The maternal qualities of God

[quietthinker]

I do not know if The Shack makes people hate Christians, but it certainly might cause people to mock Christians for praising such idiotic nonsense that is contained in books like The Shack.

I think you've missed its point Anchorite.
I think its point is to awaken us to the fact that God is greater than the restricted box men have put him in.
The particular restriction put onto God is that he cannot go outside of what men insist him to be.

 

[ScottA]

Are the accusations true or false?

--- PARODY ---

Christian #1: Are you a Christian?
Christian #2: Yes, although I'm not completely comfortable with that term.
Christian #1: You aren't comfortable being a Christian?
Christian #2: No, it's the term "Christian".
Christian #1: Shouldn't you stand up for what you believe?
Christian #2: I do. I'm just not a fan of labeling.
Christian #1: Why would you be ashamed of Christ?
Christian #2: I'm not. The term "Christian" comes with a lot of baggage.
Christian #1: It seems to me that you are not a Christian at all.
Christian #2: I hear that from Christians sometimes.
Christian #1: Based on what you have said, there is no proof that you are a Christian.
Christian #2: I suppose not. Can we really know for sure?
Christian #1: Why are you avoiding the question?
Christian #2: You asked me if I am a Christian and I said "Yes..."
Christian #1: But then you backed away from it.
Christian #2: I said I wasn't comfortable with labels.
Christian #1: You are still beating around the bush.
Christian #2: Why didn't you accept my initial answer?
Christian #1: Because of everything else you said.
Christian #2: (sigh)
Christian #1: What's wrong?
Christian #2: This is why I am uncomfortable with the term.
Christian #1: What do you mean?
Christian #2: I don't want to be associated with you.

That is not the point.

We all choose what camp we are in and will be in for all eternity. And we in the Bible believing camp--granted--are not to spread the bad news...but the good news.

 

[ScottA]

I think its point is to awaken us to the fact that God is greater than the restricted box men have put him in.

God put Himself in that box, very clearly stating a difference between Him and those taken out of Him (as Eve was taken out of Adam) or returned to Him in marriage (as the Bride of Christ).

Innie or Outie.

Or do you prefer the confusion the world suffers from right now?

 

[St. SteVen]

That is not the point.

We all choose what camp we are in and will be in for all eternity. And we in the Bible believing camp--granted--are not to spread the bad news...but the good news.

What about the unreached people groups?

 

[ScottA]

What about the unreached people groups?

What about them? Scratch that. There are [biblically] none unreached.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).​

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
What about the unreached people groups?

What about them? Scratch that. There are [biblically] none unreached.

"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).​

That's one of those mindless apologetics I mentioned earlier.
Is the recognition of a creator God sufficient to salvation?
Where is the gospel in the created world?

 

[ScottA]

St. SteVen said:
What about the unreached people groups?

That's one of those mindless apologetics I mentioned earlier.
Is the recognition of a creator God sufficient to salvation?
Where is the gospel in the created world?

St. SteVen said:
What about the unreached people groups?

That's one of those mindless apologetics I mentioned earlier.
Is the recognition of a creator God sufficient to salvation?
Where is the gospel in the created world?

What is mindless, is that you are circling back in denial of the verse I posted--denial of the word of God.

But the answer (again), is, in "His invisible attributes ... clearly seen."

 

[St. SteVen]

What is mindless, is that you are circling back in denial of the verse I posted--denial of the word of God.

But the answer (again), is, in "His invisible attributes ... clearly seen."

- Is the recognition of a creator God sufficient to salvation?
- Where is the gospel in the created world?

 

[Anchorite]

I think you've missed its point Anchorite.
I think its point is to awaken us to the fact that God is greater than the restricted box men have put him in.
The particular restriction put onto God is that he cannot go outside of what men insist him to be.

The Shack is opposed to “the restricted box” that the Bible puts God in.

It attempts to dismiss scriptures and redefine God in ridiculous ways.

Author William Paul Young believes that everyone is already saved as of right now, and that we are just resisting relationship but can choose relationship at any point (even after death).

When Mackenzie (the main character) asks Papa (the female who is allegedly God the Father) if she ever has wrath towards sin and punishes people for it, she replies:

“I am not who you think I am Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish; it is my joy to cure it.”

The Bible says about 100 times that God punishes sin.

William Paul Young doesn’t believe God sent Jesus to die for our sins, and this false Gospel of universalism and the denial of God’s punishment toward sin is the backbone of this controversial quote in The Shack. This gives context and clarity to the line “Papa” says to Mackenzie.

William Paul Young says the following about this traditional understanding of the Gospel:

“God has never wanted sacrifice. Never. That has never been a part of God’s plan. [Jesus] came to get us out of this retributive, punitive thing. And this is not new doctrine, this is early church. The early church didn’t believe that the Father killed his Son. We’ve got God the Father who is the antiseptic one, the one who needs to be appeased and that we need to sacrifice to and Jesus provides himself so that God the Father doesn’t beat the Hell out of his like he did to him.”

This is not a movie/book that accurately represents the God of scripture, it denies the heart of the Good News and the cross, and waters down God’s justice to nothing more than universalism; it teaches a different version of God that contradicts the Father whom Jesus revealed to us.

William Paul Young has taken accountability, justice, and the true nature of God away and replaced it with something more palatable and politically correct.

 

[ScottA]

- Where is the gospel in the created world?

That has been answered four times, twice by God, and twice by me. That's enough.

- Is the recognition of a creator God sufficient to salvation?

Yes or no, God decides. But the evidence leaves "no excuse" (that makes 3 times I have answered--which is also enough "by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word is established").

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Say what? ---

We refer to God as Father, and we should...
But what about the maternal qualities of our heavenly parent?

- Other-centered
- Self-giving
- Co-suffering
- Self-sacrificial

Thanks to Wm. Paul Young for the list.

[

While those qualities are Biblical being an aspect of Love, they are not unique to the Judeo-Christian God as far as Trinitarian theology goes. Promotheus stole fire for the sake of humanity and eternally suffered for it. And I'm sure if we thought or Groked hard we could probably find other mythic stories where there was parental love for humanity from the pagan gods, titans and whatever.


I would also add Asian religions in the mix too, like Buddhism, Hinduism etc. that might not even have a God, but would have Christian like attitudes without a messiah / savior.

 

[quietthinker]

God put Himself in that box, very clearly stating a difference between Him and those taken out of Him (as Eve was taken out of Adam) or returned to Him in marriage (as the Bride of Christ).

Innie or Outie.

Or do you prefer the confusion the world suffers from right now?

I don't think God has put himself into any box, why would he?
LIFE forever expands and never ends.
Boxes are for those who feel threatened, it keeps them safe in their own realities.

 

[ScottA]

I don't think God has put himself into any box, why would he?
LIFE forever expands and never ends.
Boxes are for those who feel threatened, it keeps them safe in their own realities.

"Box" was your word. I would have used "status."

God has stated His status by means of gender very clearly.

 

[quietthinker]

The Shack is opposed to “the restricted box” that the Bible puts God in.

It attempts to dismiss scriptures and redefine God in ridiculous ways.

Author William Paul Young believes that everyone is already saved as of right now, and that we are just resisting relationship but can choose relationship at any point (even after death).

When Mackenzie (the main character) asks Papa (the female who is allegedly God the Father) if she ever has wrath towards sin and punishes people for it, she replies:

“I am not who you think I am Mackenzie. I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring from the inside. It is not my purpose to punish; it is my joy to cure it.”

The Bible says about 100 times that God punishes sin.

William Paul Young doesn’t believe God sent Jesus to die for our sins, and this false Gospel of universalism and the denial of God’s punishment toward sin is the backbone of this controversial quote in The Shack. This gives context and clarity to the line “Papa” says to Mackenzie.

William Paul Young says the following about this traditional understanding of the Gospel:

“God has never wanted sacrifice. Never. That has never been a part of God’s plan. [Jesus] came to get us out of this retributive, punitive thing. And this is not new doctrine, this is early church. The early church didn’t believe that the Father killed his Son. We’ve got God the Father who is the antiseptic one, the one who needs to be appeased and that we need to sacrifice to and Jesus provides himself so that God the Father doesn’t beat the Hell out of his like he did to him.”

This is not a movie/book that accurately represents the God of scripture, it denies the heart of the Good News and the cross, and waters down God’s justice to nothing more than universalism; it teaches a different version of God that contradicts the Father whom Jesus revealed to us.

William Paul Young has taken accountability, justice, and the true nature of God away and replaced it with something more palatable and politically correct.

Consider this Anchorite, When Jesus was asked, what sign do you give us? Matthew 12: 38-40 Why didn't he say, you have the daily sacrifices which you do regularly? Instead, he says, the only sign you guys get is the sign of Jonah.

