This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1John5918
I suppose this is book-related...
Anne Rice 'quits being a Christian' (Guardian)
Twelve years after she converted from atheism, author of Interview with the Vampire abandons Christianity over its attitude to birth control, homosexuality and science...
"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"...
...the author reiterated that her faith in Christ was "central" to her 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," she said. "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."
Anne Rice 'quits being a Christian' (Guardian)
Twelve years after she converted from atheism, author of Interview with the Vampire abandons Christianity over its attitude to birth control, homosexuality and science...
"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"...
...the author reiterated that her faith in Christ was "central" to her 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," she said. "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."
2DeusExLibrus
I can't help but laugh. She seems completely oblivious to the spectrum of Christian faith. Just because the right-wing nutjobs are the most vocal doesn't mean they define what Christianity is, or are Christianity in its entirety. Some of the most beautiful people I've ever met have been Christian, and some of the worst most bigoted jerks I've seen have claimed to speak in the name of Christianity. To me, this screams spineless. If she has the views she espouses and went to a church that acts as she portrays all Christianity, no wonder she had such a negative reaction. However, maybe she should try finding another church, instead of giving up on the entire enterprise because of a bunch of bigots that seem intent on ruining it for everyone.
6theapparatus
>3 Booksloth: I thought she was dead....
7Jesse_wiedinmyer
#5 mainstream
You keep using this word as if it's actually indicative of something.
You keep using this word as if it's actually indicative of something.
8Jesse_wiedinmyer
Tell me, are the words "mainstream" and "orthodox" in concurrence or used as counterpoints in your post?
9AsYouKnow_Bob
"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"...
A very odd statement, given that most of the Christians I know are pro-equality, pro-feminism, pro-contraception, pro-Democrat, pro-science, etc.
Sounds a lot like she's merely abandoning whatever narrow-minded sect she had converted to, without much awareness of the broader spectrum of Christian belief.
A very odd statement, given that most of the Christians I know are pro-equality, pro-feminism, pro-contraception, pro-Democrat, pro-science, etc.
Sounds a lot like she's merely abandoning whatever narrow-minded sect she had converted to, without much awareness of the broader spectrum of Christian belief.
10DeusExLibrus
>9 AsYouKnow_Bob: My point exactly. The only Christians I have ever known who have had the views she lays out in that quote are commonly considered right wing. The fact that oakes considers these people mainstream and orthodox bothers me more quite a bit. Then again, ANYONE who claims bigoted hateful views as the mainstream of a religion that preaches love and acceptance bothers me.
12Jesse_wiedinmyer
For example, I suspect that by "anti-science" Rice means being skeptical of evolution, or some such. But to continue with that example, polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans who label themselves "Christian" are skeptical of evolution, and the numbers only go up if one considers, say, regular Church attendees, or other similar measures of enthusiasm or commitment.
Nothing slanderous about that. It's pretty much anti-science.
Personally, I would define "bigoted" as having an irrational or immoral hostile attitude towards a particular group based at least partly on (usually) willful ignorance.
Hmmm. Whom does this sound like?
"Hateful" is used so often in this and similar contexts that in my opinion it has become drained of most meaning to often denote merely opinions that the utterer strongly dislikes.
I thought that the term that denoted opinons the the utterer strongly dislikes was "toxic." Or whatever.
Let's ask a question, then Oakes... Given that the "mainstream" attitudes, even amongst Christians, seems to be moving towards acceptance of homosexuality (even the right of homosexuals to marry other homosexuals (let's face it, gays have been getting married since time immemorial)), will you be willing to yield when that happens? Or does the "mainstreamness" (if I may coin a pretty lousy fucking word) of an opinion only matter when the opinion's mainstreamness supports your own position?
Nothing slanderous about that. It's pretty much anti-science.
Personally, I would define "bigoted" as having an irrational or immoral hostile attitude towards a particular group based at least partly on (usually) willful ignorance.
Hmmm. Whom does this sound like?
"Hateful" is used so often in this and similar contexts that in my opinion it has become drained of most meaning to often denote merely opinions that the utterer strongly dislikes.
I thought that the term that denoted opinons the the utterer strongly dislikes was "toxic." Or whatever.
Let's ask a question, then Oakes... Given that the "mainstream" attitudes, even amongst Christians, seems to be moving towards acceptance of homosexuality (even the right of homosexuals to marry other homosexuals (let's face it, gays have been getting married since time immemorial)), will you be willing to yield when that happens? Or does the "mainstreamness" (if I may coin a pretty lousy fucking word) of an opinion only matter when the opinion's mainstreamness supports your own position?
13Jesse_wiedinmyer
That such posts are virtually never introduced in Happy Heathens, but are quite common in Christianity is one of the interesting phenomena referenced earlier that I have observed from following and participating in the relevant groups in LibraryThing Talk.
Given that you once berated Arctic-Stranger for even engaging the members of that group in discussion, I think the phenomena speaks less about the politesse of Christians and more of your unwillingness to countenance views that run counter to your own.
Given that you once berated Arctic-Stranger for even engaging the members of that group in discussion, I think the phenomena speaks less about the politesse of Christians and more of your unwillingness to countenance views that run counter to your own.
14Jesse_wiedinmyer
My apologies, the point I made above was incorrect. That was your response to the introduction of the "Pro & Con (Religion)" group.
15Jesse_wiedinmyer
I'm surprised that you didn't give Arctic shit for hanging out with wine-bibbers and whores while you were at it.
16walk2work
This is my take on it: Ms. Rice may have "quit" her membership in whatever institutional church she belonged to (if any). But if, as she says, she is still a follower of Christ, then she is still a Christian.
Alas, despite #11's suggestion: "by definition they, unlike Rice I guess, have chosen to retain the label "Christian", as opposed to jettisoning it in favor of "follower of Christ" or whatever" . . . The "label" Christian is not a choice, it's a scriptural fact. If you follow the life and teachings of Jesus the Christ, you are Christian.
That being said, there is a huge amount of diversity of practice within Christianity, despite what some might say. Those of us in the so-called Mainline Protestant denominations (not to be confused with #11's "mainstream" which apparently refers to popular numbers) pray daily for a church which is more inclusive and hospitable to the stranger and the outsider, in congruence with Jesus' daily practice and the teaching of the Hebrew prophets.
What's the real pity is that liberal culture as a whole seems to be in love with hating the conservative expressions of the church, without showing much interest in what Jesus himself had to say, or how the liberal church is laboring to express God's unbounded love.
Alas, despite #11's suggestion: "by definition they, unlike Rice I guess, have chosen to retain the label "Christian", as opposed to jettisoning it in favor of "follower of Christ" or whatever" . . . The "label" Christian is not a choice, it's a scriptural fact. If you follow the life and teachings of Jesus the Christ, you are Christian.
That being said, there is a huge amount of diversity of practice within Christianity, despite what some might say. Those of us in the so-called Mainline Protestant denominations (not to be confused with #11's "mainstream" which apparently refers to popular numbers) pray daily for a church which is more inclusive and hospitable to the stranger and the outsider, in congruence with Jesus' daily practice and the teaching of the Hebrew prophets.
What's the real pity is that liberal culture as a whole seems to be in love with hating the conservative expressions of the church, without showing much interest in what Jesus himself had to say, or how the liberal church is laboring to express God's unbounded love.
17StormRaven
A post that by implication calls mainstream and orthodox Christians and Catholics (Rice had converted to Catholicism) "right-wing nutjobs", "bigoted jerks" and "a bunch of bigots that seem intent on ruining it for everyone" contains quite a bit of bigotry itself I think.
Projecting much?
Projecting much?
18StormRaven
The views she lays out in the quote are a diverse lot, and of course most of them are somewhat slanderous ways of labeling the attitudes in question. For example, I suspect that by "anti-science" Rice means being skeptical of evolution, or some such. But to continue with that example, polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans who label themselves "Christian" are skeptical of evolution,
Because whether a viewpoint is slanderous or not is determined not by whether it is true, but by whether it is the opinion of a majority of Christians. In any event, given the vast amount of collateral science one has to discount to be "skeptical of evolution", being "skeptical of evolution" probably should be properly regarded as anti-science.
Personally, I would define "bigoted" as having an irrational or immoral hostile attitude towards a particular group based at least partly on (usually) willful ignorance.
So, do her comments reflect ignorance about Christians, or do they reflect what you just spent a post describing as the "mainstream" opinion of Christians? Because, you know, if the "mainstream" holds the opinions she decries, then criticizing them on that basis is not, by your definition, bigotry.
Because whether a viewpoint is slanderous or not is determined not by whether it is true, but by whether it is the opinion of a majority of Christians. In any event, given the vast amount of collateral science one has to discount to be "skeptical of evolution", being "skeptical of evolution" probably should be properly regarded as anti-science.
Personally, I would define "bigoted" as having an irrational or immoral hostile attitude towards a particular group based at least partly on (usually) willful ignorance.
So, do her comments reflect ignorance about Christians, or do they reflect what you just spent a post describing as the "mainstream" opinion of Christians? Because, you know, if the "mainstream" holds the opinions she decries, then criticizing them on that basis is not, by your definition, bigotry.
20StormRaven
Was God’s command merely an arbitrary rule mandated not for the benefit of human beings, but for His own secret purposes?
Well, the Bible pretty much confirms that yes, it was.
Rather, I would characterize it as sometimes “please, for your own good, listen”
You left out "because if you don't I'll have to punish you in accord with the rules I created and could waive at any time if I wasn't such a dick."
Well, the Bible pretty much confirms that yes, it was.
Rather, I would characterize it as sometimes “please, for your own good, listen”
You left out "because if you don't I'll have to punish you in accord with the rules I created and could waive at any time if I wasn't such a dick."
21XOX
This is great news to me. I like Anne Rice when she was an athiest. And she gave her reason to leave which is very reasonable to me. She support same sex marriage and couldn't stand the hatred filled stuff of christianity any more.
Good for her.
Here is the NPR interview that explain why she quite christianity. She is no longer a christian.
Good for her.
Here is the NPR interview that explain why she quite christianity. She is no longer a christian.
22timspalding
I found Rice's Facebook posts rather troubling on a couple levels:
1. First, that they were Facebook posts, and not terribly well-considered or well-written ones. I suppose this is the age. At least she didn't tweet her apostasy, although I suppose that might be a first.
2. The anti-science attack irritates. It is certainly true that a portion of American Evangelicals get really ginned up about various anti-science positions, and, yes, many Americans--although few with a decent science education--follow along. But what does any of this have to do with Christianity?
Leaving aside everyone else, Anne Rice was a Catholic and the Catholic Church doesn't oppose evolution, or believe the world was made a few thousand years ago. Does one leave the Quakers because one doesn't like the Catholic Church? Do people leave Orthodox Judaism because of what some Reforms do? I don't get it.
3. I can understand a decision to leave because you stop believing core things, like the existence of God, or whether or not Jesus died to save mankind, but her stated reasons don't add up. All her objections find a natural, sympathetic home within one of the more liberal Protestant congregations. So why didn't she run off and become a Congregationalist?
One answer would be that her arguments are more complicated. For example, she could believe that being anything other than a Catholic invited some error in another way. But I doubt it. My suspicion is that this is more about spite and misanthropy. It seems to me that, in continuing to claim belief in Christ*, but leaving anyway, she's reduced her reasons to mere hostility toward other Christians.
FWIW, the reading this week, where I was anyway, is apposite (Colosians 3:15ff.)
* And notice, she keeps saying Christ not Jesus, which would perhaps imply a "Jesus was a good teacher" position. That would be one thing. But believing in Christ is a "Christian" concept. It implies more than believing Jesus said good things. Among other things it generally involves an understanding of Christ's role as head of the Church. In a real way you can't believe in Christ without believing in the Church. And while Christians have long believed that God guides the Church they've never believed things can't go wrong, that wrongness will be instantly cured, or that leaders or members can't be jerks.
1. First, that they were Facebook posts, and not terribly well-considered or well-written ones. I suppose this is the age. At least she didn't tweet her apostasy, although I suppose that might be a first.
2. The anti-science attack irritates. It is certainly true that a portion of American Evangelicals get really ginned up about various anti-science positions, and, yes, many Americans--although few with a decent science education--follow along. But what does any of this have to do with Christianity?
Leaving aside everyone else, Anne Rice was a Catholic and the Catholic Church doesn't oppose evolution, or believe the world was made a few thousand years ago. Does one leave the Quakers because one doesn't like the Catholic Church? Do people leave Orthodox Judaism because of what some Reforms do? I don't get it.
3. I can understand a decision to leave because you stop believing core things, like the existence of God, or whether or not Jesus died to save mankind, but her stated reasons don't add up. All her objections find a natural, sympathetic home within one of the more liberal Protestant congregations. So why didn't she run off and become a Congregationalist?
One answer would be that her arguments are more complicated. For example, she could believe that being anything other than a Catholic invited some error in another way. But I doubt it. My suspicion is that this is more about spite and misanthropy. It seems to me that, in continuing to claim belief in Christ*, but leaving anyway, she's reduced her reasons to mere hostility toward other Christians.
FWIW, the reading this week, where I was anyway, is apposite (Colosians 3:15ff.)
"Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity. Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace."
* And notice, she keeps saying Christ not Jesus, which would perhaps imply a "Jesus was a good teacher" position. That would be one thing. But believing in Christ is a "Christian" concept. It implies more than believing Jesus said good things. Among other things it generally involves an understanding of Christ's role as head of the Church. In a real way you can't believe in Christ without believing in the Church. And while Christians have long believed that God guides the Church they've never believed things can't go wrong, that wrongness will be instantly cured, or that leaders or members can't be jerks.
24Jesse_wiedinmyer
@AnneRiceAuthor.
26Makifat
Everything Anne Rice does is a publicity ploy to sell her crappy books. She probably can't remember the last time she did anything with sincerity.
She rode the vampire horse as long as she could, then decided to tap a new market with some Jesus books. I don't know what her sales were for that, but I doubt they were what she was used to (they seem to be gathering dust on the remainder tables), so she is now apparently into some sorty of vague kabbalistic angelology. Spiritual but not religious, as the saying goes.
I can't imagine anyone getting hot and bothered by her "abandonment" of Christianity. It is probably as sincere as her "conversion" was.
She rode the vampire horse as long as she could, then decided to tap a new market with some Jesus books. I don't know what her sales were for that, but I doubt they were what she was used to (they seem to be gathering dust on the remainder tables), so she is now apparently into some sorty of vague kabbalistic angelology. Spiritual but not religious, as the saying goes.
I can't imagine anyone getting hot and bothered by her "abandonment" of Christianity. It is probably as sincere as her "conversion" was.
27XOX
I don't think Anne Rice did that for publicity. Afterall, she made it very public when she rejoined the catholic cult.
If you read articles and listened to her interview, you would finid she has good reason to associate herself with the hatred filled christian cult anymore.
And she did wrote at least two crap books on christian cult. I'm glad she is done with it and start writing interesting book.
If you read articles and listened to her interview, you would finid she has good reason to associate herself with the hatred filled christian cult anymore.
And she did wrote at least two crap books on christian cult. I'm glad she is done with it and start writing interesting book.
28lilithcat
Anne Rice has a tendency to visceral, over-emotional reactions. She was raised in the Catholic Church, and left it when her daughter died. She returned to it when she lost her husband and she herself became very ill. It's not surprising that she didn't find in it what she was looking for, but that's not the Catholic Church's fault. And it's certainly not the fault of Christianity in general, which, as others have stated, encompasses a broad range of views on the social issues that she addresses in her anti-Christian rant.
29XOX
What is it not the catholic church fault or the fault of christianity? You have no base for saying that.
Anne Rice has explained why he left christainity again. She just couldn't stand the hatred filled christian practice.
I admire Anne Rice for being so brave to say how she felt about it, and probably continue to struggle with this. It is not an anti-christian rant, it is just the simple truth about how christianity is being practice today.
Anne Rice has explained why he left christainity again. She just couldn't stand the hatred filled christian practice.
I admire Anne Rice for being so brave to say how she felt about it, and probably continue to struggle with this. It is not an anti-christian rant, it is just the simple truth about how christianity is being practice today.
30timspalding
> catholic cult
We prefer the term "malign cabal."
We prefer the term "malign cabal."
31lilithcat
> 29
What is it not the catholic church fault or the fault of christianity?
It is not their fault that Rice did not find what she was looking for in the Catholic Church.
She just couldn't stand the hatred filled christian practice.
That is an outrageous statement to make. There is no one "Christian practice". Some Christians may be "hatred filled", but most are not, any more than are the adherents of any other religion.
What is it not the catholic church fault or the fault of christianity?
It is not their fault that Rice did not find what she was looking for in the Catholic Church.
She just couldn't stand the hatred filled christian practice.
That is an outrageous statement to make. There is no one "Christian practice". Some Christians may be "hatred filled", but most are not, any more than are the adherents of any other religion.
32Atomicmutant
It seems to me like one of those passionate 'hot and cold' conversions--not that well considered.
I've had plenty of friends/acquaintances over the years who went WHOLEHOGFORJESUS and threw over their former existence like some sort of happy zombie. They burnt out quick, and a lot of them fell off the train.
This smacks of that to me. I think she's a passionate, emotional, artistic personality and will probably never find peace--except through creation of her art. I've seen that as well.
Add in a dose of personal politics and a smattering of promotion and the sort of sideways self-awareness that comes with celebrity and this all makes a lot more sense than her original conversion.
And now, back to vampires, I guess.
I've had plenty of friends/acquaintances over the years who went WHOLEHOGFORJESUS and threw over their former existence like some sort of happy zombie. They burnt out quick, and a lot of them fell off the train.
This smacks of that to me. I think she's a passionate, emotional, artistic personality and will probably never find peace--except through creation of her art. I've seen that as well.
