Religions > Atheism > __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"_ Prof. Jonez _" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2007 05:53:59 PM |
| Object: |
__ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
Mother Teresa doubted God's existence
Agence France-Presse
Last updated 08:56am (Mla time) 08/26/2007
NEW YORK -- Mother Teresa, who is one step short of being made a Catholic saint,
suffered crises of faith for most of her life and even doubted God's existence,
according to a set of newly published letters.
"Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness
is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear," the missionary
wrote to one confidant, Reverend Michael Van Der Peet, in 1979.
The letters, some of which she wanted destroyed, appear in "Mother Teresa: Come
Be My Light," due to be published next week, 10 years after her death. Extracts
of the book appear in the latest edition of Time magazine.
In more than 40 letters spanning some 66 years, the ethnic Albanian nun who
devoted her life to working with the poor in the slums of Kolkata in India,
writes of the "darkness," "loneliness" and "torture" she is undergoing.
"Where is my Faith -- even deep down right in there is nothing, but emptiness
and darkness -- My God -- how painful is this unknown pain -- I have no Faith,"
she wrote in an undated letter addressed to Jesus.
"If there be God -- please forgive me -- When I try to raise my thoughts to
Heaven -- there is such convicting emptiness."
"I call, I cling, I want -- and there is no One to answer -- no One on Whom I
can cling -- no, No One. -- Alone."
In her early life, Mother Teresa, also known as "The Saint of the Gutters," had
visions. In one, she talked to a crucified Jesus on the cross.
But the letters reveal that apart from a brief respite in 1959, she spent most
of the last 50 years of her life doubting God's presence -- much at odds with
her public face.
"The smile," she wrote in one letter, is "a mask."
In another letter, written in 1959, she wrote: "If there be no God -- there can
be no soul -- if there is no Soul then Jesus -- You also are not true."
The book's compiler and editor Reverend Brian Kolodiejchuk is a member of Mother
Teresa's Missionaries of Charity and was responsible for petitioning for her
sainthood. She was beatified -- one step short of sainthood -- in 2003.
"I've never read a saint's life where the saint has such an intense spiritual
darkness. No one knew she was that tormented," Kolodiejchuk told Time magazine.
"I read one letter to the sisters [of Teresa's Missionaries of Charity], and
their mouths just dropped open. It will give a whole new dimension to the way
people understand her," he added.
Cardinal Angelo Scola, the patriarch of Venice, said Saturday that the letters
showed Teresa was "one of us, that she did all her work as we do, no more no
less."
Even in the depths of doubt, Mother Teresa "always had recourse to the most
elementary form of the exercise of one's will, that of asking Jesus each day to
reveal his face," said Scola, who had already written about the letters in the
Vatican publication Osservatore Romano, quoted by the ANSA news agency.
Mother Teresa was beatified just six years after her death, when late pope John
Paul II set on her a fast track to sainthood. It was something the nun seemed to
have predicted as early as 1962, when she wrote in one letter:
"If I ever become a Saint -- I will surely be one of 'darkness.' I will
continually be absent from Heaven."
.
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
26 Aug 2007 06:13:00 PM |
|
|
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:5jeei3F3qms2cU1@mid.individual.net...
Mother Teresa doubted God's existence
Agence France-Presse
Last updated 08:56am (Mla time) 08/26/2007
NEW YORK -- Mother Teresa, who is one step short of being made a Catholic
saint, suffered crises of faith for most of her life and even doubted
God's existence, according to a set of newly published letters.
"Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the
emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear,"
the missionary wrote to one confidant, Reverend Michael Van Der Peet, in
1979.
The letters, some of which she wanted destroyed, appear in "Mother Teresa:
Come Be My Light," due to be published next week, 10 years after her
death. Extracts of the book appear in the latest edition of Time magazine.
In more than 40 letters spanning some 66 years, the ethnic Albanian nun
who devoted her life to working with the poor in the slums of Kolkata in
India, writes of the "darkness," "loneliness" and "torture" she is
undergoing.
"Where is my Faith -- even deep down right in there is nothing, but
emptiness and darkness -- My God -- how painful is this unknown pain -- I
have no Faith," she wrote in an undated letter addressed to Jesus.
"If there be God -- please forgive me -- When I try to raise my thoughts
to Heaven -- there is such convicting emptiness."
"I call, I cling, I want -- and there is no One to answer -- no One on
Whom I can cling -- no, No One. -- Alone."
In her early life, Mother Teresa, also known as "The Saint of the
Gutters," had visions. In one, she talked to a crucified Jesus on the
cross.
But the letters reveal that apart from a brief respite in 1959, she spent
most of the last 50 years of her life doubting God's presence -- much at
odds with her public face.
"The smile," she wrote in one letter, is "a mask."
In another letter, written in 1959, she wrote: "If there be no God --
there can be no soul -- if there is no Soul then Jesus -- You also are not
true."
The book's compiler and editor Reverend Brian Kolodiejchuk is a member of
Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity and was responsible for
petitioning for her sainthood. She was beatified -- one step short of
sainthood -- in 2003.
