Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nessa wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Even the Devil was God's son.

so satan and jesus are brothers..

isnt that a bit Mormon-ish?


Please note I have started a new thread on this:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =2&t=41849

You aren't imply that Jesus is a created being are you?

Jesus as God the Son is not the same as Son of God, even Adham was called "son of God", that doesn't make Adham and Jesus brothers does it?

Reread what I wrote.
I said does not necessarily...

Nessa wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nessa wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Even the Devil was God's son.

so satan and jesus are brothers..

isnt that a bit Mormon-ish?


Please note I have started a new thread on this:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =2&t=41849

You aren't imply that Jesus is a created being are you?

Jesus as God the Son is not the same as Son of God, even Adham was called "son of God", that doesn't make Adham and Jesus brothers does it?

Reread what I wrote.
I said does not necessarily...

Sorry Hun, where did you write that? I don't see that in the quote you posted...

Nessa wrote:a creation does not necessarily equal a child

I said it here

Ok, Sorry but you lost me there Nessa...
Not sure what your point is that creation does not necessarily equal a child...

The Devil/ The Satan/ Lucifier/ Man of Tyre ( if you make the connection that all are the same person)is implied to be One of the Sons of God ( Job) or at least one of His angels / realm dwellers.

Are you saying that the Angels and the beings that dwell with God are not Sons of God?

Nessa wrote:

Nessa wrote:a creation does not necessarily equal a child

I said it here

What about the reverse, is God the Father of all? I see it more as a title of respect owed to God. Those who deny such (non-Christians), I kind of see it as simply because they're rebelling against God in not believing in any heavenly Father deserving of their attention or respect.

Here is an interesting read: Is God Everyone's Father?

Kurieuo wrote:Here is an interesting read: Is God Everyone's Father?

I need to re think

Good points are being brought up

Days after I watched this movie, my new agey friend txt me to say she had watched it.

Weird timing... We have never discussed the book or movie.

She said she understood christianity alot better now. God is both female and male. And I dont know for sure but I suspect she sees we are all Gods children and we will all ultimately find him eventually. All paths lead to God kind of thing.

Nessa wrote:Days after I watched this movie, my new agey friend txt me to say she had watched it.

Weird timing... We have never discussed the book or movie.

She said she understood christianity alot better now. God is both female and male. And I dont know for sure but I suspect she sees we are all Gods children and we will all ultimately find him eventually. All paths lead to God kind of thing.

That is one of the issues that I admit, the book has.
It is too easy to think that all paths lead to God when that isn't the case.
All paths that lead to Jesus, lead to God.

It isn't clear enough in the book IMO.

I think that we are all God's children in the sense that He is Our creator Father and that ALL will find Him eventually BUT we also have to accept that some WILL reject Him.
A lot of "new age" people don't grasp that part, they don't understand that some people DO reject love.

Watched the movie, and it wasn't all that bad. Tackled some tough issues in a rather inventive way, perhaps even ingenius way. Whether or not it passed I suppose would be up to the viewer. There were many apologetical themes I've heard dealing with the problem of evil throughout.

Re: Universalism, I can see why you focussed in on us all being God's children Nessa in light of the movie. It really never sets in a boundary, like what happens if someone remained hating and didn't want God's love but to continue hating and judging, what happens to them? It also didn't explain much theology behind Christ's atonement, why, what, how it makes a difference. So, it dropped the ball there, but I don't believe the purpose of The Shack was to deal with a precise understanding of such, more than draw out allusions and provoke the viewer to think.

It seems to be a narrative theology that presents a theodicy of sorts (explanation for why evil is allowed) within a Christian framework. There is some superficiality to certain things said, but it does well to introduce people who just don't understand anything, may be hurting too much to understand reasons a good and loving God might have to allow certain things to happen.

I think it could move some closer to God, challenge them to think more deeply rather than just talk and react out of their pain. That seemed to me largely its purpose, while trying to remain within a Christian framework with some artistic license. So then, I see it as more good than bad, not just "more good than bad", but also good.

