R.E.M. sues Anne Rice for losing her religion

[Alpha]

Here is the CNN interview regarding the issue. Please watch this first.

Author Anne Rice has decided to leave Christianity, "in the name of Christ".

She stated that refuses to be anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control, anti-Democrat, anti-secular humanism, anti-science, and anti-life.

However, she remains anti-abortion (not anti-choice -- there is a huge difference).

As a Catholic (like myself) she was concerned about recent abuses in the Catholic Church, but also about wider issues of attitudes relating to women and homosexuals, in particular.

This does not mean she is no longer a Christian; rather, she is effectively stepping away from institutional Christianity as it currently exists.

What is your take on her decision? Is her assessment of contemporary Christianity valid? Does it have implications for how Christians are perceived by wider society?

With respect to the last question, do you think that to reach such a conclusion, that a certain level of homogeneity has to be assumed within the various groups (and sub-groups) within Christianity? Specifically, to admonish the institutions as all those things (ant-gay and so on), are individuals within the organisations then taken to be carbon copies of each other and what they are expected to believe? Does such a view deny the individual Christian a sense of agency in determining what they believe (and the extent to which they believe it)? If so, is this due to Christianity's alleged anti-secular humanist position? Are individual Christians not permitted to decide for themselves?

As for my personal reaction, you may be aware that I have very similar views to Anne Rice. I am very firmly pro-gay rights and pro-feminist. I'm also anti-abortion without being anti-choice. I'm also a Catholic, but have described myself as a Christian Humanist. If you have pre-conceived ideas of what a Catholic 'is' or 'should be', please leave them at the door.

I understand her reaction and am personally troubled by the same questions. However I also feel the Church as I understand it is not 'as bad' as she sees it. I support ideas such as a female clergy, and although the institutional framework is realistically in opposition to such views, I am a supporter of gradual change.

I think the heterogeneity of Christianity is altogether ignored too frequently. There is a family of creationists (some of the very few I am even personally aware of) in my girlfriend's parish. Every other person I know (and am aware of their position on the matter) thinks creationism is hogwash, including those in my local parish. (Please do not make this a creationism debate, even as an aside.) While abortion perspectives may conflict with opinions of non-Christians, it seems to me that the institutional and/or radical views of some are taken as representative of who Christians are, and then reverse applied to other Christians, probably because a moderate opinion is hardly newsworthy.

So, yeah. Comments would be nice. ID is sort of dead.

EDIT:
Furthermore, is such an action even possible? Here is an interesting article written by (Catholic priest) Father Raymond de Souza. He argues that separating Christ from Christianity (in an institutional sense) is not possible; akin to enjoying sports generally, but no sport in particular.

"In one sense, anyone who is truly committed to Christ is a Christian, no matter what she calls herself. But is it possible to be a Christian without being part of Christianity? No. Jesus Christ is a historical person, who does not live in 21st-century New Orleans, as Rice does. So to know anything about him means to have had an encounter with Christianity — the historical lived experience of that community of disciples we call the Church."

He sees Anne Rice's decision not as a choice, but as a refusal to choose.

I disagree. I think that that in itself is a perfectly valid choice. Why must the choice be black and white: on the one hand an institution apparently followed blindly by billions; and on the other the decision to be 'non-Christian' (to be something else, or nothing at all). Is Christ separable from Christianity? I think so.

[che]

+points for lulz thread title.

I think this is absolutely great. I'm not religious, and don't consider myself affiliated with any religion. So my viewpoint is one that comes from the outside. Also my viewpoint is obviously not based on her belief in a religion, as that is a different issue.

I do see things happening where people are very religious and their morals and actions are very inappropriate in my opinion. I think what Rice is doing is sending a message. I absolutely think what she is doing is a good. She's removing herself from these things that people like myself might associate a Christian person with.

If the Christian church is going to define itself as a church who does not believe in gay marriage, birth control, democratic views, etc, then I think a lot of people might be following Rice.

[Alpha]

I do see things happening where people are very religious and their morals and actions are very inappropriate in my opinion. I think what Rice is doing is sending a message. I absolutely think what she is doing is a good. She's removing herself from these things that people like myself might associate a Christian person with.

What are the things you associate with 'being Christian'? Do I fulfil them, even though I am one?

What I'm trying to get at is the question of the perception of individuals within wider institutions, by using the example of the Catholic Church, and Rice's decision to leave it.

You say that Rice is doing a good thing; standing up for her moral absolutes by leaving an institution she sees as incompatible with them. Undoubtedly there is a whole debate around this (is she turning Christianity into something more amorphous than it should be?), but that's not what I'm getting at (but feel free to bring that up if you want, I did mention it in my OP, particularly in the edit). Who says that every Christian believes the same things, to the same extent? Are they portrayed as homogeneous, and is this portrayal unfair?

If the Christian church is going to define itself as a church who does not believe in gay marriage, birth control, democratic views, etc, then I think a lot of people might be following Rice.

Maybe so, but I support all those things yet remain a Catholic. Am I 'doing it wrong', or is heterogeneity under-appreciated?

EDIT:
Also, more people should comment. No one's gonna bite. ID is dead, and anything to revive it would be neat.

[Taco-Calamitous]

I say "good for her." She is doing what she believes to be right, so more power to her. However, if we are to be legalistic about what is in the Bible, then she might not be right. There are some passages at the end of Revelations about homosexuals and drunkards and some other people not inheriting the kingdom of God. This was written post Jesus Christ breaking the old covenant with the Law. Some in the church would argue that this condemns homosexuals (and drunkards, and sexual perverts, etc.) However, one might also argue that we are all saved by grace, through a real relationship with Christ. In fact, Paul says quite clearly that we should either live by the belief that we are saved by Grace, or that we are saved by following the Law to a T. (He also says that wives should submit to their husbands and that slaves should strive to please their masters, but that’s another matter…) Revelations also says that if you take away or add to what is written in the Bible, you’re screwed…

To get to what you’re talking about, I think that if she lives thinking she is saved by grace, she’s fine. I don’t think that it is necessary for a person to go to church, but it helps put perspective on your beliefs and faith to have fellowship and discuss it with others. That being said, I think she’s still a Christian whether she calls herself one or not, if she continues to believe. I don’t know what the whole business about not calling one’s self a Christian is about. What’s the point? Some people hide their religion, which isn’t very impressive to God (the thing about “spitting you out of if you’re lukewarm.”) However, she seems to still be pretty open about her beliefs.

What do we care what other people think of what we believe, though? What business is it of someone else? Other’s opinions shouldn’t change who we are or what we believe in, because if they are, then you’re not being true to yourself. You’re being “lukewarm” That’s all I can think of for now. Sorry if I didn’t directly touch on what you wanted. (Kinda gotta go; didn't realize how late it was getting.) Anyhoo…

Wuv, Yer Mom

[Aadria]

First of all, good for her! I personally love Anne Rice as an author and her works and am now thoroughly impressed with her as a person, too.
No where in the Bible does it say you must be part of an organized religion to be saved. In fact, Jesus himself overthrew the organized religion of his day. They hated him. They killed him (or tried...). What is important is a person's beliefs and their devotion to their morals, not their activity in a church group or their attendance. From my personal experience (and I went to a private Christian school K-6th grade and have been raised by the most church-devoted woman I've ever met, so I have plenty of experience) the ones who are most active in church are the ones trying to make up for their lack of belief (I call them pseudo-Christians). I, personally, do not consider myself a Christian. This doesn't mean that I don't believe in the possibility of an omnipotent being, this means that I don't believe in organized religion. Religion, in my opinion, isn't the same thing as beliefs. Religion is what you get when you try to line up everyone's beliefs and organize it. It only scrambles the truth and creates chaos.
So, long story short, good for Anne Rice. She's managed to step away from organized religion with her morals and fundamental belief system intact.

[Sasquatch]

So Ann Rice decided that she can be Christian without being Christian. No.

If she doesn't want to be Catholic, that's fine. Hell, a lot of people wan to be Christian without being Catholic -- we could start a different debate on how close Catholicism is to actual Christianity in the first place, but this isn't the place. But most people leave the Catholic Church because of the Church's non-adherence to the Bible, not because they do follow the Bible.

