Spoiler:
| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| Anne Rice Leaves Christianity https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3664 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Rodahn [ Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Anne Rice Leaves Christianity |
News at 11 I must say she hit the nail on the head on how I personally am currently torn on the religion. Specifically liked this part: Quote: “My faith in Christ is central to my life. My conversion from a pessimistic atheist lost in a world I didn't understand, to an optimistic believer in a universe created and sustained by a loving God is crucial to me," Rice wrote. "But following Christ does not mean following His followers. Christ is infinitely more important than Christianity and always will be, no matter what Christianity is, has been or might become.” I'd say her devotion to Christ is a bit stronger than mine at the moment, but I agree with her overall sentiment. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Anne Rice Leaves Christianity |
In other words, she's not leaving Christianity at all; she's just not going to.. well, be a fundamentalist, looks like. Interesting, though, that she's doing so based on their apparent failure to adhere to her political views, and that she seems to want to lump all 2.1 billion Chrisitians into that category. I'm thinking she may have misunderstood a few basic concepts, but really, her decision hardly warrants much attention. |
|
| Author: | NephyrS [ Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
In other words, she's able to separate the belief from the dogma of the religion. |
|
| Author: | Monte [ Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I thought writing her novel about Jesus in the first person was an odd choice for a Christian. |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
She lasted longer than I thought she would and took away the important stuff. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
NephyrS wrote: In other words, she's able to separate the belief from the dogma of the religion. I don't know what distinction you think you're making here. "Dogma" is just a word for doctrine that has acquired negative connotations and stigma for some reason. |
|
| Author: | Stathol [ Sat Jul 31, 2010 8:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
From what I'm reading she's confusing the Roman Catholic Church with the whole of Christianity(TM). She hasn't "left Christianity", she's just left the RCC and isn't participating in church anymore. Or, at least, not church as she's accustomed to thinking of it. I take a fairly broad view of what constitutes church. That said, I've seen a lot of ex-Catholics who are so burned out and angry with Catholicism that they don't want to have anything to do with anything that might resemble church at all. While I can understand that sentiment, I hope she's not among those who have turned their backs completely on the rest of the body. |
|
| Author: | NephyrS [ Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Diamondeye wrote: NephyrS wrote: In other words, she's able to separate the belief from the dogma of the religion. I don't know what distinction you think you're making here. "Dogma" is just a word for doctrine that has acquired negative connotations and stigma for some reason. More specifically, dogma is a word for religious doctrine. You can't use dogma synonymously with doctrine outside of the connotation of religion. A religion is made up of two parts- the beliefs of the individuals and their personal commitment/relationship with the deity they worship, and the centralized doctrine of the religion, which along with the belief itself often stipulates certain ways to act, things to do/not do, and a certain amount of necessary ceremony to include in the religion. To separate the belief from the dogma is to be able to continue your personal belief/relationship (in this case) with God, without needing a centralized doctrine and ceremony to back it up. In other words, you keep the belief but leave the church/religion. |
|
| Author: | Rodahn [ Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
NephyrS wrote: More specifically, dogma is a word for religious doctrine. You can't use dogma synonymously with doctrine outside of the connotation of religion. A religion is made up of two parts- the beliefs of the individuals and their personal commitment/relationship with the deity they worship, and the centralized doctrine of the religion, which along with the belief itself often stipulates certain ways to act, things to do/not do, and a certain amount of necessary ceremony to include in the religion. To separate the belief from the dogma is to be able to continue your personal belief/relationship (in this case) with God, without needing a centralized doctrine and ceremony to back it up. In other words, you keep the belief but leave the church/religion. ^^This in a nutshell is my fundamental stumbling block on religion right now. I admire the loving, forgiving nature of the Christian God, as well as the messages of temperance, humbleness, etc. But there's also a lot of sheer stupidity that comes with the Christian doctrine that makes no sense and seems flat-out contradictory to God's loving nature. It seems to me that much of the doctrine (mainly the "list of cannot's" and "abominations") and ceremony were invented by strictly by Man to keep control. I feel that God really frowns on many of the things Christians believe. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Re: |
NephyrS wrote: I don't know what distinction you think you're making here. "Dogma" is just a word for doctrine that has acquired negative connotations and stigma for some reason. More specifically, dogma is a word for religious doctrine. You can't use dogma synonymously with doctrine outside of the connotation of religion. A religion is made up of two parts- the beliefs of the individuals and their personal commitment/relationship with the deity they worship, and the centralized doctrine of the religion, which along with the belief itself often stipulates certain ways to act, things to do/not do, and a certain amount of necessary ceremony to include in the religion. To separate the belief from the dogma is to be able to continue your personal belief/relationship (in this case) with God, without needing a centralized doctrine and ceremony to back it up. In other words, you keep the belief but leave the church/religion.[/quote] Except that this disitinction does not really exist. The beliefs themself are part of the doctrine as well, and are what dictate the form of the various aspects of worship are. If you're leaving the church but retaining the belief, what you're doing is schisming, and creating a new denomination of one (yourself), or switching to another stablished denomination. It's all fine and dandy, but you're only leaving the religion if you're moving to an entirely separate belief system. If you're leaving the church, that's fine, people leave them all the time. However, very few churches have dogma or doctrine that exist for no reason. Practically all of them are based on some interpretation of Scripture or other, just as the differences between different types of Moslems are based on different interpretations of Mohammed's will for who was to succeed him. If you want to make up your own doctrine, go right ahead, but there's a certain arrogance to deciding to leave because church doctrine doesn't fit your political views. If you really do believe in God, it takes a fair amount of hubris to think He agrees with any earthly political position. |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes it does, however church leaders in most faiths do it all the time. Oh, they usually phrase the political position as God wants you to live like this and back it up with scripture that can be interpreted that way. Someone else will come along and find a scripture that seems to oppose that point. The Holy wars go on and on. |
|
| Author: | Lalaas [ Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Anne Rice Leaves Christianity |
Spoiler: |
|
| Author: | Taskiss [ Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't think the pope cares. |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Sat Jul 31, 2010 10:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am sure the pope is in the Vatican going "Oh Noes! who will write the next Jesus was a vampire killer novel?" My big question... is her writing going to stop being a joke? Are we going to get any more good books from her? |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You seem to be implying that she ever wrote anything but garbage in the first place... |
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rynar wrote: You seem to be implying that she ever wrote anything but garbage in the first place... I enjoyed many of her Vampire Chronicles books. She may never be Charles Dickens calibur, but she is better than many authors ever will be. |
|
| Author: | Kaffis Mark V [ Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
darksiege wrote: Jesus was a vampire killer 
|
|
| Author: | darksiege [ Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:32 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
that movie was horrible Kaffis, I have actually watched it. |
|
| Author: | Rynar [ Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
To each there own, I suppose, but I thought they were crap. Then again, I'm a total sci-fi/fantasy geek, so I can't exact write them off as meaningless trash. |
|
| Author: | Wwen [ Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Monte wrote: I thought writing her novel about Jesus in the first person was an odd choice for a Christian. Haha. All I care about is how lame she helped make vampires. Damn you Rice! |
|
| Author: | Rodahn [ Sun Aug 01, 2010 12:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
My only familiarity with Anne Rice's work are via the movies made of them. Interview With Brad Pitt was enjoyable, if not a bit . . . overwrought. She seemed to take the whole vampires as glamorous poofters route. My view of vampires is a bit complex: I think that they are an amalgam of all of the different portrayals (yes, even Twilight) -- somewhat vulnerable and emo; yet strong and confident; enjoying the glamorous, bourgeoise lifestyle; yet not afraid to lurk in the dark shanty places; hunters of blood; yet also patient seducers; warriors, lovers, poets, overlords, subjects, average Joe/Jane. Anyway, back on topic: yes I agree her even becoming Christian to begin with was a bit odd, given her persona, but then again, a spiritual awakening can happen to anyone. |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Sun Aug 01, 2010 3:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Rodahn wrote: My view of vampires is a bit complex: I think that they are an amalgam of all of the different portrayals (yes, even Twilight) -- somewhat vulnerable and emo; yet strong and confident; enjoying the glamorous, bourgeoise lifestyle... What's glamorous about the middle-class lifestyle? |
|
| Author: | Rodahn [ Sun Aug 01, 2010 6:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bourgeoise were considered pretty well-off in their day. It's basically just an expression now. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think someone's just trying to sell some books. |
|
| Author: | Vindicarre [ Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I have to disagree. Bourgeoisie = middle class. The were a target because they had assets, and they might have seemed well off to the poor... Kinda like Anne Rice saying Christ is central to her life, but she's leaving Christianity; somehow the two don't make sense, unless you believe the words have alternate meanings. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