Add in a dose of personal politics and a smattering of promotion and the sort of sideways self-awareness that comes with celebrity and this all makes a lot more sense than her original conversion.
And now, back to vampires, I guess.
33XOX
@31
Catholic church has misrepresentation of what it is all about. Of course it is the catholic cult fault.
The catholic cult is hatred filled and its stand against secular same sex marriage is the last straw for Anne Rice. Have you even read what she said in her interview? I'm simply agreeing with her that the current christian practice is hatred filled.
Catholic church has misrepresentation of what it is all about. Of course it is the catholic cult fault.
The catholic cult is hatred filled and its stand against secular same sex marriage is the last straw for Anne Rice. Have you even read what she said in her interview? I'm simply agreeing with her that the current christian practice is hatred filled.
34lilithcat
> 33
Please stop saying "current Christian practice" as though Christianity were monolithic. It is not. There are myriad denominations with quite varying beliefs and practices.
Yes, I have read what Anne Rice said, and I think she is sadly mistaken. She makes the same mistake you do - equating "Christianity" with the behavior of a few people who label themselves "Christians".
Please stop saying "current Christian practice" as though Christianity were monolithic. It is not. There are myriad denominations with quite varying beliefs and practices.
Yes, I have read what Anne Rice said, and I think she is sadly mistaken. She makes the same mistake you do - equating "Christianity" with the behavior of a few people who label themselves "Christians".
35XOX
> 34
Christian cult negative influence to innnocent people could be seen on the whole. On the whole, christian practice do have a lot of negative effects that normal human being found disgusting.
We couldn't say all Nazi were bad, as they were still individuals. But on the whole, Nazi practice was pretty bad. The same way that Christian practice is pretty bad.
One could not cherry pick.
Christian cult negative influence to innnocent people could be seen on the whole. On the whole, christian practice do have a lot of negative effects that normal human being found disgusting.
We couldn't say all Nazi were bad, as they were still individuals. But on the whole, Nazi practice was pretty bad. The same way that Christian practice is pretty bad.
One could not cherry pick.
41theoria
We may have overlooked Sylvester's Law (edit: in light of #42, it is renamed Almuth's Law): whenever Nazis are mentioned, there is a high probability that Godwin's law will be invoked.
42lilithcat
> 41
Okay, I don't even understand the definition of Sylvester's Law: Sylvester's law of inertia is a theorem in matrix algebra about certain properties of the coefficient matrix of a real quadratic form that remain invariant under a change of coordinates. Namely, if A is the symmetric matrix that defines the quadratic form, and S is any invertible matrix such that D = SAST is diagonal, then the number of negative elements in the diagonal of D is always the same, for all such S; and the same goes for the number of positive elements.
Okay, I don't even understand the definition of Sylvester's Law: Sylvester's law of inertia is a theorem in matrix algebra about certain properties of the coefficient matrix of a real quadratic form that remain invariant under a change of coordinates. Namely, if A is the symmetric matrix that defines the quadratic form, and S is any invertible matrix such that D = SAST is diagonal, then the number of negative elements in the diagonal of D is always the same, for all such S; and the same goes for the number of positive elements.
43theoria
ugh. I should have checked to see if a real Sylvester's law existed :)
Let's try Almuth's law...
Let's try Almuth's law...
44Jesse_wiedinmyer
Cchristian cult negative influence to innnocent people could be seen on the whole. On the whole, christian practice do have a lot of negative effects that normal human being found disgusting.
Couple of things here...
1) If you've met a normal human being, I'd like to know where the fuck you're hanging out.
2) If you've managed to see the "whole," I congratulate you. I'm a pretty smart fucking guy and I've not managed to come close.
3) Lilith, keep on rockin' in the free world.
Couple of things here...
1) If you've met a normal human being, I'd like to know where the fuck you're hanging out.
2) If you've managed to see the "whole," I congratulate you. I'm a pretty smart fucking guy and I've not managed to come close.
3) Lilith, keep on rockin' in the free world.
45Hillgirl
okay I don't usually write on the forums I enjoy reading your opinions, but I am totally shocked. How many people on here declare themselves "Christian"? I for one am a child of God and really feel that prayer is needed for alot of you. You have no right to judge her for what she is claiming. Love her and pray for her if you feel like it but to continue writing about it and keeping her name out there is giving her the publicity some of you say she is wanting. God is the only judge and He will. Also He will judge you for the writings and the condemnation of one of His children. What this world needs is more love and understanding for those who need it. I will definitely continue keeping Anne Rice in my prayers and some of you as well....thank you for listening to me and I pray that I did not upset anyone.
46XOX
> 45
I know it is of good intention. But that is how most christians behave in the real world. Anne Rice is right to criticize christianity as hatred filled, and this fact is obvious to those who don't subscribe to this hatred filled religion.
Prayer is useless. It is better for you to follow Anne Rice footstep and leave this hatred filled religion.
>44 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Most of the people I met, except for those who belong to the evil religious christian cult, are pretty normal people. If you go to evil christian cult chruch, you wouldn't find them there.
I know it is of good intention. But that is how most christians behave in the real world. Anne Rice is right to criticize christianity as hatred filled, and this fact is obvious to those who don't subscribe to this hatred filled religion.
Prayer is useless. It is better for you to follow Anne Rice footstep and leave this hatred filled religion.
>44 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Most of the people I met, except for those who belong to the evil religious christian cult, are pretty normal people. If you go to evil christian cult chruch, you wouldn't find them there.
47StormRaven
46: Nothing fails like prayer.
48Makifat
Also He will judge you for the writings and the condemnation of one of His children. What this world needs is more love and understanding for those who need it.
What the world needs less of is those presuming to know the mind of God.
What the world needs less of is those presuming to know the mind of God.
49DeusExLibrus
48> Agreed
46> We get it, dude, you think Christianity is a cultish monolith. Move on already.
46> We get it, dude, you think Christianity is a cultish monolith. Move on already.
50XOX
> 49
Has the evil christian cult been eliminated yet? No? Until it happened, it is a bit hard to get a move on. I would like to witness its destruction.
Has the evil christian cult been eliminated yet? No? Until it happened, it is a bit hard to get a move on. I would like to witness its destruction.
51timspalding
Does the "XOX" stand for hugs and kisses? It certainly seems that way.
54John5918
>46 XOX: XOX, I wonder how you come to the conclusion that "that is how most christians behave in the real world"? In my experience it is definitely not how most Christians behave, although I don't think anybody on this thread is denying that some Christians might behave in this manner. You seem to be ignoring the point which has been made more than once that Christianity is not monolithic and Christians are not all the same.
55XOX
> 54
I was a christain, and I live in a city where religious freedom is allowed by the government. And christians behave like jerks all the time. Christians are only united by hatred of others who are not christians, they are selfish, power hungry and act like what you would expect from an evil religious cult.
I've responded out of politeness. I have no interest to debate with cult members of christianity who haven't opened up their minds to the simple fact that their cult is not a force of good, as from observation, the opposite is true.
I was a christain, and I live in a city where religious freedom is allowed by the government. And christians behave like jerks all the time. Christians are only united by hatred of others who are not christians, they are selfish, power hungry and act like what you would expect from an evil religious cult.
I've responded out of politeness. I have no interest to debate with cult members of christianity who haven't opened up their minds to the simple fact that their cult is not a force of good, as from observation, the opposite is true.
56timspalding
>55 XOX:
So, that's a no on the hugs and kisses?
I've responded out of politeness. I have no interest to debate with cult members of christianity who haven't opened up their minds to the simple fact that their cult is not a force of good, as from observation, the opposite is true.
Obviously you have an enormous interest in debating these issues. You will note that none of us start our LibraryThing pages with "Christian" and then go on to label non-Christians both evil and insane. Being Christians may be important to us, or not, but it isn't the focus of our personalities online, is it? Even if you are more open-minded—although I would in no way concede that—your mind seems a good deal more focused.
I've never really understood atheism as an assertive, missionary activity. We're all completely insane jerks and you're not. So what? You're not going to save us in any "larger" sense, as some of us may believe God cane save, and you must have surely realized by now that you're not to save us in even the smaller sense of convincing to be sane again.
Isn't it a waste of your life to go around failing to convince us of this fact? Shouldn't you focus your energy on more enjoyable, less fruitless endeavors?
So, that's a no on the hugs and kisses?
I've responded out of politeness. I have no interest to debate with cult members of christianity who haven't opened up their minds to the simple fact that their cult is not a force of good, as from observation, the opposite is true.
Obviously you have an enormous interest in debating these issues. You will note that none of us start our LibraryThing pages with "Christian" and then go on to label non-Christians both evil and insane. Being Christians may be important to us, or not, but it isn't the focus of our personalities online, is it? Even if you are more open-minded—although I would in no way concede that—your mind seems a good deal more focused.
I've never really understood atheism as an assertive, missionary activity. We're all completely insane jerks and you're not. So what? You're not going to save us in any "larger" sense, as some of us may believe God cane save, and you must have surely realized by now that you're not to save us in even the smaller sense of convincing to be sane again.