Let's look at what reasons she's giving -- and let's keep in mind that there's a difference between the prefix anti- and the prefix non-. The Bible itself (well, the New Testament) is not anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-artificial birth control, anti-Democrat, anti-secular humanism, anti-science, or anti-life. It is not anti-gay, it is non-gay (we're talking Christianity and the Bible, not specific churches). It is non-feminist in the essence that it does not attribute any more rights to women than to men -- and let's face it, the only feminism left is radical feminism, as women in most civilized countries have the same rights as men (or more). It is not anti-birth control at all -- that is the stance of the Catholic Church, which does not speak for Christianity as a whole. It is not anti-Democrat, however, the Democratic Party espouses many beliefs not only that are out of line from other Christian beliefs, but some are simply anti-Christian, and a few more are anti-religion. It is not anti-secular humanism -- this one makes me chuckle because by its very definition, Secular Humanism is anti-religion. It is not anti-science at all, though that is hugely misconceived by many, many people, and is a different topic for a different day. And it is not anti-life in the least bit.

So Ann Rice disagrees with Christianity. So she "leaves" Christianity and slanders it on the way out. Good for her. Maybe she can find a religion that suits her beliefs better -- but her beliefs certainly were not those of her claimed religion, and even her beliefs concerning her claimed religion's beliefs were wrong. I hope she'll do some more studying of her next religion before she claims to follow it, so it doesn't interfere with the beliefs that she already holds and will not change.

[Alpha]

There are some passages at the end of Revelations about homosexuals ... not inheriting the kingdom of God. This was written post Jesus Christ breaking the old covenant with the Law. Some in the church would argue that this condemns homosexuals...

It is not anti-gay, it is non-gay (we're talking Christianity and the Bible, not specific churches).

Those two statements are at odds. Or perhaps not, as you both qualify your statements with the assertion that only some people see homosexuals that way.

However, Sasquatch, for all your remarks about the nature of Catholicism, which I'm sure is rather biased and that you would have quite the fight on your hands to argue, I think you're on the money, but only as a sub-text.

You allude to a divergence of opinions in Christianity. While I see you as holding 'Christianity' as a discrete object, you acknowledge that others are doing the same in their conceptions of 'Christianity'. By extension, you have no defined concept of 'Christianity' as others see it (i.e. you do for yourself, but not for others). Well, that's my perspective on your view.

[Taco-Calamitous]

Those two statements are at odds. Or perhaps not, as you both qualify your statements with the assertion that only some people see homosexuals that way.

However, Sasquatch...I think you're on the money, but only as a sub-text.

I guess I got the book wrong; it's actually in 1 Corinthians 9-10:

Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God's Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexuals or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves--none of these will possesss God's Kingdom.

Of course, then the following verse goes on to say:

Some of you were like that. But you have been purified from sin; you have been dedicated to God; you have been put right with God by the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

(My Bible is the Good News addition from like the 70's, I think.) Could've sworn I read something like that somewhere in Revelations as well... guess it was all Paul (except for the part about taking away from or adding to the Bible. That actually is at the very end-titled "The Conclusion" in my Bible-of Revelations.) I'm not sure if you meant that you didn't believe me that that was in the Bible or not, or just that it wasn't relevant or something, but there you go.

I brought up that alongside the fact that he said that "wives should be submissive to their husbands" and that "slaves should be obedient to their masters" to point out that there are a lot of things in the Bible that we would view as backwards today. But what can we do? We can either be legalistic about every little thing that's in there, or we can "Love God and love others," and put our hopes in the idea that we are saved by Grace. Because everybody sins. The only "perfect" person in existence was Jesus Christ, and that was because he was actually God. (Of course, this means nothing to you if you don't believe in Jesus or God or any of that.)

@Aadria: I don't if the majority of your post was in response to my first post-I kind of got that idea-but I think that we agree on everything except the idea that Christianity is just a religion and not a belief or way of life.

That's pretty much all I wanted to address right now. Anyhoo...

Wuv, Yer Mom

[Aadria]

@Aadria: I don't if the majority of your post was in response to my first post-I kind of got that idea-but I think that we agree on everything except the idea that Christianity is just a religion and not a belief or way of life.

My post wasn't meant to be a response to yours but after rereading it, I see how it seems that way. It's not that I think Christianity is just a religion. I just think many people who consider themselves Christians have the religion part down (they attend church, read the Bible, etc.) but don't necessarily have a personal, individual belief system. They just follow the crowd. Other Christians do most definitely have that individual belief system, the part of Christianity that many refer to as the "relationship with God." I don't know; it's hard to explain... Do you get what I mean, though?

[Furore]

I dropped away from any organised denomination myself.
I was a baptised Catholic, I noticed a lot of pro-tolerance, understanding, love for fellow humans type messages but the community as a whole seemed to act one way in Church and another way as soon as they were out of it.

I don't really get any 'love your neighbour' type vibes from a bunch of hypocrites spouting acceptance/tolerance etc and then acting quite hostile/intolerant towards groups not sharing their views. Don't get me wrong, some individuals get it right, the problem seems to be when you get a larger number of people together.

I feel what Anne Rice did was epic - it's not really that cool to attack another person's different way of life. As a Christian I personally feel Christians should try to lead by positive example and if people believe in and want Christian salvation they'll be free to pursue it rather than be coerced into 'acting Christian'.

[Sasquatch]

Those two statements are at odds. Or perhaps not, as you both qualify your statements with the assertion that only some people see homosexuals that way.

The entire point of salvation is not simply being saved from the sins we have committed, but being saved from continuing to commit those sins. And while the New Testament does not command us to stone people to death for their sins, we will all have to pay for them eventually, whether they are massive or extremely minor. The way Revelations looks at it, former homosexuals -- just like former sinners of every type -- can enter Heaven, but only if they turn away from their sins. And none of us can ever completely turn away from our sins, of course, but if we continue living in our sins like nothing happened ... well, obviously, nothing happened, and we're no different now than we were before we claimed acceptance of Jesus.

(And -- not aimed at you Alpha, just putting this out there -- this isn't the place for a discussion of whether gays are "born that way" or "made" or what.)

One thing that many people -- including, unfortunately, many Christians, actual or claimed -- forget is the entire story of Jesus stopping the crowd from stoning the adulteress. C'mon, we've all heard it -- a woman was caught cheating on her husband and a crowd had gathered to stone her to death. Jesus stepped in front of her and said, "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." That part is easy to remember. The next part isn't so much, for all too many people. Jesus turned around to her and said, "Now go, and sin no more." The entire point wasn't that she will be forgiven for her past sins, but that she should STOP doing them.

However, Sasquatch, for all your remarks about the nature of Catholicism, which I'm sure is rather biased and that you would have quite the fight on your hands to argue, I think you're on the money, but only as a sub-text.

Yeah, that's always a different topic.

You allude to a divergence of opinions in Christianity. While I see you as holding 'Christianity' as a discrete object, you acknowledge that others are doing the same in their conceptions of 'Christianity'. By extension, you have no defined concept of 'Christianity' as others see it (i.e. you do for yourself, but not for others). Well, that's my perspective on your view.

My issue here is that there is one set standard of Christian beliefs. It's called the Bible. If somebody wants to claim that they want to be Christian but are leaving the church (of any denomination), they still have to follow Christianity. They might not follow a specific church's interpretation of it, but interpretations vary only slightly between most denominations. Some might emphasize one idea while others might place emphasis elsewhere -- but they all revolve around the Bible. And if somebody wants to leave a specific church's interpretation of the Bible, that's fine -- they can find another church whose interpretation more closely fits theirs. That's why there are so many denominations. But if somebody wants to leave a specific church because they don't believe the Bible, that's not the church at all, that's the entire religion.

So Ann Rice is saying that she doesn't like Christianity. And she claims that she can still be a Christian, but she doesn't want to follow Christianity, as based on the Bible. It just doesn't work like that.

[Alpha]

One thing that many people -- including, unfortunately, many Christians, actual or claimed -- forget is the entire story of Jesus stopping the crowd from stoning the adulteress. C'mon, we've all heard it -- a woman was caught cheating on her husband and a crowd had gathered to stone her to death. Jesus stepped in front of her and said, "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." That part is easy to remember. The next part isn't so much, for all too many people. Jesus turned around to her and said, "Now go, and sin no more." The entire point wasn't that she will be forgiven for her past sins, but that she should STOP doing them.

I don't agree with this assessment of that situation. (But it is not the place to discuss why.)

And the statement I just made is the crux of the issue I am seeking to address.

We have different perspectives. Yet we both describe ourselves as 'Christians'. I think one's religion (along with ethnicity, gender, etc.) is self-defined. Who's to tell me whether or not I am a Christian? (Note, this is different from saying, 'Who's to tell me whether or not I can be a Christian', if I'm getting across the distinction I want to make.)

Back to the OP, I asked: "Specifically, to admonish the institutions as all those things (ant-gay and so on), are individuals within the organisations then taken to be carbon copies of each other and what they are expected to believe? Does such a view deny the individual Christian a sense of agency in determining what they believe (and the extent to which they believe it)?"

Must all Christians agree with Sasquatch's opinion on issues pertaining to belief? Must all Christians hold anything in common? What about more specific groups: do all Catholics believe the same things, to the same extent? I believe the answer is no.

This is how I see Anne Rice's decision. But the problem I see is that individual Christians seem portrayed as if they lack agency in determining a personal religion. We're homogenised victims of an institution (in a loose sense of the word), at least in the eyes of many.

My issue here is that there is one set standard of Christian beliefs. It's called the Bible.

My issue here is that is completely moot.

If somebody wants to claim that they want to be Christian but are leaving the church (of any denomination), they still have to follow Christianity. They might not follow a specific church's interpretation of it, but interpretations vary only slightly between most denominations. Some might emphasize one idea while others might place emphasis elsewhere -- but they all revolve around the Bible. And if somebody wants to leave a specific church's interpretation of the Bible, that's fine -- they can find another church whose interpretation more closely fits theirs. That's why there are so many denominations. But if somebody wants to leave a specific church because they don't believe the Bible, that's not the church at all, that's the entire religion.

I want to suggest a book to you, Sasquatch. It's called 'Christianity Without God', written by a man named Lloyd Geering.

Lloyd Geering is a New Zealander. He was a Presbyterian, until he was, quite literally, charged with heresy by the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand.

"...then gave rise to the problem of what exactly is [Christianity]; how is it to be defined? Does it consist, for example, of belonging to the institution of the Church? Does it consist of holding a certain set of beliefs, and if so, what are those beliefs?"

"...giving rise to the schoolboy's definition that faith is believing in things that you know aren't true."

He asks whether there really is a sine qua non of Christian belief. The thing is, it has never existed over time, and it never will exist.

Here is a series of quotes from a Christian Humanist website (http://christianhumanist.net/default.aspx):

Is it possible to be a Christian without a belief in God? I believe the answer is yes, that in our time being a Christian without a concept of God is both possible and necessary for those who find the life and teachings of Jesus compelling but have difficulty with the concept of God in traditional Christian theology. The various articles on this website argue in favor of a non-theistic form of Christianity that is reasonably called Christian Humanism.

I locate my particular religious perspective within the general framework of Christianity but I do so without any related concept of God in the traditional theistic sense of what that term means to most people who identify themselves as Christians.

This is the fundamental issue over which I part company with those traditional Christians who take the position that being a Christian essentially means having the right theology, that is, believing a particular set of theological propositions. My argument with them is not with their beliefs or with their confusion between mythology and history, but rather with their premise that affirming a particular set of orthodox doctrinal beliefs rather than striving to emulate the life of Jesus is what essentially defines what it means to be a Christian

This is a view of Christianity that makes sense to me. It is a de-mythologized Christianity, a Christianity without the necessity for god and freed from the theological baggage of the centuries preceding us, a Christianity that challenges us regardless of our view of god to model our lives after that of Jesus. Being a Christian is not any more complicated than that.

I am aware that some readers may object that my reductive view about the central core in Christianity, which I have interpreted in a way that I contend makes more sense to us today than the traditional formulation, is not sufficiently traditional to warrant my claim that it is a Christian view and they may wish to eject me from the Christian camp. Some readers may find my outlook incomprehensible or troubling. However I will not concede that the views I will argue for in the pages ahead are any less Christian than those of the traditional Christian who is not yet ready to give up the mythical language in which the Christianity of our fathers has been transmitted to us.

I believe that my views fall within the boundary lines of Christianity, appropriately reinterpreted and understood in the context and language of the 21st Century.

