Mother Theresa and her faith in God were fake

[TheNoNamedOne]

Mother Theresa, often held up by some as a great Christian, herself didn't even seem to believe in God, not only questioning his existence, but in the end giving up prayer as well.

"Where is my faith?" (http://www.maltastar.com/pages/msFullArt.asp?an=14550) she wrote in one of the letters. "Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness... If there be God — please forgive me." ...

"Such deep longing for God… Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal," she wrote.

As her fame increased, her faith refused to return. Her smile, she said, was a mask.

"What do I labor for?" she asked in one letter. "If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true."

"The smile," she writes, is "a mask" or "a cloak that covers everything."

According to her letters, Mother Teresa died with her doubts. She had even stopped praying, she writes in one of her letters.

She had requested that the controversial letters are destroyed but church officials had refused.


But the Catholic Church wants to make her a saint still. So, those Christians who think of themselves as fakes are eligible for Sainthood? I applaud Mother Theresa's honesty on the matter, and I am not surprised she sought to hide her shortcoming on the matter and was bent on destroying evidence of that by requesting her letters be destroyed.

Such historic public figures have a responsibility to keep their own records for the benefit of humanity that they have affected.

How many more Catholic saints are fake and were not even Christians in their heartfelt beliefs on the issue of God and Jesus? IN Catholicism some saints are just nonbelievers, I guess.

http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/mother.jpg
The picture of a fake?

[DougP]

Not everything is as pure as it seems. Look at Ghandi he was a racist who openly hated Africans.

[Muku]

To many believers, should I say many believers often question their fath. It is rather understandable in my opinion that she would have questions about here faith in God, considering the squalor that many she tended to lived in.

I too have a hard time believing that a merciful God would allow people to live in the situations that many do.

I wish I had 1% of her faith, not just in God but in the goodness of people.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I wish I had 1% of her faith, not just in God but in the goodness of people.

That is the point of some of the letters which reveal to us about Mother Theresa -- that it appears she had no faith. Not that she merely questioned it, but in the end she had none, and in the end stopped praying. So, your 1% of zero would be zero.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Not everything is as pure as it seems. Look at Ghandi he was a racist who openly hated Africans.

That is true of his younger life. But did he die hating Africans like Mother Theresa seems to have died with no faith?

[Muku]

That is the point of some of the letters which reveal to us about Mother Theresa -- that it appears she had no faith. Not that she merely questioned it, but in the end she had none, and in the end stopped praying. So, your 1% of zero would be zero.

That is only if you want or choose to believe so, there are so many others that put no faith into what she wrote. Plus neither you nor I could copy the work that she did through out her life. Another thing "appears" is not fact, read the next sentence, and there is where the reality is.

Her actions through out her life speak louder than her words, and that there is no argument on.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Her actions through out her life speak louder than her words, and that there is no argument on.

That is right. I have no doubt that an atheist like Mother Theresa can do good. Atheists can do good.

And knowing her actions through her letters, we find out that she stopped the act of praying -- like any good atheist does. That speaks quite loud to me.

[DougP]

That is true of his younger life. But did he die hating Africans like Mother Theresa seems to have died with no faith?

Only he would know.. Looks like he might have kept his final thoughts more to himself than Mother Theresa did.:D

[TheNoNamedOne]

Do these revelations about Mother Theresa make her a hypocrite? Would be urging those she cared for to be thankful to God for her care of them and not herself, but then not even believing in the God she represents and puts forth -- wouldn't that be hypocracy?

To me it is.

So, not only is Mother Theresa a fake, but she is also a hypocrite (in the technical sense of the word -- not as a pajorative).

[DoctorP]

Not at all...in fact I love her even more! Bless her soul!

[DoctorP]

Just to clarify your topic sentence. Are you saying Mother Teresa AND her faith in God were fake? Meaning Mother Teresa was a fake, and her faith was fake? Or just her faith? Because I'm pretty sure Mother Teresa was a real person, and not fake at all.

If you were referring to just her faith, then perhaps you should have said "Mother Teresa's faith in God was fake"

[TheNoNamedOne]

Yes, honesty is to be respected and I love her more for that as well. Wish she would have shared her honest contention that God did not exist and that she were an atheist when she were alive with us all.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Just to clarify your topic sentence. Are you saying Mother Teresa AND her faith in God were fake? Meaning Mother Teresa was a fake, and her faith was fake? Or just her faith? Because I'm pretty sure Mother Teresa was a real person, and not fake at all.

If you were referring to just her faith, then perhaps you should have said "Mother Teresa's faith in God was fake"

Figuratively speaking, she felt fake because of her "mask" she was wearing. That mask was the lieing belief of her faith in God.

Of course we know she was a real person. Don't be silly.

No one means someone is not real when they something like, "Susan is fake." Simply means we do not believe her outward appearance to be an honest one.

I was referring to both her image she projected and her faith.

[DoctorP]

"Susan is fake."

Watch the personal attacks! :D

[TheNoNamedOne]

Is Susan a member here?

That is why we can villify non-members e.g. Vick is a lout. Bush is an idiot.

[DoctorP]

Yes you are right...we can do that can't we. TP is for wiping your butt! (Of course I mean toilet paper!)

[TheNoNamedOne]

I sure wouldn't call/infer Vick a monkey like you have done. A miscreant? Yes. But not a monkey.

But, I would call Mother Theresa a hypocrite. That seems to be quite factual.

There is something that smacks of hypocracy about adorning yourself in all the symbolism of the Christian God and Jesus and yet not having faith in it as true and discontinuing to pray to that God.

[DoctorP]

I sure wouldn't call/infer Vick a monkey like you have done. A miscreant? Yes. But not a monkey.

I didn't do that, you did that on your own. Again, do not twist peoples words around, especially after they have stated that you were wrong in your interpretation.

But, I would call Mother Theresa a hypocrite. That seems to be quite factual.

There is something that smacks of hypocracy about adorning yourself in all the symbolism of the Christian God and Jesus and yet not having faith in it as true and discontinuing to pray to that God.


I guess someone who believes in God or a God could call her a hypocrite. Others could just call her a profiteer, or intelligent. There are many words that could be used to describe her, why do you feel the need to speak ill of the dead?

[TheNoNamedOne]

I didn't do that, you did that on your own. Again, do not twist peoples words around, especially after they have stated that you were wrong in your interpretation.

I used a construct to show you how your second subject comes across belonging to the main set subject in the first clause of the sentence. There is not twisting there, though you can surely deny the inference if you wish.

I guess someone who believes in God or a God could call her a hypocrite. Others could just call her a profiteer, or intelligent. There are many words that could be used to describe her, ...

I would call her an intelligent hypocrite. Yes, there are atheist hypocrites who are smart elderly cute and deceiving.

...why do you feel the need to speak ill of the dead?

It is not a need. The dead are all fair game for criticism, and their works being good or bad do not sheild them from it.

[DoctorP]

I used a construct to show you how your second subject comes across belonging to the main set subject in the first clause of the sentence. There is not twisting there, though you can surely deny the inference if you wish.

Much as I did with your topic sentence! I have nothing to deny as I made no such inferences.


Would you consider Mother Theresa as bad as Jim Bakker?

[TheNoNamedOne]

Would you consider Mother Theresa as bad as Jim Bakker?

No. She did not fleece those she came into contact with through her work out of their money.

Would you?

[DoctorP]

From what you are saying she decieved millions of people. She may not have taken their money, but you are implying that she lived a lie.

She inspired many people around the world. Many people (I'm guessing here) gave up their material possessions in order to be more like her. Therefore she may have fleeced some people. Right?

[Muku]

From what you are saying she decieved millions of people. She may not have taken their money, but you are implying that she lived a lie.

She inspired many people around the world. Many people (I'm guessing here) gave up their material possessions in order to be more like her. Therefore she may have fleeced some people. Right?
Yet I think there is a difference in how she used the money that people donated towards her charities and Jim Baker or most other "tele=vangelistis's.

Mother Theresa used the money, even from the Noble prize for the betterment of her community and her followers. TP just because you have no faith doesn't give you the right to speak ill of the dead.

Like I wrote earlier her works speak louder than any words you write here against her.

[TheNoNamedOne]

From what you are saying she decieved millions of people. She may not have taken their money, but you are implying that she lived a lie.

Yes, but your question was a comparative one -- "as bad."

She inspired many people around the world. Many people (I'm guessing here) gave up their material possessions in order to be more like her. Therefore she may have fleeced some people. Right?

Possibly, but where is the hard proof? We already have hard proof with Baker. Why would anyone equate someone's guilt to another already convicted on the premis of "may have" without any available and compelling evidence to actually view and lay hands on?

Mother Theresa was not as bad as Jim Baker. Do you think she is? Why would you think so? Look at all the good work this atheist lady has done for people. I think you are alone on this one, DrP. Or are all my inferences about you here not quite accurate because you have put it forth as a "may have" and in question form with a "Right?"?

Actually, I know that is what you mean.

[Muku]

No. She did not fleece those she came into contact with through her work out of their money.

Would you?
The better question here is would YOU?

If it was for the advancement of one of your "pet" agenda's I truly believe you would, fleece, excuse me let's be straight here, steal from people for your goals.

[DoctorP]

I'm just playing along with you. Makes for conversation. I do not think anything bad of her. I'm just playing along. But, using your initial posts showing that she lived a lie, is it such a far stretch to link her with other known felons?

[TheNoNamedOne]

... is it such a far stretch to link her with other known felons?


Yes, to me it is a far stretch... because hypocracy is not a felony crime.

[DoctorP]

Yes, to me it is a far stretch... because hypocracy is not a felony crime.

Lucky for you! :rolleyes:

[TheNoNamedOne]

lol.

Well I am always willing to work on it when it can be pointed out specifically. Please do so in TheProsecutor thread and I will discuss it there.

Lucky for you the NAACP didn't see you call Vick a ...

Oh, never mind.

[TheNoNamedOne]

TP just because you have no faith doesn't give you the right to speak ill of the dead.

My right to speak ill or good about anyone -- dead or alive -- does not stem from me having faith or no faith. That right stems from the right to freedom of speech and expression. And the last time I checked I saw no asterisk next to the Bill of Rights saying anything about the dead being protected, or that my rights on that matter were limited once someone was dead.

Have you seen such a thing? If so, then point it out.

This is what I mean about "indignance." "How dare you,..." "You have no right to,..." etc... just does not cut it in putting forth one's position on something.

Now, without resorting to indignance, try again and tell me why I shouldn't say anything ill about Mother Theresa? Hell, I don't know if I have said anything ill, have I? I have merely been stating the facts that we have learned about her from her own confession in letters she herself has penned. How is stating the obvious she points out to us ill? If anything she is speaking ill of herself -- or at least her shortcomings, which I have been reiterating with the correct words to label them with.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Conflating atheism with a lack of faith is a common logical fallacy. Be careful not to confuse a lack of faith with atheism. It does not follow that a lack of faith is the outcome of atheism, a post hoc. The inverse, though, may be valid - atheism could be construed as being an effect of no faith.

Examples: If I'm verbally abused as a kid by an ever-angry dad, I may have no faith whatsoever in his good will towards me (or for my similarly abused siblings); I must, nevertheless, believe that he exists. The very early faith that I may have had in him and his good will towards me may have turned to dust during my teenage years, and so I conclude presently that he will never return to his former joyful self. My belief that he will never return does not negate the fact that he still exists.

Nor, it doesn't much matter anyway if Mother T. lost her faith along the way. She's only one of countless others who have heard the call initially and later turned away, or did the opposite: lived a life of self-absorption, gluttony, self-pride or whatever egocentric ailment afflicts us and turned to God for a better perspective.

If you want to discuss tales of Mother T's woes, why not also ask questions about Job's (a person who doubtless could have lodged many more complaints with his maker, but didn't)?