"I've never read a saint's life where the saint has such an intense
spiritual darkness. No one knew she was that tormented," Kolodiejchuk told
Time magazine.
"I read one letter to the sisters [of Teresa's Missionaries of Charity],
and their mouths just dropped open. It will give a whole new dimension to
the way people understand her," he added.
Cardinal Angelo Scola, the patriarch of Venice, said Saturday that the
letters showed Teresa was "one of us, that she did all her work as we do,
no more no less."
Even in the depths of doubt, Mother Teresa "always had recourse to the
most elementary form of the exercise of one's will, that of asking Jesus
each day to reveal his face," said Scola, who had already written about
the letters in the Vatican publication Osservatore Romano, quoted by the
ANSA news agency.
Mother Teresa was beatified just six years after her death, when late pope
John Paul II set on her a fast track to sainthood. It was something the
nun seemed to have predicted as early as 1962, when she wrote in one
letter:
"If I ever become a Saint -- I will surely be one of 'darkness.' I will
continually be absent from Heaven."
I, for one, respect the candor with which she expressed her lack of faith.
By the same token, however, I'm dismayed by the fact that she wanted some of
the proof of her doubts destroyed. Not quite the 'saintly' thing to do to be
so disingenuous, is it? But as far as the Church is concerned, her sinking
feeling that her faith may have been based upon a delusion, on lies, matters
not, does it?
Her faith was her faith, or end the end, a lack of it. If it got her to be
the best person she could possibly be and she chose not to cross the line
into total unbelief, we should respect that and think of the 'good' she did
during her lifetime -- even if it was based on the self-serving possibility
of receiving a 'heavenly reward' for doing so. Look at the utter misery and
abject despair -- even *starvation* -- she relieved innumerable people from
suffering. A lot more than that non-existent 'God' she finally discovered.
*That's* for sure!
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
26 Aug 2007 09:51:33 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:13:00 -0500, "Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
I, for one, respect the candor with which she expressed her lack of faith.
By the same token, however, I'm dismayed by the fact that she wanted some of
the proof of her doubts destroyed. Not quite the 'saintly' thing to do to be
so disingenuous, is it?
It's VERY Saintly to lie.
Her faith was her faith, or end the end, a lack of it. If it got her to be
the best person she could possibly be
If she was the best person she could possibly be, she wasn't much.
we should respect that and think of the 'good' she did
during her lifetime
Like taking stolen money? Like refusing to use that money to help the
poor? Like condemning people who didn't accept her lies about her
beliefs to painful deaths?
Look at the utter misery and
abject despair -- even *starvation* -- she relieved innumerable people from
suffering.
And look at the uncountable suffering she CAUSED.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
27 Aug 2007 06:55:08 AM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 10:51 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:13:00 -0500, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
I, for one, respect the candor with which she expressed her lack of faith.
By the same token, however, I'm dismayed by the fact that she wanted some of
the proof of her doubts destroyed. Not quite the 'saintly' thing to do to be
so disingenuous, is it?
I think a lot of the posters here on this group who refer to
themselves as Christians probably feel the same way and would say so
if they were honest, that is if being Christian didn't preclude one
from being honest. Seriously, there have been countless Christians
who would agree with specific points that we make and the points would
add up to their religion being complete bunk but they will just go on
believing - or rather they will say they just go on believing. I
think 99.9% percent of them are taking Pascal's Wager but they don't
want to admit to having doubts because if they have doubts then how
are they going to convince us? Well, guess what: we don't have any
respect here for anyone who just believes anything on faith so them
trying to convince us with their supposed faith just isn't going to
work on us. Not one bit.
It's VERY Saintly to lie.
It's very Christian to lie. Being a Saint just means being a very,
very good liar.
Her faith was her faith, or end the end, a lack of it. If it got her to be
the best person she could possibly be
If she was the best person she could possibly be, she wasn't much.
we should respect that and think of the 'good' she did
during her lifetime
Like taking stolen money? Like refusing to use that money to help the
poor? Like condemning people who didn't accept her lies about her
beliefs to painful deaths?
Look at the utter misery and
abject despair -- even *starvation* -- she relieved innumerable people from
suffering.
And look at the uncountable suffering she CAUSED.
Perhaps she realised as she got older that the Catholic Church had
caused more suffering than it had eleviated and perhaps that is what
made her doubt her faith. If that is the case then more power to
her. I only wish she could have been more open about her views.
Ultimately, it seems as though she didn't want to lose the respect of
the people who were sponsoring her. I guess she ended up losing ours.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
27 Aug 2007 10:27:11 AM |
|
|
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188215708.284417.117240@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 27, 10:51 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:13:00 -0500, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
I, for one, respect the candor with which she expressed her lack of
faith.
By the same token, however, I'm dismayed by the fact that she wanted
some of
the proof of her doubts destroyed. Not quite the 'saintly' thing to do
to be
so disingenuous, is it?
I think a lot of the posters here on this group who refer to
themselves as Christians probably feel the same way and would say so
if they were honest, that is if being Christian didn't preclude one
from being honest. Seriously, there have been countless Christians
who would agree with specific points that we make and the points would
add up to their religion being complete bunk but they will just go on
believing - or rather they will say they just go on believing.
I believe you hit on an extremely important point here -- that many a
'Christian' will *say* that they believe this and that bit of the bible is
'true' but if truth be told they'd admit they really don't. (Who in their
right mind could, for example, actually believe that Matt. 27:50-53 is the
reporting of historical fact?) So why the false 'faith'? Can't admit that
portions of the bible are pure hooey without destroying its integrity as a
whole, now can they? It's called prostituting one's intellect for
self-gratification. Many a Christian 'believes' in the 'truth' of the bible
simply because they *want* to believe the 'God and heaven' stuff is true.
The bottom line is that they want to go to a heaven. Who cares about how
flawed their theology is or what the bible *really* says.
I think 99.9% percent of them are taking Pascal's Wager but they don't
want to admit to having doubts because if they have doubts then how
are they going to convince us?
Well some of them give it a pretty good shot. But all they end up doing is
deceiving themselves by going down that road in the end. What's the
justification for trying to deliberately leading people down a road that
they, in their heart of hearts, believe ends in a dead-end? A hope that
they're doing the 'right thing'? If the goal is to make a person the best
upright, moral, virtuous, noble-minded person they can possibly be, why use
'lies' to do it?
Well, guess what: we don't have any
respect here for anyone who just believes anything on faith so them
trying to convince us with their supposed faith just isn't going to
work on us. Not one bit.
You got *that* right, partner! There has been an assault on my atheistic
sense of being on the scale of the D-Day Normandy Invasion of 1944! And by
certain people who have the morals -- when one closely examines what they've
actually done -- of a hyena! And what did they acheive by trying to turn me
into a 'Christian'? An undying hatred for these Inquisition, Salem Witch
Trials, Galileo arresting, Giordano Bruno murdering, and John Wycliffe
burning at the stake for translating the bible into English, religious
right-variety of immoral 'Christians', *that's* what!
It's VERY Saintly to lie.
Goes to show you that no one is *really* a 'saint'. Just some very
well-intentioned people who are just as human as the rest of us.
It's very Christian to lie.
Ooooooo, don't get me started! Ted Haggard, anyone? (How could a gay person
go and rail against gay people like he did still has me scratching my head.
And I'm not a gay person!) You would think a gay person would rail against
the bible for condemning the 'God' of the bible for creating 'gayness' and
gay people and then turn around and condemn them for being exactly the way
he 'Intelligently Designed' them!
Being a Saint just means being a very,
very good liar.
<sigh> You would expect better from 'Saints', wouldn't you? But, hey, the
Church decides what constitutes a 'saint' and who qualifies for 'Sainthood'.
It's their 'game'. They can play it any ole' way they want to play it.
Her faith was her faith, or end the end, a lack of it. If it got her to
be
the best person she could possibly be
If she was the best person she could possibly be, she wasn't much.
Truth be told, I know very little ... make that *very* very little of her
background. I just know she and her fellow 'sisters' helped countless out of
desperate situations. (Which certainly helped the prestige of the RCC!) But
then I'm one of those who cannot but admire those who go to great lengths to
help their fellow man -- even when I know damn well it's often done for one
self-serving reason of another. *I* sure as hell am not out there on the
front lines helping the poor. I'm one of those atheists who truly
appreciates the efforts of the Salvation Army. I'm not going to go out and
hang myself for that.
we should respect that and think of the 'good' she did
during her lifetime
Like taking stolen money? Like refusing to use that money to help the
poor? Like condemning people who didn't accept her lies about her
beliefs to painful deaths?
OOoooooo! If true, and I hardly think you would make such stuff up, it's
pretty damn despicable. Once again: I know next to nothing about her
background.
Look at the utter misery and
abject despair -- even *starvation* -- she relieved innumerable people
from
suffering.
And look at the uncountable suffering she CAUSED.
I'm not seeing a pretty picture here. I have to admit, I *have* seen
references to some questionable activity on her part elsewhere but had no
desire to probe more deeply into her background. Mea Culpa.
Perhaps she realised as she got older that the Catholic Church had
caused more suffering than it had eleviated and perhaps that is what
made her doubt her faith. If that is the case then more power to
her. I only wish she could have been more open about her views.
There seem to be this school of thought that you don't speak out against
'God' and the bible because they are supposed to be 'good' regardless of
what theological incongruities and bullet-hole filled theology 'God's
people' want to foist on us unceasingly. And the bible ... Hah!! They've got
to be *kidding*! But in the end 'faith' comes down to personal belief. If
only the religious right would learn to learn that and quit with their
nauseating, incessant, push push push push push push push push push push
push and even more pushing of their monstrously flawed beliefs on the rest
of us. Why can't they just be content with loving
dead-and-reburied-elsewhere Jesus *themselves* and spare the rest of us
their silliness -- along with their contempt, disdain, and hate of the
nonbeliever
Ultimately, it seems as though she didn't want to lose the respect of
the people who were sponsoring her. I guess she ended up losing ours.
Ordering the burning of the proof of her disbelief ... tisk, tisk.
Greywolf
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "bramble" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
27 Aug 2007 04:21:11 PM |
|
|
On 27 ago, 16:27, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com> wrote:
"Martin Phipps" <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188215708.284417.117240@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 27, 10:51 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:13:00 -0500, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
I, for one, respect the candor with which she expressed her lack of
faith.
By the same token, however, I'm dismayed by the fact that she wanted
some of
the proof of her doubts destroyed. Not quite the 'saintly' thing to do
to be
so disingenuous, is it?
I think a lot of the posters here on this group who refer to
themselves as Christians probably feel the same way and would say so
if they were honest, that is if being Christian didn't preclude one
from being honest. Seriously, there have been countless Christians
who would agree with specific points that we make and the points would
add up to their religion being complete bunk but they will just go on
believing - or rather they will say they just go on believing.
I believe you hit on an extremely important point here -- that many a
'Christian' will *say* that they believe this and that bit of the bible is
'true' but if truth be told they'd admit they really don't. (Who in their
right mind could, for example, actually believe that Matt. 27:50-53 is the
reporting of historical fact?) So why the false 'faith'? Can't admit that
portions of the bible are pure hooey without destroying its integrity as a
whole, now can they? It's called prostituting one's intellect for
self-gratification. Many a Christian 'believes' in the 'truth' of the bible
simply because they *want* to believe the 'God and heaven' stuff is true.
The bottom line is that they want to go to a heaven. Who cares about how
flawed their theology is or what the bible *really* says.
I think 99.9% percent of them are taking Pascal's Wager but they don't
want to admit to having doubts because if they have doubts then how
are they going to convince us?
Well some of them give it a pretty good shot. But all they end up doing is
deceiving themselves by going down that road in the end. What's the
justification for trying to deliberately leading people down a road that
they, in their heart of hearts, believe ends in a dead-end? A hope that
they're doing the 'right thing'? If the goal is to make a person the best
upright, moral, virtuous, noble-minded person they can possibly be, why use
'lies' to do it?
Well, guess what: we don't have any
respect here for anyone who just believes anything on faith so them
trying to convince us with their supposed faith just isn't going to
work on us. Not one bit.
You got *that* right, partner! There has been an assault on my atheistic
sense of being on the scale of the D-Day Normandy Invasion of 1944! And by
certain people who have the morals -- when one closely examines what they've
actually done -- of a hyena! And what did they acheive by trying to turn me
into a 'Christian'? An undying hatred for these Inquisition, Salem Witch
Trials, Galileo arresting, Giordano Bruno murdering, and John Wycliffe
burning at the stake for translating the bible into English, religious
right-variety of immoral 'Christians', *that's* what!
It's VERY Saintly to lie.
Goes to show you that no one is *really* a 'saint'. Just some very
well-intentioned people who are just as human as the rest of us.
It's very Christian to lie.
Ooooooo, don't get me started! Ted Haggard, anyone? (How could a gay person
go and rail against gay people like he did still has me scratching my head.
And I'm not a gay person!) You would think a gay person would rail against
the bible for condemning the 'God' of the bible for creating 'gayness' and
gay people and then turn around and condemn them for being exactly the way
he 'Intelligently Designed' them!
Being a Saint just means being a very,
very good liar.
<sigh> You would expect better from 'Saints', wouldn't you? But, hey, the
Church decides what constitutes a 'saint' and who qualifies for 'Sainthood'.
It's their 'game'. They can play it any ole' way they want to play it.
Her faith was her faith, or end the end, a lack of it. If it got her to
be
the best person she could possibly be
If she was the best person she could possibly be, she wasn't much.
Truth be told, I know very little ... make that *very* very little of her
background. I just know she and her fellow 'sisters' helped countless out of
desperate situations. (Which certainly helped the prestige of the RCC!) But
then I'm one of those who cannot but admire those who go to great lengths to
help their fellow man -- even when I know damn well it's often done for one
self-serving reason of another. *I* sure as hell am not out there on the
front lines helping the poor. I'm one of those atheists who truly
appreciates the efforts of the Salvation Army. I'm not going to go out and
hang myself for that.
we should respect that and think of the 'good' she did
during her lifetime
Like taking stolen money? Like refusing to use that money to help the
poor? Like condemning people who didn't accept her lies about her
beliefs to painful deaths?
OOoooooo! If true, and I hardly think you would make such stuff up, it's
pretty damn despicable. Once again: I know next to nothing about her
background.
Look at the utter misery and
abject despair -- even *starvation* -- she relieved innumerable people
from
suffering.
And look at the uncountable suffering she CAUSED.
I'm not seeing a pretty picture here. I have to admit, I *have* seen
references to some questionable activity on her part elsewhere but had no
desire to probe more deeply into her background. Mea Culpa.
Perhaps she realised as she got older that the Catholic Church had
caused more suffering than it had eleviated and perhaps that is what
made her doubt her faith. If that is the case then more power to
her. I only wish she could have been more open about her views.