So Ann Rice is saying that she doesn't like Christianity. And she claims that she can still be a Christian, but she doesn't want to follow Christianity, as based on the Bible. It just doesn't work like that.

Says who, exactly?

But debating theology isn't really my point. My point is that the concept of a 'Christian' is so broad and impossible to define. But that is what is attempted on a daily basis, by Christians and non-Christians alike. This is what Anne Rice is reacting to.

She is sick of being homogenised.

I feel what Anne Rice did was epic - it's not really that cool to attack another person's different way of life. As a Christian I personally feel Christians should try to lead by positive example and if people believe in and want Christian salvation they'll be free to pursue it rather than be coerced into 'acting Christian'.

See, Silver has the idea. Ignore what he himself believes, but how he contextualises his beliefs. He acknowledges that his beliefs are his own. It's not for him to decide how 'Christian' anyone else is or isn't.

[Sasquatch]

I don't agree with this assessment of that situation. (But it is not the place to discuss why.)

I'd actually like to hear how you can "interpret" that parable to mean anything different.

We have different perspectives. Yet we both describe ourselves as 'Christians'. I think one's religion (along with ethnicity, gender, etc.) is self-defined. Who's to tell me whether or not I am a Christian? (Note, this is different from saying, 'Who's to tell me whether or not I can be a Christian', if I'm getting across the distinction I want to make.)

There's nothing saying that anybody "can't be" Christian. But there's one deciding factor on who is Christian and who is not -- that is the Bible. If you believe and follow the Bible, you are Christian. If you don't, you are not. You may be a "good person", you may consider yourself "religious" or "spiritual" or whatever you want to call yourself, but you must believe the Bible to be Christian. Just like you must believe every other religion's holy book to be part of that religion, whether you attend a worship ceremony or not.

Back to the OP, I asked: "Specifically, to admonish the institutions as all those things (ant-gay and so on), are individuals within the organisations then taken to be carbon copies of each other and what they are expected to believe? Does such a view deny the individual Christian a sense of agency in determining what they believe (and the extent to which they believe it)?"

You're talking about the views of institutions reflecting the beliefs of a religion. Sure, no specific denomination can say, "you don't interpret the Bible the way we do, so you must not follow it at all" -- but it's not that difficult to say, "you have admitted (as in the case of Anne Rice) to not believing the Bible at all, so you must not follow it."

Must all Christians agree with Sasquatch's opinion on issues pertaining to belief? Must all Christians hold anything in common?

Yes. Belief in the Bible. That's what makes them Christians. That's the entire point -- if you have it, you're a Christian, and if you don't, you're not.

What about more specific groups: do all Catholics believe the same things, to the same extent? I believe the answer is no.

Do they? Of course not. Do all Christians believe the same things? Of course not. There are simply variations in interpretations. But as I've pointed out, there is a difference between, "I don't believe the way you do," and, "I don't believe."

This is how I see Anne Rice's decision. But the problem I see is that individual Christians seem portrayed as if they lack agency in determining a personal religion. We're homogenised victims of an institution (in a loose sense of the word), at least in the eyes of many.

So? Believing differently in the same thing is still believing in the same thing. If ignorant people want to see Christians as cookie-cutter religious people, they're probably not the type to be inclined to correct their ignorance, anyway.

My issue here is that is completely moot.

Then I don't really see your "issue". The entire point of a religion is following the religion -- nobody can claim to follow the religion when they have rejected its teachings. It's a simple concept.

"...then gave rise to the problem of what exactly is [Christianity]; how is it to be defined? Does it consist, for example, of belonging to the institution of the Church? Does it consist of holding a certain set of beliefs, and if so, what are those beliefs?"

The beliefs that are in the Bible. Really, how difficult is this?

He asks whether there really is a sine qua non of Christian belief. The thing is, it has never existed over time, and it never will exist.

... Yes, there is. It's called the Bible. Without belief in the Bible, one cannot be Christian.

Here is a series of quotes from a Christian Humanist website (The Christian Humanist):

I know about "Christian Humanism" -- it's basically the idea that Jesus was a good guy and that's it. Judaism believes that Jesus was a good guy that went a little overboard. Islam believes that Jesus was a Prophet. None are Christian. "Christian Humanists" are basically soft or hard Atheists that need a role model. The entire point of Christianity is believing that Jesus was the Christ, meaning "Messiah".

