The Shack

mkgal1 · Apr 1, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
God did suffer and die on the Cross. But in saying that, we are not saying the Father suffered and died.

God suffering along with his creation is too ambiguous, it could easily be process theism. He/she/it "feels our pain". Which is sort of the appeal of this kind of theism, but it's not fully compatible with orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Trinitarianism says that God-in-Jesus feels our pain (in a very real way). He is the mediator between the Father and this world. If we start focusing our devotion on speculative theologies of what God is like, we are making an idol.

Is there no longer suffering? Since Immanuel = "God with us" I believe when we suffer, He enters into our suffering with us (since the Trinity is 3 persons- - all persons enter into our suffering). That's how we are transformed by suffering (we experience - - or sometimes hide) from His presence.

Or this article:

https://cac.org/gods-solidarity-with-suffering-2016-01-22/

FireDragon76 · Apr 1, 2017

The Person Jesus is Immanuel. God joins us in our suffering only in the Person of Christ.

If God were wounded in his nature by human suffering, that would be a terrible thing. The omnipotence of God is an important doctrine for Christ to be the Savior, that he has in fact defeated sin and death. It would be like talking Julian of Norwich's book and cutting half of it out. You could say to no one "all will be well", because it ultimately wouldn't be in God's hands, it would be in our own puny hands to fix the world. And that would be a terrible burden indeed to lay on people, hardly good news.

mkgal1 · Apr 1, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
If God were wounded in his nature by human suffering, that would be a terrible thing.

I didn't say that God is "wounded in His nature". I said "He joins us in our suffering". He is there beside us (just like He was in the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego )......transforming our pain into something beyond words through His presence. IOW...Immanuel (which is the entire Trinity--IMV--we can't divide the Trinity) reveals much through being with us in our pain....."we are being renewed to a true knowledge" (Col 3:10). That's not a one time event, it's a process.

mkgal1 · Apr 1, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
The omnipotence of God is an important doctrine for Christ to be the Savior, that he has in fact defeated sin and death

In my belief, God *has* indeed defeated sin and death.....but just as there is still death and disease in this world....there is also free will (and God doesn't override our free will). I just wanted to clarify.

mkgal1 · Apr 1, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
it would be in our own puny hands to fix the world. And that would be a terrible burden indeed to lay on people, hardly good news.

I have every confidence that God is the Alpha and Omega, just as God said. I also believe God *is* making ALL things new, and the Christ's words, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”

**IOW----no, it's most assuredly NOT up to us. You're absolutely right, that's wouldn't be "Good News".

FireDragon76 · Apr 1, 2017

mkgal1 said:
In my belief, God *has* indeed defeated sin and death.....but just as there is still death and disease in this world....there is also free will (and God doesn't override our free will). I just wanted to clarify.

So is your religion about the Gospel of human freedom or about the God who saves? I know you probably aren't used to having that put to you that way before, but as a Lutheran I'd put human freedom way down on the list of considerations in a good approach to theology.

So much of the modern spirit is about trying to make sense of God on human terms. It's an intellectual restlessness that is quite unnecessary, even foolish. Like trying to empty out the sea with a thimble. They are so busy emptying out the sea that they can't appreciate it as it is. Instead of asking questions about God, we should be asking questions about ourselves. That's the Christian thing to do.

mkgal1 · Apr 1, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
So is your religion about the Gospel of human freedom or about the God who saves?

Most definitely, the God who saves.

Resha Caner · Apr 1, 2017

mkgal1 said:
I didn't interpret the film to be "defining God" (would He even be God if we could define Him?).

You're just playing semantics. You know what I meant.

mkgal1 said:
God revealed [a part of] Himself (and His lessons) to Mac, the way Mac needed (not literally---but figuratively).

No, he didn't. God is real and Mac is a fictional character. The author chose to represent God that way even though God has never revealed that to be in keeping with who he is.

mkgal1 said:
All we have are metaphors for God--since there's only one God. The Bible (and Jesus) seem a-okay with metaphors.

Uh huh. I don't see any point in this unless one issue is clear between us. It comes from answering the question I've now asked you several times: Is it possible to be wrong about God? Will you answer that question?

mkgal1 · Apr 1, 2017

Resha Caner said:
You're just playing semantics. You know what I meant.

IIRC....earlier you'd said something like, "words have meaning....". Anyway....I was just clarifying. When I say, "God reveals...." you seem to be taking that far differently than I mean. I am speaking of things like all the varieties of flowers we have.....all the colors in nature.....and the awe of creation....like this:
I'm NOT saying "God is a fish".

Resha Caner said:
No, he didn't. God is real and Mac is a fictional character. The author chose to represent God that way even though God has never revealed that to be in keeping with who he is.

The entire story is fiction (but it's ideas/allegories about a real God)--just like CS Lewis' writings (which you were okay with).

Resha Caner said:
It comes from answering the question I've now asked you several times: Is it possible to be wrong about God? Will you answer that question?

Of course it's possible to be "wrong" about God. We all--most likely--have some or many "wrong" ideas about God. The thing is.....we really won't know until we come face to face with God...right? It's not worth arguing over who has the "best" ideas.

zippy2006 · Apr 1, 2017

Resha Caner said:
No, he didn't. God is real and Mac is a fictional character. The author chose to represent God that way even though God has never revealed that to be in keeping with who he is.

As I see it, the main problem with The Shack is that it violates the commandment against fashioning images:

You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6)

Fashioning a static image is bad enough. Compound that with "fashioning" a living human being, with gender, mannerisms, speech, and even doctrines placed in the mouth of this so-called divine figure. Nicea II said that images of Jesus are okay, because he actually became man. It never affirmed images of the Father (which are unfortunately common today). I think it's sad that we've so thoroughly lost this sense of the holiness of God.

jimmyjimmy · Apr 2, 2017

zippy2006 said:
Fashioning a static image is bad enough. Compound that with "fashioning" a living human being, with gender, mannerisms, speech, and even doctrines placed in the mouth of this so-called divine figure.

Agreed, and it is the "why" behind the commandment which must be understood. In our fallen state, we are bent on making a god in our image. We do this mainly because it allows us control over our god. We can tame the god of our imagination. We don't like the true and Living God who is a "consuming fire".

mkgal1 · Apr 2, 2017

We don't like the true and Living God who is a "consuming fire".

And in your belief....what's this "consuming fire" burning (if it's even burning something- -is it like the burning bush wasn't burned) ?Are people burned by this consuming fire ( people who don't have beliefs like you)?

What about 1st Timothy 2, especially v 4:

"who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

Do you interpret that to be a "destroying" fire or a refining fire (especially when held up against this verse)?

"And the one sitting on the throne said, "Look, I am making everything new!" And then he said to me, "Write this down, for what I tell you is trustworthy and true."- - Rev 21:5

...and this

"He is the author and perfector of our faith"- - Hebrews 12:2

Archivist · Apr 2, 2017

I finally made it to see The Shack. Fantastic movie! Not as good as the book, but I still enjoyed it.

mkgal1 · Apr 2, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
The omnipotence of God is an important doctrine for Christ to be the Savior, that he has in fact defeated sin and death. You could say to no one "all will be well", because it ultimately wouldn't be in God's hands [...]

The ONLY reason we can say "all will be well" is because things do rest in God's hands....within His eternal plan. He's the "author and finisher".

mkgal1 · Apr 2, 2017

This articulates my beliefs very well. The only part I have trouble with is the "I do everything ' part:

mkgal1 · Apr 2, 2017

FireDragon76 said:
It doesn't sound like a movie or book I'd like. There are plenty of other works that makes this point the author is trying to make without trying to draw a smilie face on a sacred mystery to ease his existential angst. Such as Julian of Norwich's Revelations of Divine Love (which I doubt the author has ever read). Maybe God condescends to him in the process, but I can't get over the "yuck" factor. It sounds like more pop theology from mainstream American evangelicalism.

This movie is nothing like mainstream American evangelicalism- - but skimming through Revelations of Divine Love (and quotes from the book)....I'd say the movie lines up very well with the beliefs of Julian of Norwich, especially after reading this: All Will Be Well – Julian of Norwich

mkgal1 · Apr 2, 2017

Resha Caner said:
As @CrystalDragon used the word, no it's not a part of Christianity. Ephesians chapter 4 is speaking about the body of Christ, and so even in that case the meaning is only that the Spirit is in all Christians, not all human beings, not all things - further that the Spirit is in us doesn't mean the Spirit is us.
.

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all."- - Eph 4

I'm of the persuasion to believe we are "called to the one hope" that's God's one hope....and that "above all and in all" means just that (ALL).

Resha Caner · Apr 2, 2017

mkgal1 said:
The thing is.....we really won't know until we come face to face with God...right?

I'm not sure what you think it would mean to come face to face with God. If we can't know God now, then it would be foolish to trust him, to believe he is a savior. My faith in Christ is not a speculative faith - not a faith in something of which I know nothing.

mkgal1 said:
Of course it's possible to be "wrong" about God. We all--most likely--have some or many "wrong" ideas about God.

Thank you. Can you give me an example?

mkgal1 · Apr 2, 2017

Resha Caner said:
I'm not sure what you think it would mean to come face to face with God. If we can't know God now, then it would be foolish to trust him, to believe he is a savior. My faith in Christ is not a speculative faith - not a faith in something of which I know nothing.

My point is.....I can't "prove" to you my faith any more than you can prove to me yours. It's faith....beliefs....and it's a *personal* journey. You can't (or shouldn't) say or imply I'm "wrong"....because the truth is....we don't really *know* in a way that's provable to others. That's why I can't answer your second question. I can only offer MY beliefs (which isn't an answer). It's unanswerable.

Resha Caner · Apr 2, 2017

mkgal1 said:
My point is.....I can't "prove" to you my faith any more than you can prove to me yours.

I agree ... at least not in some absolute sense. But we can build trust between people, and that comes through demonstrable action. God acts within our lives.

mkgal1 said:
It's faith....beliefs....and it's a *personal* journey.

I disagree. The church is very important. Faith involves being part of the body of Christ. If not, then faith is no different than feelings, emotions, and opinions. IOW, your god becomes inseparable from you.

mkgal1 said:
That's why I can't answer your second question. I can only offer MY beliefs (which isn't an answer). It's unanswerable.

I don't offer my beliefs. I offer the witness of the Church as best I have been able to understand it. For me that takes the form of the Lutheran Confessions as an exposition of Scripture. It also means my fellow brothers and sisters can hold me accountable when I do wrong.

So, when someone says their god will save those who donate $100/month, we shouldn't say anything?

The Shack

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Well-Known Member

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Expert Fool

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Dragonsworn

Pardoned Rebel

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Senior Veteran

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Attachments

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Attachments

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Expert Fool

His perfect way sets me free. 2 Samuel 22:33

Expert Fool

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency