OnlineBookClub.org

I do not believe that Hunt's opinions on the church are for the Church Universal. He is writing from a Catholic position and I believe that when he refers to the church, he is specifically speaking of the experiences he had in the Catholic Church. What do you think? Do you think he means to infer that all churches make us feel guilty for our sins? Or just the Catholic Church? Have your experiences with the church been the same as his or different?

I think the Catholic Church is definitely a major, if not the main, perpetrator. However, I think many different denominations and also other religions make people feel guilty for sins that are just ridiculous. For example, "you can't be gay, it's unnatural" is awful because it makes people feel guilty just for being born the way they are. It is perfectly natural. I think his views are universal to an extent, because not all religions feel this way, but also, atheism and secularism are on the rise so much nowadays that these experiences are null and void as well as universal!!!

I think the problem with "church" is that it is full of sinners and we don't always get it right. Jesus said hate the sin, but love the sinner. I think one of the points that Hunt makes is that the Catholic Church was too legalistic, more about the rules than actually being a Christ follower. I don't think that churches, to use your example, should tell people they can't be gay, you are right when you say that some are born that way, but the sin is acting on the "gay" impulses, not actually being gay, if that makes sense. I think the problem is that too many people do tend to be legalistic, but religion is not about rules, it is about a relationship with Christ.

cd20 wrote: ↑14 Dec 2020, 08:45 I think the problem with "church" is that it is full of sinners and we don't always get it right. Jesus said hate the sin, but love the sinner. I think one of the points that Hunt makes is that the Catholic Church was too legalistic, more about the rules than actually being a Christ follower. I don't think that churches, to use your example, should tell people they can't be gay, you are right when you say that some are born that way, but the sin is acting on the "gay" impulses, not actually being gay, if that makes sense. I think the problem is that too many people do tend to be legalistic, but religion is not about rules, it is about a relationship with Christ.

You're right about religion not being about rules, and, in terms of Christianity it is about a relationship with Christ. Acting on sinful impulses is what makes it become a sin, however you're wrong when it comes to being gay. It's not an impulse anymore than it is for straight people. It isn't even written in the Bible anywhere. I think as long as you're true to Christ and yourself, you should be fine. Follow in Christ, not necessarily the rules set out for you by the Church.

I don't think what the author tries to imply is limited only to Catholic church, or only to the Catholicism/Christianity related institutions, but for all the religions. Nowadays almost all religious teachings are corrupted because many of the religious leaders have become political puppets and they bend the religions as per their political superiors needs, in order to obtain mundane values. So the facts are universal

We will have to agree to disagree. The Bible does speak specifically against sexual relationships between members of the same sex (Leviticus 18:21-22NIV; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27).

cd20 wrote: ↑14 Dec 2020, 20:51 We will have to agree to disagree. The Bible does speak specifically against sexual relationships between members of the same sex (Leviticus 18:21-22NIV; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27).

That was purposefully mistranslated in 1948 to fit the American agenda of homophobia in the 1940s. It was translated from a German word meaning 'boy' not man. It was about paedophilia. And even if it was correctly translated, I guess I am screwed in the eyes of God!!

cd20 wrote: ↑13 Dec 2020, 16:43 I do not believe that Hunt's opinions on the church are for the Church Universal. He is writing from a Catholic position and I believe that when he refers to the church, he is specifically speaking of the experiences he had in the Catholic Church. What do you think? Do you think he means to infer that all churches make us feel guilty for our sins? Or just the Catholic Church? Have your experiences with the church been the same as his or different?

The catholic church is a huge part, yes, because of his background, but I think the views of the author applies to most other churches as well.
I think the church regards sins as bad and maybe the individuals in charge think to prevent people from committing sins by making the feel guilty for commiting anything they regards as a sin.
It certainly doesn't work in many cases especially in this day and age and they should change their methods.
In any case whether things change or not, the author has spoken up.

I think that he has experience with the Catholic church and consequently, they get pointed at in his book. I think is argument is against the changeability of the tenets the church uses, and how it is that they sometimes seem so unnatural and unreasonable. Stifling of natural tendencies seems to be a vein running through a lot of religions. So, his argument there might extend to other religions. I didn't really go to church, but when I did, I always enjoyed it, whether it was Catholic, Lutheran, or Baptist. Some rules, in my opinion, well seemingly unreasonable have a point. For instance, a couple should not sleep in the same bed with their partner until they are married. Assuming that marriage is a fine thing, is that really too much to ask? Exceptional circumstances aside, when is that most likely supposedly too much to ask? Generally, when something fishy is either going on, or about to go on!