[TheNoNamedOne]

I wouldn't consider Mother Theresa a strong atheist (although she may well have been). A weak one may be more fitting. One definitely in the incubus stage -- if not already hatched.

Thing is, sounds like she died unbelieving. Job did not(or did he?). The two should not be conflated.

[Fonze]

I think that just because she didn't feel god doesn't mean she had no faith. If she did she would have probably left her faith. I read that she felt god at a young age and answered her calling but as the years passed she felt empty because she didn't feel his presence so to me that in no way shape or form does that mean she lost her faith.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I think that just because she didn't feel god doesn't mean she had no faith.

She seems to be denying the truth of Jesus and God. If she denies that truth, then how can she have faith in them? That makes no sense.

If she did she would have probably left her faith.

Why? Many people are stuck in loveless marriages they have no faith in of ever returning to one of love and romance with their partner, but they do not leave. They stick it out for various reasons, one of which may be that it is just easier to keep the status quo, and two, staying in the marriage could allow them to continue with something they can only do so with that marriage.

Mother Theresa in this analogy could be viewed as being married to the Catholic Church and her public persona associated with that could be seen by her of being the best way to let her continue with her passion of caring for the poor and poverty stricken of India.

I read that she felt god at a young age and answered her calling but as the years passed she felt empty because she didn't feel his presence so to me that in no way shape or form does that mean she lost her faith.

Mother Theresa writes quite clearly using the word "where" in search of her faith. "Where" is used in question form in searching when something cannot be found or it is lost:

"Where is my faith?" she wrote in one of the letters. "Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness (see OP) (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1142)

Her dispair at losing her faith (not merely misplacing it somewhere) is clearly seen with her use of emptiness and darkness.

[Fonze]

I just read the book and this article like many others took everything out of context.
I suggest you read it and see for yourself that she did not lose her faith.

[dk]

I just read the book and this article like many others took everything out of context.
I suggest you read it and see for yourself that she did not lose her faith.
Some examples?

[Fonze]

I'm not good at this and don't want to get qouted and disected so I suggest you read it if you really care to know.

[dk]

I'm not good at this and don't want to get qouted and disected so I suggest you read it if you really care to know.
Can I borrow your copy? :D

[Fonze]

I'm not real trying to get new aquantinces but if your'e serious I will give it serious thought.

[dk]

I'm half serious, but if you want to get it off your hands, I'll buy it off you. Or I could just order it off amazon I guess.

[Fonze]

My sis sent it cause she and my mom thought I felt like mother Theresa so I cant sell it.

Off topic I destroyed your shuffle high score.

[dk]

I know you did...

I'll just order a copy unless I see one on the classifieds. It's not all that urgent for me. I have more than enough to do that needs to be finished.... :(

[TheNoNamedOne]

Quick Fonze, real fast. What are the first 10 words on page 10? What are the first 10 words on page 50?

Waiting.

Fonze, time is passing. I am beginning to think you really do not have the book.

Um... Fonze left. I guess he didn't have the book to answer those simple questions to confirm that he did. Perhaps he just lost it and went to look for it. Oh well...

[dk]

Maybe he used page 10 and page 50 for toilet paper if not the whole book. He didn't sound too impressed.

Then again, his family bought it for him, so maybe it's in a box somewhere. He might have accidentally ripped the router off the wall while digging around in the closet. You never know!

[TheNoNamedOne]

lol. Yeah, you never know, do ya?

All that would seem a little convenient for me. But, ya never know...

[dk]

I never expect much when it comes to certain posters' replies... But hey! I'm not naming names!

[Fonze]

Thats fine you edited both post 48 and 49. For those that don't know what I wrote was that someone go four letter word themselves. If you don't believe me thats fine I don't need to prove shite to you.

[Fonze]

Maybe he used page 10 and page 50 for toilet paper if not the whole book. He didn't sound too impressed.

Then again, his family bought it for him, so maybe it's in a box somewhere. He might have accidentally ripped the router off the wall while digging around in the closet. You never know!

I'd expect that from him but you. I guess that proves your his little female dog and or vice versa.

[dk]

Please. You couldn't argue a point if you had all the data given to you. Pretty much ANY side you argue for looks like a failure just from having you on it's team. Which is sad, because I side with you a lot.

I wasn't even insulting you. Your reply makes you look like a dumbass. I was backing you up, but I guess you'd know that if you had any comprehension skills whatsoever. Do you want me to be pissed off at you? Is that what your aim is? I was throwing some sarcasm at TP for pressing you. Get it now? Want me to repeat myself?

H. Christ. Develop a sense of humor maybe? You said you didn't care for the book. I stated that you may have used it for toilet paper. Get it? Do you understand?

[Fonze]

where did I say I didn't care for the book.

[dk]

I just read the book and this article like many others took everything out of context.
Kinda got that from your tone. Unless you enjoy reading books that are out of context. Unless I read you wrong and what you are actually saying is "I just read this book. This article, like many others, took everything out of context." On closer analysis, maybe that's what you meant. If I misunderstood, my bad.

Let me ask you something. Do you enjoy these forums? Would you rather just quit and be done with them? Or do you want to go out in a blaze? Or would you rather just learn some respect?

Because we can do this the quick and easy way (you leave), we can do this the even easier way (if you dont' like it here, let me know and I'll just ban you), or you can learn some respect.

Because, really, you're the only person we're even having this issue with. Last time. Watch your mouth. Watch your tone. Or leave.

[Fonze]

hey you called me a dumbass but I guess thats okay. you want to be a little nazi fine I'll bow to you master since you can't take it.

On the qoute I was talking about the article TP put out yes.

[dk]

I didn't call you a dumbass. I said your response made you look like a dumbass. You did it to yourself.

If I wanted to call you a dumbass, I'd flat out say:

Hey dumbass!

you want to be a little nazi fine I'll bow to you master since you can't take it.If I couldn't deal with it, I'd flat out ban you. You don't intimidate me. In fact, right now, you're my entertainment.

[Fonze]

OK so If lets say I said yours make you look bitch made that be acceptable.
If you flat out banned me then you would really look like a nazi.

[dk]

Yes, if you said, "wow, that's a really bitchy thing to say" that would be A'OK.

But, like the article, it would be out of context. Because I've never been whiney or bitchy on these forums.

[Muku]

I never expect much when it comes to certain posters' replies... But hey! I'm not naming names!

Thank you, I just knew you luved me <3 :barf: :p

Maybe I should just go back to posting pictures of Japanese women that are well endowed!

[dk]

OK so If lets say I said yours make you look bitch made that be acceptable.
If you flat out banned me then you would really look like a nazi.
Actually, it'd make sense.

So far, you've told a moderator to **** off twice and then you straight up disrespected me. Smart man... Smart.

Also, nazi's didn't have internet forums.

[dk]

Thank you, I just knew you luved me <3 :barf: :p
LMAO. :first:

[Fonze]

then you straight up disrespected me. Smart man... Smart.

Also, nazi's didn't have internet forums.

So because your the mod and you feel dissed you edit me and I felt dissed but because you didn't feel you did it's okay, I see baby TP.

They do now.

[dk]

In case you didn't know, administrator > moderator.

[ja_Patriot]

Isn’t this old news?

TIME – CNN, August 27, 2007. Mother Teresa’s Crisis of Faith.

CNN report – September 7, 2001. Mother Teresa, the late Roman Catholic nun whose aid for the poor put her on the path to sainthood, at times felt abandoned by God, according to her recently released letters. The letters, written by Mother Teresa in the 1950s and 1960s to her church spiritual guides, also reveal the troubling and, at times, painful conflicts she sometimes had with her faith …

When the chips are down for the Dems and the libs (about this time we had Norman Hsu, David Petraeus), you can count on loony left main stream media to recycle old news, and try to divert attention and stir up controversy. Unfortunately for them, their stranglehold on information is now a thing of the past.

How would the NY Times would have reported on some of the words and deeds of Jesus Christ in his moments of weakness as a human being?

- “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani”. My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me!
- My Father if it is possible, let this cup pass from me! – Matthew 26:42
- At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, and He was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. – Mark 1:12

NY Times headlines. Jesse and his Crisis of Faith. Is he a fake? Jesse the handyman and sleigh-of-hand artist, whose preposterous claim to be the Messiah put him in a path to crucifixion, had moments of crisis of faith according to unnamed associates …

____________


Blessed Mother Teresa (1910-1997). Being “Blessed” as you may be aware is the final step before sainthood. Her life was devoted to compassion and caring for the poorest of the poor, the downtrodden of Calcutta and of the world.

Did she suffer a “crisis of faith” in the 1950s and 1960s? Did she have moments of weakness as a human being? Or should the question be, what about in the 70s, 80s, and 90s? Did TIMES-CNN find any evidence to support anything other than the woman’s manifestation of faith, hope and charity, and a deep love of God?

As usual, the main stream media will only report the juicy bits that fit their biased agenda and expect to hoodwink the rest of us with hogwash and their version of decency.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Whoa! I almost don't know where to begin with this.

Isn’t this old news?

TIME – CNN, August 27, 2007. Mother Teresa’s Crisis of Faith.

No. Look at the date. Not even a month old yet, and when the thread first started it was very close to the reporting date.

When the chips are down for the Dems and the libs (about this time we had Norman Hsu, David Petraeus), you can count on loony left main stream media to recycle old news, and try to divert attention and stir up controversy. Unfortunately for them, their stranglehold on information is now a thing of the past.

Sounds like someone is pulling the Rush Limbaugh card. lol. What do democrats or libs have to do with Mother Theresa losing her faith? You mean the execs of CNN and other news networks are huddeled around their conference table conspiring on how to divert the attention of the public? lol. FROM WHAT!? Most of our attention is on the Iraq war! So, the liberal media is trying to divert the attention of the liberals and others from the Iraq War by using Mother Theresa's loss of faith? Gimme a break, why don't cha!

Again, divert attention from freakin what!?

I'll address the rest of your post later.

[ja_Patriot]

TP,
This "news" was already out in September 2001. Look at the 2nd date in my post.

Good initiative on your threads, my friend, most of which have no answers absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Keeps our little community interesting and makes people think.

[TheNoNamedOne]

TP,
This "news" was already out in September 2001. Look at the 2nd date in my post.

Indeed, you are correct. I missed the second date. Sorry.

But, I am not sure why that has any bearing on dems and libs?

Good initiative on your threads, my friend, most of which have no answers absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Keeps our little community interesting and makes people think.

Thanks.

You are correct, a lot of my topic threads are about asking people about their opinions on issues that have not yet been conclusively decided by society or are perhaps being challenged. When those opinions clash they turn into debate. I confess I enjoy debate. Not a crime, but if so, I would plead guilty as charged.

Hope you are enjoying reading my threads. Hope to see you jump in others of them. You are welcome to do so.

[TheNoNamedOne]

How would the NY Times would have reported on some of the words and deeds of Jesus Christ in his moments of weakness as a human being?

- “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani”. My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me!
- My Father if it is possible, let this cup pass from me! – Matthew 26:42
- At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, and He was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. – Mark 1:12

I see what you are saying, Ja, however, keep in mind, the report of Mother Theresa is done so using her own words as written by herself. Jesus' words were not his own written by his self.

NY Times headlines. Jesse and his Crisis of Faith. Is he a fake? Jesse the handyman and sleigh-of-hand artist, whose preposterous claim to be the Messiah put him in a path to crucifixion, had moments of crisis of faith according to unnamed associates …

Yes, in all probability Jesus was a fake and did not exist. Strange that a person who is god, sent by himself knowing he would be murdered, and knowing that that was necessary so that the "prophecies" would be "fulfillled" would then ask that it not be done so. Strange since God is omnipotent and omnipotence requires a presence everywhere, past, present, and future -- so to God, what was about to happen had already happened. To ask that one with insight be spared from it is ludicrous.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Blessed Mother Teresa (1910-1997). Being “Blessed” as you may be aware is the final step before sainthood. Her life was devoted to compassion and caring for the poorest of the poor, the downtrodden of Calcutta and of the world.

