Chú Cá Vàng Thứ 14 tải xuống LIT miễn phí

Nicole Decker _icole_ecker — Among conservative evangelicals (which I am), you are not supposed to like this book. It is "heresy," ad infinitum, etc. However, as I began reading it I liked alot of what I was reading. This doesn't go without saying that there were things I didn't like or found myself in disagreement. But, like any book out there, I rarely agree with everything in any book (except the Bible, of course!). As far as the writing style, Young is an excellent story teller and did a great job of description of the people and places. As good as it is, I do disagree with Eugene Peterson's praise that this book "has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress did for his." Hold on now. Pilgrim's Progress is a work of art. It is a sustained allegory all throughout weaving Scripture throughout almost every sentence. Also, John Bunyan's work not only affected his generation, but is still affecting people to this very day, some 400 years later. So, to make a statement such as Peterson's is either ridiculously premature or daringly prophetic. Only time will tell if The Shack will be able to match Bunyan's classic. Somehow, I doubt many will be reading this 400 years from now (and I say that having liked much of the book). The author obviously writes from a Christian perspective and so I critique in light of this perspective as well. The things that I loved about the book: God desires a relationship with you (HUGE), an emphasis on grace and dependence on God, the grand story of redemption from Creation to New Heavens and New Earth, acknowledgement of man's sinfulness and our ability to screw up the world we live in, the creation of the world, an honest tackling and wrestling with the issue of the problem of evil and suffering and how to reconcile that with who God is as Creator and All-Knowing, Powerful, and Everywhere, a Trinitarian view of God as three persons in one God working together in intimacy and absolute unity, a solid view of God's holiness in that he is unlike anyone else (in a category of his own, beyond time and space, etc.). The things that I didn't like about the book: 1) Humanity was created to be loved by God instead of being created by God to worship him and reflect his glory. I would say that we are loved by God so that we can worship him, 2) God limits himself when we talk to him so as not to be bored and know everything we are going to tell him about like a parent talking to a child. It is true that God limits himself in certain times and that our revelation from him is filtered through language as well as our finiteness, but God does know everything. The Scripture clearly states that he already knows what we are going to ask before we ask it, 3) his explanation of submission within the Godhead (or lack thereof) and his continuing definition of submission doesn't match much of the teaching of Scripture and the definition of the Greek word. I think I know what he was trying to say, but his explanation seemed to only muddy the water, 4)a distorted view of the Law vs. grace. He makes the common mistake of many Christians that God didn't desire relationship when He gace the Israelites the law. However, the Law was given in the context of his relationship with Israel as their redeemer and God. The Law was given so they would know how to respond to a holy God and how to live in his presence. It is within this context that I would say that God does have expectations on us, but not devoid of a loving relationship. Or course, some of these things could also just be an issue of semantics since for some people "law" sounds cold and harsh when it really just means "teaching," 5) the lack of the Bible as a help. Although I believe that every Christian needs to connect with God personally and emotionally, the Bible is also the main resource that God uses in our lives. I found it odd that Mack wasn't directed to connect with some of the painful heart cries in the Psalms, etc., and 6) All humans are forgiven. I don't see this in Scripture anywhere. I do see that God loves the world, but I do not see forgiveness for all people anywhere in the Bible. Of course, most people have reacted strongly to God the Father being a large, Black woman who later changes into a man with a cool pony tail and the Holy Spirit being an Asian woman. Within the realm of creative fiction, I understand why Mack needed to have God love him as a mother before he could love and trust him as a Papa (or as Romans 8 says "Abba" or "Daddy"). Although I don't believe God the Father is a woman, I don't have a problem in the realm of fiction for God to be portrayed in a number of ways similar to how C.S. Lewis describes God and Christian truths in the Narnia books, etc. Personally, I think the book could have made the same points without using the imagery the author used, but he's the author and this was the decision he made. On a personal level, there were several times where I was impacted emotionally at a deep level because I identified with some of Mack's emotional hang-ups as well as when he tells his older daughter that it wasn't her fault (I burst into tears! It was a good thing I was in my hotel room!). Overall, I give the book only 3 stars and one thumb up because of some of the confusion I think the book creates. Having said this, I enjoyed reading it and think that many people unknowingly will begin to think about God and start asking questions about their relationship to him and that is always a good thing!

Steven Quinn stevenquinn20 — I really liked this book. It had that classic "Hale Tang" to it, that made me want to start over the minute I was done, because it was so good. I love that the main character isn't a Princess, or necessarily beautiful, but that she is still able to lead a life which satisfies herself. Or something. Just go read it.