Is the author really being sacrilegious (as he states) or just offering a differing opinion?

[Fozia RYK]

We can never experience further understading in case we don't allow ourselves to ponder the case. Whether or not the outcome of this sort of thinking is correct or not, is another request.

[Huini Hellen]

First, I commend the author for this bold move. Secondly, I think he's just offering his different opinions. The philosophical nature of the Bible, where most churches draw in their inspiration from, calls for dynamic and dimensional interpretation. Thus, it would be detrimental to state that there is only one path that the Bible's interpretation can follow.

[Maddie Atkinson]

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 agree, although, I don't think he entirely disagrees on the divinity of Jesus, but rather that he isn't one of the Holy Trinity, God is his own divine self, and Jesus is his son, he is divine, but not one with God. Also, you're right, I think a lot of Christians would say he is being sacrilegious, however, I think this is only in the context of Catholics. He talks about transubstantiation, the act that the wafer and the wine magically become the actual body and blood of Christ, but other denominations, such as the Church of England (Protestantism) believe in consubstantiation, so the wafer and wine just represent his blood and body and Jesus is just there in spirit when communion is taken. So yeah, as you and the author say, "some people" might think he is being sacrilegious, but I don't believe that he is!!!

[Maddie Atkinson]

First, I commend the author for this bold move. Secondly, I think he's just offering his different opinions. The philosophical nature of the Bible, where most churches draw in their inspiration from, calls for dynamic and dimensional interpretation. Thus, it would be detrimental to state that there is only one path that the Bible's interpretation can follow.

I entirely agree with you! The Bible IS subjective, and the Church only offer one interpretation of it and dissuade any other interpretation. There is definitely more than one path to follow from the Bible, and the author has just chosen his own, in the eyes of God, I don't believe this to be sacrilegious!

[Dayodiola]

Human are of differing opinion, to me, the author will be sacrilegious when he herd readers unto a new religion, which be didn't do.

[zainherb]

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 completely.
God gave us an analytical !Ind and wants us to use it yo ask questions and think.
Challenge the generally held beliefs and see what comes of it.
Claiming it is sacrilegious to ask questions like this is to allow injustice to go on without anyone speaking up for fear of saying something wrong.

So no the author is not being sacrilegious.

The conclusions derived from this line of thinking are not necessarily correct, but the concept of thinking itself is correct.

[Shahina C A]

The author didn't proved or disproved anything. She stated some facts and let the reader find the solutions.

[CConfounded]

I don't think it's sacrilegious to examine the bible and the church through in a less conventional light. To me, the bible should be read critically, and the church should be challenged. Even in the bible, Paul challenged a church that arose after Jesus died, which failed to meet Paul's standards.

To me, God expects you to be critical of his work.

[Cynthia Olyy]

I don't think he's being any sacrilegious. What he's doing is what so many people have done over different topics—giving a different point of view over a conventional belief. There are lots of them out there. No sacrilege!

[Manali_DC]

This isn't sacrilege. Historically, there has been different interpretations of all religious texts the world over! The Bible too has many interpretations. Nor does this book sound like the author is challenging anyone's views. She just tries to put out her interpretation of the text. And these books were supposed to guide mankind through hundreds and thousands of years. Why must We be surprised if interpretations differ over time?

[K+SQUARE]

I don't think the author is sacrilegious. He simply put forth his perspective and o opinions concerning the Bible and God.

[Ahbed Nadir]

I dont think he is being sacrilegious. The bible is open to different opinions for different people based on their different experiences. It's subjective on the reader. Therefore there cannot be one universally accepted meaning that it's sacrilegious to go against.

[micoleon13]

I don't believe that the author is being sacrilegious, he's looking at different aspects that are taught and questioning the different interpretations. It's so easy to get caught up in one way of thinking or teaching and it's good that there are books like this to push the questions and to look at how those interpretations can be more like opinions in many cases.

[ASNOUFFER64]

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. The author isn't being disrespectful about religion just sharing a different point of veiw.

[CGO]

I don't think the author was being sacrilegious. He was not violating something sacred. He just presented a different opinion from the standard, and I think people are entitled to their opinions.