Just watched it...I think he must be good at dissecting whatever he doesn't agree with it. First of all, he took quotes out of context and misrepresented the author's intent. Funny...thats what christians whine about everytime the Bible is misquoted. I don't care to spend a lot of time defending the Shack, its only a book. But, if a book, a book that some holier than thou, poop don't stank christians have a problem with leads folks to a revived relationship with God, then whats the problem? Yeah sure, everyone should come to a better understanding of the Trinity by an in depth 8 year doctoral study (resulting in a thesis) of the true Word. Or, I read the book, it reminded me of just how much God loves us and what he's willing to do to reach us. Dude, there are folks who tweaked out about, Harry Potter and LOTR and Narnia...bottom line they are all fiction and I believe that Satan is just using them to divide followers over crap that doesn't matter.
i'm very interested to see the comments that people leave on here. i have not had a chance to read this book, but have had it recommended to me a number of times.
i've watched a few different interviews/commentaries/reviews on it thus far. overall it doesn't seem to be getting that great of a review from the christian media that i have looked at, but on the other hand, it is getting great reviews and on the top sellers list.
at any rate, maybe i'll get my hands on a copy and see if i can power through it to give you some of my thoughts.
Since I asked people to post comments on here, and most of them commented on myspace and stuff instead, I figure I'll repost their comments here for discussions sake. (comments to follow)
Sep 20, 2009 10:02 PM "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." -2 Timothy 4:3,4
Sep 20, 2009 9:17 PM I don't think it's blasphemy at all, it's presenting God and Jesus to people who may otherwhise not find him. People who would not normally read the bible and even if they did they would not understand it. I have been though bible college and have had a relationship with God pretty much my whole life and I thought that the book was pretty great. Yea, God isn't really a black woman but to say that it's blasphemy that he could present himself to a hurting person in whatever way he chose to is putting him in a very small box. Paul said that he strove to be all things to all people so that by any means some might be saved. I think that is all this book is trying to do. Anyone who is on the hateraid needs to stop being so phariseacal.
9/19/2009 11:22 PM "i have not read this book so i cannot give a ruling with regard to whether it is blasphemous or not, however i can tell you i feel this man's argument is full of theological holes. 1.) showing G-d as a graven image: there are many references to G-d appearing to prophets as a certain image or likeness. Moses sees G-d as a burning bush, Isaiah sees H-m as a wheel within a wheel. there's even a verse in the Bible which suggests that G-d even showed Moses H-s tucas! (Exodus 33:23): "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." are we meant to decry these great prophets and leaders of our faith as blasphemers and heretics for this? 2.) "goddess worship" the argument that Yeshua always referred to G-d as H-s "father" is purely for the period and in the original Hebrew G-d is sometimes referred to in a feminine context! (Genisis 49: 25): "May your father's G-d on high become your help, and may Shaddai become your blessing — Blessings of the heavens, from above; blessings of the deep, crouching below — blessings of the breasts [Hebrew: shadai'im] and of the womb." G-d's name, Shadai is actually taken from the Hebrew Shadai'im which literally means BREASTS! this man even claims to recognize the fact that G-d is neither male nor female so G-d is neither mother nor father yet somehow still both, on so unfathomably great a scale that it's almost blasphemous to limit H-m to such minute terms. 3.) greater than or equal to? again this guy prefaces his argument by showing his argument holds no water. the trinity are equal among themselves. but somehow he is trying to say they are not? i don't know where in the Bible it ever said that it wasn't and if you could drudge up such a scripture then you'd really have to be reaching to make that point. he even says before he makes his argument that it is not scripturally sound. and the quote he referenced from the book "The Shack" about how the trinity has no use for hierarchy among themselves makes perfect sense! G-d is one being and one deity! with multiple facets, why would G-d feel the need for a power struggle among the three? they all have Their place and individual tasks each of equal importance to the bigger picture. i believe this argument was less based around contending for the faith and more around fear. fear that his tiny box into which he's put G-d is maybe not big enough for H-m. whether this book was blasphemous or not, i cannot say, but i am glad it was written. because it has shaken this small man to his weak foundations. i pray that when he breaks G-d will remake him a little stronger."
I actually got emails saying I had received like 5 comments on my myspace bulletin about this, but when i checked it there were only two, so either some got deleted or myspace is being crazy oh well.
