Society holds a certain fascination with evil. As the Halloween holiday approaches and shops are filled with ghoulish decorations and occult-fiction books and movies skyrocket in popularity, this fascination is a lot more pronounced. Anne Rice became immensely popular with her book, Interview with the Vampire, as it helped launch her career as an occult-fiction novelist. What's especially interesting about Rice, however, is how she is presently an apologist for God -- well, kind of. Anne Rice has had a difficult time reconciling her personal ideologies with her faith and this is no less pronounced than in her latest YouTube presentation which portrays God as a politically correct higher power. There are a number of aspects I find interesting regarding Rice's life and beliefs, as noted in this summary list:
1. Anne Rice was an atheist who then chose Christianity but now believes in a politically correct higher power.
2. Rice claims that homosexuality is a challenge to Christianity.
3. Rice maintains an exchange with fans and critics on Facebook.
4. Based on her statements, Rice has basically chosen a worldview that is illogical based on a detail that has been unprovable.
In an "I am Second" interview in March 2010, Rice had expressed how she had been "haunted" by the knowledge of God deep down inside. In the video she said she was a “Christ-haunted atheist" as she outlined, “Not only did I believe in Him but I loved Him and I wasn’t admitting it.”
In August 2010 on Facebook, however, Rice made a flip-flop as she stated the following: "Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.” She added, "I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being “Christian” or to being part of Christianity."
As noted, one of her contentions was the Catholic stance on birth control, "I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control." She explained in an NPR interview how "more and more social issues began to impinge on me," however, she then still maintained a belief in a personal God: "Certainly I will never go back to being that atheist and that pessimist that I was," she says. "I live now in a world that I feel God created, and I feel I live in a world where God witnesses everything that happens."
Because Rice offers a rather public persona on Facebook and engages with commenters, I felt free to ask a question: "Hi Anne, I recently read about your decision to embrace Christ but not Christianity. I'd be curious of your opinion on whether you believe that Jesus would approve of your occult fiction novels and the reason(s) why or why not."
As a reply, Rice simply offered a link to a YouTube monologue from September 2012. Dressed up in a gothic-period crushed-velvet blazer, Rice summarizes her present understanding of God: "I believe that there is a higher power." However, she states that she is not sure if God is a personal being or not, though she prays to God regularly. "Do I pray to this higher power? Yes, I pray every day... I talk to God, the maker - to whatever's out there that can guide me and help me to do right by the gift of life, because the thing that I have believed in all my life is the gift of life." Rice's "higher power" is a bit paradoxical. If it's likely just an abstract force, then why pray to a higher power daily in a personal manner? Why ask for help? If her higher power has no identity, who would the "gift" of life be from? A gift requires a giver. If someone told you that a book lying on a table was a gift from someone, a logical question would be, "Who is the book from?" If life is a gift, then what is the identity of the giver? And while being thankful has been proven to be quite helpful, giving thanks to a non-identity is not very logical. The phenomenon of Giving thanks (and all the health benefits this includes) is more supportive of the theist understanding of God than other variants.
There are many, many people like Rice around today who have run into a quandary because they apparently realize that an intelligent Creator must exist in some form. However, they believe it is necessary to adjust God to fit their own preconceptions and ideologies of what God must supposedly stand for. This approach of "making God after your own image" is the essence of idolatry and it runs into logical problems because it is simply not true. Only acknowledgement of the true and living God offers a logically cohesive explanation of the universe. There is plenty of logic and evidence to show that the God of scripture is indeed the true God. Scriptural evidence regarding fulfilled prophecy, research into the nature of identity, physics and logic, and moral arguments for God's existence, are just a few examples.
Rice's main consternations with Christianity have to do with the Catholic position against birth control and the view that homosexuality is immoral. The first is an interpretation not shared with Protestant believers and is open for debate biblically. In this case, it seems Rice's ideological commitment to the Catholic church has been a stumbling block to her. The second issue regards what she believes about homosexuality. Anne Rice's opinion homosexuality is that "Gay rights challenge Christian faith." However, in reality, they do not challenge it at all. At the basis of Rice's belief is a preconception that gays are born gay. Her strong convictions about homosexuality may have been subtly influenced by the fact that her son Christopher is a gay rights activist. It seems that she has taken a detail out of life and has shaped her entire worldview on her perceptions. It has never been scientifically proven that gays are born gay, but Anne seems to be willing to gamble everything on this belief. So, to summarize, Rice has chosen to believe what is illogical (daily praying to what is likely an abstract higher power in her opinion) based on what has been unprovable (gays are born gay). This is sad. She is living daily in a paradoxical and self-contradictory world.
