fairness? But as I heard once, in societies where there is some kind of notion of a feminine diety, women are often treated in some of the worst ways. It's not like having a female god necessarily translates into treating real women well.

Or do people like the notion of a mother-god over a Father-God, because they don't like the ideas of God as judge and warrior and lawgiver? Is the feminizing of God an attempt to stack the deck in favor of inclusiveness, tolerance, acceptance?



TheosCentric -> RE: "The Shack" (4/22/2008 8:24:40 AM)

jazz,

I can't believe we're actually agreeing on something, for once.

Anyway, Jesus always referred to God as the Father. He even went so far as to say to Baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That does not sound like feminisation to me. Jesus also said, "I and the Father are one". I don't think Jesus was using metaphors here.

Like I said, the book sounds like it's taking pages out of the emergent playbook. Let's get rid of all our ideas of what God looks like, despite what the Bible says. Let's make it contextual for our time. Sorry, but there are only certain things that can be contextualized, and the Trinity is not one of them. This is as heretical as the PCUSA wanting to feminize God last year at their General Assembly.

If I get a chance, I'll scan through this book in the bookstore the next time I go, but I surely won't spend any extended time on it. It most likely belongs in the trash pile next to Joel Osteen, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Donald Miller, Benny Hinn, etc.



CoeurdeLeon_ -> RE: "The Shack" (4/22/2008 8:36:55 AM)

For crying out loud, TheoCentric, your reaction is kinda over-the-top. Read the book. It's not going to hurt you. You have nothing to fear from it.

If you're not going to read the book, stop talking about it.

I didn't like it but I'm still glad I read it. The ideas presented made me think and caused me to thoroughly go through my own ideas and make sure that they were solid and correct. Reading only what we agree with turns us into narrow-minded, critical judgmentalists (I think I made that word up[8D]).

Branch out, broaden your horizons, don't turn into a book-banner/burner.[;)]



.Pammy -> RE: "The Shack" (4/22/2008 9:52:27 AM)

For those who care, William P. (Paul) Young on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYvjRiun3MA



floydette -> RE: "The Shack" (4/22/2008 10:16:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: .Pammy

For those who care, William P. (Paul) Young on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYvjRiun3MA

Pammy,

Thanks for this link. It was a good interview of the author. Really explains the purpose in his writing.



SD456 -> RE: "The Shack" (4/22/2008 6:16:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon

For crying out loud, TheoCentric, your reaction is kinda over-the-top. Read the book. It's not going to hurt you. You have nothing to fear from it.

If you're not going to read the book, stop talking about it.

I didn't like it but I'm still glad I read it. The ideas presented made me think and caused me to thoroughly go through my own ideas and make sure that they were solid and correct. Reading only what we agree with turns us into narrow-minded, critical judgmentalists (I think I made that word up[8D]).

Branch out, broaden your horizons, don't turn into a book-banner/burner.[;)]


*L* Agree. If you don't read it, you have nothing to say that's credible.



TheosCentric -> RE: "The Shack" (4/23/2008 5:38:47 AM)

I see that someone abusing the idea of the Trinity has no weight anymore. It's all justified for the sake of emotional feelings.

I'll just say be careful what you read. I'm going to bow out now and leave y'all to read your heresy.



dejavuallovragain -> RE: "The Shack" (4/23/2008 7:22:46 AM)

This book is helpful as is Pagan Christianity in stripping away what ideas institutionalized Churchianty has added to Christianity over the past 1900 yrs. These books help us to get back to a relationship with God and not the "church".



.Pammy -> RE: "The Shack" (4/23/2008 8:39:51 AM)

If TheoCentric has indeed left, he won't see this, but if not, I'd like to ask you a question regarding this:

quote:

I see that someone abusing the idea of the Trinity has no weight anymore

How does The Shack "abuse" the idea of the Trinity? It explores it, yes, but how is that abuse? Are we not allowed to explore, to discuss, to embrace, to reach, to probe, to do all in our power to grasp for a greater understanding and relationship with Almighty God?

I would love to hear from anyone else on this as well.



CoeurdeLeon_ -> RE: "The Shack" (4/23/2008 8:44:33 AM)

Since the Trinity is a mystery that none of us can completely fathom, I'd say, generally and within reason, that one person's idea of it is just as good as any other. All we can really do is try to imagine it in a way that makes sense to us. "The Shack's" way didn't do anything for me but I don't consider it abuse or heresy.




edited to add:
quote:

It's all justified for the sake of emotional feelings.

This, in my case at least, couldn't be further from the truth. I've already said that I, personally, found it sappy. It didn't do anything for my emotional feelings (that's kinda redundant, isn't it?). However, I think the charges being leveled are overstated and excessive. Frankly, I thinks it's FAR more dangerous to be afraid of ideas than it is to read something that I don't agree with.



wshepherd -> RE: "The Shack" (4/23/2008 10:31:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CoeurdeLeon

Frankly, I thinks it's FAR more dangerous to be afraid of ideas than it is to read something that I don't agree with.


Yes, I agree. This is a VERY IMPORTANT distinction, and one that some Christians do not seem to make. Our minds are God-given, and as such are to be used. Imagination is God-given, and as such is to to be used. I have seen Christians afraid to use both, and they don't need to be.



jazzact13 -> RE: "The Shack" (4/23/2008 10:43:28 AM)

--This book is helpful as is Pagan Christianity in stripping away what ideas institutionalized Churchianty has added to Christianity over the past 1900 yrs. These books help us to get back to a relationship with God and not the "church".--

I would be interested in seeing this claim expounded on.

-- Are we not allowed to explore, to discuss, to embrace, to reach, to probe, to do all in our power to grasp for a greater understanding and relationship with Almighty God?--

What do you mean by this?

--Our minds are God-given, and as such are to be used. Imagination is God-given, and as such is to to be used. I have seen Christians afraid to use both, and they don't need to be.--

Oh, please, can we do without the cheap shots at Christians in general? I've known plenty of Christians who think and use their imaginations.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI