Anne Rice Breaks Up With Christianity via Facebook

  • Thread starter Thread starter MormonHero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Better avoid the Huffington Post, CNN and anywhere else the MSM allows readers comments…all the usual “We Hate Christianity” mob is coming out of the woodwork.

As for Anne Rice…well, speaking as a Catholic who never had an opinion about her works one way or another…sorry to see you go. Do come back if you change your mind…
 
Tiffany_M_S said:
Perhaps I do owe you an apology, and I am sorry. The reason why I have said what I have said is that, analytical it may be, but the words are still rather hurtful. You understand that she is calling for attention. There is no mistake in that. However, why she is calling for attention is something you have not considered.

Cinette, this woman is clearly in pain, and all you can do is point out her faults, whether you mean to or not.

I am not saying that you are a cruel person. All I am stating here is this: you need to slow down, stop for a minute, and think about how what you are saying is affecting other people.

I don’t know if you understand what I am trying to do, here. By saying these things, you are also affecting yourself in such a way as the people around you’s reaction to your comments.

By saying things like this, you invite other people to get mad and attack you. I know how this works, because I once did, and sometimes, still do, what you are doing here.

I am not judging you, Cinette. I rather see myself as protecting you by correcting what you are doing so that it does not invite cruel comments from the people around you.

Stop, take a look around you, and think: “How would I feel if someone said this about me, or about someone that I care about or personally admire? Would this make me angry?”

After all, no, Christianity is not meant to be comfortable, and it is, in fact, about the naked truth, but didn’t Christ say, “If you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me.”?

I’m not trying to hurt you. I’m just saying that you might want to think about the words that are coming out of your mouth when you say them. I don’t want to see anyone going on a smear campaign against you.

I believe you are a good person with good intentions. Just please be careful, okay? I don’t want to see you get hurt.
Click to expand...
OK…:sad_yes: :crying: :hug3::flowers:
 
seeker57 said:
In my church, it is expected that people will evolve and grow spiritually. If someone were to announce one day that Unitarian Universalism was no longer feeding them and they had found another spiritual home - or wished to look for one - we would certainly be sorry to lose him or her, but would wish whoever it was well on their journey.
Click to expand...
The church I came from also believed this and supported their members likewise. 🙂

Years before, after some nasty comments from a self-proclaimed “real Christian” about my Jewish boss, I too left Christianity. I didn’t turn my back on Christ–just His arrogant, pompous “followers” (and I use the term loosely). Unfortunately, those particular followers are the ones who get all the publicity (has anyone here not heard of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps…?).

I didn’t find God until I left the church, and got to meet Him as He really is, and not as someone else tells me He should be. I didn’t rejoin Christianity until I found a church (non-Protestant) that allowed me to doubt, question, study, pray, meditate, and eventually accept–with no judgment.

Leaving Christianity turned out to be the best thing I ever did for my spiritual life. It gave me perspective on the nature of God and allowed me to return, optimistic and hopeful, to Christianity…and eventually to the Catholic Church.

I hope Ms. Rice finds the same. I’m betting she will. 🙂

Miz
 
Miserys_Fence said:
The church I came from also believed this and supported their members likewise. 🙂

Years before, after some nasty comments from a self-proclaimed “real Christian” about my Jewish boss, I too left Christianity. I didn’t turn my back on Christ–just His arrogant, pompous “followers” (and I use the term loosely). Unfortunately, those particular followers are the ones who get all the publicity (has anyone here not heard of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps…?).

I didn’t find God until I left the church, and got to meet Him as He really is, and not as someone else tells me He should be. I didn’t rejoin Christianity until I found a church (non-Protestant) that allowed me to doubt, question, study, pray, meditate, and eventually accept–with no judgment.

Leaving Christianity turned out to be the best thing I ever did for my spiritual life. It gave me perspective on the nature of God and allowed me to return, optimistic and hopeful, to Christianity…and eventually to the Catholic Church.

I hope Ms. Rice finds the same. I’m betting she will. 🙂

Miz
Click to expand...
I am a revert to the Catholic Church. The more I learn the more my devotion deepens. Leaving the Church…or rather, drifting from…is something you do once. I pray I shall always remain faithfull. Somehow I believe that I would never be able to leave again…

Cinette:)
 
Publisher said:
God is a God of progressive revelation. Just as I do not believe it was God who told the Hebrews to enter Jericho and slaughter every man woman and child…I do not believe it was God who has spoken on this subject…it was tragically fallen, sinful humanity in their ignorance. The message of diversity was long in getting through our mind-blind understanding of the natural world…we are now beginning to understand the wonderful diversity of God’s creation…including the diversity of sexual orientation.
Click to expand...
In saying this, you are rejecting the Word of God, and attributing to something erroneous and ungodly what God Himself has inspired to be written. This is a grave sin against the Holy Spirit. You are basically saying that what God Himself commanded people to do was immoral. You cannot stand in judgment of God!

Don’t you realize that every time you condemn what God has inspired you are compounding sin upon sin?