Never once did Jesus send people to the Priests or the temple for the forgiveness of sin, and neither did John the Baptist.

How men understand sacrifice and justice is at odds with how God does.

 

[Anchorite]

Consider this Anchorite, When Jesus was asked, what sign do you give us? Matthew 12: 38-40 Why didn't he say, you have the daily sacrifices which you do regularly? Instead, he says, the only sign you guys get is the sign of Jonah.

Never once did Jesus send people to the Priests or the temple for the forgiveness of sin, and neither did John the Baptist.

How men understand sacrifice and justice is at odds with how God does.

Then why does the book of Leviticus exist? Animal sacrifice was commanded by God and served as a symbol of the vile nature of sin which deserves the death of the sinner.

God required it from the offering presented by Abel to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

John prepared the path and Jesus brought in a New Covenant. Jesus forgave sins directly.

But under the law given by Moses, sins were covered by animal sacrifices. When Israel went through the motions of animal sacrifice, without repenting in their hearts, God got weary of their sanctimonious charades.

 

[quietthinker]

"Box" was your word. I would have used "status."

God has stated His status by means of gender very clearly.

Yes, 'box' is my word, but the idea is there irrespective of the word I use. Men try to box Jesus. They want to make him in their image instead of realising and taking him as an unprecedented player....and hearing him.

 

[quietthinker]

Then why does the book of Leviticus exist? Animal sacrifice was commanded by God and served as a symbol of the vile nature of sin which deserves the death of the sinner.

God required it from the offering presented by Abel to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

John prepared the path and Jesus brought in a New Covenant. Jesus forgave sins directly.

But under the law given by Moses, sins were covered by animal sacrifices. When Israel went through the motions of animal sacrifice, without repenting in their hearts, God got weary of their sanctimonious charades.

Animal sacrifices were better than human sacrifices. It was a concession on God's part. Divorce was also a concession on God's part as was Israel having a king.....including many other things.
God doesn't need gifts or payment as if he is lacking something or needs appeasing. LOVE is his M.O. Force, domination and sucking up (appeasement)n is man's M.O.

God is not a trader like men. He is the gift giver of LIFE. It is the Devil who steals, kills and destroys. (John 10:10) Hear those words and don't superimpose your own ideas onto God/ Jesus.

Lambs killed were done in gentle humane way. The jugular was cut and the animal bled out. Jesus on the other hand was slaughtered, ie brutally treated; not by God as punishment but by men who couldn't stand his generosity and goodness.
Jesus laid down his life voluntarily to show men that even when he is treated in the worst possible way he does not respond with violence.

When James and John wanted to call fire down on the Samaritans, Jesus told them they didn't know the spirit operating in them.

Jesus's seminal discourse in Matthew 5 speaks of the nature of God qualifying our responses if we want to align ourselves as his children at the end of the chapter. Check it out.

 

[Anchorite]

Yes, 'box' is my word, but the idea is there irrespective of the word I use. Men try to box Jesus. They want to make him in their image instead of realising and taking him as an unprecedented player....and hearing him.

And this is what William Paul Young does in The Shack. He designs a new man made box to redefine the 3 persons of the Trinity. Thus, false doctrines are developed by a deceiver.

Jesus is presented to us by way of the Bible. We must view Him in terms of scripture, not according to the sacrilegious fantasies of fiction writers who distort the gospels.

 

[Anchorite]

Animal sacrifices were better than human sacrifices. It was a concession on God's part. Hear those words and don't superimpose your own ideas onto God/ Jesus.

Animal sacrifices were not a concession on God’s part. They were commanded as symbolic atonement.

Jesus paid the penalty for sin that we owed.

Isaiah 53

1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?

2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

 

[quietthinker]

And this is what William Paul Young does in The Shack. He designs a new man made box to redefine the 3 persons of the Trinity. Thus, false doctrines are developed by a deceiver.

Jesus is presented to us by way of the Bible. We must view Him in terms of scripture, not according to the sacrilegious fantasies of fiction writers who distort the gospels.

It sounds like you have substituted the bible for Jesus.
The bible says having slaves is acceptable, going to war is the done thing, there is no problem with genocide, etc etc.

Wake up! Jesus defines the new covenant. He doesn't use the limitations of men's limited vision and the concessions God made to define this covenant. Read Matthew 5 and absorb it if you are interested in new covenant principles.

If you want to use old covenant principles as your way of seeing, you only condemn yourself and oppress others.