There seem to be this school of thought that you don't speak out against
'God' and the bible because they are supposed to be 'good' regardless of
what theological incongruities and bullet-hole filled theology 'God's
people' want to foist on us unceasingly. And the bible ... Hah!! They've got
to be *kidding*! But in the end 'faith' comes down to personal belief. If
only the religious right would learn to learn that and quit with their
nauseating, incessant, push push push push push push push push push push
push and even more pushing of their monstrously flawed beliefs on the rest
of us. Why can't they just be content with loving
dead-and-reburied-elsewhere Jesus *themselves* and spare the rest of us
their silliness -- along with their contempt, disdain, and hate of the
nonbeliever
Ultimately, it seems as though she didn't want to lose the respect of
the people who were sponsoring her. I guess she ended up losing ours.
Ordering the burning of the proof of her disbelief ... tisk, tisk.
Greywolf
Martin
Sorry, greywolf.
They are not taking any Pascal wager. They simple are tamed into
accepting a social dogma, and did not dare to challenge it. So, once
they pass some time doupting when they are adolescents, they push
aside all this doubting and became adults. The meaning of being adult
means to go with the social tide and do not challenge the general
dogma. That explains why people have a religion that is in accordance
with the social environment. In a country of Muslims people is a
Muslim. In a country full of Christians people is a Christian, and so
on. Even in city with different churches, people have to live mostly
among the people of his same faith, for the sake of limiting the
probability a having social problems or rejections.
So, as people have de need of being social to some point, they need to
go with the crowd. Even if the croud is just a small bunch of people.
Remember those people of the Heaven's Gate? The people that suicided
collectively to meet a comet and go to Heaven? An ufo was going
behind this coment, remember? These people were not Christian, they
hcange their former Christian faith with a new oen. Is good to
considere this case to see, the need people has of "social comfort".
By being in agreement with other people, they try to exorcize their
personal nothingness and ignorance into something that looks much
superior. Something that looks as a commonal social wisdom. But
agreeing on some dogmatic tenets, people feel much better than alone,
with all their conscience of their own impotence and ignorance.
Bramble
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
27 Aug 2007 02:49:59 PM |
|
|
Ooops!!
I incorrectly named 'John Wycliffe' as the Christian translator of the bible
into English as the Christian 'Christians' burned at the stake (but first
strangled to ease his death a bit -- only to have him revive in time to bear
the full brunt of the burning) for translating the bible into English. That
individual was actually 'William Tyndale'. His translation ended up later
becoming a basis for the 'King James Version' of the bible. What a 'heretic'
he turned out to be, eh'?
"Greywolf" <greywolf@cybrzn.com> wrote in message
news:13d5rcfbplmfe9e@news.supernews.com...
"Martin Phipps" <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1188215708.284417.117240@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 27, 10:51 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 18:13:00 -0500, "Greywolf" <greyw...@cybrzn.com>
wrote:
I, for one, respect the candor with which she expressed her lack of
faith.
By the same token, however, I'm dismayed by the fact that she wanted
some of
the proof of her doubts destroyed. Not quite the 'saintly' thing to do
to be
so disingenuous, is it?
I think a lot of the posters here on this group who refer to
themselves as Christians probably feel the same way and would say so
if they were honest, that is if being Christian didn't preclude one
from being honest. Seriously, there have been countless Christians
who would agree with specific points that we make and the points would
add up to their religion being complete bunk but they will just go on
believing - or rather they will say they just go on believing.
I believe you hit on an extremely important point here -- that many a
'Christian' will *say* that they believe this and that bit of the bible is
'true' but if truth be told they'd admit they really don't. (Who in their
right mind could, for example, actually believe that Matt. 27:50-53 is the
reporting of historical fact?) So why the false 'faith'? Can't admit that
portions of the bible are pure hooey without destroying its integrity as a
whole, now can they? It's called prostituting one's intellect for
self-gratification. Many a Christian 'believes' in the 'truth' of the
bible simply because they *want* to believe the 'God and heaven' stuff is
true. The bottom line is that they want to go to a heaven. Who cares about
how flawed their theology is or what the bible *really* says.
I think 99.9% percent of them are taking Pascal's Wager but they don't
want to admit to having doubts because if they have doubts then how
are they going to convince us?
Well some of them give it a pretty good shot. But all they end up doing is
deceiving themselves by going down that road in the end. What's the
justification for trying to deliberately leading people down a road that
they, in their heart of hearts, believe ends in a dead-end? A hope that
they're doing the 'right thing'? If the goal is to make a person the best
upright, moral, virtuous, noble-minded person they can possibly be, why
use 'lies' to do it?
Well, guess what: we don't have any
respect here for anyone who just believes anything on faith so them
trying to convince us with their supposed faith just isn't going to
work on us. Not one bit.
You got *that* right, partner! There has been an assault on my atheistic
sense of being on the scale of the D-Day Normandy Invasion of 1944! And by
certain people who have the morals -- when one closely examines what
they've actually done -- of a hyena! And what did they acheive by trying
to turn me into a 'Christian'? An undying hatred for these Inquisition,
Salem Witch Trials, Galileo arresting, Giordano Bruno murdering, and John
Wycliffe burning at the stake for translating the bible into English,
religious right-variety of immoral 'Christians', *that's* what!