Says who, exactly?

Says the Bible! Says Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James, Jude, and the rest of the gang.

But debating theology isn't really my point. My point is that the concept of a 'Christian' is so broad and impossible to define. But that is what is attempted on a daily basis, by Christians and non-Christians alike. This is what Anne Rice is reacting to.

The concept of Christian is not impossible to define -- it's very simple. Belief in Christ and his teachings -- his teachings being the Bible. Anne Rice is tired of pretending that she believes what she doesn't believe. She's not writing off a church because of its interpretation of the religion's beliefs, she's writing off the beliefs themselves.

[Alpha]

Sasquatch, you're using circular reasoning.

I asked, who says that belief in the Bible* is the cine qua non of being 'Christian'? You cannot answer with 'the Bible'.

*Also, does one have to believe everything in the Bible? Do everything it commands? What about the contradictions?

"And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them." (Jeremiah 13:14)

"For his mercy endureth forever." (1 Chronicles 16:34)
"The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works." (Psalms 145:9)
"God is love." (1 John 4:16)

When you say that a Christian must believe in the Bible, what exactly does that mean?

[Furore]

It means that Christians believe the Bible is the word of God. No exceptions.
It's part of what drives my desire to find the oldest, least tampered with version possible...

Different Christians may have different interpretations of Biblical matter, but the Bible is the final word for a Christian.

[Alpha]

Yes, Silver. But what is the 'Bible'? Does it have essential teachings, or must one follow it to the letter? And it's easy to interpret it in multiple ways.

And who decides what parts/to what extent they follow any given part (or the whole) of the Bible, if not a given individual?

[Furore]

It's a sacred text.
It contains essential teachings though it's up to the Christian individual to interpret the information as he will. Some things in the bible are very set and easy to follow, other parts are multilayered. You can go over them several times and pick up things you hadn't earlier and that's part of the appeal to me.

To answer the last part: the individual though many will just go with what their denomination declares correct for better or worse.

The main thing isn't the interpretation but how the Bible itself is regarded. It truly is the foundation for modern day Christianity.

[Alpha]

I don't deny that it's foundational for Christian belief. A person who read the Qur'an as their holy text and claimed to be a Christian would be at once deluded and a liar.

My point in this thread is not to debate theology. The extent to which that has transpired saddens me.

The point of this thread is to debate whether or not heterogeneity in Christian belief is appreciated, whether within Christianity or outside of it.

I brought in Christian Humanism as an illustration. Whether or not that's my perspective is really only my business. What Christian Humanism illustrates is that there is such a wide variety of perspectives and belief systems within Christianity, that the umbrella term itself is effectively misleading. I do not think there is a central or absolute principle (or belief, concept, etc.) that all self-defined 'Christians' hold in common.

One may choose to argue that another is not a Christian. But that's personal opinion. That decision ultimately rests with the individual.

How does this relate to Anne Rice? Well, was it necessary to 'leave' Christianity? How can I, a so-called Christian, hold the same views as her (to a large extent), yet not feel the same desire to leave the Church?

Was she running from a sense of being categorised and pigeon-holed into things she didn't support, as a Christian (self-defined; because that's the only way one can be a Christian, or a practitioner of any religion, or non-religion)?

But I'm kind of disappointed about how this thread is turning out. If I may, I'd like this thread to be closed. Thank you.

[Furore]

Christianity is very diverse in what it incorporates but some things are seen as correct by all Christians. Christian Humanists by definition aren't Christians if they don't believe in the divine. I suppose it depends on what you consider a Christian to be though - if you're very loose with your terms Christian Humanists could be considered Christian if they follow Christ's teachings, but from a textbook stance, they're not (thank you Studies of Religion class. ). Vanilla Christians certainly wouldn't consider them Christian.

Out of curiousity, if a Christian Humanist is one who believes in Christian values but not the divine, what is a Christian who does believe in the divine and has Humanist tendancies? As far as I'm concerned there are too few titles and they're too damn specific...

...but they're all I got to work with if I want to keep my posts 'intellectual'.
Rituals and belief are intrinsic parts of 'Christianity'.

[Meier Link]

Thread is under review so as of now it is closed per the original posters request.