Yes, indeed. She was a great human. However, she was a woman who did not have faith in God or Jesus as existing. I could care less if the Church bestows Sainthood on her. If the Catholic Church wants to readily admit that their saints are nonbelievers in the Christian God and his Son, the so be it. Fine with me. But I will point that out.

Did she suffer a “crisis of faith” in the 1950s and 1960s? Did she have moments of weakness as a human being? Or should the question be, what about in the 70s, 80s, and 90s? Did TIMES-CNN find any evidence to support anything other than the woman’s manifestation of faith, hope and charity, and a deep love of God?

Yes, her letters have been published by her mentor who she shared her letters with. She did not only suffer a crises of faith in the 50s, 60s, etc... her crises went on right up to her death. She said that her outward appearance was a mask. She was well aware of the contradiction between her appearance and her personal beliefs -- that of not believing Jesus and God were true.

As usual, the main stream media will only report the juicy bits that fit their biased agenda and expect to hoodwink the rest of us with hogwash and their version of decency.

Come on, Ja. Do you have any idea how much like Rush Limbaugh you sound like? "Mainstream" media? Why not just refer to them as the "Drive by media" taking shots at poor ol' sweet little Mother Theresa. Geesh!

Why would the "Mainstream" media have an agenda to make us believe that Mother Theresa did not believe in Jesus or God? What is the motive to do so? Is her image standing in the way of something? What? Are you a conspiracist?

[ja_Patriot]

TP,

You have your ideas, which I think passes for beliefs in your case, and I have my convictions and my belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't think the Catholic church or (since you keep mentioning Rush) Limbaugh would give a hoot if you, TP, expressed your opinion on anything. You could be right. There are no absolutes. The church was wrong about the Inquisition and Copernicus, inter-alia.

Just curious. Who in your world would equate to "poor ol' sweet little Mother Theresa"? Cindy Sheehan? Or would that be the president of the ASCPA or PETA? Just as you say, geesh! LOL

[TheNoNamedOne]

TP,

You have your ideas, which I think passes for beliefs in your case, and I have my convictions and my belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I don't think the Catholic church or (since you keep mentioning Rush) Limbaugh would give a hoot if you, TP, expressed your opinion on anything. You could be right. There are no absolutes. The church was wrong about the Inquisition and Copernicus, inter-alia.

Fair enough on all that, Ja.

Though please note, my reference to Rush is due to your hyperbole of "Mainstream media" and "libs" and how you use those in the same ways as he does.

Just curious. Who in your world would equate to "poor ol' sweet little Mother Theresa"? Cindy Sheehan? Or would that be the president of the ASCPA or PETA? Just as you say, geesh! LOL

That is just the point -- Mother Theresa is in "my world" because she, too, like I did/does not believe in Jesus or God. We skeptics can claim her as one of ours as surely as you Christians want to because she decked herself out in religious symbols. Ours is the more intellectually honest claim on the matter, however.

Funny you should mention the President of PETA. Ingrid Newkirk lived in India as a young girl with her mother who was one of Mother Theresa's volunteers and helped her mother care for the poor that were attracted to Mother Theresa. She learned a deep respect for all life while with her mother under the guidance of Mother Theresa.

[Fonze]

That is just the point -- Mother Theresa is in "my world" because she, too, like I did/does not believe in Jesus or God. We skeptics can claim her as one of ours as surely as you Christians want to because she decked herself out in religious symbols. Ours is the more intellectually honest claim on the matter, however.

.

ja10340 when ignorant unintellectuall remarks like this from someone who hasn't read the book all I see is someone who wants to be right. In the book she refers to him as her god. If someone really cares to know they need to read it not just read news CLIPS of a book. I will say this it makes you question things in your own belief which is good. If Mother Theresa wanted what she felt at one time she wrote it(1953) destroyed why did the church not destroy it if people would think she wasn't a believer. atheist live free wills and let others do the same:)

I hope nobody feels disrespected or their eyes are burning from my not so perfect english grammer.

[ja_Patriot]

Fonze,

It’s called zero “tolerance of opposing views”. It takes away the pleasure of and discourages intelligent discourse in otherwise interesting threads.

It’s hard to set forth your points with certain people, especially with the left, because when ideas run out, they resort to slogans and non-sequitur unsupported by facts or logical ideas:

“Bush Lied, Soldiers Die.” – Code Pink
“The war on terror is a bumper sticker.” – John Edwards
“…Mother Theresa is in "my world" because she, too, like I did/does not believe in Jesus or God...” – TP

By TP’s logic, we should call Bill Clinton a drug addict, because he did say he tried marijuana in his earlier years although he added “..but I didn’t inhale..” You can always count on Slick Willy to add the lame excuse, but I don’t think you can call him a drug addict.

And much in the same way you can’t call Mother Teresa an atheist because she wrote about a crisis of faith in her earlier years.

We can’t negate Bill Clinton’s next few decades as a solid citizen and president (despite his adultery and indiscretions), just as we can’t negate the rest of Mother Teresa’s life as a giver of love and devoted soldier of God.

It does get tiresome, childish and boring.

[Fonze]

We should'nt say Bush lied we should say Clinton lied to Bush. :D
I like how you put it though.

[a_bjyrd]

Bless her Soul

[TheNoNamedOne]

Fonze,

It’s called zero “tolerance of opposing views”.

Oh give me a break! I seek out opposing views for discussion all over this forum. If I didn't have tolerance I would not do so.

It takes away the pleasure of and discourages intelligent discourse in otherwise interesting threads.

Ja, from what I have seen from your style of "discourse" just in this thread, you are a conspiracist imitating the same borish style of Rush Limbough. Who really thinks that Rush in a majority of his discourse with his style does intelligent discourse? You seem to be fond of following in his footsteps. Now, if you throw in a few of the F*** expletives and some "nut jobs" and "homo" snide remarks, you will be at the level of Fonze and P_chan, too.

It’s hard to set forth your points with certain people, especially with the left, because when ideas run out, they resort to slogans and non-sequitur unsupported by facts or logical ideas:

Well, it is easy for you to declare, but you have yet to point out anything concrete or show what I have said is incorrect. As for slogans, you have that down pat with the wide paint brush "Mainstream media" and "lib" comments.

By TP’s logic, we should call Bill Clinton a drug addict, because he did say he tried marijuana in his earlier years although he added “

You have trouble with analogies, don't you? Well Bill did try/smoke marijuana at a time in his past, didn't he? The reason why your analogy fails is because Mother Theresa did not just lose her faith at one time in her past, she died without it. In her letters she never says she found it again.


And much in the same way you can’t call Mother Teresa an atheist because she wrote about a crisis of faith in her earlier years.

<sigh> Would you look at the article again. Her crises went right up until her death. She lost her faith and according to her letters she never found it again -- unless Fonze, who claims to have the book can quote from the page number where it is that she claims to have faith again. But we all know Fonze doesn't have the book. He was caught in his little lie. Well, maybe he ordered it and got it by now after being owned on the point.

We can’t negate Bill Clinton’s next few decades as a solid citizen and president (despite his adultery and indiscretions), just as we can’t negate the rest of Mother Teresa’s life as a giver of love and devoted soldier of God.

The jury is still out on Bill. Mother Theresa on the other hand has told us herself with her letters leading all the way up to her final years that her faith was not regained.

It does get tiresome, childish and boring.

Then you had better think about changing your style. Here is some advice for you: if you are bored with what you consider childish, then don't waste your time on that. I suspect you are not as bored as you say you are if you continue to invest your time in threads of mine and take issue with what I post (and I do welcome you to continue doing so). I never go to threads and topics that bore me or those I feel are childish.

I geuss children go to what they view as childish, and adults go to what they view as not so.

[Fonze]

TP is the cactus.:D
READ THE BOOKmr right if you really want to know what you're talking about. Isn't it funny when someone insults you or makes comments about you in YOUR own way you feel intimidated and have to ask them to use 4 letter words so you can feel better about your unintellectual responses.:thumbdown:

[Isaak Brodsky]

Jesus and the words attributed to Him in the Gospel are the most studied, most reviled, most curious areas of inquiry, even in the postmodern academy. To suggest, of course, that Jesus was a fake is to simply ignore the historical evidence substantiated by a wealth of sources outside the Biblical canon. The Gnostic and Apocryphal texts, Dead Sea Scrolls, the Signs Gospel, the Q document, the Koran, and the writings of ancient Greco-Roman sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger as well as many others verify the historicity of Christ.

Unsure what the big deal is about over Mother Theresa losing her religion. Humans are fickle creatures. That should be clear enough. People turn to and turn away from Jesus whenever circumstances warrant. Neither side (the theists nor the atheists) can claim MT as their own.

[Paul McDaniel]

Mr. Brody, I see you are attempting to divert the conversation back to the subject title of this forum. Good luck with that.
If, as it seems to me, this forum was intended by the Forum Moderator to be a constructive exchange regarding the true nature of Mother Teresa’s crisis of faith and its implications for the rest of us and our faith (or lack thereof), then there is an element missing without which there can be no progress toward a clear understanding of anything useful at all.
That element is a clear, comprehensible definition of the word. (‘Define your terms, children, or keep silent.’ a wise man once said.)
Each wannabe contributor to this forum, in order to actually be a contributor, must explain what he or she means by the word faith. The only reason for not providing an explanation is simply not knowing what one is talking about. (For one to say that he or she just doesn’t want to explain is to lie. The assertion, ‘I don’t have to.’ means, ‘I can’t.’)
So, my question is: is there anybody else out there who actually knows what they are talking about?

[Isaak Brodsky]

a very well placed question.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Hi Paul. Always good to see your posts. Glad you've stopped back in.

Each wannabe contributor to this forum, in order to actually be a contributor, must explain what he or she means by the word faith. The only reason for not providing an explanation is simply not knowing what one is talking about. (For one to say that he or she just doesn’t want to explain is to lie. The assertion, ‘I don’t have to.’ means, ‘I can’t.’)

So, my question is: is there anybody else out there who actually knows what they are talking about?

Paul, I don't think the term "faith" is an obscure one as it relates to Christianity. Furthermore, we must use the term as it relates to Christianity, not as what the term means to each participant in the discussion. I haven't seen anyone suggest that it means anything on the margins, have you?

In Christianity and how we see Mother Theresa referring to it as, it simply means a belief in Jesus as God/Son of God. I would further say the Christian concept of faith also means one believes that God/Jesus will fullfill the hope of his believers that his promises to them will be fullfilled as they are stated in the Word of God i.e. the Bible -- albeit on God's terms and on His time schedule, and that He died for our sins, was resurrected, and that we are "saved" or redeemed through his sacrifice, Grace and Good Works.

I think that is what most people believe what faith entails in the Christian paradigm, and I don't see anything different from that meaning of the term separating Mother Theresa/Catholicism from anything that those who have participated in this thread have been using to mean faith. Have you?

Perhaps we need a whole new thread on "Faith" alone for everyone to explain what it means to them if indeed there are so many different ideas of it when coming to Christianity or the Bible. But, I don't think there are so many divergent views on it within the parameters of Christian doctrine or related discussions to Christianity. But as I said before, we must use what Mother Theresa and her Catholicism is showing us is her meaning of it is. I think the OP and the article is pretty straightforward on the matter.

