The Shack

[Endzone]

I got through about 200 pages of it, but couldn't deal with it anymore after that. I would not have gotten that far except a good friend of mine recommended the book.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=167717

 

[evanom]

Is this like a liberal, modern day-politically correct version of God and the Bible or something??

 

[Endzone]

Is this like a liberal, modern day-politically correct version of God and the Bible or something??

Yes, God is black woman.

 

[Paul]

Yes, God is black woman.

Are you trying to be funny, ez, you're not!

 

[Endzone]

Are you trying to be funny, ez, you're not!

I'm not trying to be funny at all. I answered the question that was put to me in the most honest way. Everyone knows (including you) that the most politically correct type of person you can have on your staff is a black woman. The author of this book is a wiennie feel-good liberal that I have not doubt voted for Obama.

 

[evanom]

Yes, God is black woman.

Whoa! That certainly is a twist. I see this book is a hit. So sad to see Yeshua's prophecies (many falling to seducing spirits, many on the wide road to distruction, etc) coming true.

 

[Grat]

As someone who both finished the book and really enjoyed it, I'd like to say, it's a really good book and I enjoyed it (that was a revelation, wasn't it?).
You have to actually finish the whole book to get the understanding of why God appears as a black woman in most of the book. It has nothing to do with the political correctness or incorrectness of the situation. It has far more to do with the main characters twisted view of God as Father – which stops him from being able to relate properly to God had he appeared as a white father figure with a full beard (which actually more closely resembling the ancient Greeks view of male gods then anything necessarily scriptural).
William Young, the author, was asked by his wife and friends to write a story that explained the author’s relationship with God. This is not a theological testis, nor even originally meant for publication. It is a story, a parable, of one man’s walk and discovered relationship with a vast and surprising God. Do I agree with the Author? No. But then as I rarely even completely agree with myself, this is not surprising. I love the book for the simple, effective way God meets the main character at his point of need and leads him from that point of darkness back to the sort of full life that Christ promised us. Read it to improve your relationship with God, not your theology.

 

[Paul]

As someone who both finished the book and really enjoyed it, I'd like to say, it's a really good book and I enjoyed it (that was a revelation, wasn't it?).
You have to actually finish the whole book to get the understanding of why God appears as a black woman in most of the book. It has nothing to do with the political correctness or incorrectness of the situation. It has far more to do with the main characters twisted view of God as Father – which stops him from being able to relate properly to God had he appeared as a white father figure with a full beard (which actually more closely resembling the ancient Greeks view of male gods then anything necessarily scriptural).
William Young, the author, was asked by his wife and friends to write a story that explained the author’s relationship with God. This is not a theological testis, nor even originally meant for publication. It is a story, a parable, of one man’s walk and discovered relationship with a vast and surprising God. Do I agree with the Author? No. But then as I rarely even completely agree with myself, this is not surprising. I love the book for the simple, effective way God meets the main character at his point of need and leads him from that point of darkness back to the sort of full life that Christ promised us. Read it to improve your relationship with God, not your theology.

You read what you want, I have better things to do and read.

 

[Martin W.]

I watched the author of the book "The Shack" in a one hour TV interview.

He beat himself up harder than anyone on this forum could do. He has a sense of humor trying to define God. He makes people think and laugh. Yes it is a lot of theater. If you have a problem with that I suggest you go watch The Simpson's instead.

We all know we all watch the Simpson's , but god forbid we read The Shack. That would be Anathema right ????

 

[fivesense]

I watched the author of the book "The Shack" in a one hour TV interview.

He beat himself up harder than anyone on this forum could do. He has a sense of humor trying to define God. He makes people think and laugh. Yes it is a lot of theater. If you have a problem with that I suggest you go watch The Simpson's instead.

We all know we all watch the Simpson's , but god forbid we read The Shack. That would be Anathema right ????

Martin, I like you, and Grat? Your keener than a razor blade. I've never "watched" the Simpsons, it disgusts me just by the trailers, and The Shack was denounced internet wide by WorldNet Daily. I think WND harbors alot of Romanish philosophers, including its major component M Farah. There is alot of "Taking back america" and Liberal-bashing on that site, but I get some insights there a few times a week.

