If you are making a job threat to me, let me suggest a few helpful hints.

1) Get a last name.
2) Come by my house and introduce yourself.
3) We can go see my administrator together and you can make your specific complaints to him with me there.

thanks for stopping by.

Michael

P.S. You are now spam and won’t be appearing in the comments.

I guess it totally escaped you that Jesus pictured God as a woman in the parable of the lost coin in Luke 15, huh?

In your reference of 1 Tim. 1:4, it would help if you read that verse in context with the entire book, as well as not compare Greek terms with English definitions. The fables-legends were about the origin and propagation of angels, such as the false teachers taught at Colosse (Col 2:18-23). “Jewish fables” (Tit 1:14). “Profane, and old wives’ fables” (1Ti 4:7; 2Ti 4:4).

“These false teachers were following after fables (mythois, cf. 4:7) and long, involved genealogies. Exactly what these fables and genealogies involved
is not known. They may have had a Gnostic flavor, but were more likely of Jewish origin (cf. Titus 1:14).” Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-c1985). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (2:731). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

Myths are traditional stories of ancestors and origins; these are present in most cultures, and people regard them very highly. Here, however, myths is used in a negative way; it is not simply that the myths referred to are made-up tales and legends (TEV), but that these stories have been substituted for the true Christian message. It is possible to read the text in such as way as to identify the myths with the genealogies, which are in turn described as endless in the sense of “long” (TEV). What these genealogies consist of is not at all clear, since the letter itself offers no clues. Some of the possibilities suggested are as follows:

(1) These could refer to the lists of ancestors that were found in the various Gnostic movements at that time. Gnosticism taught that anything material was evil. This includes the physical universe, which was not created by the Supreme God but by demigods who come between the Supreme God and the physical universe. The genealogies would contain the lists of these semi-divine beings.

(2) These genealogies could refer to Jewish ancestral lists and other stories that became popular among Jews who were influenced by Greek culture. These stories would include not only ancestral origins but the meaning and interpretation of even minute details of the biblical record, such as numerals and the spelling of names.

(3) These genealogies could refer to legends and stories built around the Hebrew ancestors—stories that were handed down by tradition and were contained in popular Jewish writings at that time. An example of this kind of writing is the Book of Jubilees.
Arichea, D. C., & Hatton, H. (1995). A handbook on Paul’s letters to Timothy and to Titus. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (16). New York: United Bible Societies.

Your definition of fable comes awfully close to putting Jesus’ parables in the same light. I’d be careful about how dogmatic you want to make that argument.

Jesus in all of His metaphors and stories never once violated or contradicted the rest of Scripture. Neither did the prophets.

How is it that the modern church rises and applauses when a man commits all of the above violations? I believe it is because most people do not study and know the Scriptures.

Commentators and bloggers commending the book and defending it over God and His Word. How wonderful they are, how wise they are, how wonderful the book is….Where is the praise for God Almighty, the awe and respect due His Holy Name? Have you no fear? Fear God! Praise His holy name!

The Shack is a work of fiction by its own account. If you look up the word “fable” Websters Dictionary defines it as it is used in the Bible, it is defined as…

FABLE, n. [L., Gr. The radical sense is that which is spoken or told.]

1. A feigned story or tale, intended to instruct or amuse; a fictitious narration intended to enforce some useful truth or precept.
2. Fiction in general; as, the story is all a fable.
3. An idle story; vicious or vulgar fictions.
But refuse profane and old wives fables. 1 Tim 4.
4. The plot, or connected series of events, in an epic or dramatic poem.
5. Falsehood; a softer term for a lie.

FABLE, v.i.
1. To feign; to write fiction.
2. To tell falsehoods; as, he fables not.

FABLE, v.t. To feign; to invent; to devise and speak of, as true or real.

1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

How can the Shack be truly of God when God gives us the qualities of a minister of His? A true minister of God would be faithful to His Word, nature, and character. A true minister or ministry would heed the exhortation of Scripture, proclaiming unadulterated truth.

