Much as I like hearing that someone has stopped being a faithhead, her reasoning sounds flawed. Better to quit because it is a ridiculous farce than because fundamentalists are loathsome.
I actually agree with this, if it is the case. I hope that she finds what she is looking for.
|
I seem to recall that in her novel Memnoch the Devil, she wrote about a certain run down building on St. Charles. Later, when Al Copeland purchased the building to renovate it and turn it into a hotel/restaurant, Rice took out a full page add in the paper criticizing the development and calling the building ugly, etc. That's when I stopped reading her books.
I stopped when I realized I hate vampires and really boring bondage tales.
|
I seem to recall that in her novel Memnoch the Devil, she wrote about a certain run down building on St. Charles. Later, when Al Copeland purchased the building to renovate it and turn it into a hotel/restaurant, Rice took out a full page add in the paper criticizing the development and calling the building ugly, etc. That's when I stopped reading her books.I stopped when I realized I hate vampires and really boring bondage tales.
Her um more hard core stuff was interesting. Ramses the Damned went all hard core about 3/4 of the way through.
yay! bondage!!!!!
Wait, so there are no Democrat christians? Or are they all just self-haters? I'm confused.
I know a Mormon couple that both voted for Obama, and I know gay people that vote pretty much straight-party Republican. (One of which espouses the belief that the current president is likely the antichrist... so gay, Republican, and with Christian beliefs).
Sounds like she broke up with the Catholic Church rather than Christianity.
Except that she mentions "anti-science" which the Catholic Church is not. That's more the realm of Bible Belt born-agains and Baptists.
Huh. Weird. Didn't know she was all into Christianity.
Yeah, she had a public conversion back in the late 90s. Wrote a book about Jesus' time in Egypt, if I'm not mistaken.
|
I seem to recall that in her novel Memnoch the Devil, she wrote about a certain run down building on St. Charles. Later, when Al Copeland purchased the building to renovate it and turn it into a hotel/restaurant, Rice took out a full page add in the paper criticizing the development and calling the building ugly, etc. That's when I stopped reading her books.I stopped when I realized I hate vampires and really boring bondage tales.
See, I liked the original trilogy. Thought it was an interesting spin on vamps. Plus, the whole New Orleans heavy start was cool. The follow-up book, The Tale of the Body Thief, was just all kinds of idiotic for me. I got it autographed, just because, but then let a friend borrow it. Never bothered to get it back.
I've still got my autographed copy of Queen of the Damned...somewhere. Probably in a box in my basement.
Meh.
Anti-Christian is the only 'anti' you can be and still be one of the cool kids.
I'm anti-Jar Jar Binks.
Sir, the possibility of successfully keeping this topic civil is approximately 3,720 to 1.
Never tell me the odds!
Anti-Christian is the only 'anti' you can be and still be one of the cool kids.I'm anti-Jar Jar Binks.
You can be anti-anti-Christian. I hear there are a few around.
Anti-Christian is the only 'anti' you can be and still be one of the cool kids.I'm anti-Jar Jar Binks.
I think that's one thing all of us can agree on, despite our differences. :)
As a believer myself, I'm sad to admit that I've agreed with her often in my growth. I hope what she meant was that she's out on religious organizations - because in my mind those are the things that can be so polarizing (and honestly, so in complete contrast with what Christ charged us to do).
And come on, people, Jar Jar was just confused. I'm hoping that was just a phase that he'll grow out of.
Do ya one better, I'm anti-episodes I-III.I think that's one thing all of us can agree on, despite our differences. :)Anti-Christian is the only 'anti' you can be and still be one of the cool kids.I'm anti-Jar Jar Binks.
To be honest, I did like III.
|
|
To be honest, I did like III.Do ya one better, I'm anti-episodes I-III.I think that's one thing all of us can agree on, despite our differences. :)Anti-Christian is the only 'anti' you can be and still be one of the cool kids.I'm anti-Jar Jar Binks.
If the first two were only as bad as III they would be worth sitting through. As it is III is a somewhat less crappy conclusion to a crappy trilogy.
YMMV, IMO and all that.
To be honest, I did like III.
He got to you, didn't he? Srsly?
"Look at me! I'm good. I'm doing this all for love. Kill children? Sure. It's just 'cause I'm in love."
Darth Maul had more substance.
Cousin Sock? Is that you?
Why so serious?