Isn't it a waste of your life to go around failing to convince us of this fact? Shouldn't you focus your energy on more enjoyable, less fruitless endeavors?
57lilithcat
> 55
I have no interest to debate with cult members of christianity . . .
Then perhaps you'd care to debate with someone like me, who is not a Christian, but who is fortunate to count among her friends many who are. They do not hate non-Christians, they are among the most unselfish people I know, they do not crave power and they act nothing like what one would "expect from an evil religious cult".
In fact, they are among the most caring people I know, sacrificing their time and money to help others, with no expectation of thanks, but simply because it is the right thing to do. They are people who are concerned for social justice, who raise their children to respect others of all races and religions, whatever their social status.
I'm sorry your experience of Christians has been different from mine, but I must tell you that I am offended at your description of my friends.
I have no interest to debate with cult members of christianity . . .
Then perhaps you'd care to debate with someone like me, who is not a Christian, but who is fortunate to count among her friends many who are. They do not hate non-Christians, they are among the most unselfish people I know, they do not crave power and they act nothing like what one would "expect from an evil religious cult".
In fact, they are among the most caring people I know, sacrificing their time and money to help others, with no expectation of thanks, but simply because it is the right thing to do. They are people who are concerned for social justice, who raise their children to respect others of all races and religions, whatever their social status.
I'm sorry your experience of Christians has been different from mine, but I must tell you that I am offended at your description of my friends.
59StormRaven
Also, the crushed fibula of an atheist.
I promise we don't have any special powers. If we did, the world would probably be pretty different. At least my corner of it. :)
I promise we don't have any special powers. If we did, the world would probably be pretty different. At least my corner of it. :)
60XOX
>57 lilithcat:
Christians in US is against love, it is quite obvious.
I read from the news.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38671236/ns/us_news-life
And see the photo of men from the evil christian cult.
"Viktor Choban, 27, a opponent of same-sex marriage, responded: "God's Holy law has been trampled on by one person."
Only cult members could spill out so much hatred with such arrogant self-righteousness.
This is just one sample.
Another example.
I have evil christian cult members saying the flood that caused so much lives lost in China is because they do not subscribe to the evil christian cult. These christian cult members are not only cruel, heartless, full of hatred, but lost their humanity.
I experienced this kind of sickening things done by evil christian cult members almost daily for years. There are so much evidences to convince me that christianity is nothing but a hatred filled cult.
Even people you thought is okay, could one day act out of their evil christian cult "order" to do evil thing. Evil christian cult members could not be trust, as they are liars (evidence from their stand against evolution) and would do harm to non evil christian cult members.
Spreading of the evil christian cult is like virus, something that we all need to watch out for, and not letting evil spread.
Be careful of evil christian cult members who claimed to be your friends. If they are against same sex marriage, abortion, or are creationists, they could not be trusted.
Christians in US is against love, it is quite obvious.
I read from the news.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38671236/ns/us_news-life
And see the photo of men from the evil christian cult.
"Viktor Choban, 27, a opponent of same-sex marriage, responded: "God's Holy law has been trampled on by one person."
Only cult members could spill out so much hatred with such arrogant self-righteousness.
This is just one sample.
Another example.
I have evil christian cult members saying the flood that caused so much lives lost in China is because they do not subscribe to the evil christian cult. These christian cult members are not only cruel, heartless, full of hatred, but lost their humanity.
I experienced this kind of sickening things done by evil christian cult members almost daily for years. There are so much evidences to convince me that christianity is nothing but a hatred filled cult.
Even people you thought is okay, could one day act out of their evil christian cult "order" to do evil thing. Evil christian cult members could not be trust, as they are liars (evidence from their stand against evolution) and would do harm to non evil christian cult members.
Spreading of the evil christian cult is like virus, something that we all need to watch out for, and not letting evil spread.
Be careful of evil christian cult members who claimed to be your friends. If they are against same sex marriage, abortion, or are creationists, they could not be trusted.
61DeusExLibrus
60> If you don't understand the concept of a vocal minority not representing the views of the whole, its your own fucking fault. Now stop acting like a child already. I'm not saying all Christians are beautiful, loving people, there are definitely some jerks in the mix, quite a few in the US unfortunately, but even if you had some semblance of a legitimate point, its kind of destroyed by your use of phrases like "evil christian cult." Either you don't care if people listen to and take you seriously or not, or you just aren't mature enough to understand that you can't constantly insult someone if you expect to be taken seriously.
62John5918
>55 XOX: XOX, you have apparently had an experience of some Christians who "behave like jerks". That's obviously a valid experience and I respect it. Can you not also respect my experience (and lilithcat's) that there are many other Christians who don't behave like jerks?
65timspalding
Is "evil christian cult" like "rosy fingered dawn" and "swift footed Achilles"? Do you have any alternatives, like maybe "malign Jesus mob" for when the prosody requires?
66Jesse_wiedinmyer
Is "evil christian cult"
You're right. After a while it starts to sound like "extremist Muslim terrorists."
We're all completely insane jerks and you're not.
Wow, you're finally coming to your senses, Spalding.
Oh, wait, that wasn't directed at me. Still crazy after all these years, then.
Hell is other people.
Why do we all suck so badly?
You're right. After a while it starts to sound like "extremist Muslim terrorists."
We're all completely insane jerks and you're not.
Wow, you're finally coming to your senses, Spalding.
Oh, wait, that wasn't directed at me. Still crazy after all these years, then.
Hell is other people.
Why do we all suck so badly?
67Makifat
I can't help wondering if there is some weird subterfuge going on here. The poster insists on writing in some sort of pidgin English, which may lead to the assumption that English is not his/her primary language. But then, the poster's profile page, which has undergone a certain revamping since the brouhaha started ("radicalized", if you will), the English is just dandy.
So, I find myself left with a certain distrust with regard to the sincerity and motives of the poster. I could be dead wrong. But I've learned not to engage in lengthy dialogue with someone who may, may, be slightly or subtly misrepresenting themselves.
(I would note that I, as an American, find most of the outspoken Christians I come into contact with to be earnest but insufferable. But then, I generally don't like anybody. )
Maybe in XOX's country, the most visible Christians hang around chanting in airports,and this is where the negative impressions come from. Who knows? Until he/she choosed to leave the dead horse be and move on to a more considered explanation of his/her viewpoint, I guess we'll just have to make assumptions.
So, I find myself left with a certain distrust with regard to the sincerity and motives of the poster. I could be dead wrong. But I've learned not to engage in lengthy dialogue with someone who may, may, be slightly or subtly misrepresenting themselves.
(I would note that I, as an American, find most of the outspoken Christians I come into contact with to be earnest but insufferable. But then, I generally don't like anybody. )
Maybe in XOX's country, the most visible Christians hang around chanting in airports,and this is where the negative impressions come from. Who knows? Until he/she choosed to leave the dead horse be and move on to a more considered explanation of his/her viewpoint, I guess we'll just have to make assumptions.
69Jesse_wiedinmyer
he poster insists on writing in some sort of pidgin English, which may lead to the assumption that English is not his/her primary language. But then, the poster's profile page, which has undergone a certain revamping since the brouhaha started ("radicalized", if you will), the English is just dandy.
Mayhap they merely spent more time on their profile page than they did on their posts.
Mayhap they merely spent more time on their profile page than they did on their posts.
71timspalding
On the topic of "cults" an NPR story on the death of a pagan professor clued me into "The Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame," a nice thermometer for how cultish a group is:
http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html
The professor is no friend to Christianity for sure, but the basic scales nicely encapsulate some of the markers of a cult.
For the purposes of XOX's assertions, however, it's a bit hard to work with "Christianity" (or Islam, Judaism, etc.) insofar as Christianity doesn't have the structural coherence necessary. I tend to believe that, as a Civilization Christianity is immune to the description of being a cult much like oceans are immune to being described as a teacup of poison--the scope renders a comparison of the contents silly.
http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html
The professor is no friend to Christianity for sure, but the basic scales nicely encapsulate some of the markers of a cult.
For the purposes of XOX's assertions, however, it's a bit hard to work with "Christianity" (or Islam, Judaism, etc.) insofar as Christianity doesn't have the structural coherence necessary. I tend to believe that, as a Civilization Christianity is immune to the description of being a cult much like oceans are immune to being described as a teacup of poison--the scope renders a comparison of the contents silly.
72MyopicBookworm
Looking at XOX's profile suggests that he has been brainwashed by an evil atheist cult. Is XOX actually _for_ anything, or just _anti_-Christianity (in the form it happens to take in one person's limited experience).
73XOX
Wow.
Evil Christian cult members saying dumb shit about me. I'm out of here.
FYI. Atheist is the default position for anyone who are not brought up in evil cult.
Evil christian cult members putting down Islamic evil cult? How original?
Evil Christian cult members saying dumb shit about me. I'm out of here.
FYI. Atheist is the default position for anyone who are not brought up in evil cult.
Evil christian cult members putting down Islamic evil cult? How original?
74John5918
>73 XOX: Atheist is the default position for anyone who are not brought up in evil cult.