Most intellectual atheists reject the concept of objective good and evil in the transcendental sense. Sam Mulvey at "Ask an Atheist" summed it up: "As a humanist, I don’t believe in an objective concept of good and evil in the way “objective” is usually defined. Hitler is bad because he did bad things by my[1] standards. I think the beginnings of the standards we’re using to judge go pretty deep into our development, but they’re certainly not defined by anything inherent in physics or the creation of the universe, nor are they immutable."
New Age religious advocates also frequently reject the concept of objective good and evil, as noted by trending New Age figures: "Good and Evil Is a Huge Collective Myth Says His Holiness Paramahamsa Nithyananda" Sri Krishna Bhagwan is very clear - Partiality in existence is not absolute reality. So catch this one truth and meditate on this one simple truth. Questions of good and evil aside, Sam Harris' recent attempt to base human morality on his atheist precepts failed miserably, even by atheist standards.
In the Author's Note section from her book Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, Rice states: "Stained-glass windows, the Latin Mass, the detailed answers to complex questions on good and evil—these things were imprinted on my soul forever." Rice is still basically a God apologist in some sense, but the question is, which god or mystical force is she promoting? From a philosophical perspective, Anne's positions on contraception and homosexuality have not undermined the reality of the biblical God's existence and the reality of good and evil.
What seems to be a main point of confusion is Rice's understanding of the nature of good and evil. If a personal God exists, then there is an objective basis for good and evil, right and wrong. If a personal God does not exist, then there is no such basis. If God does exist, it is God's holy nature and character that forms the basis of moral truth, not societal trends with regard to homosexual rights. It seems that Rice holds personal and ideological commitments on a higher level than scripture and logic and these "social issues" are the hinge upon which her world view swings. Social views, however, do not form a basis for determining spiritual and philosophical truth. I pray that Anne is able work through her struggles and give the scriptures another chance, this time with an open mind not committed to Catholicism or social preconceptions. These seem to be hindering her understanding of the nature of God and the nature of spiritual salvation.
What do you think about Rice's perspective on Christianity? Do you have similar feelings about God and Christians? What can we learn from Rice's experience with Christianity that can help us understand why people sometimes love God but dislike Christians?
Recommend
Comments (26)
Rice is postmodern.
That means human life has the value of dirt and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a cafeteria line where picking and choosing according to personal preference is the order of the day.In reality, Christianity is ancient and enduring.
It offers humanity the fullest understanding of what is good and true.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - I seriously doubt Rice's view of humanity equates it with dirt. There's something wrong with your claims
And to the OP, there is science that supports people are born gay. Notice I say "support". Nothing is proven as yet, but there's good evidence. So, your argument that she believes in something "unproveable" isn't quite fair. It just hasn't been proven, or unproven yet.
Nice post...and great questions! "This is sad. She is living daily in a paradoxical and self-contradictory world." I don't know Ann Rice, her blog or statements about her faith, but I wonder if she is only humbly sharing her honest understanding of God in her current moment. And it seems to me we're each of living in a world that is paradoxical, if we're honest with ourselves.
Many throughout history that have influenced modern religious doctrine (and even others of us), whether catholic or protestant 'wrestled with God.' Seems Ann is wrestling with God on the question of homosexuality...and that seems a valid question...and perhaps similar to love (agape) your neighbor and turn the other cheek, which I find impossible to reconcile with my life here in post-modern America. We each wrestle to understand how our interpretation of scripture in any given moment, our interpretation of 'reality', and our image of God in that same moment can all fit into a single truth.
I've discovered that the image I hold of God in this moment is way bigger than the understanding of who I thought Him to be 10 years ago. And I suspect who I think He is today is waaaaaayyyyyy less than my actual experience of God when I meet Him in heaven. And it seems that's ok...that's the spiritual journey.
As Jesus said (roughly paraphrased) those who think they act on behalf of God, God will say I never knew you (Mt 7)...meaning that we now see through a glass darkly (1 Cor 13) and will see more as we continue in relationship through this life and into the next!! Praise the living God!
i love that woman to death.
@NotWhereIThought@xanga - If you believe in abortion, free sex, birth control, and gay rights, life has the value of dirt.
That's why the Church has always stood so strongly on these issues.@NotWhereIThought@xanga - The article states, "a detail that has been unprovable."