Well, she's right after a fashion, I suppose. Christianity is conservative by design, and fundamentalist by nature. While she's off realizing what most modern 13 year olds figure out after getting fed up with being spoon-fed a belief system, i'm left wondering why anyone really cares?
Seriously, it should be illegal to raise people into religion (or atheism, or anything else faith related). It should be a conscious decision that people make during their transition to adulthood and not something we tell them over and over again as children so they're basically brain-washed into believing in something they've never thought much about, all the while espousing the inherent sacred right of free will.
|
Seriously, it should be illegal to raise people into religion (or atheism, or anything else faith related). It should be a conscious decision that people make during their transition to adulthood and not something we tell them over and over again as children so they're basically brain-washed into believing in something they've never thought much about, all the while espousing the inherent sacred right of free will.
Quoting my good friend Nate for the FUNDAMENTAL truth of his statement.
|
|
Amen. I was so sick of church by the time my parents let me choose whether or not I went, I have never looked back. I pity those who can't make their own informed decision and just mindlessly attend.
What about those who did make an informed decision, and just happened to decide differently than you?
Amen. I was so sick of church by the time my parents let me choose whether or not I went, I have never looked back. I pity those who can't make their own informed decision and just mindlessly attend.What about those who did make an informed decision, and just happened to decide differently than you?
That's perfectly fine, but if you were raised christian and going to church at a young age... you didn't make your own decision. You went along with what you were taught, and while there's nothing wrong with that, calling it a personal choice is a far stretch.
|
|
That's perfectly fine, but if you were raised christian and going to church at a young age... you didn't make your own decision. You went along with what you were taught, and while there's nothing wrong with that, calling it a personal choice is a far stretch.Amen. I was so sick of church by the time my parents let me choose whether or not I went, I have never looked back. I pity those who can't make their own informed decision and just mindlessly attend.What about those who did make an informed decision, and just happened to decide differently than you?
So, TOZ's parents made him go to church and he chose not to continue. That's personal choice. But someone else who is taken by their parents and decides to continue, that's just being brainwashed. Interesting logic.
So, TOZ's parents made him go to church and he chose not to continue. That's personal choice. But someone else who is taken by their parents and decides to continue, that's just being brainwashed. Interesting logic.
Agreed. Would you still call it brainwashing if a part of someone's spiritual training was to actually challenge the views they've been presented in the church? And then still chose to believe?
Better question, under what set of circumstances would a person who was raised by their parents to attend church and decided to believe in Christ (and continue going to church) NOT be considered a "brainwashed" decision in your mind?
Not trying to be aggressive, just curious how you break these things down.
So, TOZ's parents made him go to church and he chose not to continue. That's personal choice. But someone else who is taken by their parents and decides to continue, that's just being brainwashed. Interesting logic.That's perfectly fine, but if you were raised christian and going to church at a young age... you didn't make your own decision. You went along with what you were taught, and while there's nothing wrong with that, calling it a personal choice is a far stretch.Amen. I was so sick of church by the time my parents let me choose whether or not I went, I have never looked back. I pity those who can't make their own informed decision and just mindlessly attend.What about those who did make an informed decision, and just happened to decide differently than you?
So, TOZ's parents made him go to church and he chose not to continue. That's personal choice. But someone else who is taken by their parents and decides to continue, that's just being brainwashed. Interesting logic.That's perfectly fine, but if you were raised christian and going to church at a young age... you didn't make your own decision. You went along with what you were taught, and while there's nothing wrong with that, calling it a personal choice is a far stretch.Amen. I was so sick of church by the time my parents let me choose whether or not I went, I have never looked back. I pity those who can't make their own informed decision and just mindlessly attend.What about those who did make an informed decision, and just happened to decide differently than you?
Well I don't think you can ever clearly claim that you made a decision like that for yourself, you know? Obviously you make a decision to continue with your faith, but I don't know that you could ever claim it as being wholly personal because you were conditioned to believe it. I'm certainly NOT saying you wouldn't have developed your faith in a nuetral environment, you very well may have.
So, TOZ's parents made him go to church and he chose not to continue. That's personal choice. But someone else who is taken by their parents and decides to continue, that's just being brainwashed. Interesting logic.Agreed. Would you still call it brainwashing if a part of someone's spiritual training was to actually challenge the views they've been presented in the church? And then still chose to believe?