[Paul McDaniel]

Prosecutor, I would not refer to the meaning of the term “faith” as commonly used as it relates to Christianity as obscure either. I would refer to it as ambiguous.
Nor do I see much disparity from believer to believer but see, rather, a uniform ambiguity.
An ambiguity shared by Mother Teresa and the cause of her crisis.
Her’s was not, as it turned out, the unshakable faith that come from a sure knowledge of God’s will and the desire, determination, and courage to do it even without receiving a reward in this life, such as—in her case—the “pat on the head” she never felt.
No, her faith was merely the hope that the things she had accepted blindly, which is to say without ascertaining the truth of them, would turn out to be true. But without some divine confirmation, some validation, some observable evidence, her hope turned to dust, which is to say, doubt.
The only lesson for Christians to be had here is to not take God lightly. He has set down what he requires and it requires more than the usual attention.
My challenge to each to explain his or her faith is a challenge to pay more than the usual attention to God’s Word, which is to say, more than is paid by most, and prepare oneself to defend that faith by reasoning from the scriptures. That is, after all, the definitive responsibility of the Christian, which is to say, disciple of, follower in the footsteps of, Christ.

[ja_Patriot]

So the Muslims and Jews all go to Hell because - well they not only take my God lightly, they just don't believe in Him.

Following the "I have a hammer; therefore the problem is a nail" paradigm, you pretend that your “knowledge” to spell the word “faith” and some ability to define it (possibly ripped out of wikipedia), is a substitute for the expression of our diverse opinions on the topic in this public forum.

"Wannabe contributors", you say.

Well, “Beam him down, Scotty.” And send him back to his mom.

If you have a point, say it. Let us "wannabe contributors" stick to our own version of the "truth". We'll let you keep yours.

And, BTW, it would be nice if you could press the "Enter" key once in a while, so your post gets to be readable.

[hardplayer]

Mother Theresa was great for what she did. It is interesting to learn about the letters. I wonder if many Christians were disappointed to learn about this. I am. I didn't know about this news.

[Isaak Brodsky]

So the Muslims and Jews all go to Hell because - well they not only take my God lightly, they just don't believe in Him.

Following the "I have a hammer; therefore the problem is a nail" paradigm, you pretend that your “knowledge” to spell the word “faith” and some ability to define it (possibly ripped out of wikipedia), is a substitute for the expression of our diverse opinions on the topic in this public forum.

"Wannabe contributors", you say.

Well, “Beam him down, Scotty.” And send him back to his mom.

If you have a point, say it. Let us "wannabe contributors" stick to our own version of the "truth". We'll let you keep yours.

And, BTW, it would be nice if you could press the "Enter" key once in a while, so your post gets to be readable.

Sorry I can't be more selective here, but the response quoted above seems like a very impassioned reflex to Paul's observation that some folks in this thread just weigh in at times with irrational, poorly articulated and, thus, imprecise descriptions of how they perceive the Mother T. loss of faith and what it means for them.

If I could recast Paul's point, which I think is useful and relevant to all of those who would offer up some insight, I'd say that the call to define your terms is exceedingly important -- if, that is, we all want to benefit in some way from alternative points of view in this public forum.

Seems Paul, like a few others, is willing to weigh in when he/she senses that the discussion of the topic is actually coherent, dispassionate and precise. What's the sense in wasting time with those who merely want to throw in a half-baked comment generated more by feelings than by thoughtful and genuine reflection on the topic?

Even the Prosecutor, whose observations about the Supernatural I don't usually subscribe to, has really gotten some unwarranted venom aimed his way in other threads. Paul's point pasted earlier in this thread is entirely valid.

Even terms as ambiguous as "faith" in Christian circles must be defined if a coherent discussion of faith itself - in writing - can proceed. No where in Paul's response did I see any implication that Jews and Moslems "take God lightly."

[Fonze]

What needs to happen is this needs to be made into another thread about faith.

What the hell do you or TP know if you haven't read the book and are just speculating of an op ed of some newspaper that doesn't tell the whole story. You want to really know read the f***ing book before you try and paint Mother Theresa as your own.

She had a crisis in her faith she did not lose it. READ THE BOOK.

[ja_Patriot]

Ian Brody,

With all due respect, if we desire more learned and erudite opinion other than our own points of view as posters, we google. You get over 1.2 million hits with the words "Mother Teresa Crisis Faith".

Theological, philosophical scholars, the clergy, the Vatican, evangelists, leftists, conservatives - all have their own opinion. Not necessarily agreeing with one another. Even hoi polloi pedestrian posters like you and me can post.

If you feel the need to impose your "enlightened" view, shouldn't you and your buddy be telling all the "wannabes" mentioned above to take into consideration your ideas.

You know why you won't? Because undoubtedly, whatever you say will be pure unadulterated garbage to many.

We'd rather just see your opinion. If you have one, post it.

But could you be respectful enough not to call the posters in here "wannabe contributors" or call our views "impassioned.. ,irrational, poorly articulated and,..imprecise".

Those words that you and your friend use and the context behind them render your posts not only pompous, snooty, flatulent and stuck-up - but rather pretentious, empty and inane. Not that it really matters; we always look at the source.



#

[Fonze]

Thats kind of name calling but since you fall in line with TP and his view I'm sure TP won't play MOD here and jump in cause it was properly articulated.

[Paul McDaniel]

Sorry if I seem slow to pick up the ball since last. I had a foreign visitor who wanted to see the island and have been busy driving him around.
Thanks, Mr. Brody, for pointing out some discrepancies in coherence and reason in one of the contender’s (is that better?) posting.
What I want to do here is clarify a couple of additional matters, comment on a point or two, and then make my final remark regarding Mother Teresa.

Mr. Brody and I have been accused of attempting to impose our point of view, our opinions, upon others. Now, this contender (his having misconstrued the very purpose of an open forum aside) has, in a defensive, emotional, and transparent reaction, made up this accusation from his own imagination. There is no basis for it, which is to say, there is nothing whatever in our postings that suggests we are doing anything more than sharing and clarifying ideas. The truth is, however (speaking for myself now) quite the contrary. In my communications with others I never make any attempt whatsoever to convince or influence others beyond merely presenting the facts as I see them, for others to consider or not consider as they please. My sole obligation in this regard is to tell the truth when I know it, and when I don’t, to ask it. Though the opinions and comments of others may be interesting and worth considering, it is of no consequence to me at all whether or not they accept, reject, or remain indifferent to what I have to say. (It is enjoyable to come into contact with a like mind from time to time, but that either happens or it doesn’t.)

This contender said ‘we always look at the source,’ and in a way that is both ironic and, at the same time, not ironic at all. First of all, I always encourage interested parties to examine the sources of claims and assertions and commend him for doing so. What or who, though, I can’t help wondering, is the source he refers to here? Would he be so kind as to share this source with the rest of us? Is it Mr. Brody and me? Is the contender a close associate or coworker of whom we’re not aware, but who knows us? (That would be amazing considering Mr. Brody and I are not even acquainted.)
No, sorry to say, he merely used the phrase to try to denigrate what he doesn’t understand and has considered no source at all and (ironically) failed to recognize that my previous posting was merely the application of bible scriptures to the case of well versus poorly founded Christian faith, not really my opinion at all, and not ironic, considering his recommended reading (‘theological, philosophical scholars, the clergy, the Vatican, evangelists, leftists, conservatives’ as accessed via Google) does not even include the Bible.

When people express themselves in a thoughtless or careless manner they inadvertently reveal what they may not want revealed. Personal attacks, name-calling, etc. unmistakably reveal an inability to defend one’s position or opinion as does defensiveness, which also indicates one is hiding something and afraid of exposure, and anger is a dead giveaway that the fear is there.
The remedy is this: to take pains to set emotion aside and keep one’s expressions orderly and rational. To do so is actually therapeutic, these indicators being symptoms of emotional disorders that can be detrimental to one’s effectiveness in all aspects of life. The alternative is to continue to look foolish.

Lastly, one contender is strenuously urging those interested in the particulars of Mother Teresa’s spiritual and emotional difficulties to read her book. I agree wholeheartedly. I have not, nor will, read the book, however, so cannot comment on the usefulness of what it may or may not reveal. I have no interest in her case beyond her being an example of a lapsed Catholic.

[ja_Patriot]

Mother Teresa and her faith in God were fake.


Paul McDaniel,

After such a lengthy, redundant, voluminous post, your point of view being - None. Not a single opinion.

---

Paul McD - “Mr. Brody and I have been accused of attempting to impose our point of view, our opinions, upon others.”

“Wannabe contributors, impassioned, irrational, poorly articulated, imprecise". I would say it’s quite refreshing and a big improvement to see those words stricken from your LAST post.

But imposing your view, opinion on this forum? Not a chance. You’re not even at par with yourself. Apart from the fact that you really don’t seem to have a point of view or opinion on the topic after all. Yappari, as the Japanese would say.

---

Paul McD – “This contender said ‘we always look at the source,’ and in a way that is both ironic and, at the same time, not ironic at all.”

The source, as in where the hogwash is coming from, which would be you, the poster in reference. No need to accuse your co-workers. It’s so plain and simple I can’t believe you didn’t even get that.

---

Paul McD – “…considering his recommended reading (‘theological, philosophical scholars, the clergy, the Vatican, evangelists, leftists, conservatives’ as accessed via Google) does not even include the Bible…

I wasn’t recommending. I was enumerating part of the 1.2 million hits when you google the topic. I’m sure the Bible is referenced somewhere in those hits. But if you’re looking for articles written by a Mr. Bible, I’m afraid you won’t find any.

---

Paul McD – “I have no interest in her case beyond her being an example of a lapsed Catholic.”

That's quite apparent reading from your cynical statements. Wonder why you even bother to post on this topic.

---

Oh, and if you are compelled to post again after what you said would be your LAST post, please press the “Enter” key once in a while. It’s used to make what we call paragraphs.


#

[Fonze]

Ja i think he was talking about me. never mind he was talking about us both. Yet he failed to see that I don't have a problem about faith just don't paint this lady as their own of a newsclip.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Ian Brody, With all due respect, (Sarcasm noted) if we desire more learned and erudite opinion other than our own points of view as posters, we google. You get over 1.2 million hits with the words "Mother Teresa Crisis Faith".

You know why you won't? Because undoubtedly, whatever you say will be pure unadulterated garbage to many.

We'd rather just see your opinion. If you have one, post it.
(The appearance of "impose" in "... impose your 'enlightened' view..." stands as a contradiction to your invitation to simply "post" my opinion. Somehow, you have construed (likely another example of your tendency to reflexively reject any reasonable response to the incoherent mess you call contribution) my own observations about how you and your tag-team partner The Fonze - another contributor in need of a mini-course on public civility - engage in idea sharing in this forum. Even your relative inability to separate your feelings of hasty and irrational contempt for me and the mere suggestions I've made for being more precise about what you write illustrate how utterly useless it is to acknowledge your bile. At last, the term 'contributor' carries enough positive connotations in our language to suggest fairly clearly that those comments, like yours and the Fonze's for example, are not entirely positive features of this public discussion, and so the expression "wannabe" seems only fitting here.
...

Those words that you and your friend use and the context behind them render your posts not only pompous, snooty, flatulent and stuck-up - but rather pretentious, empty and inane. Not that it really matters; we always look at the source. (These remarks do not represent a sober response.)

[Fonze]

let me be civil then.

Have you read the book? NO

I have no problem with debating faith but yes your retarted comments are off a op ed piece

[P_chan]

Haha! I tired to stay clear of this one for my own personal reasons. I peeked in here just to see what was going down and low and behold I find this:

Ja, from what I have seen from your style of "discourse" just in this thread, you are a conspiracist imitating the same borish style of Rush Limbough. Who really thinks that Rush in a majority of his discourse with his style does intelligent discourse? You seem to be fond of following in his footsteps. Now, if you throw in a few of the F*** expletives and some "nut jobs" and "homo" snide remarks, you will be at the level of Fonze and P_chan, too.