"1.)Well G-d appearing to prophets as something is one thing, but technically. i think he just talked to them through those things, I wouldnt say "He appeared" to them as such. But even if He did, He did it, man did not.
exodus 3:2 "There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush" in flames of a burning bush, not as a burning bush
I'm not sure how G-d showing Himself to moses has anything to do with making an engraven image... because its G-d showing Himself not, man making an image of Him...
2.) Id be careful saying that something is only for the period, thats the way a lot of people mis-translate the Bible for their own uses. G-d the Father is called so, because it is His role, it is His personality. The Holy Spirit on the other hand has a feminine quality, a mother sense in scripture.
3.) I dont think He was saying one is greater than the other. He is saying they follow a line of command, which scripture makes very clear they do. Jesus says He only does what the Father commands.
Just the way a layman in the church would follow orders of the leaders, even though one is in no way greater than the other.
I think if this message was based off any fear, it's that people are understanding G-d wrong. I'm not saying that He's right, and that the book is awful, I read it and enjoyed it for what it was. But I've seen enough of Mark Driscolls stuff to know, he usually acts out of care for people, wanting them to truly know G-d."
lol... the man's way too legalistic. God is all knowing, all powerful, and ALL LOVING. Why wouldn't he do something like that, to reach one of his children? honestly this man I could point out a few things that the guy in the video was wrong about, like for example, God did not only appear as an African American WOMAN, but near the end appeared as a man.
Like eric said, its just a book. However, putting a book down that really gets people closer to God is stupid. it has its purpose, whether the book be completely wrong, or completely right.
To butcher something that makes people wonder about God, and makes them want to learn more about God, and makes them want to follow God, is close to blasphemy itself.
i've never heard of "the shack" let alone read it, but seeing as it's a work of fiction, my knee-jerk reaction is just what Eric said, "Satan is just using them to divide followers over crap that doesn't matter."
I started this book because people I know and love recommended it, but I have too many other things to do to read it. However, I know Church of Christ women who read it and LIKED it. Said that it was an interesting METAPHOR. The author doesn't claim to be setting up doctrine, just a different way of looking at things. So basically, I agree with Eric.
11 comments:
Just watched it...I think he must be good at dissecting whatever he doesn't agree with it. First of all, he took quotes out of context and misrepresented the author's intent. Funny...thats what christians whine about everytime the Bible is misquoted. I don't care to spend a lot of time defending the Shack, its only a book. But, if a book, a book that some holier than thou, poop don't stank christians have a problem with leads folks to a revived relationship with God, then whats the problem? Yeah sure, everyone should come to a better understanding of the Trinity by an in depth 8 year doctoral study (resulting in a thesis) of the true Word. Or, I read the book, it reminded me of just how much God loves us and what he's willing to do to reach us. Dude, there are folks who tweaked out about, Harry Potter and LOTR and Narnia...bottom line they are all fiction and I believe that Satan is just using them to divide followers over crap that doesn't matter.
i'm very interested to see the comments that people leave on here. i have not had a chance to read this book, but have had it recommended to me a number of times.
i've watched a few different interviews/commentaries/reviews on it thus far. overall it doesn't seem to be getting that great of a review from the christian media that i have looked at, but on the other hand, it is getting great reviews and on the top sellers list.
at any rate, maybe i'll get my hands on a copy and see if i can power through it to give you some of my thoughts.
thanks for posting as always man.
Since I asked people to post comments on here, and most of them commented on myspace and stuff instead, I figure I'll repost their comments here for discussions sake.
(comments to follow)
The Echo System--
Sep 20, 2009 10:02 PM
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." -2 Timothy 4:3,4
Prisoner of Hope--
Sep 20, 2009 9:17 PM
I don't think it's blasphemy at all, it's presenting God and Jesus to people who may otherwhise not find him. People who would not normally read the bible and even if they did they would not understand it. I have been though bible college and have had a relationship with God pretty much my whole life and I thought that the book was pretty great. Yea, God isn't really a black woman but to say that it's blasphemy that he could present himself to a hurting person in whatever way he chose to is putting him in a very small box. Paul said that he strove to be all things to all people so that by any means some might be saved. I think that is all this book is trying to do. Anyone who is on the hateraid needs to stop being so phariseacal.
Katherine --
9/19/2009 11:22 PM
"i have not read this book so i cannot give a ruling with regard to whether it is blasphemous or not, however i can tell you i feel this man's argument is full of theological holes.
