OnlineBookClub.org

I know that by definition, sacrilege is disrespecting something religious or sacred, however, I don't think that the author is being sacrilegious. The author is simply offering a different opinion to the Church's teachings. I know that sounds like blasphemy or sacrilege, however I don't think they are challenging the Church's teachings, but rather having a different interpretation of the Bible's teachings, which are there to help oneself and therefore will be interpreted differently by everyone who reads it, even those in authority in the Church, as no one is perfect and we are all subject to personal bias when it comes to beliefs no matter what or who you are. What do y'all think?

I don't think he was being sacrilegious at all. Unless you want to consider that the many different translations of the Bible have been so. To me, this is another translation of the Bible.

Apparently the author does not mean to disprove or harm the biblical teachings. She has attempted to go beyond what is just stated their and has tried to give a proper interpretation. So this book cannot be taken as a sacrilegious document

I don't think the author is sacrilegious. Maybe bold enough to challenge and test the common beliefs, but I strongly believe that God doesn't have a problem with that and we shouldn't either. We can never experience deeper understading if we don't allow ourselves to think outside of the box. Whether the result of this type of thinking is correct or not, is another question.

Kirsi_78 wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 05:43 I don't think the author is sacrilegious. Maybe bold enough to challenge and test the common beliefs, but I strongly believe that God doesn't have a problem with that and we shouldn't either. We can never experience deeper understading if we don't allow ourselves to think outside of the box. Whether the result of this type of thinking is correct or not, is another question.

I agree with you! Who is to say what is the correct way to read something, unless you're purposefully manipulating something for your own gain, then allowing yourself to read something differently and gain a new perspective is perfectly okay!

Bertha Jackson wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 18:42 I don't think he was being sacrilegious at all. Unless you want to consider that the many different translations of the Bible have been so. To me, this is another translation of the Bible.

I completely agree!! It is just another perspective, it's not wrong in any way. Personally I think those who say that it is sacrilegious to have your own opinion in religion, are those who are too scared of change and losing power and money that they have over the many many people that realise that there is more to life than just the Church's own monopoly of the truth!

I do not believe he is being sacrilegious, but I do believe it will often be viewed as this, as many people can not open their minds to things that challenge their views. I concur your theory that if someone to consider this to be sacrilegious then they should believe all other versions of the bibles to be also, but how do you determine which to be considered the one true bible then? Interesting concept.

I don't think that the author was sacrilegious either. He didn't disrespect the Church's teachings, he just offered another approach, his own point of view, which happened to be quite vastly different from them.

Dominik_G wrote: ↑03 Dec 2020, 06:00 I don't think that the author was sacrilegious either. He didn't disrespect the Church's teachings, he just offered another approach, his own point of view, which happened to be quite vastly different from them.

I agree, I think he is more questioning the teachings the leaders if the Church give, especially when it comes to the manipulations of the Bible, I think he is just offering another perspective of the scriptures that the Church usually tries to supress because it doesn't fit their own agenda.

Maddie Atkinson wrote: ↑01 Dec 2020, 10:56 I know that by definition, sacrilege is disrespecting something religious or sacred, however, I don't think that the author is being sacrilegious. The author is simply offering a different opinion to the Church's teachings. I know that sounds like blasphemy or sacrilege, however I don't think they are challenging the Church's teachings, but rather having a different interpretation of the Bible's teachings, which are there to help oneself and therefore will be interpreted differently by everyone who reads it, even those in authority in the Church, as no one is perfect and we are all subject to personal bias when it comes to beliefs no matter what or who you are. What do y'all think?

I think the author is just offering a different opinion. God gives every person something different when they are genuinely seeking answers from Him as they read and study His word. By that I mean He gives it to you in a way YOU can understand, so I believe the author is expressing what they feel was God's answer to them.

It is very healthy to question or challenge a belief. The point of the book was to open your mind and use logic and reasoning to draw conclusions, even if they go against widely held beliefs of organized religion. It is always a good thing to question and challenge. Dr. Hunt seems very respectful.

Kirsi_78 wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 05:43 I don't think the author is sacrilegious. Maybe bold enough to challenge and test the common beliefs, but I strongly believe that God doesn't have a problem with that and we shouldn't either. We can never experience deeper understading if we don't allow ourselves to think outside of the box. Whether the result of this type of thinking is correct or not, is another question.

I agree. There is a Bible verse that goes "Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it" (Jeremiah 6:16). The Bible itself is telling us that it's ok to ask questions, analyze, and follow the "good way" once we have figured it out based on our analysis of the answers we've received. So, if the author had questions and wanted to analyze and test the beliefs he grew up with, then he was doing the right thing according to the Bible - he was seeing two "crossroads" (science vs. religion) and began to "look."

Sushan wrote: ↑02 Dec 2020, 04:27 Apparently the author does not mean to disprove or harm the biblical teachings. She has attempted to go beyond what is just stated their and has tried to give a proper interpretation. So this book cannot be taken as a sacrilegious document

I don't think that it's precisely "a" proper interpretation that the author is giving. It's "her" interpretation. Saying that it's "a proper interpretation" makes it sound more factual than it actually is, given that it is, after all, only one person's opinion. There are dozens of "interpretations" of the Bible that various people have given, all different from each other in some way. None is more "appropriate" than the other. Even those given by religious scholars are merely the opinions of each individual author.

In discussing Holy Communion, the author said that some people "might think" he was being sacrilegious, but he did not agree. He simply disagreed with the church's teachings that the wafer and wine magically became the actual body and blood of Christ. The author quotes Jesus as saying "do this in remembrance of me," a completely different idea. I think this is a significant disagreement that would probably cause any Christian to say that the author is sacrilegious. Christian churches (Catholic or other) teach that Jesus was divine, a part of god. He is one third of the holy trinity -- father, son, and holy ghost. The author believes in god, in his own way, but does not believe in the divinity of Jesus.

I don’t think the author is sacrilegious . Over time there has been many interpretations of the Bible and it can be looked as a guide to morality and can be very subjective. I think possibly, very fundamentalist religious people may find it sacrilegious but this would be a some what an old fashioned reaction.