Anne Rice ... quit being a Christian.
July 30, 2010 - 12:17pm
For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.
following the post a few hours after with ...
As I said below, I quit being a Christian. I'm out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.
ha ha - I made a mistake in the title. Maybe a moderator could change "quite" to "quit" ?
Done! Anne Rice is no longer quite the Christian.
This censorship is way outta line, Catchfire! It has gone so far that poor Beltov is literally asking for it.
Woe upon babble, for dark days near.
Now she can get back to writing about vampires and witches. Yay!
Done! Anne Rice is no longer quite the Christian.
I dunno. I'd say she's really quite the TRUE follower of Christ, few of whose views are reflected in the "Church"(the institution that Christopher Hitchens, before we lost him to the dank side, properly labeled "Christism-Paulism"(a label that makes it clear that the actual Church is to Christ's teachings what the Soviet Union, China and their followers were to Marx and the ideals of socialism).
This also may have something to do with the fact that she was quite intolerant, at one point, to her openly gay son, and perhaps she's realized that the old men in the pointy hats steered her wrong on that.
Or it corresponds to publishing dates. When she was publishing her 'Jesus' series she became ultra christian. Now oddly enough her Lestat series is being re-published so I guess she isn't against the series anymore
Or it corresponds to publishing dates. When she was publishing her 'Jesus' series she became ultra christian. Now oddly enough her Lestat series is being re-published so I guess she isn't against the series anymore
I don't get how you can reject the church as an institution but still believe in a supernatural christian god. Isn't that kind of cherry picking the things you like from the bible, which is the basis of christianity, and just skimming over all the horrible things?
like i don't get how you can believe in evolution and still believe in a god. If the bible was wrong about that, couldn't it be wrong about other things, like the existence of god?
You're assuming a person can only be Christian if she or he believes the Bible to be inerrant. Actually, most Christians don't. Even the Catholic Church doesn't(and they only think their own leader is infallible when he speaks "Ex Cathedra", I.e., whilst sitting on the Magic Popey Chair, something the Popester has only done once, back in the 19th Century, when he asserted that Mary did, in fact, ascend bodily into heaven...which is an odd thing to feel you'd have to speak up on, since to my knowledge nobody within Catholicism was actually questioning that particular point).
I saw a great article in Tikkun Magazine the other day, written by Jay Bakker(the son of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker) who pointed out that a Christian could easily support gay rights on the grounds that none of the anti-gay passages in the New Testament were written, in any Bible, in RED ink(in many translations, red ink is used in that portion of the Bible to indicate those words that were specifically said by Christ himself). Now, granted, this can sound like a religious version of "Simon says", but it does indicate the latitude that exists.
That's what i mean though, it seems all these folks who decide what is the "word of god" and what is simply made up by someone after the fact are just looking for some way to keep believing that the WHOLE thing wasn't just made up by people. seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Especially when you take into account the similarities between the story of jesus and it's counterparts in other religions, and it's relationship to simple astronomy you'd think by now people would clue into the fact it's simply a story made up by people who were just looking for some way to explain things, not a factual account of how the universe was created.
But Milo, EVERYBODY who's ever been a follower of any religion has essentially "decided what is the 'word of god'" as they saw it.
Including those who actually wrote the "sacred texts" of all religions(such as, for example, the anonymous scribes or "holy ghostwriters" who wrote the stories of Jesus' life that were ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.)
So what are you really saying, here?
And the thread title could still use some tweaking, in my opinion. It now reads as if somebody's TELLING Anne Rice to quit being a Christian.
I'd suggest something like "Anne Rice quits organized 'Christianity'(Christism-Paulism), embraces Christ's teachings".
KB, on the first line of the first entry in this thread I quoted Anne Rice who said, to repeat, "Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out."
Not clear enough for ya?
It's clear in the first entry...I was just talking about the title. But, on second thought, the title isn't that big a deal.
@ N Beltov
I don't question what Rice believes, because obviously it is a pretty major awakening for her, and I am glad to hear her come out against the hateful things that organized religion has promoted.
But actually it's NOT clear to me, and it's not because of the headline. To say she is no longer a Christian, yet committed to Christ, seems to be a bit of a contradiction. And to make her declaration "in the name of Christ" implies an adherence to Christian form that I wouldn't expect from someone who has broken free from bondage and would presumably want to speak in HER OWN voice.