I don’t want you to burn in Hell, I don’t want gays to burn in Hell, and I don’t want Anne Rice to burn in Hell. I don’t want anybody to burn in Hell. That’s why I call sin “sin”. Because not doing so is uncharitable as well as being an affront to God.

If I saw you standing in the middle of the street declaiming poetry, and a city bus was going to hit you, I would rudely interrupt your rhetoric and pull you to safety. Isn’t that what any decent person would do? Would you then insult me for spoiling your enterprise: call me a judgmental conservative and a wicked Christian?
 
Cinette said:
OK…:sad_yes: :crying: :hug3::flowers:
Click to expand...
I’m glad that you understand what I’m saying. That said, I am sorry. I know that I’m not the most agreeable person. Thank you for your patience. Not everybody grants me that privilage.
 
AmateurPianist said:
What about sexual orientation to pornography or a sexual orientation to animals?
Click to expand...
Pornography is not a sexual orientation in and of itself but the sexual orientation of the person addicted to it can be extrapolated from the age and gender of it’s contents. The scientific name for a sexual attraction to animals is Zoophilia.
AmateurPianist said:
My position and what I understand the position of the Catholic church is (2).
Click to expand...
You are correct that number 2 is the position of the Catholic Church.
mellowcalico said:
I would think asexual should be in that list too… Sexual feelings desires and emotions for no one.
Click to expand...
Some sociologists and psychologists agree with you on that though others don’t believe that a lack of sexual orientation should be classified as a sexual orientation.
mellowcalico said:
Where did the list come from?
Click to expand...
They’re common classifications in studies of sexuality. If memory serves, the first time it was used was in study in 1978 which sought to identify the sexual orientations of convicted child molestors.
 
Publisher said:
And here is the crux of our issue…those who hold my position do not believe homosexuality is a sin…at least no more than heterosexuality is…and that homosexuality is a natural variance of human sexuality. Those gay and lesbian men and women who wish to covenant themselves before God and their faith tradition do so with all the blessings of God upon them. The same “sexual ethic” of fidelity, commitment and longevity embrace both.

Gay people should not have to receive “less rights” simply because they have a same-sex relationship as opposed to their straight counterparts.

Since the government is not concerned with religious dogma and beliefs concerning what is “sin” and what is not…equal rights under the rule of secular law should and eventually WILL be extended to same sex couples.
Click to expand...
Not only is it a grave sin, but you show a callous disregard for the state of their souls.

“Sure, it’s poison, and will kill your immortal soul, but if it makes you feel good, go right ahead!”

Yet another example of Sloppy Agape.
 
Holly3278 said:
We should all pray for her conversion back to Christianity.
Click to expand...
Anne Rice has excommunicated herself from the Church. She is a Protestant. From the comments of some of the non-Catholics in the thread it appears she’s just not the “right” kind of Protestant. :rolleyes:

Anne Rice is a validly Baptized Catholic ad aternum. It is ontologically impossible for her to not be a Christian. She can be in communion with the Church or an apostate or a heretic. For Anne, reconciliation with the Church only involves her repentance and a good confession.
 
This doesn’t surprise me at all.
She seemed to side with the N.Y. Times regarding the sex scandal.
 
seeker57 said:
I truly don’t understand all the hoopla about Anne Rice saying she wants to give the Catholic Church the boot and follow her heart.

In my church, it is expected that people will evolve and grow spiritually. If someone were to announce one day that Unitarian Universalism was no longer feeding them and they had found another spiritual home - or wished to look for one - we would certainly be sorry to lose him or her, but would wish whoever it was well on their journey.

I do find it lamentable the discussion here has, once again, devolved into a gay bashing frenzy. I don’t buy the “love the sinner, hate the sin” rhetoric. It is just such expressions that others have used to justify verbal and physical attacks against gays and lesbians.

Our congregation is in the final stages of a year-long process of becoming a Welcoming Congregation. That means we will officially not only accept openly gay and lesbian members, but we have made every effort to make the congregation a safe and welcoming place for them.

We also treat gay and lesbian relationships with the same respect we do straight relationships, including marriages.

This probably won’t go over well with some who have posted here. It is obvious from the comments that some are quite conservative and would find it difficult to accept the type of congregation we have.
Click to expand...
Your dogma does not respect the dignity of the human being. Dogmatically promoting intrinsically evil acts like homosexual behavior is an evil.
 
1holycatholic said:
Your dogma does not respect the dignity of the human being. Dogmatically promoting intrinsically evil acts like homosexual behavior is an evil.
Click to expand...
Exactly so—and here’s what the Sloppy Agape crowd never admits:

A person is an alcoholic. His basic human dignity remains loved by God. His sin is not.

The pro-homosexual-marriage crowd is saying, in effect: “Go ahead and drink! Others drink, so you should have the right to all the free booze you want, on taxpayer dollars, because I love you so much I want you to feel good about yourself at all times.”

This is an outrage. This philosophy treats people as meat machines with no soul. It sees people as owing nothing to God. The insanity at its core worships the ‘feelgood’ movement and thereby denies the existence of God altogether.
 