Evil cult is the default position for the majority of people in the world who have not been brought up in atheist cult.
Evil cult is the default position for the majority of people in the world who have not been brought up in atheist cult.
75prosfilaes
#71: On the topic of "cults" an NPR story on the death of a pagan professor
And LT author, whose wife is a regular on the boards.
as a Civilization Christianity is immune to the description of being a cult
Cult is not a descriptor of a civilization. Given something like Bonewits's test, where hierarchical power is a major part, the fragmented Christianity certainly couldn't be considered a cult. But Catholicism certainly scores high on several points of his test, like 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9. And I have no problem imagining a Roman Catholic 1984.
#73: Atheist is the default position for anyone who are not brought up in evil cult.
Looking at the US, I would guess that most people who aren't brought up with religious direction one way or the other tend towards a vague monotheism, possibly drifting towards deism. Worldwide, pretty much every culture seems to have found some sort of religion.
And LT author, whose wife is a regular on the boards.
as a Civilization Christianity is immune to the description of being a cult
Cult is not a descriptor of a civilization. Given something like Bonewits's test, where hierarchical power is a major part, the fragmented Christianity certainly couldn't be considered a cult. But Catholicism certainly scores high on several points of his test, like 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9. And I have no problem imagining a Roman Catholic 1984.
#73: Atheist is the default position for anyone who are not brought up in evil cult.
Looking at the US, I would guess that most people who aren't brought up with religious direction one way or the other tend towards a vague monotheism, possibly drifting towards deism. Worldwide, pretty much every culture seems to have found some sort of religion.
76timspalding
And LT author, whose wife is a regular on the boards.
I didn't know that. And, wow, this is a member I'm pretty familiar with. I'm very sorry for her loss.
I didn't know that. And, wow, this is a member I'm pretty familiar with. I'm very sorry for her loss.
77XOX
>75 prosfilaes:
Looking at the US, I would guess that most people who aren't brought up with religious direction one way or the other tend towards a vague monotheism, possibly drifting towards deism. Worldwide, pretty much every culture seems to have found some sort of religion.
Religions were created by human for reason still not yet known, but mostly to explan things that their psy could not handle.
Cultures from non deity base religion tend to go toward atheism. Your assertion is a bit off.
As human, we would out grow religion eventually. And if there isn't so many deity base cults, we could have gotten rid of religion much sooner.
In the US, it is part of history that US was a place overtaken by force of the religious cults members. They killed off the aborigines (genocide) and stolen their lands and claimed it as god's will. It is another effect of evil religious cults, but that is history. History is full of human mistakes like that.
I'm only interested in talking about Anne Rice and why she left the evil christain cult. I'm not interested in the cult itself for I found it a waste of my time.
Looking at the US, I would guess that most people who aren't brought up with religious direction one way or the other tend towards a vague monotheism, possibly drifting towards deism. Worldwide, pretty much every culture seems to have found some sort of religion.
Religions were created by human for reason still not yet known, but mostly to explan things that their psy could not handle.
Cultures from non deity base religion tend to go toward atheism. Your assertion is a bit off.
As human, we would out grow religion eventually. And if there isn't so many deity base cults, we could have gotten rid of religion much sooner.
In the US, it is part of history that US was a place overtaken by force of the religious cults members. They killed off the aborigines (genocide) and stolen their lands and claimed it as god's will. It is another effect of evil religious cults, but that is history. History is full of human mistakes like that.
I'm only interested in talking about Anne Rice and why she left the evil christain cult. I'm not interested in the cult itself for I found it a waste of my time.
79jntjesussaves
I am new to this "message posting" on LibraryThing.com." I have read most of the posts in regards to Anne Rice's (I guess recent "conversion" from Christianity). I hope what I say will not be repeating someone else. Understanding that there are many different views on every subject under the sun- I give the following observations.
I am a Christian, by a new birth experience. My intent is not to open a different "can of worms," however, I just want to give what I believe is the Bible-based view of salvation and redemption. In Romans 5:12, we read that "as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death (spiritual death-separation from God) by sin; and so death (spiritual death-separation from God) passed upon all men, for that all (every human being who will or has ever lived) have sinned." It is because of this spiritual death (separation from God) that was imputed to each and every human being (as a result of Adam's first sin), that we are all in need of a Saviour. This is the need of every human being- mine, yours, and Anne Rice's.
Each person's sin will one day be judged, (Anne Rice's included). Each individual who has or will ever live will either pay for their own sin (by being judged "guilty" and receiving their ultimate punishment (separation from God in the Lake of Fire), or they will allow Another (Jesus Christ) to pay their sin debt for them. If one chooses the latter, they "trust" (in repentance and faith) in Christ and His work on the Cross as full payment of their sins, God promises to save them (Romans 10:13).
I would be very careful to place my eternal welfare on what the dictionary calls a "Christian." I would rather base this eternal decision on a Book (the Holy Bible) that is completely reliable (inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed) (2 Timothy 3:15, 16). Salvation is not solely a decision- it is much, much more! I believe a Christian is a person who is a follower of Christ, who does follow the teachings of Christ; but more importantly, a Christian is a person who has had a "new birth" experience (John 3:1-8). Anyone can call themself a "Christian," however, does this mean that all who do so are truly Christians? Based on my understanding of salvation, I would have to conclude that all who say they are Christians are not necessarily so. In Matthew 7:21-27, we read about many who had done many "wonderful works" in Christ's name and they even call Him, "Lord, Lord," but Jesus responds to these with the admonition, "I never knew you, depart from Me." Just the mere acknowledgement that you believe in Jesus Christ (and/or His teachings) does not make one a Christian; if this were so, Satan (along with his fallen cohorts) would be Christians. The Bible tells us in James 2:19, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."
I believe, in what we call the realm of Christianity today, there are two definitions (if you will) of a "Christian."
There is the one definition that would state that a Christian is an individual who has had a "new birth," "born-again" experience and due to this fact, have been given new life in Christ. In other words, they have become a "new creature" and been given a new nature (read Romans 7). In Paul's second letter to the Corinthian believers he stated, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
The second definition, which is probably more prevalent in most of Christendom today, would say that anyone that "believes" in Christ and/or in His teachings is Christian. So, dependent on each individual's idea of which one of these definitions fit their belief, it will lead them to their belief on whether Anne Rice (or anyone else is a Christian). While, this makes for good discussion on a "blog," it should not be our basis for who is or is not a Christian- we need to and should go to the Word of God to answer this question.
I am not Anne Rice's (or anyone elses judge)- that distinction goes to Jesus Christ and Him alone. If Anne Rice, did get saved (became a "Christian") by a new birth experience, there is nothing she (nor anyone else can do to change that). Jesus plainly explains this in John 10:23-29, "And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Praise God, salvation is forever, when you put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. If Anne Rice had this experience, then according to God's Word, she is saved (hence, she is a Christian). However, if she never experienced this "new birth," she is still in her sins and in need of salvation.
The Christianity that I speak of, is not something that you can "put on" and "take off." She is either a Christian (or she is not), she has either been "born-again" or she is "dead in trespasses and sins." She can't be both, nor can anyone else.
If there are any who have never placed their trust in the Risen Saviour and received the new birth that Jesus Christ (and Him alone offers), you can today (Please read the following verses: Romans 3:23; Romans 6:23; Romans 5:8; and Romans 10:13). If you realize your own sinfulness, and if you realize that you deserve death and hell as a result, and you realize that Jesus Christ came to redeem you back to the Father, then all you need to do is "call upon the name of the Lord and thou shalt be saved." Praise God even an avowed atheist (Anne Rice) can "call upon the Lord" and be saved.
God bless and praise God, Jesus still is in the saving business!
I am a Christian, by a new birth experience. My intent is not to open a different "can of worms," however, I just want to give what I believe is the Bible-based view of salvation and redemption. In Romans 5:12, we read that "as by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and death (spiritual death-separation from God) by sin; and so death (spiritual death-separation from God) passed upon all men, for that all (every human being who will or has ever lived) have sinned." It is because of this spiritual death (separation from God) that was imputed to each and every human being (as a result of Adam's first sin), that we are all in need of a Saviour. This is the need of every human being- mine, yours, and Anne Rice's.
Each person's sin will one day be judged, (Anne Rice's included). Each individual who has or will ever live will either pay for their own sin (by being judged "guilty" and receiving their ultimate punishment (separation from God in the Lake of Fire), or they will allow Another (Jesus Christ) to pay their sin debt for them. If one chooses the latter, they "trust" (in repentance and faith) in Christ and His work on the Cross as full payment of their sins, God promises to save them (Romans 10:13).