Why do you insist on brining me into your posts and topics that I have nothing to do with? Do you have a crush on me (I do have that effect on some women:D)? I just find it odd. I try not to bring you into any of my nonsense threads, and try not to bash you. Yet you are always trying to bash me and somehow 'elevate' yourself above me (and the rest of this forum) in threads, often that I don't show up in (or rarely make an appearance in). My simple question is......why?

Maybe for just a split second you should stop thinking of yourself as being more 'evolved' (once again, I use that very VERY loosely) or somehow above me and others in this forum? If you don't have anything nice to say, then stop talking about me, I don't talk about you. Sure I might say vegan/ARist nut job but I'm very vague and not making it a personal insult about you. Seems like a familiar tactic doesn't it?

Someone quick (besides TP, because his input on it would be moot) please remind me why he is somehow 'above' me, and other members of this forum? How is he better? Or does everyone else see what I see? Someone with a big head and an even bigger ego.

:edit: Oh also love the rush limbaugh comment too! I'm couldn't be farther to the left of that guy.

[ja_Patriot]

Ian Brody,

Topic: Mother Theresa and her faith in God were fake

Another lengthy post, giving us - nothing! No opinion. No point of view. You're OB, take the penalty and move on. Well, it's a free country, what can I say.

And you really seem to get a hard on with the word "wannabe". Why don't you just flagellate yourself privately, please.


#

[Paul McDaniel]

I must say, ja, perhaps I’ve misjudged you. You have noticed something about my writing that no one has ever before commented on. That is that I never express an opinion—at least I have not in several decades. Since I was, say, about fifteen, I have been mistakenly considered by others to be extremely opinionated. Though I know you prefer to read opinions, I expect I’ll continue to be a disappointment to you—I have none. Oh, and sorry to have referred to you in the third person in my last post. I thought you were an idiot. I stand corrected.

I was also surprised (having thought you were an idiot) that you uncovered the source of my posted material when I thought I had it so cleverly concealed. Yes, you are right, the source of my latest post was the post itself. Good work!

I’m glad you agree that I am not imposing my opinions (had I any) upon this forum. As for being at par with myself, in my own defense, I must say that most who know me seem to consider me precisely at a par with myself. Of course, that might stop if I didn’t buy them lunch anymore.

About Mr. Bible not writing any articles—right again, probably. I’ve never come across any. He was into press releases however, though I never really understood what he was getting at. (Maybe like me, he had no opinions.) Here are several examples:
“Cigarettes were addictive and might have killed more than 100,000 smokers.”
“I was literally walking into a river of alligators, but that’s not always a bad thing.”
“Water turbulence at the primary clarifiers causes odors to rise.”
And my favorite.
“I had him on the ground, kicking him in the head, and was going to get a tire iron to hit him with it when he pulled out his gun.”

Cynical? Cynical? OK, why not. Mother Teresa is, I contend, an example of a lapsed Catholic, but let me say, she is much, much more than that. She is also an example of an astronomical number of things I am equally uninterested in. Paragraphs would be another.

Oh, one more thing. I meant my last comment on that post, not my last post. (You should live so long.)

So, do you have any ideas about another topic we could get together at?

[Asshat]

Mr Ian and Mr Paul, first off you should remember that the average American is not going to read anything involving more than two short paragraphs. Indeed, this is not the format for some formal education process.

As I have painstakenly (admittedly in my cups and without benefit of a Microsoft spell checker) gone through these pages, the overwhelming thoughts which occur to me are that:

1. Faith is not and can not be discussed in absolutes, and
2. Intellectual snobbery is best defined in this format as boorish.

As I am quite sure you both will take umbridge at my comments, allow me to remind you of something you may have heard before about flies and vinegar. Or perhaps horses and water as you may find it more palatable.

Cheers! Mr. Uminchu.

[ja_Patriot]

The topic is about Mother Teresa and her faith.

And here we have another energetic post from the tag team of McD & Brody, the pithy buffoons who come in as usual blowing pompous air from out of their decrepit worn-out crannies.

And, as to be expected, they come in with largely out of topic impertinence and points of view giving the forum’s ongoing discussion absolutely - NOTHING. Zilch. Of zero value.

Apart from some gaudy, public assuagement over each other’s shoulders.

And now, at a loss for words, the duo grasps for the most sophisticated word which comes out of your standard "How to be Buffoons for Idiots" moronic vocabulary – “idiots”, what else.

Well, here’s back at you, homeboys.

As just in case you missed the meaning once again, “crannies” is used in reference to your asses and whatever other hole you may have opposite of it.


#

[kombu_kid]

(Don't tell anybody, but T.P, Ian Brody and Paul McDaniel are all the same person!) Ye Gads! We've been had!!

[Isaak Brodsky]

Uminchu,

You make some excellent points. I think that you are generally right when you say that most Americans tend not to read anymore than a couple of paragraphs in any sitting, at least this seems to be the case for my students. The suggestion that my input, Paul’s, or whomever else weighs in with more developed and precise responses constitutes intellectual snobbery and is, therefore, boorish is not entirely fair. Of course, it is self-evident that forums are not part of some formal education process. Would you not agree, though, that some questions posed on this forum warrant fully developed answers. Ja10…’s suggestion to “push the enter key” illustrates how uninterested he or she is in actual discussion.

Whether you agree or not with the original post – an opinion that deserves discussion – a developed response is sometimes necessary. Confusing the development of an idea with snobbery or missing the opinion voiced when it is plainly in front of you, a tendency that Ja10… lapses into often, is not part of an honest debate.

My suspicion about folks like Ja10… or the Fonze is that they are not genuinely interested in discussion or not developmentally equipped to read and thus understand textual discourse, or not ready to admit privately to their own intellectual vacancy. Even a cursory glance at my own posts throughout this thread will reveal a number of opinions that prompt irrational knee-jerk responses.

The anonymity of contributors to public forums mixed with the subject matter in this case, typically like politics never discussed among friends, will produce the kind of noxious emissions typical of what Ja10… and his cohorts have offered up in this particular thread.

At last, another senseless contradiction appears in Ja10...'s earlier response. We are accused on one hand of being long-winded and other hand pithy.

[Fonze]

Your opinion is one thing but to say you are right is wrong without reading the book before continuing withyour dumbass responses.

My suggestion to you mam is dstart a different thread.

[ja_Patriot]

*

Brody and buddy,

“Long and winded” in your bumbling unreadable posts, and “pithy” as in short in substance. That better for you?

“Knee-jerked response?” Pop your heads out of your little shells and read other sections in this forum and see how the “quick response” option is commonly used.

But, look at yourselves. Are you really teachers?

You’ve got to be better than that. You’re coming across as a pair of overreaching two-bit flunkies. Stop this highfalutin delusion of being highbrowed snobs and intellectual heavyweights.

Work you way back through the thread and see how and where you started this imbroglio.

And seriously, it would be for absolute shame if you applied to your students or whomever you work with the same words that you bloviate with in this forum to people you really don’t know – characterizing other people as idiots, wannabes and other insults.

Let’s stick to ideas and apply the golden rule. You have your style, and thus far in these forums, I’ve treated people with respect.


#

[Paul McDaniel]

A long time ago (and far, far away) when I was just a small boy I had an even smaller sister, not one year old yet, able to waddle around in her big white shiny plastic diaper but not saying anything comprehensible. Her entire vocabulary consisted of throaty goo’s and gaa’s, a sort of gurgle, and a lip-smacking explosive exhale that came out as a Pa! sound, usually in pairs. Her entire contribution to family conversation was goo gaa gurgle Pa! Pa! and it was always welcome.

One evening as we were all parked around the dinner table, Sis strapped down in her high chair, which was itself snap-shackled to the table to prevent accidental fall-back, and enjoying the best meal Mom ever prepared (they were always the best meal she ever prepared) we were treated to a shock that left us, jaws dropped, looking at one another for confirmation.

(Right about here, short attention span Americans might want to take a break, take a nap or snort some Ritalin, and continue later)

The only part of the meal that Sis shared with the rest of us was the mashed potatoes. Though she seemed more intent on sculpting her portion than eating it, by sheer chance, or of its own accord, some of it made it into her mouth, judging from the misses lodged about her face and in her hair. The sculpture seemed to be that of a bear wrestling with another, invisible, bear. (Projecting even at that early age, I wondered if it weren’t wrestling with its conscience.)

Then, she gurgled, we all looked up and gave her our smiling approval, and she said quite unmistakably, “Tax reform for middle-income families goo gaa gurgle Pa! Pa!” then in a single motion swept up most of the hindquarters of her bear with her chubby little hand and deposited it into her chubby little mouth.

We could not believe our ears. The grown-ups began saying incomprehensible things themselves like, “Tax reform for middle-income families, indeed!” And “Who is this child?”

The bears never had a chance.

Years later, while I was off fighting tyranny (my first wife), we all kept in contact by a combination of snail-mail and rumors. Sis it seems had followed her infantile political instincts and, armed with some typing and filing skills, had become a poorly paid office assistant for one sleazy, opportunistic politician (redundancy intentional) after another. Mom said she supplemented her income by “clipping coupons.” I would have liked to see her do better.

Before we all left the nest, I had watched her grow from an overly animated, slippery ball of squealing delight to a serious, intelligent, and soft-spoken young lady. She was also very striking in appearance. Pretty, not beautiful in a Madison Avenue sense, but unique. She had Uncle Bert’s nose, which is to say, a shade too large, but fully compensated for by a dark sort of gothic look that arrested the eye. She could easily have made a better living modeling.

Once, at an all-too-rare family reunion, I suggested this to her as a way to save and get ahead of the livelihood curve. She looked me in the eyes and while maintaining a wry smile, said, “Goo gaa gurgle Pa! Pa!” meaning, as it always had, “You don’t have to worry about me.”

[ja_Patriot]

Sorry, Paul. I respect your thoughts but your post is very difficult to read.

Looks like it's out of topic? But I enjoy stories. Perhaps you can open a new thread.


#

[dk]

Pa~Ra~Graphs...

I'm sorry. I can't get myself to bother reading something that long if the author can't even take the time to properly space it. Just a huge pet peeve. I'm sure it's interesting.

[DougP]

I read it but I want my 2 minutes back. Paragraphs please.

[Paul McDaniel]

Houston, we have paragraphs (I hope).

Off topic? Well, I guess so. I don't think it's possible to understand Mother Teresa without understanding the nature of the two basic forms of faith and it doesn't seem like anybody is open to anything I might have to say about it.
So, I thought I'd write something just for myself.

Now, is this it, or does somebody want to get us back onto the topic, or should I write about my Uncle Bert with the big nose?

[dk]

Much easier on the eyes. Thank you.

[Isaak Brodsky]

TP's thesis that begins the thread is easily supported with references from the MT text, but what does it (TP's contention) really prove? If it's merely to point out that MT was a hypocrite, is this really anything new?

Plenty of people, both the faithful and the faithless, are likely candidates for hypocricy awards.

Likely impossible to know a rough percentage, but I'd wager that 99.234% are hypocrites and in need of some redemption. Some realize this fact about themselves and turn to Gospel truths; others also realize this fact but turn to self help literature.

A tighter thesis, seems to me, might read something like the following:

Even though Mother T's faith in God grew rancid in her later years, her life illustrates the sheer power of the Gospel message to galvanize people into action for the benefit of others.

[ja_Patriot]

Ah, Ian, now we can agree on something.

The Catholic Church is absolutely not infallible and has been at times a hypocrite. The Spanish Inquisition and the condemnation of Copernicus quickly come to mind.

But, Mother Teresa, God bless her soul, is in heaven.


#

[Paul McDaniel]

As a general principle: Unless an individual case of distress, depression, or discouragement is sufficiently unique to be a matter of academic interest, the only reason for examining its particulars is to determine appropriate counseling or therapy. I have no interest the former and Mother Teresa has no need for the latter.