I ran across this thread today and haven’t read all the postings.

My feelings are mixed as I read what Anne Rice has said. On the one hand, I support the existence of church, not because of any hierarchy or because of any doctrines or because of its alleged infallibility, etc. The church serves as an important force within the lives of millions. It helpd provide courage, a community, important teachings about loving one another, and a faith that provides a context within which we view life. For those of us who believe in God and eternal life, for example, it reenforces this hope, especially in rough times.
Code: 
On the other hand, I feel Anne Rice's frustration, as I share it, which is one reason I hesitate to list myself as anything other than a Christian. I come from a mixed Catholic/Protestant heritage - paternal, Catholic, maternal, Protestant. I, too, become severely annoyed with much that I read here on CAF. There is so much narrowness, bigotry and arrogance. I believe in 'big tent' Christianity. If someone can accept all the doctrines and teaching of a church, fine. As for me, I admire the good works of Catholicism - commitment to the poor, for example - but having to believe in detail the various doctines is difficult to impossible. Why must a good Catholic believe, for example, that Mary lived a sinless life? Or, that the bread and wine are 'transubstantiated' into the body and blood of Christ? Or, that artificial birth control is a sin when it has the same goal as the "approved method", or that divorce and remarriage is forbidden unless one obtains an church annulment which finds that the marriage was 'improper' from its outset? I value my freedom of conscience too much to surrender it to any institution.

 As for most of evangelical Protestantism, similar problems. I certainly don't take the first eleven chapters of Genesis literally, and how can I admire a King David who had the husband of Bathsheba killed so that he could add her to his harem? Or, how can I believe that the God of Christ would order Joshua to murder all the inhabitants of Jericho and Ai, or tell King Saul to slaughter every single Amalekite? That God would be more like a Hitler than the loving and forgiving Lord I worship?

 I guess I've made my point. I do like the Quakers though I find their worship somewhat too cerebral for me. I need hymns, among other things. But when it comes to peace and such, all hail the Quakers! Oh, and I also can't believe that God would punish me or you or anyone else who uses his/her brain and honestly can't hack all the bitterness and pettiness and narrowness that typifies so much (not all) of Christianity.

 Nevertheless, I've always tried to live and love as outlined in the Sermon on the Mount.
 
1holycatholic said:
Your dogma does not respect the dignity of the human being. Dogmatically promoting intrinsically evil acts like homosexual behavior is an evil.
Click to expand...
You are demonstrating your ignorance regarding Unitarian Universalist thinking.

We are a non-creedal association. We have no dogma. We are not told what to think, what to believe or what spiritual path to follow.

But we do, in fact, respect the dignity of every person, as well as respect the right of that person to live life fully and equally. There is no evil in that.

As a Universalist, I believe God will bring us all home and don’t accept or believe in the concept of sin, original or otherwise.

Regarding evil, mankind is the root of all good, all evil. It is within all of us. It is not some outside force attempting to corrupt us. Therefore, we are capable of evil acts, but evil isn’t an entity unto itself.

Our roots were liberal Christianity, but the majority of our congregations in the United States are not Christian. We embrace all faiths. UU congregations in other countries often are still based on Liberal Christianity.

Which is why I post in the “Non-Catholic Religions” forum.🙂
 
seeker57 said:
You are demonstrating your ignorance regarding Unitarian Universalist thinking.

We are a non-creedal association. We have no dogma. We are not told what to think, what to believe or what spiritual path to follow.
Click to expand...
“We have no dogma.” is dogma. :doh2:

You’re dogmatically non-dogmatic. :hypno:

Your dogma does not respect the dignity of the human being. Dogmatically promoting intrinsically evil acts like homosexual behavior is an evil.
 
1holycatholic said:
“We have no dogma.” is dogma. :doh2:

You’re dogmatically non-dogmatic. :hypno:

Your dogma does not respect the dignity of the human being. Dogmatically promoting intrinsically evil acts like homosexual behavior is an evil.
Click to expand...
No, you’re wrong. Here is a definition from Wikipedia, but others are available. Please note the highlighted area.
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or from which diverged. The term derives from Greek δόγμα “that which seems to one, opinion or belief”[1] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), “to think, to suppose, to imagine”.[2] The plural is either dogmas or dogmata , from Greek δόγματα.
Dogmata are found in religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, where they are considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion. As a fundamental element of religion, the term “dogma” is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt. Dogma is distinguished from theological opinion regarding those things considered less well-known. Dogmata may be clarified and elaborated but not contradicted in novel teachings (e.g., Galatians 1:8-9). Rejection of dogma may lead to expulsion from a religious group.
Catholics also hold as dogma the decisions of fourteen later councils and two decrees promulgated by popes’ exercising papal infallibility (see Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary). Protestants to differing degrees affirm portions of these dogmata, and often rely on denomination-specific ‘Statements of Faith’ which summarize their chosen dogmata (see, e.g., Eucharist).
Click to expand...
Having no dogma cannot be equated with its absence being a dogma because one cannot be expelled or chastised for not adhering to something that doesn’t exist.:twocents:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top