Better question, under what set of circumstances would a person who was raised by their parents to attend church and decided to believe in Christ (and continue going to church) NOT be considered a "brainwashed" decision in your mind?
Not trying to be aggressive, just curious how you break these things down.
Point One : "spiritual training". Sure would, you're already being conditioned to lean in a particular direction.
Point Two : Its not that you're BEING brainwashed (lets use "conditioned" from here on in, less of a negative conotation) it's that you've BEEN conditioned to believe in something and therefore you're much more likely to continue believing in it. You're still making the decision when you're an adult, but the formation of the habits and beliefs inherent to that decision can hardly be claimed to be your own.
I've still got my autographed copy of Queen of the Damned...somewhere. Probably in a box in my basement.
Good book. Just don't ever watch the movie... :P
|
|
So, TOZ's parents made him go to church and he chose not to continue. That's personal choice. But someone else who is taken by their parents and decides to continue, that's just being brainwashed. Interesting logic.Agreed. Would you still call it brainwashing if a part of someone's spiritual training was to actually challenge the views they've been presented in the church? And then still chose to believe?
Better question, under what set of circumstances would a person who was raised by their parents to attend church and decided to believe in Christ (and continue going to church) NOT be considered a "brainwashed" decision in your mind?
Not trying to be aggressive, just curious how you break these things down.
That question would be better directed at someone who thinks it requires 'brainwashing' in the first place.
Then certainly the same could and should be said for those who grew up outside of the faith and continued to believe in an atheistic manner. This would be a decision based on the same kind of conditioning you believe the 'religious' folk undergo.
The only people exempt from this line of logic are those who grew up in a christian (or other religious) environment and then decided it was not for them. And to be honest (and i recognize this as totally anecdotal, so i'm not saying this as fact) most of the people whom I've asked about their reasons for turning away from their childhood faith has to do with interpersonal conflicts between themselves and their parents... or between themselves and people at church... and have very little to do with what the faith in question espouses. I realize that if you go to a church, you should live out what your faith teaches, but we're all just jacked up people in the end,and I think its' us jacked up people who end up turning non-beleievers away in disgust. Not he validity or possible truth of our faith.
And Wolfthulu - sorry, that was not directed at you, i realize now I need to be using "reply" to make sure people know to whom I'mspeaking.
|
|
Well I don't think you can ever clearly claim that you made a decision like that for yourself, you know? Obviously you make a decision to continue with your faith, but I don't know that you could ever claim it as being wholly personal because you were conditioned to believe it. I'm certainly NOT saying you wouldn't have developed your faith in a nuetral environment, you very well may have.
Yet choosing to leave that faith can be wholly personal and not the result of natural rebellion?
I'm not trying to be hostile either, just trying to point out that these arguments cut both ways.
That question would be better directed at someone who thinks it requires 'brainwashing' in the first place.So, TOZ's parents made him go to church and he chose not to continue. That's personal choice. But someone else who is taken by their parents and decides to continue, that's just being brainwashed. Interesting logic.Agreed. Would you still call it brainwashing if a part of someone's spiritual training was to actually challenge the views they've been presented in the church? And then still chose to believe?
Better question, under what set of circumstances would a person who was raised by their parents to attend church and decided to believe in Christ (and continue going to church) NOT be considered a "brainwashed" decision in your mind?
Not trying to be aggressive, just curious how you break these things down.
While spirituality may well be an inherent part of the human condition, religion, and religious faith, are very much not. I'm not conversing with you in an aggressive or disrespectful tone. It doesn't require conditioning, but the religion in question (christianity) does dictate that you condition your children to be part of the faith.
My point was, and remains, that people should not be spoon fed religion, and by that I mean ANY religion. It's not a secular attack on christianity. People should be allowed to grow naturally, make informed personal decisions and if they choose to follow that path encouraged and supported to do so... but lets not make the decision for them.
Let's stick to the facts here. It is true that there is a documented positive correlation between the faith of the parents and the faith of their children. However, terms like "brainwashing" are obvious loaded and should be avoided.
I'm a pretty committed atheist, but when my kids ask me if god exists, I tell them that I don't think so, but that no one knows for sure, and that they'll have to figure that out for themselves. One of my boys has even gone to church with a friend, but he wrote it off as "boring" (as I suspect most eight-year-old boys would).
|
|
Let's stick to the facts here. It is true that there is a documented positive correlation between the faith of the parents and the faith of their children. However, terms like "brainwashing" are obvious loaded and should be avoided.