"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer
was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in
biology. He replied: "Absolutely not.
http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html
While these traits may have a part in the making of human sexuality, no
researcher has ever concretely proven the existence of a gay gene or
combination of genes inexorably leading to homosexual behavior.
For example, newer, more reliable twin research has even put “gay twin”
concordance at a much lower rate, as in the case of a 2001 study by
researchers Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Bruckner. This study found a
concordance rate of only 6.7 for gay identical twins, compared to 7.2
percent for fraternal twins.
Is there really such a thing as a gay gene? Current research simply doesn’t support the claim, and those who say that it’s so are not dealing with all the facts.
http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/science-doesnt-support-the-gay-gene-theory
I think she still has some soul searching to do. I don't think she's reached her final foundation for her beliefs.
@templestream@xanga - Perhaps it doesn't matter whether there's a 'gay gene' or not. What seems clear to me (and I suspect anyone who has genuine friendship relationship with anyone who experiences same sex attraction) is that some experience same sex attraction and for those its a real, authentic desire and part of themselves.
So like me who sins and yet seek relationship with a living God within a spiritual journey of exploration to navigate that tension. None are righteous and whatever is not of faith is sin. So I sin regularly. Why? I think b/c I believe some lie about myself, God, or the world. So I'm tempted to say to Mitt/Obama 'Fool' and so face the fires of hell, but as we are all grateful for God's mercy, He is my righteousness (not my sinlessness).
I've found that as I work out my salvation in tension with an awareness of my own sin, that offers me grace for others who are doing the same. And I've found that it takes big faith to trust God to lead others into awareness of their own sin (just as He has done for me) and their desire for deep and satisfying relationship with Him: the God, who offers grace, mercy and power for each to become mature/perfect in Him.
Thanks for starting this conversation...its a challenging one to have while holding onto the peace of Christ.
@None_May_Have_Her@xanga - God's dealing with the Hebrews goes back to ancient Egypt (1000 years BC give or take).
After God freed the Israelites from Pharoah he ordered them to celebrate the Passover every year, until the end of time.
The Passover was the smearing of lamb's blood on the door post so that the angel of death would "pass over" that house and leave everyone alive.
Jesus became the Lamb of the New Covenant. The Last Supper was the Passover celebration in which Jesus offered his own body and blood for the salvation of mankind.
Whereas the Passover was for the Jews, the Last Supper was for all of mankind.
And whereas Judaism is for Jews, Christianity is for all of mankind.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - You either don't understand what and how, for example, homosexuals feel, or to you, the only function of a human being is to procreate. Is that true? I suppose that line of reason would work for the birth control comment too.
@templestream@xanga - You site a Christian-biased editorial in regards to a scientific question? At least try to find something no so obviously biased. But yes, it's totally true that there isn't any definative evidence it's solely genetic. I agree and I made that point myself. But I frankly do not care. The more important question is is homosexuality a choice? And to that I say no.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga
>Perhaps it doesn't matter whether there's a 'gay gene' or not. What seems clear to me (and I suspect anyone who has genuine friendship relationship with anyone who experiences same sex attraction) is that some experience same sex attraction and for those its a real, authentic desire and part of themselves.
- Gays tend to make a big issue about the gay gene because this would supposedly take away personal moral responsibility on the subject. If a gay gene were to be proven, then they could say, "I was born that way, it's not my choice." It seems you are offering a similar claim in contending that same sex feelings are "authentic" and a "part" of a person. This seems to be a complex question for Christians because we acknowledge we are born with a sin nature, yet, at the same time, in Christ we have a new nature.
I would not want to claim sinful same-sex thoughts are authentic and a part of a person anymore than I would say adultery is or greed. It is common for a straight person to have a sense of ungodly hetero-lust at times, yet, as a Christian, I would probably not call this an "authentic" feeling or a "part" of a person, but simply a part of the sin nature which Christ came to free us from.@templestream@xanga - Homosexuals, like all single people, are called to lives of chastity.
Sexual relations are only permitted in marriage which is the union of a man and a woman.Those are the very hard teachings of the Church.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that an idea that concerns the material world is called unprovable, but no such remark is made about the magical superman?
I find myself very much along the same lines of thinking as Rice. I left the faith after a lifetime of being a Christian, born-again. Yes, the lives of other Christians generally turned me off, yet this isn't enough to change my belief.
It seems to me that, like myself, Rice has looked at life and sees it through a different lens than that which is clouded over my Christianity. She thought the Church was about loving others with a child's love, and ran to it in her time of needing to connect with that part of herself, yet found out that the Church and Christianity is far from what Christ himself discusses.