* * *

The discussion of Christian faith as it relates, for example, to Mother Teresa seems to suffer from a lack of closure.

So.

“Faith” as commonly experienced generally takes one of two forms. One is the uncritical acceptance of ideas, beliefs, claims, or assertions without any substantiation, for emotional reasons or out of gullibility. Let’s call this type “fake faith.” The other, “real faith,” is based on understanding, knowledge, and experience.

Fake faith has no firm foundation, is weak and easily corrupted, and can be the source of all sorts of grief, pain, and hardships including abuse by cult figures, violence against unbelievers, and self-destructive behavior. People who mistakenly put their faith in others merely because they are rich, famous, charming, good-looking, smooth-talking, in positions of leadership (religious, political, or otherwise) etc. can easily end up disillusioned, broke, pregnant, sick, injured, or dead.

Anti-religious types describe this as “blind faith” in their criticism of “Don’t question—Don’t try to understand—Just believe” religious fervor. And of many Christians it is indeed a valid criticism, for it is admittedly the true nature of their “faith.” (Unarguable because Christians themselves say it)

Real faith, based on knowledge and experience, while it may be abandoned, it is not so easily corrupted. It is the trust one places in people or principles which have proved reliable and trustworthy and is the sort that is required of Christians.

What follows is for those who, whether or not they believe the Bible, are nevertheless interested in what it has to say.

From this point I will reference relevant Bible scriptures from God’s Word, the Bible (King James Version) with little or no narrative on my part. Understand, it is not my purpose here to promote religion or a particular religion. I merely believe that every self-proclaimed Christian should have more than a passing familiarity with the teachings of Christ, their teacher and of whom they are [supposed to be] disciples. (They would certainly be better equipped to defend their faith and much less aggravating to talk to—1 Peter 3:15; Colossians 4:6; Proverbs 15:28; 1 Peter 2:21)

Mother Teresa was only one of very many people misled by centuries of man-made [Catholic] tradition. Believing that adherence to such long-standing tradition would gain her God’s approval, she failed to sufficiently heed God’s Word (Mark 7:13; Romans 10:2, 3; Hebrews 2:1).

Thinking “belief” alone was enough, she never understood the vital importance of a clear and unmistakable understanding of God’s will. (Matthew 13:19, 23, 51; Romans 10:2, 3; Ephesians 5:17; Philippians 1:9; Acts 17:2; 1 Timothy 2:3, 4)

And she did not know to check her beliefs, i.e. what she had been taught, against the Bible (whereby is determined correct Christian worship—Acts 17:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Was Mother Teresa’s faith fake? Yes, it was based on a mixture of pagan rituals and Christian symbolism that the Catholic Church has used for centuries to convert the susceptible and increase the number of people under its influence.

Did she fake it? No, her steadfastness in what she believed to be God’s will for her amply demonstrated her sincerity.

FAQ’s:
(It is always a failure not to ask, “How do you know? Why should I believe you?”)
Q: How do we know you’re using the Bible? A: Look it up.
Q: How do we know you’re preserving the meaning? A: Read it carefully.
Q: How do we know you’re not taking scriptures out of context? A: Read the context yourself and satisfy yourself that I (or anybody, for that matter) am, or am not.
Q: How do we know to trust the Bible? A: You get to know it. (Takes time and genuine interest)

I have intentionally NOT quoted the referenced scriptures for two reasons:
1—The Bible is not for everyone (Matthew 13:10-15). It is only for those who want to understand it, and, by logical extension, willing to read it.
2—A quotation by itself may not properly be understood. It is always best read from the Book itself.

So, where then (according to the Bible at least) is Mother Teresa? For the answer to that, see my response to ja Patriot below.

Now, ja Patriot, what is this about Mother Teresa being in heaven?
Are you saying that she is actually in heaven or are you merely expressing sympathy for an emotionally comforting idea? Do you take this good-people-go-to-heaven for a generally agreed upon Christian concept? If so, you are Quite Correct. It is indeed based upon the “life-after-death” beliefs held by Christians, most of whom are as abysmally ignorant of their religion as they are of their own Holy Scriptures, which, if they read them at all, read selectively so to avoid anything that might cause them discomfort.

Now, see what you made me do? Now were going to have to look at several such scriptures and see how they make us feel—if you’re up for it:

When a person dies, whether they were wise (righteous) or foolish (unrighteous), they share the same fate as animals that have died. (Ecclesiastes 2:16; Psalm 49:12; Ecclesiastes 3:19-21—Notice the question at 3:21 is answered by 3: 19, 20) They return to the dust (Genesis 3:19; Psalms 104:29) which is to say, the grave, to be forgotten (Psalms 6:5) and are no longer conscious of anything at all, their love, hate, envy, knowledge, and wisdom having died with them (Psalms 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10). Though her spirit has returned to God (Ecclesiastes 12:7) Mother Teresa remains in her grave, no thoughts, no emotions, dust only.

Question: So where did the idea that people don’t actually die, but somehow live on, come from anyway? (Try Genesis 3:4)

Note: As you formulate your responses, consider this—there is very little I haven’t heard before or for which I don’t already have the answer. So, give it your Best Shot.

And you all have a Happy Th . . . Th . . . Th . . . Thursday.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Has anyone read Christopher Hitchens article Mommie Dearest: The pope beatifies Mother Teresa, a fanatic, a fundamentalist, and a fraud (http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/)? He also has a book along the same lines called The Missionary Position.

[TheNoNamedOne]

No, I haven't read that or the other one. Looks quite interesting, though.

Mother Theresa being a fraud is a comment on her own self, however, when The Church beatifies a known fraud, it not only makes a comment on its own self -- but also on the numbers of those who continue to give the church its power and influence through their donations to it.

[TheNoNamedOne]

But, Mother Teresa, God bless her soul, is in heaven.

Really? What makes you think she is in heaven when the end times and the rapture have not occurred yet? Has the seal on the Book of Daniel been lifted? Has the Book of Names been opened?

Doesn't the Bible teach that the dead are waiting for Jesus to come and when he does rise them?

Ja, perhaps you can show us in the Bible where when we die, if we have been chosen for going to heaven, we go there before the End Times.

And if Mother Theresa does not believe in Jesus as the Son of God, then how could a Christian say she could ever get into heaven? Or are you speaking of Neo-Christians perhaps? Or can you get into heaven through good works only without belief in Jesus as the Son of God? If the latter, than Jesus is wholley unecessary and therefore so is Christianity.

[ja_Patriot]

Paul,

It would be reasonable to conclude from your posts and quotes of passages from the scriptures that both Ian and yourself are Christian missionaries and biblical scholars.

Ergo, you're here in Okinawa primarily to proselytize, propagate your faith, and conduct yourselves accordingly as experts and men of faith.

Justifiable to assume that you have delved for many years in the tenets and dogmas of your faith deep enough to address with confidence any question as to its foundation, substance, and veracity.

And it also comes in rather obviously that neither Ian or yourself are from the Roman Catholic Church, as revealed with the unequivocal and self-assured statement that “…Was Mother Teresa’s faith fake? Yes, it was based on a mixture of pagan rituals and Christian symbolism that the Catholic Church has used for centuries to convert the susceptible and increase the number of people under its influence….”

Perhaps you should further elaborate on which brand of Christianity your sect may be classified into so the rest of us can determine whether you are spending your valuable time promoting what others may consider as a load of absurdities and of falsehoods and quasi-paganism practices.

Further, armed with plums of colorful prose and directly extracted verbatim tailored from the f.a.q.'s of your handbook, and assigned to a relatively peaceful and passive environment, you take liberties with and the luxury to expound on the distinction between “fake” faith, “blind” faith and “true” faith.

Perhaps your church should send you to Central African Rwanda or Zaire or to a really choice spot like Haiti or Sierra Leone.

In the eye of a hurricane, or in the face of the machetes of genocide and savageness of plunder and rape, you can then experience first hand which definition of “faith” is real and which is a primal and grievous cry of belief in God in a time of real danger and need.

Notwithstanding my conviction that the Catholic Church of which I was baptized as a member, is far from being infallible, and was and is largely a political creation, my statement that Mother Teresa is in heaven will only be understood by individuals who have a belief that such is possible.

So my best shot, as you call it, would be to challenge you to demand your relocation to a far more challenging and perilous environment, and then preach from that bully pulpit.

Email back to this forum about your versions of “faith” and how they may be applied when blood, sweats and tears are God-forsaken and real. Or as you state, in times of extreme distress, depression, or discouragement

Not sure if I addressed all the points in your post but, Thhhanksgiving or Thhhrusday? Well, it’s Friday, so do have a nice weekend.

[ja_Patriot]

Really? What makes you think she is in heaven when the end times and the rapture have not occurred yet? Has the seal on the Book of Daniel been lifted? Has the Book of Names been opened?

Doesn't the Bible teach that the dead are waiting for Jesus to come and when he does rise them?

Ja, perhaps you can show us in the Bible where when we die, if we have been chosen for going to heaven, we go there before the End Times.

And if Mother Theresa does not believe in Jesus as the Son of God, then how could a Christian say she could ever get into heaven? Or are you speaking of Neo-Christians perhaps? Or can you get into heaven through good works only without belief in Jesus as the Son of God? If the latter, than Jesus is wholley unecessary and therefore so is Christianity.


Even if Herr Pope with the $thousand Prada red loafers and Segrengeti sunglasses, replies to your post he'll have a snowball's chance in hell to convince you that there is a heaven.

It's not on his account either or based on the credibility of a church that I believe that there is an afterlife, which in a primitive fashion for want of a better world, is called heaven.

There is an Omnipotent Master of Matter and Energy who, for want of a better word is called God.

And I will have no quarrel with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and Mother Teresa as his faithful servant.

The Bible is a sacred book for many, although written by fallible men with limited and primitive resources and points of reference.

Many believe the Bible to be historically true. But these were the same people who once thought that if you traveled too far on sea, you'd fall off the edge of the earth.

Always need to keep a pinch of salt in your pocket.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Perhaps now is a fine time to quote from Thomas Jefferson.

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Even if Herr Pope with the Prada red loafers and Segrengeti sunglasses, replies to your post he'll have a snowball's chance in hell to convince you that there is a heaven.

Certainly so if their argument boils down to pleading, declarations, or circular reasoning.

There is an Omnipotent Master of Matter and Energy who, for want of a better word is called God.

If you can accept God to be synominous to math and impersonal, which numbers are, then I can accept there is a master (i.e. math). However, I see nothing to make one accept a personal God of sentience or one that declares its love for humanity in a fatherly figure.

And I will have no quarrel with Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and Mother Teresa as his faithful servant.

Mother Theresa seems to have a quarrel -- or at least a disbelief in God. Strange you keep wanting to group her together with entities she has no faith in.

The Bible is a sacred book for many, although written by fallible men with limited and primitive resources and points of reference.

Many believe the Bible to be historically true. But these were the same people who once thought that if you traveled too far on sea, you'd fall off the edge of the earth.

Good point! It is quite easy to believe that ignorant people would write a book of falsehoods. It almost makes one feel sorry for blaming them -- if it weren't for their refining the art of fraud to deceive the masses in a systematic way throuh high dogma.

Always need to keep a pinch of salt in your pocket.

Agreed. Mother Theresa seems to have salted the fairy dust away.

[ja_Patriot]

God can be anything.

To you, being fairly endowed with worldly possessions, the wherewithal to argue and rationalize about God being a super trigonometric or cosine formula is something taken for granted as a right.

For many other people much less endowed, the belief is God may be all that they can hope for, therein we find all those "irrational" sentiments attached, including "fatherly love".

Still that deep desire to caste the first stone at Mother Teresa, eh, TP?