I would be very careful to place my eternal welfare on what the dictionary calls a "Christian." I would rather base this eternal decision on a Book (the Holy Bible) that is completely reliable (inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed) (2 Timothy 3:15, 16). Salvation is not solely a decision- it is much, much more! I believe a Christian is a person who is a follower of Christ, who does follow the teachings of Christ; but more importantly, a Christian is a person who has had a "new birth" experience (John 3:1-8). Anyone can call themself a "Christian," however, does this mean that all who do so are truly Christians? Based on my understanding of salvation, I would have to conclude that all who say they are Christians are not necessarily so. In Matthew 7:21-27, we read about many who had done many "wonderful works" in Christ's name and they even call Him, "Lord, Lord," but Jesus responds to these with the admonition, "I never knew you, depart from Me." Just the mere acknowledgement that you believe in Jesus Christ (and/or His teachings) does not make one a Christian; if this were so, Satan (along with his fallen cohorts) would be Christians. The Bible tells us in James 2:19, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."
I believe, in what we call the realm of Christianity today, there are two definitions (if you will) of a "Christian."
There is the one definition that would state that a Christian is an individual who has had a "new birth," "born-again" experience and due to this fact, have been given new life in Christ. In other words, they have become a "new creature" and been given a new nature (read Romans 7). In Paul's second letter to the Corinthian believers he stated, "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."
The second definition, which is probably more prevalent in most of Christendom today, would say that anyone that "believes" in Christ and/or in His teachings is Christian. So, dependent on each individual's idea of which one of these definitions fit their belief, it will lead them to their belief on whether Anne Rice (or anyone else is a Christian). While, this makes for good discussion on a "blog," it should not be our basis for who is or is not a Christian- we need to and should go to the Word of God to answer this question.
I am not Anne Rice's (or anyone elses judge)- that distinction goes to Jesus Christ and Him alone. If Anne Rice, did get saved (became a "Christian") by a new birth experience, there is nothing she (nor anyone else can do to change that). Jesus plainly explains this in John 10:23-29, "And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. 24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Praise God, salvation is forever, when you put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. If Anne Rice had this experience, then according to God's Word, she is saved (hence, she is a Christian). However, if she never experienced this "new birth," she is still in her sins and in need of salvation.
The Christianity that I speak of, is not something that you can "put on" and "take off." She is either a Christian (or she is not), she has either been "born-again" or she is "dead in trespasses and sins." She can't be both, nor can anyone else.
If there are any who have never placed their trust in the Risen Saviour and received the new birth that Jesus Christ (and Him alone offers), you can today (Please read the following verses: Romans 3:23; Romans 6:23; Romans 5:8; and Romans 10:13). If you realize your own sinfulness, and if you realize that you deserve death and hell as a result, and you realize that Jesus Christ came to redeem you back to the Father, then all you need to do is "call upon the name of the Lord and thou shalt be saved." Praise God even an avowed atheist (Anne Rice) can "call upon the Lord" and be saved.
God bless and praise God, Jesus still is in the saving business!
80vpfluke
I think Anne Rice's journey is that she returned to the church (maybe Roman Catholic) and then has become partially dissatisfied with the church. Whether she is dissatisfied with Christianity writ large, I don't know. Someone who keeps up with Anne Rice can answer.
81timspalding
Found what I, at least, think is a very good (thoughtful, nice, non-attacking but dismayed) response to Anne Rice's leaving the church from Fr. Barron (the guy behind the upcoming PBS series on Catholicism).
http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr--Barron-comments-on-Anne-Ri...
http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr--Barron-comments-on-Anne-Ri...
82quicksiva
>78 mickeymullen:
"On Noah's boat there were only eight people saved and it is going to be the same when Jesus comes back the second time. I can't even find eight people that will believe me, am I worried? No I am saved."
In all due respect, that really doesn't sound like the "Savior" most people know.
I hope when you do get to your eternal reward, the only other person there is XOX.
"On Noah's boat there were only eight people saved and it is going to be the same when Jesus comes back the second time. I can't even find eight people that will believe me, am I worried? No I am saved."
In all due respect, that really doesn't sound like the "Savior" most people know.
I hope when you do get to your eternal reward, the only other person there is XOX.
83MyopicBookworm
>81 timspalding:
It is good and thoughtful. Of course, I don't agree with Fr Barron's equation of the Body of Christ with the Roman Catholic Church, and I wonder what he would have said if Anne Rice had just moved to a more liberal church denomination.
It is good and thoughtful. Of course, I don't agree with Fr Barron's equation of the Body of Christ with the Roman Catholic Church, and I wonder what he would have said if Anne Rice had just moved to a more liberal church denomination.
84timspalding
>83 MyopicBookworm:
I think he would have said something less, because the church is not exactly a stranger to a non-Catholic christian. I still wonder just what Rice meant, exactly. It seems like she went a good deal farther than "I'm a Christian who doesn't belong to any church." She seems to have confirmedly rejected Christianity, but kept Christ. There a good deal of unclarity there.
I think he would have said something less, because the church is not exactly a stranger to a non-Catholic christian. I still wonder just what Rice meant, exactly. It seems like she went a good deal farther than "I'm a Christian who doesn't belong to any church." She seems to have confirmedly rejected Christianity, but kept Christ. There a good deal of unclarity there.
85AsYouKnow_Bob
It sounded to my ear like she was conflating "Christianity" and "the Catholic Church".
(And maybe re-inventing Protestantism, as if "keeping Christ" without the RC church was a new idea to her.)
(And maybe re-inventing Protestantism, as if "keeping Christ" without the RC church was a new idea to her.)
86barney67
My understanding is that Catholics are Christians. "Christian" is the umbrella term for all the denominations.
87AsYouKnow_Bob
Yes, and Anne Rice announced she was leaving "Christianity" but "keeping Christ".
Thus: I said "It sounded to my ear like she was conflating "Christianity" and "the Catholic Church".
Thus: I said "It sounded to my ear like she was conflating "Christianity" and "the Catholic Church".
89AsYouKnow_Bob
The short version:
Her husband died; she prominently announced that she was returning to the fold of the Mother Church; after a few years, she prominently QUIT the Church (Was it over gay rights? I've forgotten her exact disagreement with policy - oh, right, it's mentioned up in the OP), with the announcement above, that she was leaving "Christianity" but "keeping Christ".
Her husband died; she prominently announced that she was returning to the fold of the Mother Church; after a few years, she prominently QUIT the Church (Was it over gay rights? I've forgotten her exact disagreement with policy - oh, right, it's mentioned up in the OP), with the announcement above, that she was leaving "Christianity" but "keeping Christ".
91timspalding
Looking around on her site, a few thoughts:
She hasn't "updated it" in what might seem the light of her de-conversion (term chosen almost at random and may not be appropriate). Her three featured book sections are for her religious memoir Called out of Darkness, her Christ the Lord series, and her vampire novels. The second includes her "Profession of Faith," a straightforward essay that is what it says it is. The latter features an introductory essay from 2007 that explains them with particular reference to her Christian conversion. It all seems rather weird to me that she would still be so directly and personally promoting a book about her conversion after she de-converted!
She has two new videos here that are worth looking at:
http://www.annerice.com/Chamber-Christianity.html
The latter of the two makes clear—I think—that she still feels she believes in God and follows Jesus Christ, and that her "quitting Christianity" is a way of expressing her total disavowal of organized religion and its members. Her final sentence involves her feeling she has joined a "new definition of the term 'body of Christ.'"
What's so weird here, for me, is that she seems to have acquired a sort of "Catholic" non-Catholicisim. That is, she implicitly accepts that the church is the church and nothing else could be, and that Christianity is essentially this community, rather than the (Protestant) tendency to see the community in a less direct relationship to the whole. She accepts these notions, and then she rejects it. The far-more-common pattern is to either reject everything—become an agnostic or an atheist—or to reject the Catholic church and many other Christian groups and become a Episcopalian, or UCC or whatever.
She hasn't "updated it" in what might seem the light of her de-conversion (term chosen almost at random and may not be appropriate). Her three featured book sections are for her religious memoir Called out of Darkness, her Christ the Lord series, and her vampire novels. The second includes her "Profession of Faith," a straightforward essay that is what it says it is. The latter features an introductory essay from 2007 that explains them with particular reference to her Christian conversion. It all seems rather weird to me that she would still be so directly and personally promoting a book about her conversion after she de-converted!
She has two new videos here that are worth looking at:
http://www.annerice.com/Chamber-Christianity.html
The latter of the two makes clear—I think—that she still feels she believes in God and follows Jesus Christ, and that her "quitting Christianity" is a way of expressing her total disavowal of organized religion and its members. Her final sentence involves her feeling she has joined a "new definition of the term 'body of Christ.'"
What's so weird here, for me, is that she seems to have acquired a sort of "Catholic" non-Catholicisim. That is, she implicitly accepts that the church is the church and nothing else could be, and that Christianity is essentially this community, rather than the (Protestant) tendency to see the community in a less direct relationship to the whole. She accepts these notions, and then she rejects it. The far-more-common pattern is to either reject everything—become an agnostic or an atheist—or to reject the Catholic church and many other Christian groups and become a Episcopalian, or UCC or whatever.
92MyopicBookworm
I haven't read a word she has written, but from your description I think I can see what she might be getting at.
