Oprah Winfrey and her strange religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter 0104
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ya that’s funny.
I just do what opra tells me to

A Catholic would say .
1 my priest
2 my confessor
3 Mary
4 saints
5 holy spirit
 
Ya what Oprah demonstrates is there is a supernatural. Demensation . world.

Kinda like the old TV show “the outer limits”

Or what sid Roth . denemstrates. Regularly on “its supernatural”

Of course Oprah has followers.
She has an anointing .
it just is not the holy spirit.
 
I am agnostic. I was raised Catholic and many in my family are Catholic. I like to come here to try to gain a better understanding of today’s Catholics so I can have a stronger understanding of my family members because I love them.
 
You’re certainly welcome here, just keep in mind that we’re all struggling in our relationship with Jesus and the world, just like like everybody else!

Peace and joy
 
She is not a theologian. God is real and people are getting there own ideas of God from other. Fallen away non-Christians like the JW and the Mormon. Oprah is right in that group. You are not supposed to get the warm fuzzies with Christianity. Sometimes Christianity can be physical pain look at the lives of many of our saints. Special Grace will abound them all the more. Look it up in the CCC.

She was a news anchor on television then she got a big break with her show. Where does her theology come from. I think sometimes God puts people in those places to see if they will be faithful to his word. Well she needs to realize that God is Almighty and that his son did come down and die for our sins.

Saint Ignatius said I rather die for Christ then rule the world. God bless
 
You did a good job defining your understanding of spiritual theology.
Ignatius’s understanding of life is . embraced by many religious people.
 
Last edited:
Again, Oprah Winfrey is a Christian. She professes her belief in Jesus Christ, her Lord and Savior. Christianity is her religion.

Why are you so quick to condemn her just because God has blessed her with wealth and fame? She uses it for His glory and supports many causes.

I don’t know how many of you knew of Oprah before her talk show (which later went nation wide) in Chicago. I live in Nashville where Oprah lived and worked honing her craft. Her belief in God has not changed in the years that she has been away from our fair city.

What you all are confusing and debating is not Christianity but Oprah’s view of spirituality.
 
Celebrities are being asked all sort of questions. Sometimes I wonder if it is their fault they have an opinion on everything or the people who put them on a pedestal or are milking them as a job like the press.
Unless Oprah writes some spiritual book where she begins to explain the Universe she probably just replied to a question. Just because she is famous does not mean her answers should be perfect. She just said what she thinks. I read into what she said -“I haven’t thought much of it, God ya know, but there is something”. This way she doesn’t offend atheists nor religious people watching her. Maybe her PR told her what to say.
 
Well you send me and episode where she profess’ her faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and savior. That what it is to be a Christian. I have a JW friend that says I am condemned because I don’t believe in what Russell said a mear man not Enspired at all by God. But yet she contradicts her religion because she says that Jesus is the savior.

Unless you believe in a trinitarian God like Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants do you are not Christian. For instance the Jews are they Christian no they believe in ONE God.

But I did in no way condemn Oprah. I love all of God’s creation I pray for her soul but I don’t condemn!
 
Mary888 said:
Celebrities are being asked all sort of questions. Sometimes I wonder if it is their fault they have an opinion on everything or the people who put them on a pedestal… This way she doesn’t offend atheists nor religious people watching her. Maybe her PR told her what to say.
Click to expand...
I’m going to go out on a limb and say Oprah Winfrey does NOT have “PR” people telling her what to say! Say what you want about her, but she is running her show and has been for a very long time. She may have over-eager underlings doing things without her knowledge, that is possible, she may be following outside gurus with less question that is wise, but within her own organization she is not anybody’s puppet.

She considers herself religious, but not a traditionalist, because she does not go to church every Sunday.
Her favorite preacher is TD Jakes.



Ms. Winfrey and the Rev. Jakes espouse what they call a “biblically-based” spirituality, rather than blunt Christianity. If you don’t believe me, visit Jake’s website. You will occasionally find mention of God in a 12-Steps kind of way. You will not find mention of Our Lord by name nor mention of baptism. It is a Gospel of Success self-help sort of religion.

It uses the Bible as a text, but it is not Christianity. I do not mean only that he teaches a prosperity gospel. I do not just mean that he is teaching wrong-headed ideas about the nature of the Trinity. (His descriptions are confusing at best and just plain heresy if taken at the worst reading.)

I mean that a long perusal of his writings will not dispel the first impression: His preaching is not Christocentric. He does not preach the person of Jesus Christ, he does not teach the plain meaning of the Gospel. Ms. Winfrey does not, either. They may do this out of some mis-guided idea that people are “put off” by true Trinitarian teaching as being too formulaic or smacking of a religious experience that has also caused some people serious emotiona scarring (because the Gospel has sadly been used in that way), I do not know, but they have departed from teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is true. They both know this. They are both baptised. I hope they are pardoned for their departure from the faith and that they have done so in good faith, but there is no question they have departed.

