jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (15 posts)

The Shack, was it an offense to God?

  1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
    Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago

    I read The Shack in 2008 while on bed rest from having four blood clots in my lungs. I had nothing else to do but read since I didn't have a laptop at the time and no tv in the bedroom.

    I thought it was interesting. I didn't quit think it was offensive or breaking one of the ten commandments but then again the way Mark describes it, it made me rethink it. I would be interested in hearing ya'lls thought on this subject and what you thought of the book if you read it.

    Here is what Mark Driscoll had to say about it.
    http://youtu.be/pK65Jfny70Y

    1. Disappearinghead profile image88
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree that the Shack is a nice fictional story, but also agree that is is heretical. I don't agree with all the reasons Mark Driscoll gives because I don't believe in the Trinity (the Trinity is not revealed in the Hebrew scriptures, blah blah blah).

      The book has some positive merits in that it challenges Christians to think about the nature of God differently, but what it offers as a nature of God is not something that is biblically sound.

      Its vision of heaven is also very nice, and I like the way it positively promotes ultimate redemption for all, but according to the bible, all who have died are still dead in their graves awaiting resurection.

      Mark Driscoll is right to be cynical about Christians reading books of fiction and thinking they are theological tomes to wax lyrical about.

      An interesting post and it will be good to see what responses you get.

      1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
        Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, I've tried to stay away from the stupid questions and pointless threads and wanted to keep to threads that have a point and might be a good topic. I have failed the last few times and after seeing this video I thought it might spur a good one!

        May I ask how the old testament doesn't reveal the trinity in the scriptures? I'm always asking this but it seems that no one gives me a straight answer.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image88
          Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The term Trinity does not appear anywhere in the NT and as a doctrine was not taught by Jesus or the apostles.   It did not appear as a doctrine we would recognise until the 4th century. It can only be found by inference and interpretation.

           A verse that has been used to qualify the Trinity is:
          1 John 5:8
          And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

          However, even the Catholic Church now acknowledges that this was added in the 15th century.

          In Judaism, the Holy Spirit js a term used to denote the manifest presence of God when that presence is upon the Earth interacting with men. Judaism doesn't believe in a 'Binity' (or whatever a two person God version of a Trinity would be called). So why has the Jewish definition of the Holy Spirit been changed to mean a 'third person of the Godhead'?

          Deuteronomy 6:4
          Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

          No trinity here.

          Isaiah 42:8
          I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

          If Jesus or the Holy Spirit are separate persons from the Father, he is not sharing His glory with them.

          Isaiah 9:6
          For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
          This child aka Jesus, will be called Everlasting Father.

          So to my understanding, if the Holy Spirit is God the Father Himself present on Earth, then by the verse above, Jesus is God the Father Himself present on Earth in the flesh. Jesus also said "before Abraham, I Am", thus announcing he was God.

          Taken together, the trinity is a misleading redundant concept.

          1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
            Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Sorry I'm abit slow.....are you saying that Jesus was God fully and that when Christ was on earth God was absent from Heaven?

            1. Disappearinghead profile image88
              Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'm saying He was God fully, but because God is omnipresent, he existed simultaneously everywhere, in heaven and in the flesh.

              1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                ok, well that's how I have always understand the God head three in one. There are a few verses in the old testament where it says the spirit of the lord was upon David or so and so for all the days of their lives isn't there? Wouldn't that be considered the Holy Spirit and be held in the same regaurd as how you understand the relationship between Jesus and God?

                I'm am not trying to be argumentitive or "trolling" just trying to understand you better sir. smile

                1. Disappearinghead profile image88
                  Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  With respect, I think we are wondering off topic here, but I don't see "a relationship" between God and Jesus other than that which was present when he was on the Earth. Then that relationship was to show us an example of our relationship to the Father. The Holy Spirit doesn't have a relationship with the Father because it (note the word 'it' because it is not a person) the spirit of God is his presence.

                  1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                    Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    We are a bit. Well thanks for sharing abit about yourself with me.

    2. deblevey profile image59
      debleveyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ok, didn't listen to the whole datribe by Mark Driscoll, but my take on this topic is that 'The Shack' is what it claims to be, a fictional portrayal of what the Godhead might appear to be, or did appear to be; contained within the limited boundaries of one man's imagination. Call it a vision or a dream, I don't think the author is claiming it to be real. I don't think there is anything wrong with using literary devices to explain your perception of God. CS Lewis presented Jesus in the form of a lion - Aslan - in the allegory tale 'the Chronicles of Narnia." I think we only run into trouble with God, when we try to contain God within a limited frame of reference.  We know, having been told as much, that God is limitless.  Yet God presents Himself in finite terms in much the same manner as do the authors of these two fictional works. He describes Himself as a mother hen, a nursing mother, a lion, an eagle, a lamb, a shepherd, a carpenter, a fisherman or at the very least a maker of fishermen, a prince and a slave. Is God literally any of these? Yes and no. The Shack is one person's attempt at explaining the mysterious nature of a triune God; Who can never be fully explained in human terms, no matter Who may do the explaining. Do i believe God could be similar to the character Papa in the shack. Yes.  Do I believe that God IS the character Papa in the shack. No. Therein lies the difference between an allegorical tale  and heresy.

      1. deblevey profile image59
        debleveyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Also. I think ultimately arguing the true nature of the Godhead is kind of silly, because none of us know for sure. Biblical references appear contraditctory at times. I believe God tells us there are a lot of thing we just don't know this side of heaven, and we're not gonna figure them out until we're on the Other Side of Heaven!

        1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
          Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Pretty sure he and I arn't arguing, we are discussing. Thanks for the definition clearification of heresy and an allegory.

        2. deblevey profile image59
          debleveyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          argument, discussion, apology, all basically similar definitions. I'm stating my opinion as part of the discussion. If i offended, it was not my intent and I apologize for that...however i still think the point is mute.

  2. habee profile image89
    habeeposted 5 years ago

    I read the book, along with the other members of my book club. We all enjoyed it and found it inspirational. I especially liked how Jesus was portrayed, and I really liked how forgiveness was stressed.

    1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
      Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      It was a defiantly good book! I liked how the idea of communion was portrayed.

 
working