It's VERY Saintly to lie.
Goes to show you that no one is *really* a 'saint'. Just some very
well-intentioned people who are just as human as the rest of us.
It's very Christian to lie.
Ooooooo, don't get me started! Ted Haggard, anyone? (How could a gay
person go and rail against gay people like he did still has me scratching
my head. And I'm not a gay person!) You would think a gay person would
rail against the bible for condemning the 'God' of the bible for creating
'gayness' and gay people and then turn around and condemn them for being
exactly the way he 'Intelligently Designed' them!
Being a Saint just means being a very,
very good liar.
<sigh> You would expect better from 'Saints', wouldn't you? But, hey, the
Church decides what constitutes a 'saint' and who qualifies for
'Sainthood'. It's their 'game'. They can play it any ole' way they want to
play it.
Her faith was her faith, or end the end, a lack of it. If it got her to
be
the best person she could possibly be
If she was the best person she could possibly be, she wasn't much.
Truth be told, I know very little ... make that *very* very little of her
background. I just know she and her fellow 'sisters' helped countless out
of desperate situations. (Which certainly helped the prestige of the RCC!)
But then I'm one of those who cannot but admire those who go to great
lengths to help their fellow man -- even when I know damn well it's often
done for one self-serving reason of another. *I* sure as hell am not out
there on the front lines helping the poor. I'm one of those atheists who
truly appreciates the efforts of the Salvation Army. I'm not going to go
out and hang myself for that.
we should respect that and think of the 'good' she did
during her lifetime
Like taking stolen money? Like refusing to use that money to help the
poor? Like condemning people who didn't accept her lies about her
beliefs to painful deaths?
OOoooooo! If true, and I hardly think you would make such stuff up, it's
pretty damn despicable. Once again: I know next to nothing about her
background.
Look at the utter misery and
abject despair -- even *starvation* -- she relieved innumerable people
from
suffering.
And look at the uncountable suffering she CAUSED.
I'm not seeing a pretty picture here. I have to admit, I *have* seen
references to some questionable activity on her part elsewhere but had no
desire to probe more deeply into her background. Mea Culpa.
Perhaps she realised as she got older that the Catholic Church had
caused more suffering than it had eleviated and perhaps that is what
made her doubt her faith. If that is the case then more power to
her. I only wish she could have been more open about her views.
There seem to be this school of thought that you don't speak out against
'God' and the bible because they are supposed to be 'good' regardless of
what theological incongruities and bullet-hole filled theology 'God's
people' want to foist on us unceasingly. And the bible ... Hah!! They've
got to be *kidding*! But in the end 'faith' comes down to personal belief.
If only the religious right would learn to learn that and quit with their
nauseating, incessant, push push push push push push push push push push
push and even more pushing of their monstrously flawed beliefs on the rest
of us. Why can't they just be content with loving
dead-and-reburied-elsewhere Jesus *themselves* and spare the rest of us
their silliness -- along with their contempt, disdain, and hate of the
nonbeliever
Ultimately, it seems as though she didn't want to lose the respect of
the people who were sponsoring her. I guess she ended up losing ours.
Ordering the burning of the proof of her disbelief ... tisk, tisk.
Greywolf
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
26 Aug 2007 07:59:07 PM |
|
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@jonez.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.fan.bob-larson,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.true-crime
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 6:53 PM
Subject: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist,
phony christian, now burning in HELL __
Mother Teresa doubted God's existence
Agence France-Presse
Last updated 08:56am (Mla time) 08/26/2007
NEW YORK -- Mother Teresa, who is one step short of being made a Catholic
saint, suffered crises of faith for most of her life and even doubted
God's existence, according to a set of newly published letters.
"Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the
emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear,"
the missionary wrote to one confidant, Reverend Michael Van Der Peet, in
1979.
The letters, some of which she wanted destroyed, appear in "Mother Teresa:
Come Be My Light," due to be published next week, 10 years after her
death. Extracts of the book appear in the latest edition of Time magazine.
In more than 40 letters spanning some 66 years, the ethnic Albanian nun
who devoted her life to working with the poor in the slums of Kolkata in
India, writes of the "darkness," "loneliness" and "torture" she is
undergoing.
"Where is my Faith -- even deep down right in there is nothing, but
emptiness and darkness -- My God -- how painful is this unknown pain -- I
have no Faith," she wrote in an undated letter addressed to Jesus.
"If there be God -- please forgive me -- When I try to raise my thoughts
to Heaven -- there is such convicting emptiness."
"I call, I cling, I want -- and there is no One to answer -- no One on
Whom I can cling -- no, No One. -- Alone."
In her early life, Mother Teresa, also known as "The Saint of the
Gutters," had visions. In one, she talked to a crucified Jesus on the
cross.
But the letters reveal that apart from a brief respite in 1959, she spent
most of the last 50 years of her life doubting God's presence -- much at
odds with her public face.