I'm guessing (like I presume Ken Burch is) that she is turning her back on organized churches which promote hate (as for those which don't, who knows?) while still supporting the positive things that Jesus taught - and whether that mean seeing him as the saviour or just a great teacher, she didn't make that clear either.
I'm glad to hear she has turned her back on those hateful things, which must have been uncomfortable for her and I am sure it all makes sense to her - the only thing that really matters.
I find it odd though, that someone who actually gets paid to write would make such an important statement in a way that she must have known would leave people with some important unanswered questions.
I have to admit I don't read her work and know little about her. The public statement was interesting to me for its unusual candor and humourous aspects.
Most people that "leave" some organization like a Church, or a political party, do so quietly and move on. Rice perhaps felt the need, by virtue of being such a public supporter of this particular religion, to be public in her rejection as well.
For me, the argument that she makes about "being a Christian" without belonging to a Christian church also seems flat. Let me use a political metaphor. The only people that are Communists, in my view, are those who are active in a political party that calls itself Communist. I don't believe someone can really be an "individual" Communist.
Anyway, many people who are in transition away from religion entirely sometimes describe themselves in the way that Rice describes herself.
@ N Beltov
Interesting comparison. I don't know if I entirely agree about the political parallel (thinking generally, and not specifically about communism) because whether one is in a goup or alone does not change the validity of a person's thoughts and values.
As for whether this is part of a transition to atheism, who knows? I can't deduce from her words exactly what the change is for her. But then again, we don't really need to know that so long as it makes sense to her,
But Milo, EVERYBODY who's ever been a follower of any religion has essentially "decided what is the 'word of god'" as they saw it.
Including those who actually wrote the "sacred texts" of all religions(such as, for example, the anonymous scribes or "holy ghostwriters" who wrote the stories of Jesus' life that were ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.)
So what are you really saying, here?
what i mean is that since we know that (people make up their own idea of a word of god), and especially if you come out and proclaim that you know that, then what's the basis for still believing in a supernatural god? If we know that it was all made up by people, it seems to be pretty rational then to also think that the idea of a god was also made up by people.
Why not just look at it as a great story with a few good messages in it that might inform your perspective on things like charity, kindness, love etc. Instead of going overboard and saying it's actually a true story, and that we should devote part of our lives to worshipping it in some fashion?
That's what i mean though, it seems all these folks who decide what is the "word of god" and what is simply made up by someone after the fact are just looking for some way to keep believing that the WHOLE thing wasn't just made up by people. seems a bit of a stretch to me.
Especially when you take into account the similarities between the story of jesus and it's counterparts in other religions, and it's relationship to simple astronomy you'd think by now people would clue into the fact it's simply a story made up by people who were just looking for some way to explain things, not a factual account of how the universe was created.
What were they trying to explain?
Genesis is an explanation of creation, obviously. But what is the Song of Solomon supposed to be explaining? Or the Gospels themselves?
What were they trying to explain?
Genesis is an explanation of creation, obviously. But what is the Song of Solomon supposed to be explaining? Or the Gospels themselves?
I don't want to get off on this tangent, because this has been discussed in other places, but I find it hard to believe that someone could have even a rudimentary understanding of the books of the bible and claim to not have any idea what the messages in them are.
I agree with milo204 that there are a lot of good and worthwhile things in those books that do not depend on whether the actual stories are historical truth. There is also a lot of nonsense and some hateful stuff too, but that is beside the point because no one, not even fundamentalists observe the bible literally in all things, even though many claim to do so.
What were they trying to explain?
Genesis is an explanation of creation, obviously. But what is the Song of Solomon supposed to be explaining? Or the Gospels themselves?
Well, i'm not suggesting that every aspect of any modern religion is meant to explain some natural phenomena, especially by the point in history when you get to the hebrew bible and stuff. But the origins of religion (sun worship) which became the basis for christianity and judaism and pretty much every major religion is an attempt to put a story to (or explain) things like the seasons, life and death, love, weather, natural disasters etc.
The gospels or at least the part about jesus having disciples, getting resurrected, dead for three days, born of a virgin mother etc. is just one version of a story that exists in a bunch of different religions, taken from simple astrological observations. The same exact story, with the names changed (mythra instead of mary for example) exists in a whole slew of religions including the egyptians and earlier than that. I guess the longer people believed in gods, the more elaborate the stories became.
There's a good video on youtube that explains the origin of things like the gospels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD9f0XU_S78