I'm a pretty committed atheist, but when my kids ask me if god exists, I tell them that I don't think so, but that no one knows for sure, and that they'll have to figure that out for themselves. One of my boys has even gone to church with a friend, but he wrote it off as "boring" (as I suspect most eight-year-old boys would).
I withdraw the use of 'brainwashing', I was pressed for a word and it was the best I could think of at the time. 'conditioning' is indeed a less hostile way of saying things and we should stick to that.
Well I don't think you can ever clearly claim that you made a decision like that for yourself, you know? Obviously you make a decision to continue with your faith, but I don't know that you could ever claim it as being wholly personal because you were conditioned to believe it. I'm certainly NOT saying you wouldn't have developed your faith in a nuetral environment, you very well may have.Yet choosing to leave that faith can be wholly personal and not the result of natural rebellion?
I'm not trying to be hostile either, just trying to point out that these arguments cut both ways.
I think a decision you make for yourself, no matter how important, will always trump a decision that has been made for you.
Then certainly the same could and should be said for those who grew up outside of the faith and continued to believe in an atheistic manner. This would be a decision based on the same kind of conditioning you believe the 'religious' folk undergo.
The only people exempt from this line of logic are those who grew up in a christian (or other religious) environment and then decided it was not for them. And to be honest (and i recognize this as totally anecdotal, so i'm not saying this as fact) most of the people whom I've asked about their reasons for turning away from their childhood faith has to do with interpersonal conflicts between themselves and their parents... or between themselves and people at church... and have very little to do with what the faith in question espouses. I realize that if you go to a church, you should live out what your faith teaches, but we're all just jacked up people in the end,and I think its' us jacked up people who end up turning non-beleievers away in disgust. Not he validity or possible truth of our faith.
And Wolfthulu - sorry, that was not directed at you, i realize now I need to be using "reply" to make sure people know to whom I'mspeaking.
That's heavily contingent upon wether the parents are aggressively atheist. What I'm saying isn't that you should teach your children to be atheist, its that you should teach them to think for themselves. If you're pressing them about the lack of deific existence you're doing the same thing that I'm strongly against... making up the individual's mind for them.
Personally I'd rather have my children make an informed, personal choice.
|
|
That question would be better directed at someone who thinks it requires 'brainwashing' in the first place.So, TOZ's parents made him go to church and he chose not to continue. That's personal choice. But someone else who is taken by their parents and decides to continue, that's just being brainwashed. Interesting logic.Agreed. Would you still call it brainwashing if a part of someone's spiritual training was to actually challenge the views they've been presented in the church? And then still chose to believe?
Better question, under what set of circumstances would a person who was raised by their parents to attend church and decided to believe in Christ (and continue going to church) NOT be considered a "brainwashed" decision in your mind?
Not trying to be aggressive, just curious how you break these things down.
While spirituality may well be an inherent part of the human condition, religion, and religious faith, are very much not. I'm not conversing with you in an aggressive or disrespectful tone. It doesn't require conditioning, but the religion in question (christianity) does dictate that you condition your children to be part of the faith.
My point was, and remains, that people should not be spoon fed religion, and by that I mean ANY religion. It's not a secular attack on christianity. People should be allowed to grow naturally, make informed personal decisions and if they choose to follow that path encouraged and supported to do so... but lets not make the decision for them.
Yes, we encourage our children to follow our faith. (Group-speak, I have no children of my own.) But we cannot force them to make a decision either way, (certain organizations and cults believe otherwise, but I'm talking actual mainstream Christians) indeed trying to will more often than not force them the other way. Every one in the end, makes their own decision.
|
|
One trains just as much by what one does not do as by what one does. "Not taking children to church," conditions them just as much as "taking them to church."
By not doing it, you are conditioning them to think it unimportant. By doing it you are conditioning them to think it is important. By taking them irregularly, you are confusing them. Those advocating against taking children to church are actually advocating conditioning children to be ambivalent or hostile towards a religious experience.
Parents should raise their children to behave in the fashion they believe is best for their children in the long run. If a parent believes that religion is important, they should train their children to be religious, otherwise they are practicing a confusing sort of hypocrisy.