Personally, fiction is fiction, Vampiristic or Gothic, or not, and Rice knows this. Who(m)ever God is, they know it, too, just as Lewis and Tolkien knew it. It matters not how she dresses or what she writes.
At the very least, she's on an inner journey to discover the true nature of love, and of God, both of which should of course be one and the same. Yet, again, whomever God is, I'm sure we have not even an inkling of their true nature. We'll never fully know God, perhaps even after we leave this life. How could we?
Paramahamsa Nithyananda... Try saying that ten times fast. XD
"If God does exist, it is God's holy nature and character that forms the
basis of moral truth, not societal trends with regard to homosexual
rights."
See, this is where you assume 'God' is going to be correct. One has to decide if their gods are morally right for themselves, as morals can only be created on the terms of an individual.
"In reality, Christianity is ancient and enduring.
It offers humanity the fullest understanding of what is good and true."
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Christianity is far from "good," as the god-figure is simply a complete embodiment of all of the Seven Deadly Sins. I mean, he commits genocide, pretty much throughout the Bible. In fact, the end of it is just one big, fucking slaughter/torture-for-eternity fest, and you want to claim him as someone who should be looked at as morally good. With this in mind, logic would say Hitler had the right idea. I mean, he committed genocide, and was hypocritical about it, too. Gasp! Hitler is Jesus! 0.0
"Homosexuals, like all single people, are called to lives of chastity.
Sexual relations are only permitted in marriage which is the union of a man and a woman"
Or a man and many women, a man, many women, and the ladies on the side, a rapist and his victim, and a soldier with a female prisoner of war. The first sentence there is only accurate in those who don't realize that God/Jesus is a prick.
@NeverSubmit@xanga - Dude. It's called the Lich King, not magical superman. He was a necromancer who became undead. Gotta get your terminology right.
@NeverSubmit@xanga - There are a number of logical arguments for God's existence linked in the article. As opposed to using logical arguments, top atheist apologists tend to avoid logical principles and run away from debate with theists, as documented in the following links:
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-top-atheist-apologists-avoid-logic.html
http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/09/7-reasons-why-dawkins-excuses-for-not.html
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - why exactly does life have the value of dirt if you believe in gay rights?
@templestream@xanga - thanks for your response...just seeing it now.
"I would probably not call this an "authentic" feeling or a "part" of a person, but simply a part of the sin nature which Christ came to free us from."
So I think I understand what you're saying in that I've been in church cultures where that language is used, eg 'sin nature,' but I wonder how helpful it is for me as I consider my own choices to sin. Either my feelings and emotions are authentic or not...it seems to me. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that certain feelings are not authentic, such as those inspired by my 'sin nature,' while others of my feelings are authentic, perhaps feelings of joy, peace, or anger. That seems totally confusing...and unhelpful as I walk toward Holiness (aka authenticity).
What feels more helpful is to look at my reality, feelings, and choices honestly...and trust my feelings and perceptions as authentic (at least in this moment). In that way I can get more clarity on why I make the choices I do and then have hope for better understanding why I sin. This may sound familiar if you've awareness of 12 step programs.
To merely suggest that my choice for recurring sin, whether an addiction or choices made from on-going fear ... is sin nature seems disempowering. We ALL sin, everyone of us...not just those whose sins are visible to others, whether sex sins, anger sins, or other of the 'Christian law.' And if we each sin then what does it mean to be made new in Christ? So what do I do with those sins that didn't go away when I prayed my prayer of salvation and became a new spirit man?
It seems to me that to walk in freedom from sin is a journey...and one that requires that I honor my feelings and emotions as authentic and wrestle with Spirit and scriptures to 'own' the truth...meaning my perception of reality is altered in the healing process and I can see more clearly the lies I've believed my whole life and can then make choices that lead to life rather than death. And that transformation can not be taught, exhorted, or punished into existence, but merely exposed through love and time on a journey with a transcendent divine.
And that I've discovered through my journey with the Spirit in community with others who honor scripture as Holy, helpful and divinely inspired.
Thanks again for exploring with me...this can be high risk conversation with words/language that has lots of emotional baggage attached.