Kurieuo wrote:Watched the movie, and it wasn't all that bad. Tackled some tough issues in a rather inventive way, perhaps even ingenius way. Whether or not it passed I suppose would be up to the viewer. There were many apologetical themes I've heard dealing with the problem of evil throughout.

Re: Universalism, I can see why you focussed in on us all being God's children Nessa in light of the movie. It really never sets in a boundary, like what happens if someone remained hating and didn't want God's love but to continue hating and judging, what happens to them? It also didn't explain much theology behind Christ's atonement, why, what, how it makes a difference. So, it dropped the ball there, but I don't believe the purpose of The Shack was to deal with a precise understanding of such, more than draw out allusions and provoke the viewer to think.

It seems to be a narrative theology that presents a theodicy of sorts (explanation for why evil is allowed) within a Christian framework. There is some superficiality to certain things said, but it does well to introduce people who just don't understand anything, may be hurting too much to understand reasons a good and loving God might have to allow certain things to happen.

I think it could move some closer to God, challenge them to think more deeply rather than just talk and react out of their pain. That seemed to me largely its purpose, while trying to remain within a Christian framework with some artistic license. So then, I see it as more good than bad, not just "more good than bad", but also good.

I still haven't' seen it, mustering up the courage to be honest.
IMO, the book was about addressing the issue of evil and suffering ( which is does) and also to remind us that while MAN can TRY to describe or "pigeon-hole" what God is, we really can only comes as close as to what our limited understanding AND ability to CONVEY that understanding, can do.
It also reminds us that NO organization speaks for God and that salvation is a PERSONAL responsibility.

Finally saw the movie last night.

And after seeing it, I'm still bothered by God the Father being portrayed in human form. He supposedly came to mac in the dream as a black woman, because mac had daddy issues. But then God the father was an old Native American in a scene of the dream when mac "needed" a father.

And the Holy Spirit was portrayed as a new-agey, Japanese woman.

The theology in the movie was just off.

I suppose if one were to watch without giving a care about theology, then it might be a mildly entertaining movie.

I just wasn't impressed.

But in all fairness, I can see how it would speak to someone who may have been abused, and was holding on to anger and unforgiveness.

RickD wrote:Finally saw the movie last night.

And after seeing it, I'm still bothered by God the Father being portrayed in human form. He supposedly came to mac in the dream as a black woman, because mac had daddy issues. But then God the father was an old Native American in a scene of the dream when mac "needed" a father.

And the Holy Spirit was portrayed as a new-agey, Japanese woman.

The theology in the movie was just off.

I suppose if one were to watch without giving a care about theology, then it might be a mildly entertaining movie.

I just wasn't impressed.

But in all fairness, I can see how it would speak to someone who may have been abused, and was holding on to anger and unforgiveness.

Let’s be fair though, expecting Hollywood to make a movie with correct theology is a biiiit much for them, don’t you think?

Hortator wrote:

RickD wrote:Finally saw the movie last night.

And after seeing it, I'm still bothered by God the Father being portrayed in human form. He supposedly came to mac in the dream as a black woman, because mac had daddy issues. But then God the father was an old Native American in a scene of the dream when mac "needed" a father.

And the Holy Spirit was portrayed as a new-agey, Japanese woman.

The theology in the movie was just off.

I suppose if one were to watch without giving a care about theology, then it might be a mildly entertaining movie.

I just wasn't impressed.

But in all fairness, I can see how it would speak to someone who may have been abused, and was holding on to anger and unforgiveness.

Let’s be fair though, expecting Hollywood to make a movie with correct theology is a biiiit much for them, don’t you think?

That's true. But shouldn't we still criticize it? Especially if the movie stays true to the book which was written by someone who should know better?

I've not seen this movie. But ANY movie or art form, no matter how well intentioned, that distorts or denies key, important theological truths, is bad! All lies work better hidden with a coating of honey and a sprinkling of truth.