"The smile," she wrote in one letter, is "a mask."
In another letter, written in 1959, she wrote: "If there be no God --
there can be no soul -- if there is no Soul then Jesus -- You also are not
true."
The book's compiler and editor Reverend Brian Kolodiejchuk is a member of
Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity and was responsible for
petitioning for her sainthood. She was beatified -- one step short of
sainthood -- in 2003.
"I've never read a saint's life where the saint has such an intense
spiritual darkness. No one knew she was that tormented," Kolodiejchuk told
Time magazine.
"I read one letter to the sisters [of Teresa's Missionaries of Charity],
and their mouths just dropped open. It will give a whole new dimension to
the way people understand her," he added.
Cardinal Angelo Scola, the patriarch of Venice, said Saturday that the
letters showed Teresa was "one of us, that she did all her work as we do,
no more no less."
Even in the depths of doubt, Mother Teresa "always had recourse to the
most elementary form of the exercise of one's will, that of asking Jesus
each day to reveal his face," said Scola, who had already written about
the letters in the Vatican publication Osservatore Romano, quoted by the
ANSA news agency.
Mother Teresa was beatified just six years after her death, when late pope
John Paul II set on her a fast track to sainthood. It was something the
nun seemed to have predicted as early as 1962, when she wrote in one
letter:
"If I ever become a Saint -- I will surely be one of 'darkness.' I will
continually be absent from Heaven."
If this is true then all this tells us was that Mother Teresa was just as
human as every other Christian and she too had a crisis of faith now and
then. I often wonder if God exists or not and whether my faith is based on
an something false. But if I was an atheist I'd have the same problem. The
problem is trying to convince yourself of something you can't possibly know
is true or not. But all that is another very long story.
Pete
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
26 Aug 2007 08:37:33 PM |
|
|
On Aug 26, 8:59 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net>
snip
If this is true then all this tells us was that Mother Teresa was just as
human as every other Christian and she too had a crisis of faith now and
then. I often wonder if God exists or not and whether my faith is based on
an something false.
Only "false" re: the "supernatural". The religion *does* exist.
However, modern scholarship has revealed the religion as a creation of
worried, superstitious men.
The Bible:
http://tinyurl.com/2vhs39
http://tinyurl.com/3ay5hm
http://tinyurl.com/2wskdr
http://tinyurl.com/24anmt
The `Historical' Jesus:
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/christian.htm
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
But if I was an atheist I'd have the same problem.
I would suggest that you may have been misinformed about what an
atheist actually *is*. Whether or not gods exist is not important to
me, since the world goes merrily along in an identical fashion as it
would if they did not. There is no "crisis of faith" for me, because I
don't believe "in" something. My lack of belief in gods is not a
"belief" in and of itself-it is simply an opinion based upon the
evidence. If your god would show his presence in a way that left no
doubt he existed, the evidence would be changed-and my opinion would
be forced to change as a result. What I *wish* to be true is
unimportant.
The
problem is trying to convince yourself of something you can't possibly know
is true or not. But all that is another very long story.
Yes, I often feel sorry for my theistic friends. I see them writhe in
mental agony trying to reconcile all this leftover debris from our
superstitious ancestors with a modern education. They just simply
ignore the simplest solution to the question...that perhaps there's
just nothing here but *us*.
Pete
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/KoBAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html\
Atheist doctors *more* likely to treat the impoverished:
http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/abstract/5/4/353
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
26 Aug 2007 09:59:23 PM |
|
|
<panamfloyd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188178653.007702.266590@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 8:59 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net>
snip
If this is true then all this tells us was that Mother Teresa was just as
human as every other Christian and she too had a crisis of faith now and
then. I often wonder if God exists or not and whether my faith is based
on
an something false.
Only "false" re: the "supernatural". The religion *does* exist.
However, modern scholarship has revealed the religion as a creation of
worried, superstitious men.
That is impossible. No amount of scholarship is capable of such things due
to the very nature of the subject. If you disagree then please show me your
source for this claim.
I would suggest that you may have been misinformed about what an
atheist actually *is*.
The term "atheist" is a very well defined and understood term. It was
defined that way (given below) when I took Intro to Religion in college and
it has been defined that way in all sources I've seen to date. There is very
little to no room for error on the definition of this term. However what you
may have thought of as atheism in the past may have actually been
agnosticism. Let me give you an example from a new book I got. It was
recommended to me by our former pastor who is has a PhD in Philosophy and
taught philosophy and world religions at our local college. The book is
called "Ways to the Center - 6th Ed," Denise L. Carmody & T.L. Brink.
Glossary -> page 318
atheist - "no deity or deities exist"
And that is how I use the term. Always have and always will. Agnosticism on
the other hand is defined on page 380 nad reads
agnosticism - "It is not possible to know or prove the existance of deities,
so we should doubt."
With the atheist there is zero doubt. To a true atheist God simply does not
exist in his mind.
Whether or not gods exist is not important to
me, since the world goes merrily along in an identical fashion as it
would if they did not. There is no "crisis of faith" for me, because I
don't believe "in" something. My lack of belief in gods is not a
"belief" in and of itself-it is simply an opinion based upon the
evidence.