It can be claimed that the prejudices against women and homosexuality, and the condemnatory moral attitudes of modern conservative "Churchianity", are so embedded in the cultural development of the Christian Church that reforming the organization is not possible: it is (as Fr Barron says) an organism, and you can't just tweak bits of it. Up to a point, you have to accept that the Church is what it is. (Though I don't believe that the church is "anti-Democrat": that's just the regrettably successful propaganda of the American Christian Right. The balance between accepting the catholicity of the Church and rejecting the Catholic Church is one which Anglo-Catholics have been walking for a long time.)
Since the cultural attitudes that characterize the Church originate right back in the Hellenistic Jewish milieu in which it emerged, a "back to the source" approach which focuses on the New Testament (as championed by much of Protestant thought) still fails to address the modern liberal critique. The thoroughgoing liberal cannot be an evangelical (there is no convincing liberal interpretation of Romans 1).
But if you encounter the divine realm through the medium of the Church, does that encounter itself validate the Church? Does the experience of God in the Catholic Eucharist make it necessary to believe the Catholic doctrines? I think not. Assuming that such experience is not purely subjective, it is possible to encounter divinity in numerous ways in a non-Catholic or even non-Christian environment. If I were to experience the divine in a Jewish liturgy, I would not rush to keep kosher. Finding profound truths in Hindu scriptures would not make the Vedic caste system palatable to me. However much I love the religious poetry of Rumi, I cannot follow his Prophet.
Some of Christ's teaching was taken up by his followers and made into a system. Some of it was misinterpreted or ignored. To accept that the Church is in some sense the Body of Christ, and then to reject it while retaining allegiance to Christ, is to affirm that Christ is bigger than the flawed organism which has, for the last two thousand years, been the main legacy of his mission.
It can be claimed that the prejudices against women and homosexuality, and the condemnatory moral attitudes of modern conservative "Churchianity", are so embedded in the cultural development of the Christian Church that reforming the organization is not possible: it is (as Fr Barron says) an organism, and you can't just tweak bits of it. Up to a point, you have to accept that the Church is what it is. (Though I don't believe that the church is "anti-Democrat": that's just the regrettably successful propaganda of the American Christian Right. The balance between accepting the catholicity of the Church and rejecting the Catholic Church is one which Anglo-Catholics have been walking for a long time.)
Since the cultural attitudes that characterize the Church originate right back in the Hellenistic Jewish milieu in which it emerged, a "back to the source" approach which focuses on the New Testament (as championed by much of Protestant thought) still fails to address the modern liberal critique. The thoroughgoing liberal cannot be an evangelical (there is no convincing liberal interpretation of Romans 1).
But if you encounter the divine realm through the medium of the Church, does that encounter itself validate the Church? Does the experience of God in the Catholic Eucharist make it necessary to believe the Catholic doctrines? I think not. Assuming that such experience is not purely subjective, it is possible to encounter divinity in numerous ways in a non-Catholic or even non-Christian environment. If I were to experience the divine in a Jewish liturgy, I would not rush to keep kosher. Finding profound truths in Hindu scriptures would not make the Vedic caste system palatable to me. However much I love the religious poetry of Rumi, I cannot follow his Prophet.
Some of Christ's teaching was taken up by his followers and made into a system. Some of it was misinterpreted or ignored. To accept that the Church is in some sense the Body of Christ, and then to reject it while retaining allegiance to Christ, is to affirm that Christ is bigger than the flawed organism which has, for the last two thousand years, been the main legacy of his mission.
93John5918
Don't know whether this is relevant here. It struck me when reading one or two threads where the question "what is a Catholic?" comes up.
The church is not a 'place where' but a 'people who'> (NCR)
The church is not a 'place where' but a 'people who'> (NCR)
94timspalding
Well, Anne Rice joins the Pope's fan club…
https://twitter.com/AnneRiceAuthor/status/399602682241220608
https://twitter.com/AnneRiceAuthor/status/399602682241220608
95JGL53
I've never read any of Rice's books and don't know that much about her (well, I just looked her up on Wiki, so now I guess I do).
I very recently watched her interview on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson and she seemed like a perfectly normal and nice person.
Is the thought that whatever her life philosophy is will be of some major importance since she is an influential person - a celebrity - admired by many?
How influential is your average celebrity in moving the masses to that celebrity's point of view - on any subject?
E.g., if Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus were to announce in the various media tomorrow that they were convinced atheists - would that help to move very many people off of Jesus and Buddha, etc. and onto philosophical materialism?
I don't know. Is the hoi polli that mentally malleable?
I very recently watched her interview on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson and she seemed like a perfectly normal and nice person.
Is the thought that whatever her life philosophy is will be of some major importance since she is an influential person - a celebrity - admired by many?
How influential is your average celebrity in moving the masses to that celebrity's point of view - on any subject?
E.g., if Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus were to announce in the various media tomorrow that they were convinced atheists - would that help to move very many people off of Jesus and Buddha, etc. and onto philosophical materialism?
I don't know. Is the hoi polli that mentally malleable?
96Jesse_wiedinmyer
I've not seen many people who aren't impressed by the new pope.
97Jesse_wiedinmyer
Though "impressed" may not be the right verb...
98timspalding
Dan Savage likes him. That's gotta be a sign of the apocalypse.
99JGL53
> 98
Dan's pretty out there but he actually seems rather mentally sharp and well-educated. Apparently he is not a purist in his ideology, similar to your average teabagger.
Dan knows the pope is the pope and that he - the pope - has only sort of called off the catholic war on gayness - Dan will certainly take what he can get. Hoping that the pope will announce his own gayness is obviously a bridge of hope too far.
Dan's pretty out there but he actually seems rather mentally sharp and well-educated. Apparently he is not a purist in his ideology, similar to your average teabagger.
Dan knows the pope is the pope and that he - the pope - has only sort of called off the catholic war on gayness - Dan will certainly take what he can get. Hoping that the pope will announce his own gayness is obviously a bridge of hope too far.
100Jesse_wiedinmyer
Sarah Palin is taken aback and quite probably taken out of context.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/12/sarah-palin-taken-aback-by-pope-...
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/12/sarah-palin-taken-aback-by-pope-...
101JGL53
> 100
Wise advice from Sara Palin.
Now that's "gotta be a sign of the apocalypse." Right, ts?
Wise advice from Sara Palin.
Now that's "gotta be a sign of the apocalypse." Right, ts?
102timspalding
Palin's taken out of context, or she thinks maybe the pope was?
I think this is the tip of the iceberg. Conservatives who aren't Catholic aren't going to say much that's nice about Francis; they're going to say the opposite. I suspect a lot of conservative Catholics go with their ideology, not their faith on this.
I think this is the tip of the iceberg. Conservatives who aren't Catholic aren't going to say much that's nice about Francis; they're going to say the opposite. I suspect a lot of conservative Catholics go with their ideology, not their faith on this.
103Jesse_wiedinmyer
I suspect a lot of conservative Catholics go with their ideology, not their faith on this.
I'm confused as to how that plays out.
I'm confused as to how that plays out.
104timspalding
In other words, I think a lot of conservative Catholics listen a lot more to conservative leaders than to Catholic ones.
105prosfilaes
#102: I suspect a lot of conservative Catholics go with their ideology, not their faith on this.
I don't really understand how this works in Catholicism. Coming from a Protestant tradition, I understand roughly how the power structure of Protestant churches and denominations go, but there seems to be a large theory/practice distinction in Catholicism. The power of speaking ex cathedra, even limited as it is, speaks to the amazing power and trust put in the Pope*, but at the other extreme, there seems to be a lot of people tied into Catholicism as the One True Christian Church of Tradition with fairly distant concern for what the Pope is actually doing.
(* I might compare this to Queen Elizabeth II's power to veto bills, but the Pope holds huge power with it, and there doesn't seem to be much of a Catholic belief that it's purely ceremonial.)
So what exactly are these conservative Catholics going to do, and how is the Church going to respond? I get the impression that neither side is going to push this so far as significant numbers of people leaving the church because of this?
I don't really understand how this works in Catholicism. Coming from a Protestant tradition, I understand roughly how the power structure of Protestant churches and denominations go, but there seems to be a large theory/practice distinction in Catholicism. The power of speaking ex cathedra, even limited as it is, speaks to the amazing power and trust put in the Pope*, but at the other extreme, there seems to be a lot of people tied into Catholicism as the One True Christian Church of Tradition with fairly distant concern for what the Pope is actually doing.
(* I might compare this to Queen Elizabeth II's power to veto bills, but the Pope holds huge power with it, and there doesn't seem to be much of a Catholic belief that it's purely ceremonial.)
So what exactly are these conservative Catholics going to do, and how is the Church going to respond? I get the impression that neither side is going to push this so far as significant numbers of people leaving the church because of this?
106AdamWorth
I think Bob Dylan did too. I could be wrong about that, but I believe I read that somewhere.
107jbbarret
Francis seems to be upsetting some dangerous people:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-his-life-is-in-dange...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-his-life-is-in-dange...
108jbbarret
Has Francis made things harder for liberal Catholics?