Reformation and reconstruction are doomed to failure with a God Whose plan is to become All in all.

Innately, that is why universalism is so repugnant to reformer. It takes the wind out of their sails, should Someone else be the Judge in matters salvific. Universalism is given as the reason for condemning the book as heretical and demonic. It is inferred in a review that it is the main subject of controversy.

Pity. That God should be the Savior of all men, specially them that believe, is just too much to believe. Therefore the scriptural truth of Christ reconciling all things on earth and in heaven, putting all things under Him, becomes one of many truths that are outright dismissed in the courts of the Creedal postulants.

fivesense

 

[Grat]

Actually, there are a number of sites that if they condemn something it makes me more likely to listen/read it as that usually means they've got something worth hearing <grin>.
I know that I’ll have “made it” once I’m labelled a heretic.
In the case of “The Shack”, the official released statement was that the Editor felt that certain sections of the book could have been taken as endorsing “Universalism” and so after discussions with the Author he rewrote those sections.
When people get narrow minded enough to look through a keyhole with both eyes they will look for something to hate in something, rather than seeing the good.
I personally think that it’s mainly one of 2 reasons. Either intellectual pride (God NEEDS me!) or just defensiveness for a badly hurt spirit, the need to crush everything down so that can point to someone/thing and sooth their conscience that they’re not as bad as THOSES people.
Once you know what inadequacy REALLY is (ie. meet God) and realise that He not only loves you, but likes you and prefers you anyway (in fact is captivated by you – see Song of Solomon 4:9) you can rest in your inadequacy, because He makes you more than adequate in Jesus.

 

[fivesense]

Actually, there are a number of sites that if they condemn something it makes me more likely to listen/read it as that usually means they've got something worth hearing <grin>.
I know that I’ll have “made it” once I’m labelled a heretic.
In the case of “The Shack”, the official released statement was that the Editor felt that certain sections of the book could have been taken as endorsing “Universalism” and so after discussions with the Author he rewrote those sections.
When people get narrow minded enough to look through a keyhole with both eyes they will look for something to hate in something, rather than seeing the good.
I personally think that it’s mainly one of 2 reasons. Either intellectual pride (God NEEDS me!) or just defensiveness for a badly hurt spirit, the need to crush everything down so that can point to someone/thing and sooth their conscience that they’re not as bad as THOSES people.
Once you know what inadequacy REALLY is (ie. meet God) and realise that He not only loves you, but likes you and prefers you anyway (in fact is captivated by you – see Song of Solomon 4:9) you can rest in your inadequacy, because He makes you more than adequate in Jesus.

Keep it comin' Grat.
fivesense

 

[jiggyfly]

Keep it comin' Grat.
fivesense

Yes indeed Grat, I agree with Fivesense, "keep it comin".

 

[jiggyfly]

Actually, there are a number of sites that if they condemn something it makes me more likely to listen/read it as that usually means they've got something worth hearing <grin>.
I know that I’ll have “made it” once I’m labelled a heretic.
In the case of “The Shack”, the official released statement was that the Editor felt that certain sections of the book could have been taken as endorsing “Universalism” and so after discussions with the Author he rewrote those sections.
When people get narrow minded enough to look through a keyhole with both eyes they will look for something to hate in something, rather than seeing the good.
I personally think that it’s mainly one of 2 reasons. Either intellectual pride (God NEEDS me!) or just defensiveness for a badly hurt spirit, the need to crush everything down so that can point to someone/thing and sooth their conscience that they’re not as bad as THOSES people.
Once you know what inadequacy REALLY is (ie. meet God) and realise that He not only loves you, but likes you and prefers you anyway (in fact is captivated by you – see Song of Solomon 4:9) you can rest in your inadequacy, because He makes you more than adequate in Jesus.

Main Entry: her·e·tic Pronunciation: \ˈher-ə-ˌtik, ˈhe-rə-\Function: nounDate: 14th century1 : a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth<br style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: inherit; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; ">2 : one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine




I'm with you on this Grat, in light of this definition some of my best friends are regarded as heretics including my very best friend Jesus.