In as much as you can't lick your own elbow (which is a certainty), her legacy and kindness toward the detritus of mankind will be enshrined in perpetuity. And not only in Peter's Church.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Still that deep desire to caste the first stone at Mother Teresa, eh, TP?


I take it that "caste the first stone" is figurative speech for "throwing an insult" her way, right?

How have I insulted her? I have merely been pointing out what she herself has written about herself.

[ja_Patriot]

"....Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” The people crowded around him were so touched by their own consciences that they departed. When Jesus found himself alone with the woman, he asked her who were her accusers. She replied, “No man, lord.” Jesus then said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more...”

From the Gospel of St. John

[TheNoNamedOne]

"....Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” The people crowded around him were so touched by their own consciences that they departed. When Jesus found himself alone with the woman, he asked her who were her accusers. She replied, “No man, lord.” Jesus then said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more...”

From the Gospel of St. John

Yes, nice story. It is well known. I guess you are trying to relate it to your phrase "caste stones" in which you directed at me above and then I quoted noting your figurative use of it. The association here with this verse, however, Ja, does not fit.

First off, I have not cast any stones at Mother Theresa. She has declared herself what I have merely been pointing out. By using this passage, are you saying Mother Theresa is throwing stones at herself? In that case I guess she is without sin.

Your interjection of this verse does nothing to refute anything about Mother Theresa, shore her up, or refute anything about what I have said highlighting Mother Theresa's own thoughts.

Interestng, though, Jesus tells us that not one line of The Law were to fall before the end of Heaven and Earth (there we learn that Heaven will eventually fall), and yet he knew this lady had sinned but did not fulfill the law and stone her himself. Perhaps he could not because he, too, were not without sin.

[ja_Patriot]

The "story" is called a parable and it was extracted and narrated for your benefit. That is where the phrase "caste the first stone" comes into usage.

You keep accusing the dead and defenseless who did nothing but good, like you're the ultimate do-gooder? That is where casting the first stone comes into usage in this discussion.

And Jesus Christ? Let me put it in words you'd understand. Christ teaches against killing or hurting a human being, just as you would in a twisted way defend "animals" above humans. That is why he wouldn't "...stone her himself..." And not because ..."..perhaps he could not because he, too, were not without sin..."

Come up with some valid points that make sense, would you please?

[Paul McDaniel]

Sigh! . . I guess I should have gone with Uncle Bert (with the big nose).

Ja, ja, ja. Certainly nobody could ever accuse you of being cold-hearted and insensitive. Won’t you even consider the merits of setting aside emotion and participating in this forum in a calm, dispassionate, and rational manner? Must you take every statement as a personal attack? At least you’re becoming wordy. Now what say we shoot for logical?

Now, as for my being a bible scholar, expert, or a missionary bent on enlisting converts, not so. At most, I would need only the one convert and he would have to be willing to paint my house. So, I won’t be leaving for Africa any time soon. Motobu, perhaps.

No, I am as I have already said: a fairly literate person who gets into conversations such as this but wishes that those who do propound Christian faith would have a better familiarity with the Bible, which I believe—though many do disagree—defines that faith and is the only “brand” of Christianity I concern myself with.

You must have noticed that, apart from what you consider my indictment of the Catholic Church and my parsing of types of faith (Quite evident to the careful observer. The labeling is mine, of course, for the purpose of drawing the distinction.) I merely referenced the Bible and do understand that many consider that book to be a volume of absurdities and falsehoods. (Though I’ve never considered the truth to be subject to a vote.) And I did preface with the heads-up that it was only for those interested it what it has to say.

Now, about what you consider my indictment of the Catholic Church: The practice of incorporating pagan practices and the sanctifying of same in order to ease the conversion to Catholicism is a long-standing Catholic tradition and is credited (by your church) with the saving of countless souls and is nothing for which a Catholic, ja, you nincompoop, should be defensive about.

A word regarding my sources: A major one is my study (of religion, among other things) at a Jesuit University. If there is anyone more Catholic than a Jesuit priest/professor, I sure wouldn’t want to meet him in [the proverbial] dark alley. (If it happens, I’ll give him your number.) As for my FAQ’s being extracted from my cult’s handbook, I thank you for the unintentional compliment. However, there is no cult and no handbook. I do my own writing. When I reference another source verbatim, though I rarely do, I give credit.

As for Mother Teresa receiving a sure reward for her works of faith—remain calm now, take a deep breath—let me say, that In My Opinion, for the record, you are confusing faith with sincerity. As the Forum Moderator has stated, if good works (blood, sweat, and tears notwithstanding) were sufficient, Christianity would be unnecessary. Let me add to that, Mariolatry, the Catholic Church, and the Bible itself.

As for your Best Shot. I was kidding. There is no Best Shot. It was a trick “question.” My post is patently unassailable by any reasonable argument and you have given me no reason to change it, including the ‘my having heard it all’ part. Your Best Shot, ja, is nothing more than the typical emotional reaction and personal attack resorted to by those who cannot defend their position on its merits. I get that a lot. Please try harder. I know you can do it.

Lastly, there’s your stealing my stuttering Thursday-Thanksgiving joke. Come on, ja, I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but at least, make up your own.

Anyway, as long we’re still friends.

FYI: I’ve posted on three additional forums:
News and Politics/Patriotism. . . Scoundrels,
Rants and Raves/Something about falling Standards, and
Rights Issues/Pets . . . Slaves?

I will check in when I can and hope to see you there, but I will be rather preoccupied for a while.

[ja_Patriot]

Now, about what you consider my indictment of the Catholic Church: The practice of incorporating pagan practices and the sanctifying of same in order to ease the conversion to Catholicism is a long-standing Catholic tradition and is credited (by your church) with the saving of countless souls and is nothing for which a Catholic, ja, you nincompoop, should be defensive about.


There is word in your post which is not acceptable, and I will not get into a name calling quagmire with you. So first let's get this settled with a moderator and edit out that word.

TP / DOCP / DK, I'd appreciate if you could look into the word highlighted and take necessary action.

[ja_Patriot]

Mother Teresa is in heaven. No small words.

No offense to you, but I’m more of the action-today and cut-to-the-chase type, with firm convictions, and decidedly opinionated.

Not willing to engage in a tete-a-tete ad nausea and really have little regard for long, winded writing styles that amount to nothing: - no character, no form, no logic, no syntax, no discourse, no objective, no practicality, no road to happiness, not a chance of making a different, all negative, and not a prayer of making a single penny for any cause, altruistic or otherwise.

This is an internet forum; some, tempted to emulate JJ think anything written with the same drag and length as Ulysses provokes awe. There is talent needed to go with these things though – and the absence of it can wreck havoc to the beauty of prose.

Even wind up in apathy and abhorrence.

In rereading your pieces, particularly that melancholy post from last month, so awkward and quite frankly off-topic, about a drama on survival hitting home, your sibling’s gibberish and such providing you and only you with some tangled chards of lessons in life, I’ve decided: Never mind.

“…You have noticed something about my writing that no one has ever before commented on. That is that I never express an opinion—at least I have not in several decades…“- by Paul McDaniel, Oct. 2007

That’s you as self-depicted in another post. No argument from me.

Try the self-described free thinkers, TP or Ian Brody. You seem to have a lot in common. It will be a sausage fest and a bar-b on the left side of town, but you’ll have to take what you can in idle hogwash time.

Or you can do as I’ll do: pick my spots in lighter banter. Too busy for pretensions trying to disguise free thinking baloney as issues of legitimate debate and the real world variety. Best enjoyed that way, this forum.

I’m sure you are learned, being trained by the Jesuits has some merits; so go on, live your life and try to be successful. Off you go. Be safe.

Mother Teresa is praying for you. ;-)

[TheNoNamedOne]

Mother Teresa is praying for you. ;-)

No, she isn't. She isn't doing anything. She is just....gone.

[ja_Patriot]

Even for you too. The debate is over. Try Paul or Ian. ;-)

[ja_Patriot]

BTW, are you showing your bias once again? The use of the word "nincompoop" seems to be OK if used by other posters? I refer to posts no. 121 & 122.

Would you like me to create another thread to point this out?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

There is word in your post which is not acceptable, and I will not get into a name calling quagmire with you. So first let's get this settled with a moderator and edit out that word.

TP / DOCP / DK, I'd appreciate if you could look into the word highlighted and take necessary action.
Geez, I thought you'd enjoy the biblical association of the word. Truly clever of ol' Pmac to use it in the context he did.:thumbup: Impressive:star:

Read and learn, ja. You have been pwned!

A more intriguing idea, one with a fair level of acceptance that is given with some caution in the current revision of the OED, links it with the given name Nicodemus, especially the Pharisee of that name who questioned Christ so naively in the Gospel of St John. This word still exists in French as nicodème, a simpleton.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-nin2.htm

[TheNoNamedOne]

BTW, are you showing your bias once again? The use of the word "nincompoop" seems to be OK if used by other posters? I refer to posts no. 121 & 122.

Would you like me to create another thread to point this out?

Feel free to do so. Actually, just to let you know since you are not in on back-room discussions here -- I agree with you. This point of yours has already been discussed once and I am lawyering for your whining on the point again. You just can't see it.

So, you should try and hold off on accusing people of bias when that has never happened on my part in moderating here -- despite how much some in the gang have whined contrary to that.

So, yes. Go create your thread or report the problem for further discussion. Don't bring it up here again -- TP, moderator

[ja_Patriot]

Was there another post? My ignore list of nuisance posters just lit up.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Another of life's little lessons slips on by...

[TheNoNamedOne]

Was there another post? My ignore list of nuisance posters just lit up.

When you have someone on ignore, you can see when they post, so the question is irrelevant to ask except to antagonize. If you want to address them directly, take them off ignore and do so. You do not need to ask about people you have on ignore about them posting, because you already know they have posted. You can see it.

Let's everyone get back on topic to Mother Theresa.

[ja_Patriot]

Feel free to do so. Actually, just to let you know since you are not in on back-room discussions here -- I agree with you. This point of yours has already been discussed once and I am lawyering for your whining on the point again. You just can't see it.

So, you should try and hold off on accusing people of bias when that has never happened on my part in moderating here -- despite how much some in the gang have whined contrary to that.

So, yes. Go create your thread or report the problem for further discussion. Don't bring it up here again -- TP, moderator


No whining here. If you don't issue a warning, then the use of that word is acceptable. That's all I want to know.

[ja_Patriot]

When you have someone on ignore, you can see when they post, so the question is irrelevant to ask except to antagonize. If you want to address them directly, take them off ignore and do so. You do not need to ask about people you have on ignore about them posting, because you already know they have posted. You can see it.

Let's everyone get back on topic to Mother Theresa.


You allow the nuisance poster to post undeterred and take action selectively. You are biased, no question about it.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Get back on topic...OK. How about this 1962 statement by Mother Teresa to her confessor: “If I ever become a Saint -- I will surely be one of ‘darkness’.”

http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/mother-teresa-false-hope.html

Take a moment and read the article. Your serve...

[TheNoNamedOne]

You allow the nuisance poster to post undeterred and take action selectively. You are biased, no question about it.

What are you talking about? E posted to you about the word's origin; the word that you are now peeved at, and which I think you had first used to me a long time ago before anyone else. Above, I said "Let's everyone" and that included E, too. But I was directly replying to your accusations of bias.

The moderating team knows I have moderated those who are viewed by others as being "with me" -- whatever that means. I have moderated them, too, Ja... And to be truthful, I really have not done any hardcore moderating of you here in these last few posts. Now, once again, let's everyone get back on topic, and the next time you carp on the bias point again in this thread or repeat it here after I have asked you to get back on topic or to take it to PM to dk or make a report, you will be moderated.