Bigwig1973 wrote: ↑18 Dec 2020, 10:24 I think that he has experience with the Catholic church and consequently, they get pointed at in his book. I think is argument is against the changeability of the tenets the church uses, and how it is that they sometimes seem so unnatural and unreasonable. Stifling of natural tendencies seems to be a vein running through a lot of religions. So, his argument there might extend to other religions. I didn't really go to church, but when I did, I always enjoyed it, whether it was Catholic, Lutheran, or Baptist. Some rules, in my opinion, well seemingly unreasonable have a point. For instance, a couple should not sleep in the same bed with their partner until they are married. Assuming that marriage is a fine thing, is that really too much to ask? Exceptional circumstances aside, when is that most likely supposedly too much to ask? Generally, when something fishy is either going on, or about to go on!

Personally, I think rules like sleeping in the same bed as your partner before marriage are unreasonable. Sex aside, what is wrong with sharing a bed? And including sex, there are ways to prevent accidental pregnancies, assuming the couple is straight! Sex is a natural tendency, as put by you, and so is the need for comfort and protection, which comes from sharing a bed with your partner! If it's okay after marriage, what's so wrong with doing it before, especially since not all couples get married today?! I know that this is just the example you gave, but my point is that some of these rules are just not valid in today's society anymore. It's not too much to ask in any way, but it's just not everyone's preference, it doesn't mean something 'fishy' is about to happen!! This is an argument which I think extends to all religions and rules that go back over a millennia that just seem outdated and null and void today!

Inasmuch as the author is writing from a Catholic point of view, I think his views are universal and not limited to the Catholic church. I also think that he infers that all churches make society feel guilty for their sins.

Maddie Atkinson wrote: ↑15 Dec 2020, 19:16

cd20 wrote: ↑14 Dec 2020, 20:51 We will have to agree to disagree. The Bible does speak specifically against sexual relationships between members of the same sex (Leviticus 18:21-22NIV; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27).

That was purposefully mistranslated in 1948 to fit the American agenda of homophobia in the 1940s. It was translated from a German word meaning 'boy' not man. It was about paedophilia. And even if it was correctly translated, I guess I am screwed in the eyes of God!!

That was funny. But, honestly, I highly doubt God would condemn anyone for loving another one, being of the same sex or not, as long as there's consent.

Maddie Atkinson - the point of my choice was that the point was to make one think. Sometimes, someone tells someone NOT to do something and then they want to do it, when in all actuality, they agreed in the first place. Sometimes, people are scared, coerced, etc. So, if the church "forces" someone to do what they think the individual thinks is the right thing, it only seems wrong because you feel forced. It perhaps ought to not be that way and maybe that is just my take - don't get me wrong, I'm a cuddler! I kind of see it like the stupid cup game people play at bars or parties - put the cup upside down and try to flip it back up so it lands upright. Only, there's a lot of different kinds of cups! Now, I have the red Solo cup song in my head...

Lunastella wrote: ↑18 Dec 2020, 11:49

Maddie Atkinson wrote: ↑15 Dec 2020, 19:16

cd20 wrote: ↑14 Dec 2020, 20:51 We will have to agree to disagree. The Bible does speak specifically against sexual relationships between members of the same sex (Leviticus 18:21-22NIV; Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:26-27).

That was purposefully mistranslated in 1948 to fit the American agenda of homophobia in the 1940s. It was translated from a German word meaning 'boy' not man. It was about paedophilia. And even if it was correctly translated, I guess I am screwed in the eyes of God!!

That was funny. But, honestly, I highly doubt God would condemn anyone for loving another one, being of the same sex or not, as long as there's consent.

Exactly! Love is love, you're not doing anything wrong! God will love you for who you are, we are all made in his image, so he must be a lil gay (not trying to be blasphemous, just making a point )?

Maddie Atkinson wrote: ↑18 Dec 2020, 13:58

Lunastella wrote: ↑18 Dec 2020, 11:49

Maddie Atkinson wrote: ↑15 Dec 2020, 19:16

That was purposefully mistranslated in 1948 to fit the American agenda of homophobia in the 1940s. It was translated from a German word meaning 'boy' not man. It was about paedophilia. And even if it was correctly translated, I guess I am screwed in the eyes of God!!

That was funny. But, honestly, I highly doubt God would condemn anyone for loving another one, being of the same sex or not, as long as there's consent.

Exactly! Love is love, you're not doing anything wrong! God will love you for who you are, we are all made in his image, so he must be a lil gay (not trying to be blasphemous, just making a point )?

LOL I can't possibly say if He is because I'm not even sure He is a he. But I know many LGBTQ+ people who are better Christians than some heterosexual people.