Yes, we encourage our children to follow our faith. (Group-speak, I have no children of my own.) But we cannot force them to make a decision either way, (certain organizations and cults believe otherwise, but I'm talking actual mainstream Christians) indeed trying to will more often than not force them the other way. Every one in the end, makes their own decision.That question would be better directed at someone who thinks it requires 'brainwashing' in the first place.So, TOZ's parents made him go to church and he chose not to continue. That's personal choice. But someone else who is taken by their parents and decides to continue, that's just being brainwashed. Interesting logic.Agreed. Would you still call it brainwashing if a part of someone's spiritual training was to actually challenge the views they've been presented in the church? And then still chose to believe?
Better question, under what set of circumstances would a person who was raised by their parents to attend church and decided to believe in Christ (and continue going to church) NOT be considered a "brainwashed" decision in your mind?
Not trying to be aggressive, just curious how you break these things down.
While spirituality may well be an inherent part of the human condition, religion, and religious faith, are very much not. I'm not conversing with you in an aggressive or disrespectful tone. It doesn't require conditioning, but the religion in question (christianity) does dictate that you condition your children to be part of the faith.
My point was, and remains, that people should not be spoon fed religion, and by that I mean ANY religion. It's not a secular attack on christianity. People should be allowed to grow naturally, make informed personal decisions and if they choose to follow that path encouraged and supported to do so... but lets not make the decision for them.
While the faith cannot FORCE them (its not definitive) they are, can, and will pressure them into it. A decision made under duress is very seldom made honestly. (Raising them, they are going to hell if they DONT make this choice)... It's more then a little brutish and insulting.
One trains just as much by what one does not do as by what one does. "Not taking children to church," conditions them just as much as "taking them to church."
By not doing it, you are conditioning them to think it unimportant. By doing it you are conditioning them to think it is important. By taking them irregularly, you are confusing them. Those advocating against taking children to church are actually advocating conditioning children to be ambivalent or hostile towards a religious experience.
Parents should raise their children to behave in the fashion they believe is best for their children in the long run. If a parent believes that religion is important, they should train their children to be religious, otherwise they are practicing a confusing sort of hypocrisy.
We should, very much, condition our children. We should NOT condition our children to make a decision that is so central to their character as religion, and the pressure applied to ensure they do so is of tremendous impact (see my last post) to them.
That's heavily contingent upon wether the parents are aggressively atheist. What I'm saying isn't that you should teach your children to be atheist, its that you should teach them to think for themselves. If you're pressing them about the lack of deific existence you're doing the same thing that I'm strongly against... making up the individual's mind for them.
Personally I'd rather have my children make an informed, personal choice.
I totally agree with you that as a parent you should equip your child to make their own decisions to the best of their ability, and I even have parents who did this with me as best they could. Here's the issue, though... even as they teach me to think for myself, they still, in the back of their mind, have what they think is the 'right way'. If you did not believe that atheism was "right", you wouldn't prescribe to it. Same for me as a Christ-believer. I obviously believe that his Truth is better for everyone, and of course that is going to be obvious to my children - whether I intentionally tell them so or not.
So in effect, we're a product of our environment (at least somewhat) whether our parents wished it to be that way or not.
With that in mind, can anyone really make an unbiased decision without being influenced by what was around them when they grew up? I don't believe its' totally possible, though I still believe parents should do their best to educate their children in a more wholistic manner, regardless.
|
|
What a sad world this would be if parents never encouraged their children to do anything the parent thought good or worthwhile:
Gone would be the parents urging their kids to play games with them - (No son, only when you are old enough to decide if its fun for yourself can you join my game.)
Gone would be the fathers urging their kids into sports (Sorry son, you're just not old enough to decide if baseball is for you. Maybe when you are 20 with a few years of college under your belt.)
Gone would be the parents urging their kids to try new foods: (Only porridge for you girl, until you're eighteen. Then you can decide for yourself what you like.)
Gone would be Dads urging junior to build a model car with him: (I enjoy it son, but you have to decide for yourself when you are older if you think you can handle it.)
Its actually kind of silly, I know, but parents are there, in part, to make sure the children learn and grow and part of that is making your children try out different things, or advocating they join you in activities (including religion).
I think she's bitter that a new generation has taken up the mantle of making vampires into lame sissies and wants attention.
Cause, ya know, Lestat and Louis are such masculine examples of vampire-kind... =P