Do what I am asking everyone to do now. Let's everyone get back on topic. If a post has been made during the time I am writing this up, then that will be a freebie, but anything after this will not be so. Thank you.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

That was a bit of a smash serve - an "ace" in tennis parlance. So, I guess I get another...from the same article:
At the suggestion of one confessor she wrote the following to Jesus: “I call, I cling, I want -- and there is no One to answer -- no One on Whom I can cling -- no, No One. -- Alone ... Where is my Faith -- even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness. ... When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven -- there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. -- I am told God loves me -- and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.”
Her private statements about her faith and relationship with Christ continued in this vein until her death.

30-love :)

[Tony Stacks]

Not everything is as pure as it seems. Look at Ghandi he was a racist who openly hated Africans.

That's bullshit! Ghandi faced the same discrimination as the Blacks in South Africa. He was a good man that fought for the rights of all groups.

[Asshat]

That was a bit of a smash serve - an "ace" in tennis parlance.

eele do you feel like you're having a conversation with yourself? :) I enjoyed your last few posts. I don't have a real opinion on Mother Theresa, but I am not a Christian or a person who believes in all that magic stuff.

I do think good things happen to good people who deserve them.

[Asshat]

That's bullshit! Ghandi faced the same discrimination as the Blacks in South Africa. He was a good man that fought for the rights of all groups.

Okay Tony and Doug, which one of you is right?

[ja_Patriot]

That was a bit of a smash serve - an "ace" in tennis parlance. So, I guess I get another...from the same article:
At the suggestion of one confessor she wrote the following to Jesus: “I call, I cling, I want -- and there is no One to answer -- no One on Whom I can cling -- no, No One. -- Alone ... Where is my Faith -- even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness. ... When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven -- there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. -- I am told God loves me -- and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.”


30-love :)


Back on track.

Aces. In financial parlance: Right on the money. Mother Teresa in spirit does pray. Even for the jobless, you nincompoop (as described with Biblical origins).

“I call, I cling, I want -- and there is no One to answer -- no One on Whom I can cling -- no, No One. -- Alone ... Where is my Faith -- even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness & darkness. ... When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven -- there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. -- I am told God loves me -- and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul.”

Looks like a good prayer. Use it and maybe one day you'll even get a job. You are pwn3d!

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Back on track.

Aces. In financial parlance: Right on the money. Mother Teresa in spirit does pray. Even for the jobless, you nincompoop (as described with Biblical origins).

Talk dirty to me in French, ja<3 You know how I like it...nicodème.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

eele do you feel like you're having a conversation with yourself? :) I enjoyed your last few posts.
Thanks :cool:

Like Axl said..."talkin' to myself, but there's nobody home. Alone!"

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Yo Ja_P! This bit by Richard Dawkins remind you of anybody?
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.

[DoctorP]

There is word in your post which is not acceptable, and I will not get into a name calling quagmire with you. So first let's get this settled with a moderator and edit out that word.

TP / DOCP / DK, I'd appreciate if you could look into the word highlighted and take necessary action.



I am not going to take action for the use of the word nincompoop...do you really see this as a problem? I do not. There are many worse words in the English language that could have been used.

Have a nice day!

[ja_Patriot]

Talk dirty to me in French, ja<3 You know how I like it...nicodème.


Eh bien, alors. Plus de la merde entre nous deux, d'accord?

[ja_Patriot]

I am not going to take action for the use of the word nincompoop...do you really see this as a problem? I do not. There are many worse words in the English language that could have been used.

Have a nice day!



Thanks for stepping in. Sensible decision.

I received a "warning" from your colleague for the following statement in a discussion with another poster, you see:

"...You’re not going to ask around. And you know why? Because you’d be even a bigger fool than you think of yourself as one..."

You can find this statement in post no. 201 in the thread "Do you support attacking Iran?"

When it concerns me & others who've had heated discussions with TP as a poster, I'd really appreciate if you or dk could step in as he does have his tendencies to be passionate and one-sided.

I will do my part to keep things clean and civil.

Thanks.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Talk dirty to me in French, ja<3 You know how I like it...nicodème.

Eh bien, alors. Plus de la merde entre nous deux, d'accord?
Il faut tourner sept fois sa langue dans sa bouche avant de parler.

[ja_Patriot]

Il faut tourner sept fois sa langue dans sa bouche avant de parler.


Je ne comprends pas. Je vous est dite "(Il n'y aura) plus de merde entre nous". Vous etes d'accord, oui?

[TheNoNamedOne]

I am going to have to ask you guys that if you want to carry on a conversation in a language other than what the OP was written in, to please create a specific thread for that and continue it there. Of course a sentence or two here or there embedded in a post mostly written in English is no problem, but lone posts of chats in a non English language going back and forth in the midst of a thread topic in English breaks the discussion.

Also, since this is a Japanese/Okinawan based site, in all probability a little more leeway would be given to Japanese, but for other languages, just go ahead and create a whole thread if some want to communicate in that language. A word or two in a foreign language, however, is no problem. But don't chat in it.

No biggy. Just keep it in mind from now.

Thanks for honoring this request.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

No worries TP.

Eh bien, alors. Plus de la merde entre nous deux, d'accord? is roughly: "Well then. More shit between the two of us, huh?"

My reply
Il faut tourner sept fois sa langue dans sa bouche avant de parler.meant something like "You outta think long and hard before yapping"

He said " Je ne comprends pas. Je vous est dite "(Il n'y aura) plus de merde entre nous". Vous etes d'accord, oui?":
"I don't understand. I said there'll be more shit between us; you agree - yes?"Nothing to see here...move on.

[TheNoNamedOne]

This bit by Richard Dawkins remind you of anybody?

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

It reminds me of many, but I will apply it to Mother Teresa. Her faith seems to have been shattered because indeed, she saw, grasped, and understood the implications of "lack of evidence."

Her dispair was symptomatic of that. What a brave person to have written all her thoughts down and confessed them for our benefit into the insight of a person who knowingly put on a show for the outside world with her public image.

That'll do, little nun. That'll do. (http://www.nsstudio.co.uk/babe.jpg)

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

That'll do, little nun. That'll do. (http://www.nsstudio.co.uk/babe.jpg)
You don't really believe pigs can talk, do you Teep?

[TheNoNamedOne]

You don't really believe pigs can talk, do you Teep?

Nunsense!!

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Nunsense!!
Don't listen to me...just being a nincompoop:D

[Isaak Brodsky]

Yes, in all probability Jesus was a fake and did not exist.



Sorry for the long response here.

Sorry, too, but I can’t help but take issue with the observation quoted above. Among the many other extra-biblical sources available, six ancient sources appear below with quotes that testify to the existence of Christ.

No one argues that Alexander the Great or Attila the Hun never existed, yet the independent sources that confirm their appearance on earth can’t even come close to the number who have either witnessed or received firsthand accounts of Christ’s appearance and works.

Suggesting that Jesus Christ never existed seems a bit naïve to me.

CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from
26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." (Annals XV, 44)

GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS (69 - 130 A.D.) was a prominent Roman historian who recorded the lives of the Roman Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns. He served as a court official under Hadrian and as an annalist for the Imperial House. Suetonius records the expulsion of the Christian Jews from Rome (mentioned in Acts 18:2) and confirms the Christian faith being founded by Christ.

"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." (Life of Claudius 25.4)

CELSUS (~ 178 A.D.) Celsus was a second century Roman author and avid opponent of Christianity. He went to great lengths to disprove the divinity of Jesus yet never denied His actual existence. Unfortunately for Celsus, he sets himself up for criticism by mimicking the exact accusations brought against Jesus by the Pharisees. There are two very important facts regarding Celsus which make him one of the most important witnesses in this discussion: Though most secular passages are accused of being Christian interpolations, we can accept with certainty this is not the case with Celsus! The sheer volume of his writings, constructed as a polemic against Christianity, coupled with the very hostile accusations presented in his work, dismisses this chance immediately.

The idea of Celsus getting his information entirely from Christian sources (another recurring accusation against secular evidence) is wholly absurd. Though he is obviously aware of his opponents' beliefs (as anyone who is engaging in a debate should be), Celsus wrote his exposition in the form of a dialogue between a "Jewish Critic" and himself. This gives us cause to believe he used non-Christian (plausibly,
Jewish) sources.

LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (120 - ~180 A.D.) was a second century Greek satirist and rhetorician who scornfully describes his views of early Christianity. Though he ridicules the Christians and their Christ, his writings confirm Jesus was executed via crucifixion and that He was the founder of Christianity.

"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... It was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers from the moment they are converted and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws..." (The Death of Peregrinus 11-13)

FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS (37 - 100 A.D.) was a first century Pharisee and historian of both priestly and royal ancestry who provided important insight into first-century Judaism. Josephus was born only three years after the crucifixion of Jesus, making him a credible witness to both the historicity of Jesus and the onset of Christianity.

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him. For he appeared to them alive again the third day. As the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribes of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day." (Antiquities XVIII, 3:2)


THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD The Babylonian Talmud is an ancient record of Jewish history, laws, and rabbinic teachings compiled throughout the centuries. Though it does not accept the divinity of Jesus, it confirms the belief He was hanged (an idiom for crucifixion) on the eve of the Passover.

"On the eve of the Passover Yeshua (Jesus) [Some texts: Yeshua/Jesus the Nazarene] was hanged [crucified]. Forty days before the execution, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ian, from now on, when quoting another source, please use the quote formatting feature. I went and quoted it this time for you. Also, could you provide a source link to your info? Thanks.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Ian, if you do not mind, I am going to create a whole new thread for the discussion of Jesus's existence. The topic is so distinct from Mother Teresa that if we were to begin discussing it here past what we have both already posted, the whole thread will derail.

[Isaak Brodsky]

yeah, sorry 'bout that.

[ja_Patriot]

No worries TP.

is roughly: "Well then. More shit between the two of us, huh?"

My reply
meant something like "You outta think long and hard before yapping"

He said " Je ne comprends pas. Je vous est dite "(Il n'y aura) plus de merde entre nous". Vous etes d'accord, oui?":
Nothing to see here...move on.


Eelecurb,

"Plus de merde entre nous" means "Il n'y aura plus de merde entre nous". The "il n'y aura" is usually understood in colloquial French.

The orig. message was "OK then, no more shit between us, right?" The second msg included, "I don't understand..." then a repeat of the orig post etc..)

Your French isn't as good as you think.

Anyway, moving along....

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I learned a bit in JHS and HS, but it was pretty much like Japanese students learning English. It was all textbook and tests and little to no communication. And, that was like 20 years ago. As you can clearly see, I'm a bit of a hack when it comes to French. :)

[TheNoNamedOne]

Here is the president of American Atheists speaking on Mother Teresa's confessions in her letters about her loss of faith:

YouTube - American Atheists Update 10-02-2007

[Cathleen_38]

the question should be how strong is your faith in Jesus Christ, the Savior.
if You have a strong faith in God that's all that should matter. If Mother Theresa didn't then, Mother Theresa has to deal with herself. Don't let this affect your faith in him. You have take it upon yourselves to look into your own souls and find the truth of what is and what isn't. As the bible says you have to separate yourselves from the world. in this case, that applies. you the believers will suffer because of me (Jesus Christ) You must have a strong faith from within. We are constantly being tested daily, the devil will try anything to break your faith in God and once he has you, you can't break free from his grip on you, I'm here to tell you, you can beat the devil with faith in your heart, all of your heart. there's nothing that can defeat you. you know why? Vengeance is mine sayeth the lord, The Lord will unleash his wrath on the devil! and he will. Why? because of your strong faith it will happen. now, you see? I have the Big Man on my side all the time. And I do believe in him. Good things happen for a reason.

[Cathleen_38]

the atheists don't believe in God. so why listen to something that has fruitless substance? would you bite into a tree that bears no fruit? Or would you bite into tree that bears apples, peaches and pears? God is the apple, peach and pear tree. I'd rather taste sweetness than tree bark anyday of the week.