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. 2Ti 4:1-5

I cannot commend the author for his “balanced” criticism of the book. Odds are that I comprehend allegory and metaphor as well as most and better than others. My dogmatic response to the metaphors and misrepresentations of God and His Word in the Shack are not a knee jerk reaction or an emotionally charged attack on a cleverly devised fable.

I love God! I love His Word. I am a Christian and I desire to be found ready and faithful at His return. I desire that all would come to a knowledge of the Truth. I have committed myself to Him, and my passion and fervor for Him drives me to remain a staunch and vocal adversary to those who would call themselves Christians or ministers and attempt to water down His Truth and teach lies.

The Shack is a fable, a cleverly crafted story, by a man who either intentionally or inadvertently has crafted a work full of extra-biblical doctrines and false representations of God. I do not defend the works of CS Lewis or Tolkien, or Rowling. I do however get offended easily when my God and Savior are maligned and His name blasphemed by “Christians”. By calling God a woman, and making Him out to be 2/3 female is contradictory to scripture at the very least, and takes His name as worthless.

On one hand,
I appreciate a writer being creative for a creative God who loves creativity.

But on the other hand,
One recurring question I had as I read was that I wondered how respectful it is to ‘play with God’s character’ so to speak. -To put words in His mouth. -To take extra biblical artistic license in describing the way He appears and acts. I thought of the early Christians, who hardly wanted to write the Lord’s name for fear they were disrespectful.

I don’t have the answer to this question… Maybe someone else has some thoughts on this.

Back in the Eighties, there was this catchphrase that popped up occasionally in local SF litfandom: “It’s gotta be good — the Christians are denouncing it!” THAT is the rep Christian Media Activists (TM) have stuck themselves with, to the point that “Piss off the Xians” is now a deliberate marketing strategy; just punch their buttons, let them go, and rake in all the self-generating free publicity.

My writing partner (a burned-out country preacher) actually got in big trouble with the local church ladies when he joked on LiveJournal that he was available as a “Reverend” to denounce your latest book/comic/movie — as a publicity stunt, for a fee. I told him he might want to try it for real.

What about the others, though? Those new Christians who are barely on the path and who grope about searching for answers? They’re the ones who look dazed when the conversation turns to amillennialism vs. postmillennialism, arminianism vs. Calvinism, or Heaven forbid, hyper Calvinism. When they read a book that is as touching and emotional as The Shack, are they capable of discerning that the book may be fun to read, but it’s theologically problematic? That it, as Matt stated, asserts “that the Father was crucified, that there is no functional hierarchy within the trinity, and that Christ emptied himself of certain divine attributes in the incarnation,” and that these are not scriptural assertions?

That’s why myself and others believe this is a potentially dangerous book. As an English teacher, I asked parents to read Harry Potter WITH their children, to show them the aspects of the books that are heretical and dangerous according to Scripture – while still allowing that Harry exhibits fine qualities and the stories are entertaining.

Children won’t be reading this book, however. Adults who may not know God’s word will be, and who is going to tell them the truth? I appreciate the people who stand up for scripture, who speak for its inerrancy and divinely inspired creation, especially since many other ‘Christians’ on many web sites respond with sarcasm, or they call the negative reviewers of the book “unloving.” It’s not easy to stand up for your beliefs when Christians who should speak more kindly reduce your response to “wearing your underwear too tightly” simply because you disagree with them.

The problem with The Shack is the same problem that Mormonism has the same terms – different Jesus – different God – Not Christian.

Joseph Smith had god the father and jesus appear to him at the same time a physical manifestation of what he thought was god, however it was a demons masquerading as God. Because Joseph Smith failed to test the spirits and the Angel Moroni the false belief system of Mormonism was created.

Anyone who embraces this false god and false trinity is opening themselves up to error. It goes without saying if you can embrace this false trinity all the other doctrinal errors in the book seem insignificant.