[font="Verdana][size="3"]I've yet to read "The Shack" but IMO some of those who have read it entirely and condemn it ( through online forums ) struggle to understand through experience the love of God and this is evident in their posts. In contrast, an ever growing and deepening enlightenment of God's love is very resident in the posts of some who have expressed their enjoyment of "The Shack".[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]
[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]
[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]The religious act of scriptural correctness (as determined in our own minds) can have a less than desired outcome just as it did with the pharisees during Jesus' earthly ministry. It gets in the way, so to speak, of the personal intimacy with God and in many cases seems to result in a hardened heart.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]
[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]Paul said he was so scripturally correct that no one could find any fault in him yet he was hunting down and killing Christians. You see thats how the religious mind works. Which is why we find so much encouragement in the scriptures to know the love of God, not through intellect but rather through experience via HolySpirit.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]
[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]Eph 3:19May you experience the love of Christ, though it is so great you will never fully understand it. Then you will be filled with the fullness of life and power that comes from God.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]1Jo 4:18Such love has no fear because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear of judgment, and this shows that his love has not been perfected in us.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]
[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]
[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]Religious fantasy is the enemy of spiritual reality, Paul said the knowledge puffs up but love builds up. So which is better, something solid or something full of hot air, with all the fiery darts flying around I prefer something solid something built by love.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"] [/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]
[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]
[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]
[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana][size="3"]
[/size][/font]

 

[Grat]

Actually, the web site I'm in the process of getting back up is called www.heretics-r-us.org.
It appeals to my sense of humour.

Grat

 

[Martin W.]

Actually, the web site I'm in the process of getting back up is called www.heretics-r-us.org.
It appeals to my sense of humour.

Grat

I think I like your website already.

 

[perrero]

As someone who both finished the book and really enjoyed it, I'd like to say, it's a really good book and I enjoyed it (that was a revelation, wasn't it?).
You have to actually finish the whole book to get the understanding of why God appears as a black woman in most of the book. It has nothing to do with the political correctness or incorrectness of the situation. It has far more to do with the main characters twisted view of God as Father – which stops him from being able to relate properly to God had he appeared as a white father figure with a full beard (which actually more closely resembling the ancient Greeks view of male gods then anything necessarily scriptural).
William Young, the author, was asked by his wife and friends to write a story that explained the author’s relationship with God. This is not a theological testis, nor even originally meant for publication. It is a story, a parable, of one man’s walk and discovered relationship with a vast and surprising God. Do I agree with the Author? No. But then as I rarely even completely agree with myself, this is not surprising. I love the book for the simple, effective way God meets the main character at his point of need and leads him from that point of darkness back to the sort of full life that Christ promised us. Read it to improve your relationship with God, not your theology.

Very insightful. I also read all the book and did much enjoy it. I do not fear people or stories that depict God in such a way. Because I know that just when we think we have God pegged down to a T, He manages to throw a curve ball and show us His creativity, sovereignty and versatility yet He never changes in Character. Who would have ever thought to mix spit and dirt in order to make the blind man see. He is so AWESOME!

I watched the author of the book "The Shack" in a one hour TV interview.

He beat himself up harder than anyone on this forum could do. He has a sense of humor trying to define God. He makes people think and laugh. Yes it is a lot of theater. If you have a problem with that I suggest you go watch The Simpson's instead.

We all know we all watch the Simpson's , but god forbid we read The Shack. That would be Anathema right ????

Well put, Brother!

 

[fivesense]

Very insightful. I also read all the book and did much enjoy it. I do not fear people or stories that depict God in such a way. Because I know that just when we think we have God pegged down to a T, He manages to throw a curve ball and show us His creativity, sovereignty and versatility yet He never changes in Character. Who would have ever thought to mix spit and dirt in order to make the blind man see. He is so AWESOME!

Well put, Brother!

Your response is hearty and pleasent to have read, thank you DiDasKaLos, for connecting with grace and praise.

fivesense