@SuicidalKittenNuggets@xanga - Of course! XD How could I, an rpg enthusiast, forget about the Lich King? My friend, you have shamed me. I hang my head. @templestream@xanga - The problem with arguing from pure logic is that you can "prove" any ridiculous nonsense you wish correct, so long as you start with the right assumptions. Not that all such "proofs" actually follow deductive patterns (some of them are as silly and transparent as "There is a god, therefore by definition god exists"), but even the ones that do cannot be tested empirically. On the other hand, if there is something biologically different between homosexuals and heterosexuals, then it can be empirically identified, quantified, and tested. But even if we're going to refer to pure logic, you can still prove homosexuality is not a choice with just a single assumption about human nature (human beings are basically intelligent and seek their own self-interest) and some plain observations (People in our society act like fucking assholes whenever homosexuals are around. Not all homosexuals are masochist.) Conclusion: people don't choose to be homosexual.
This is why it's ridiculous to call the idea that homosexuality isn't a choice "unprovable" but say nothing about whether or not god exists.
@SuicidalKittenNuggets@xanga - Christianity's essence is love, not the lies you tell about it.
God is love.Therefore Christianity is good.
She's smart.
She knows that to be Christian you have to follow the Bible. She doesn't believe in the Bible so but she belives it's basic core.
It's that simple.
@NeverSubmit@xanga - Someday, I'm going to make a comic of 'Jesus, the Lich King,' and he shall rule will fear while wearing a crown of thorns! Mwahahahaha!
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - If I was spreading lies, I'd say how loving God was, and forgiving, and free from greed... But I'm not a liar, so I won't say such nonsense.
"The Passover was the smearing of lamb's blood
on the door post so that the angel of death would "pass over" that
house and leave everyone alive."
By the way, where I'm from, this is paying the mob protection money.
@NotWhereIThought@xanga - Actually, most scientific research refutes the notion that people are born gay. In numerous studies, two identical twins (exact same genetic code), raised apart have less likelihood of both being gay than two non-identical siblings raised in the same household. The researchers at the Human Genome Project, after many years of searching, had to conclude that there was no such thing as the gay gene. While there may be something in someone's genetic code that makes them more likely than others to be gay, in the whole "nature vs. nurture" debate, the "nurture" side of the equation plays a MUCH stronger role in determining whether or not someone will be gay. This is true of serial killers, child molesters, alcoholics and many other negative traits along with great orators, leaders and many positive traits. Frankly, all biological and psychological experimentation that has been done points to the idea that people are not, in fact, born gay. However, no one wants to be "judgmental" so we keep espousing the "born this way" adage as if it were true when, in reality, all science points to the contrary.
@SpoonyBard83@xanga - Thanks! It was interesting to respond to your questions. Scientifically I take a very "we don't know yet" view of homosexuality. THis is also true for me in terms of any aspect of psychology and genetics. I feel like most people who comment on it are, in some way, politically or culturally motivated. That really upsets me, because science needs to be as objective as possible. The bias goes both ways, I believe, just so you know...I know there are people on both sides of the issue basing their beliefs on their opinion more so than data.
So, yeah, you're totally right that genetics hasn't found anything like a "gay gene" yet. I wasn't trying to argue that, but I wasn't clear. I used the term "born gay" a catch-all for something we cannot choose (I was unclear, sorry). I'm sure you believe people choose to be gay, but I do not and don't believe the science suggest that. At the very least, the science suggests being homosexual is not purely genetic.
Lets both not pretend science has figured this out, and realize that while there doesn't seem to be a definite "gay gene", there is both environmental and genetic possibilities out there. Would you agree?
منتديات رومانسي توب
مركز تحميل رومانسي توب
الدين الاسلامي
صور اسلامية 2013
اصوات اسلامية 2013
منتدى رومانسي توب العام
الترحيب والتعارف
طلاب المدارس
ابراج الحظ 2013
فضائح الممثلات 2013
خوارط رومانسية 2013
شعر شعبي رومانسي
شعر فصيح
قصص رومانسي 2013
صور عامة 2013
صور فنانات اجنبيات 2013
صور ممثلات تركيات 2013
صور رومانسية 2013
صور هكر 2013
منتدى الرجل الرومانسي
منتدى المرأة الرومانسية
مطبخ حواء الرومانسي
الحياة الزوجية
ديكورات 2013
نكت عراقية 2013
صور مضحكة 2013
اغاني عراقية 2013
اغاني اجنبية 2013
اخبار الفن
برامج حماية 2013
التطوير والتصميم
برامج شات 2013
دردشة رومانسي توب
يوتيوب 2013
اغاني عربية 2013
منتديات رومانسي
دردشة رومانسية
مسلسل وادي الذئاب الجزء السابع 2013
استايلات منتديات 2013
واجهات شات 2013
دردشة عراقنا
منتديات عراقنا
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------