1.) showing G-d as a graven image:
there are many references to G-d appearing to prophets as a certain image or likeness. Moses sees G-d as a burning bush, Isaiah sees H-m as a wheel within a wheel. there's even a verse in the Bible which suggests that G-d even showed Moses H-s tucas! (Exodus 33:23): "And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen." are we meant to decry these great prophets and leaders of our faith as blasphemers and heretics for this?
2.) "goddess worship"
the argument that Yeshua always referred to G-d as H-s "father" is purely for the period and in the original Hebrew G-d is sometimes referred to in a feminine context! (Genisis 49: 25): "May your father's G-d on high become your help, and may Shaddai become your blessing — Blessings of the heavens, from above; blessings of the deep, crouching below — blessings of the breasts [Hebrew: shadai'im] and of the womb." G-d's name, Shadai is actually taken from the Hebrew Shadai'im which literally means BREASTS!
this man even claims to recognize the fact that G-d is neither male nor female so G-d is neither mother nor father yet somehow still both, on so unfathomably great a scale that it's almost blasphemous to limit H-m to such minute terms.
3.) greater than or equal to?
again this guy prefaces his argument by showing his argument holds no water. the trinity are equal among themselves. but somehow he is trying to say they are not? i don't know where in the Bible it ever said that it wasn't and if you could drudge up such a scripture then you'd really have to be reaching to make that point. he even says before he makes his argument that it is not scripturally sound. and the quote he referenced from the book "The Shack" about how the trinity has no use for hierarchy among themselves makes perfect sense! G-d is one being and one deity! with multiple facets, why would G-d feel the need for a power struggle among the three? they all have Their place and individual tasks each of equal importance to the bigger picture.
i believe this argument was less based around contending for the faith and more around fear. fear that his tiny box into which he's put G-d is maybe not big enough for H-m. whether this book was blasphemous or not, i cannot say, but i am glad it was written. because it has shaken this small man to his weak foundations. i pray that when he breaks G-d will remake him a little stronger."
I actually got emails saying I had received like 5 comments on my myspace bulletin about this, but when i checked it there were only two, so either some got deleted or myspace is being crazy oh well.
btw, I replied to that last message, with this:
"1.)Well G-d appearing to prophets as something is one thing, but technically. i think he just talked to them through those things, I wouldnt say "He appeared" to them as such. But even if He did, He did it, man did not.
exodus 3:2 "There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush" in flames of a burning bush, not as a burning bush
I'm not sure how G-d showing Himself to moses has anything to do with making an engraven image... because its G-d showing Himself not, man making an image of Him...
2.) Id be careful saying that something is only for the period, thats the way a lot of people mis-translate the Bible for their own uses. G-d the Father is called so, because it is His role, it is His personality. The Holy Spirit on the other hand has a feminine quality, a mother sense in scripture.
3.) I dont think He was saying one is greater than the other. He is saying they follow a line of command, which scripture makes very clear they do. Jesus says He only does what the Father commands.
Just the way a layman in the church would follow orders of the leaders, even though one is in no way greater than the other.
I think if this message was based off any fear, it's that people are understanding G-d wrong. I'm not saying that He's right, and that the book is awful, I read it and enjoyed it for what it was. But I've seen enough of Mark Driscolls stuff to know, he usually acts out of care for people, wanting them to truly know G-d."
lol... the man's way too legalistic. God is all knowing, all powerful, and ALL LOVING. Why wouldn't he do something like that, to reach one of his children? honestly this man I could point out a few things that the guy in the video was wrong about, like for example, God did not only appear as an African American WOMAN, but near the end appeared as a man.
Like eric said, its just a book. However, putting a book down that really gets people closer to God is stupid. it has its purpose, whether the book be completely wrong, or completely right.
To butcher something that makes people wonder about God, and makes them want to learn more about God, and makes them want to follow God, is close to blasphemy itself.
i've never heard of "the shack" let alone read it, but seeing as it's a work of fiction, my knee-jerk reaction is just what Eric said, "Satan is just using them to divide followers over crap that doesn't matter."
I started this book because people I know and love recommended it, but I have too many other things to do to read it. However, I know Church of Christ women who read it and LIKED it. Said that it was an interesting METAPHOR. The author doesn't claim to be setting up doctrine, just a different way of looking at things. So basically, I agree with Eric.
Post a Comment