Conor Gearty (frequent contributor to The Tablet) thinks so: It was very easy for me to be a liberal Catholic when John Paul II and Benedict XVI were around: I was so angry there was no time to reflect on what I truly believed...
http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/4288/do-we-believe
Conor Gearty (frequent contributor to The Tablet) thinks so: It was very easy for me to be a liberal Catholic when John Paul II and Benedict XVI were around: I was so angry there was no time to reflect on what I truly believed...
http://rationalist.org.uk/articles/4288/do-we-believe
109John5918
>108 jbbarret: Not sure I agree with him. While he may speak for himself, "liberal Catholics", if the term has any meaning at all, are themselves a broad Church, and his characterisation of them is rather narrow.
110jbbarret
>109 John5918: "liberal Catholics", if the term has any meaning at all
Is it only, or mostly, outside the church that some are seen as liberal, in contrast to others who are seen as conservative?
Just two (outside) examples from many reports:
BBC: Pope Benedict is a conservative in the deepest sense of the word.
Washington Post: While Pope Francis does not share all the convictions of liberal Catholics, he is temperamentally as liberal as any pope could reasonably be
Are these, or do you consider these to be, misleading terms?
Is it only, or mostly, outside the church that some are seen as liberal, in contrast to others who are seen as conservative?
Just two (outside) examples from many reports:
BBC: Pope Benedict is a conservative in the deepest sense of the word.
Washington Post: While Pope Francis does not share all the convictions of liberal Catholics, he is temperamentally as liberal as any pope could reasonably be
Are these, or do you consider these to be, misleading terms?
111John5918
>110 jbbarret: I think the terms have more currency in the USA, where religion has been polarised not only on theological grounds but also on political grounds, than elsewhere. For me the very terms liberal and conservative are political, not religious. Tim or other US Catholics might disagree with me.
What I see as more widespread in the Catholic world is far more complexity. Someone's theology might be considered "conservative" but their praxis might be called "liberal". Theological disagreement does not lead to polarisation and exclusion. Being a tad "liberal" or "conservative" in one's theology does not carry all the baggage of the US culture wars (a term Tim has used recently on LT). A single person may actually have quite a mix of "conservative" and "liberal" theological positions which, in the USA, might be considered incompatible with each other. And there are many more examples which do not match the stereotype.
I have maintained elsewhere (again I think Tim disagrees) that Pope Francis is actually quite conservative in his theology but very open or progressive in his praxis.
What I see as more widespread in the Catholic world is far more complexity. Someone's theology might be considered "conservative" but their praxis might be called "liberal". Theological disagreement does not lead to polarisation and exclusion. Being a tad "liberal" or "conservative" in one's theology does not carry all the baggage of the US culture wars (a term Tim has used recently on LT). A single person may actually have quite a mix of "conservative" and "liberal" theological positions which, in the USA, might be considered incompatible with each other. And there are many more examples which do not match the stereotype.
I have maintained elsewhere (again I think Tim disagrees) that Pope Francis is actually quite conservative in his theology but very open or progressive in his praxis.
112jbbarret
>111 John5918: Ah, thank you, I think I now see why you consider Gearty's view to be narrow.
113JGL53
I thought a liberal catholic was one who followed his or her own conscience whenever it conflicted with church teachings - say on birth control or abortion - and a conservative just doesn't ask questions and does whatever the church says - because they believe those are the rules.
Is that incorrect?
Is that incorrect?
114timspalding
That's a recognizable caricature, I suppose.
115timspalding
BBC: Pope Benedict is a conservative in the deepest sense of the word.
Are these, or do you consider these to be, misleading terms?
I think there are three levels to address--(1) the context of the term, (2) the degree to which the term maps to a reality, (3) the degree to which the term is appropriate for this person or group.
For the first, "Pope Benedict is a conservative in the deepest sense of the word" the context is that conservatives conserve. They reverence tradition. They respect the past. They believe change should be gradual and organic. In the political sphere one would call this a Burkean view. It is obviously different from the contemporary US political usage, in which "conservative" is a cover term, but one that includes people who want rapid, ahistorical and non-organic "conservative change."
Transferring the Burkean view to a church context--not what one usually means by "conservative" in Catholic circles--works pretty well. There are Catholics who emphasize upper- and lower-case tradition more, want change to be both gradual and organic, etc.
In this context, the phrase fit Ratzinger/Benedict pretty well. (The rest of the article is up and down.) He had a very deep sense of the intellectual and spiritual heritage of the church. Surely the Papacy hasn't seen a pope as well versed in its history and earliest writings as Benedict for many years, if ever. (But it is notable that John XXIII was a church historian.) In this context, Benedict's abdication was actually a "conservative" act. The notion that the Papacy is a man, not a ministry, a person, not an office, is actually pretty modern. The root theology of the thing is that the Pope is fundamentally a bishop, and bishops can abdicate their sees—indeed, resignation at 70 is required of every other bishop in the Latin rite! That such a thing has happened is all that Benedict ultimately cared about, not whether recent Popes have done it.
I'll leave it at that. But you see where it's gone--"conservative in the deepest sense" is a meaningful description of Benedict, when you know what the phrase means, but it is liable to be misunderstood wildly if your frame of reference for the term is a tea-party rally.
Are these, or do you consider these to be, misleading terms?
I think there are three levels to address--(1) the context of the term, (2) the degree to which the term maps to a reality, (3) the degree to which the term is appropriate for this person or group.
For the first, "Pope Benedict is a conservative in the deepest sense of the word" the context is that conservatives conserve. They reverence tradition. They respect the past. They believe change should be gradual and organic. In the political sphere one would call this a Burkean view. It is obviously different from the contemporary US political usage, in which "conservative" is a cover term, but one that includes people who want rapid, ahistorical and non-organic "conservative change."
Transferring the Burkean view to a church context--not what one usually means by "conservative" in Catholic circles--works pretty well. There are Catholics who emphasize upper- and lower-case tradition more, want change to be both gradual and organic, etc.
In this context, the phrase fit Ratzinger/Benedict pretty well. (The rest of the article is up and down.) He had a very deep sense of the intellectual and spiritual heritage of the church. Surely the Papacy hasn't seen a pope as well versed in its history and earliest writings as Benedict for many years, if ever. (But it is notable that John XXIII was a church historian.) In this context, Benedict's abdication was actually a "conservative" act. The notion that the Papacy is a man, not a ministry, a person, not an office, is actually pretty modern. The root theology of the thing is that the Pope is fundamentally a bishop, and bishops can abdicate their sees—indeed, resignation at 70 is required of every other bishop in the Latin rite! That such a thing has happened is all that Benedict ultimately cared about, not whether recent Popes have done it.
I'll leave it at that. But you see where it's gone--"conservative in the deepest sense" is a meaningful description of Benedict, when you know what the phrase means, but it is liable to be misunderstood wildly if your frame of reference for the term is a tea-party rally.
116timspalding
FWIW, "tradition" has almost opposite meanings within and without the church. When Pope Francis refused to wear the mozzetta and live in the Apostolic Palace, the news media reports that the "Pope is breaking with tradition." Within church circles, however, capital-T "Tradition" has nothing to say about what the Pope may or may not wear or stay, and lower-case-T "tradition" remembers that both are Renaissance affairs, becoming "traditions" only in the last 1/4 of Christian history.
117John5918
>115 timspalding:, 116 While making no comment on US political usage nor Burkean thingies, I agree with your nuancing of the terms "conservative" and "tradition". I like your point that Benedict's abdication was actually in line with the tradition, even though people with a short institutional memory and/or lack of understanding of the Church might have thought it new and innovative. In fact the living and lived tradition of the Church is deeper, broader, richer and evolving more than most people realise, and it irritates me that a group of Catholics who tend to see "tradition" as only referring to about 400 years from the Council of Trent to the Second Vatican Council often appropriate that name to themselves. I would consider myself a "traditionalist", but in a much deeper sense of the word, ie one who tries to look at the whole tradition.
resignation at 70 is required of every other bishop
I think it's actually 75, but your point is valid.
resignation at 70 is required of every other bishop
I think it's actually 75, but your point is valid.
118timspalding
Valid, but not licit.
119JGL53
> 117
Alleging an important distinction between a tradition of 400 years vs. one of 2,000 years.
On a 4.55 billion year old earth. And a 13.82 billion year old universe. With humans in their present form having existed now for 150-200 thousand years and counting.
Far out. Let no man say jtf is not, like, totally clued in, dudes.
Old tradition:
"Man is the measure of all things." -Protagoras (480-411 BCE)
New tradition:
"Man - and his god - are the measure of all things." - jtf, 2013
Alleging an important distinction between a tradition of 400 years vs. one of 2,000 years.
On a 4.55 billion year old earth. And a 13.82 billion year old universe. With humans in their present form having existed now for 150-200 thousand years and counting.
Far out. Let no man say jtf is not, like, totally clued in, dudes.
Old tradition:
"Man is the measure of all things." -Protagoras (480-411 BCE)
New tradition:
"Man - and his god - are the measure of all things." - jtf, 2013
