Re: The Shack
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 7:27 pm
Dwight: If God's word is true, there will be no heretics there.TK wrote:Do you think God is religious? If so, what do you mean?None really. Like I said, I could be wrong. It's just that Young is relatively new on the seen and presents questionable doctrine, many say heretical doctrine. Also is it just coincidence that many extremist women's libbers like to refer to God as "She" or "Her" and then Young comes along and portrays the Father as a woman and the Spirit as a woman? So, not knowing much about him, except for reading his book, he is suspect, or should I say "guilty" until proven "innocent"?
1. Young hasn't been around (or well-known) as long as the others I mentioned.
2. His doctrine is questionable, possibly heretical.
3. His twisted portrayal of the members of the Trinity.
So I guess I do have some reasons. One last thing, which really is part of #2: A God who is all love, not religious, and no judgment is very popular among the masses and that seems to be a general theme in his book. This is obviously true - just look at the record sales for his book. It's very possible that he knew it would be very popular and a big money-maker.
Dwight: I misspoke. Obviously, religion is "man reaching out to God", as I mentioned before. Religion is something man does, not God. What I meant to say was that the God of The Shack, as Young presents Him, despises man-made religion. He is against Christians acting religious.
I don't think Young denies that God will judge, although it is true that he does not believe in eternal torment, but there is nothing heretical about that.
Dwight: In person, maybe Young believes that, but I don't believe he conveyed that in his book. As to the question of whether not believing in eternal torment is heretical or not, many people that I admire believe that it is, including my pastor. As he has said, "If it doesn't mean eternal torment, then it cannot mean eternal life, since the same word is used." Personally I am undecided on that.
I am also not sure what you mean when you say he gave a twisted portrayal of members of the Trinity. As far as I know no one else has really tried to portray it in a work of fiction and since it was his book he had the right to depict them as he wished. I did not see any glaring issues in how he portrayed them;
Dwight: How about this for a glaring issue? Not only did He portray them in a non-Biblical way, but He had them speak words that the Bible never confirms that they spoke. He literally added to the word of God. Young never pretended that the Father and the Spirit would really appear as women, but he did strongly imply that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, if they appeared to us, as they did to McKensie, would ACTUALLY SPEAK THOSE WORDS. Those words were not recorded in the Bible. Young has each member of the Trinity speaking with authority, as if it were the word of God. If this is not glaring, I don't what is. You don't put words into God's mouth.
The "heresy" word is tossed around far too often and easily. What are you going to say to all the heretics you meet in heaven?