Having said all that, Ms. Winfrey expresses herself as trying to be guided by a desire to please God and live according to the will of God, and I can believe that is what she tries to do. I think she ignores people who correct her in ways she doesn’t want to hear, but there is good reason to believe that her errors are no less honest than any of ours. The alarming part is that she may be leading a great many people away from Christianity rather than leading people made wary of religion as close to God as they are willing to get.
 
Last edited:
If you search on You Tube, you will find plenty of videos of Oprah professing her faith in Jesus. The incident I am thinking of, however, isn’t on video. It is something that leaves the fortunate ones who experience it with no doubt that she is a Christian.
 
Ah, thank you for all your information. I do not watch her shows just bits here and there and read news about her. Then yes she is preaching religiously. I know Pope Francis met her and I thought that is just because she is famous and influential. Like he met Angelina Jolie. He has to know who are influent in the world. But maybe Oprah was about meeting a parallel religious leader.
It looks she is a running a sect, old or new.
 
I don’t doubt that she means well and I don’t think she’s trying to tear down “organized religion.” I think she is a bit wary of the danger that organized religion can be used to harm people emotionally, which is a fair concern.

I do think, however, that she’s gone over a line theologically in a way that could endanger souls, too, a line well beyond the theological difference that exists, for instance, between the Catholic Church and the Baptists.

I think she’s also gone over a line in terms of her style of leadership. There is a cult of personality going on with Ms. Winfrey and Rev Jakes, one that Billy Graham did not cultivate in the way I mean (to cite an instance of another “popular” preacher, because it isn’t her popularity that is the problem). That is not a good thing.
 
NiceIsAsNiceDoes said:
I am agnostic. I was raised Catholic and many in my family are Catholic. I like to come here to try to gain a better understanding of today’s Catholics so I can have a stronger understanding of my family members because I love them.
Click to expand...
I admire that. I always admire the family members who show up for Mass on Christmas Eve with their extended families even though they are obviously not observant. I look at that as a very charitable act.
 
DaddyGirl said:
It’s baffling to me that some religious people put down Oprah, who promotes love, forgiveness, understanding and non-violence…and the same people often support someone like Trump, who constantly lies and promotes hate and violence.

Trump mentions “God” in his speeches and goes to church for optics, to attract religious votes; Oprah lives it, even tho she may not “belong” to a specific religion.
Click to expand...
This is very similar to condemning people who have a problem with Donald Trump on the grounds that they must have an agenda to advance Hillary Clinton. No, you can say that Donald Trump is wrong or Hillary Clinton (gasp!) got something right in her entire political life without being a partisan of abortion on demand.

It is also quite possible to say that (a) Oprah Winfrey does set herself up as someone giving serious spiritual advice that can help people change their lives and (b) considering that she is baptized in the Baptist church, the spirituality she is pushing (and yes, she is pushing it) has some serious theological flaws to it that are worth taking seriously.

That doesn’t mean she has bad faith. Still, it isn’t a good idea to pass over someone popularizing bad theology on the grounds that she means well. It is still bad theology, theology that has arguably left anything that literally qualifies as Christianity behind entirely. I’m not condemning the Mormons, but Joseph Smith’s theological innovations departed from what qualifies as traditional Christianity. It is a new religion. That is not saying she isn’t promoting good things any more than saying Mormonism is not traditional Christianity is saying the Mormons don’t promote anything good.

Pointing out that Oprah is teaching a religon that is no longer Christianity is no endorsement whatsoever of Donald Trump. Not everything in the world is about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump! A great deal worth discussing has nothing at all to do with either one of them.
 
Last edited:
This passage from “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis explains what I mean by saying that the spiritual philosophy that Oprah is popularizing is not Christian:

Far deeper objections may be felt-and have been expressed- against my use of the word Christian to mean one who accepts the common doctrines of Christianity. People ask: “Who are you, to lay down who is, and who is not a Christian?” or “May not many a man who cannot believe these doctrines be far more truly a Christian, far closer to the spirit of Christ, than some who do?” Now this objection is in one sense very right, very charitable, very spiritual, very sensitive. It has every amiable quality except that of being useful. We simply cannot, without disaster, use language as these objectors want us to use it. I will try to make this clear by the history of another, and very much less important, word.
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone “a gentleman” you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not “a gentleman” you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said-so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully-“Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?”
They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man “a gentleman” in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is “a gentleman” becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker’s attitude to that object. (A “nice” meal only means a meal the speaker likes.)
A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
CONTINUED…
 
Last edited:
CONTINUED…
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say “deepening,” the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge,
It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to “the disciples,” to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were “far closer to the spirit of Christ” than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
 
Last edited:
What is the SHOCKING truth is that they will listen to her, BUT NOT to God.

They have not even the slightest idea, the hole they are digging themselves.

May God have Mercy on her and those like her
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top