From your comment here it appears to me that your agnostic. Do you believe
that?
If your god would show his presence in a way that left no
doubt he existed, the evidence would be changed-and my opinion would
be forced to change as a result. What I *wish* to be true is
unimportant.
Have you actually thought that out? How would God go about doing that
without you questioning whether it was done all by illusion. God has made
his appearance on Earth several times and has done miracles witnessed by
man. All this was observed and written down for prosperity. Don't expect God
to keep doing this for everyone everywhere on Earth for an infinite number
of years. Where would faith be then. Faith is important to God.
The
problem is trying to convince yourself of something you can't possibly
know
is true or not. But all that is another very long story.
Yes, I often feel sorry for my theistic friends. I see them writhe in
mental agony trying to reconcile all this leftover debris from our
superstitious ancestors with a modern education.
That's quite odd. I do the same thing with amazement and enjoyment.
They just simply
ignore the simplest solution to the question...that perhaps there's
just nothing here but *us*.
Because its simple doesn't make it true.
Pete
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
27 Aug 2007 08:53:09 AM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 10:59 am, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
<panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188178653.007702.266590@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 8:59 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net>
snip
If this is true then all this tells us was thatMotherTeresawas just as
human as every other Christian and she too had a crisis of faith now and
then. I often wonder if God exists or not and whether my faith is based
on
an something false.
Only "false" re: the "supernatural". The religion *does* exist.
However, modern scholarship has revealed the religion as a creation of
worried, superstitious men.
That is impossible. No amount of scholarship is capable of such things due
to the very nature of the subject. If you disagree then please show me your
source for this claim.
Thousands of years ago the Christian
god was just a god amongst many. (See http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html
or http://www.usfca.edu/westciv/Sumerian.html or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sumerian_gods or
http://www.geocities.com/garyweb65/sumgods.html or
http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.3.1 or
look up the word "Elohim" on wikipedia.) Thousands
of years ago, God was known as "Anu" or the "Sky God" of Sumerian
mythology. We know this because the Bible claims Abraham came from Ur
which was located in Sumer. (See http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/ )
According to http://www.stevesdinner.plus.com/swd17.htm ,
"Orthodox tradition represents Abraham as a member of a Semitic tribe
from Ur. He probably spoke Akkadian, and the Akkadian counterparts of
the Sumerian gods Enki, An, Enlil, Utu, Nanna, and Inanna would have
been known to Abraham as Ea, Anu, Bel, Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar.
Abraham's tribe left Ur and travelled to Harran in southeastern
Turkey."
[Note: "Bel" is a Sumerian word meaning "Lord" which in this case
refers to Ea's brother.]
There's also the similarity between Sumerian mythology and the Bible:
in Sumerian mythology, the first man was named Adapa!
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapa ) Later the world was
destroyed by Anu in a great flood from which there was only one
survivor who survived by building a boat that carried him, his family
and all their animals! (See http://www.flood-myth.com/ )
These similarities are pointed out on http://www.historel.net/english/orient/03mesop.htm
which is a theist site that doesn't seem to mind admitting the
similarity between the Bible and other mythology! Yet it still
refers
to "God" as if he actually existed!
The Bible also makes reference to the ancient Hebrew goddess Astarte
and refers to her as the "Queen of Heaven":
"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the
women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to
pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to
anger." - Jeremiah 7:18
"But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own
mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out
drink
offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings,
and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of
Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw
no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of
heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all
things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And
when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink
offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour
out
drink offerings unto her, without our men?" - Jeremiah 44:17-19
"We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense
to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye
will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows." -
Jeremiah 44:25
The name Astarte is easily associated with that of the Sumerian
goddess Ishtar who was also known as the "Queen of Heaven". (See
http://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/origsin.htm
http://www.cmy.on.ca/newletters/aug2004.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar
and http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/ishtar.html )
Besides mentioning that Abraham came from Ur in Sumer, the Bible also
mentions the city of Babylon and the "Tower of Babel" that was
supposedly built there. The Babylonians were hated by the Hebrews and
to this day "to babble" means to speak nonsense. The Garden of Eden
was also located in Sumer according to Genesis 2:10-14:
"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it
was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is
Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where
there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium
and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the
same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of
the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east
of
Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."
The Euphrates river ran through Sumer, which is now Iraq.
It is worth noting that http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/
is actually a theist site! They refer to Anu as " the one God" but
claim that "Ea" and "Bel" were just other names for the same god.
This contradicts the fact that Anu, Ea and Bel were worshipped
separately in Sumer as three distinct Gods. (Anu was the god of the
sky, Bel was the god of wind and Ea was the god of water. Sumerian
mythology claimed that humans were created by Ea.)
According to http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html
"Enki unraveled the secrets of life and death. His emblem was two
serpents ... entwined on a staff - the basis for the winged caduceus
symbol used by modern Western medicine." As Ea was the god of
knowledge, was the guardian of the "Tree of Life" in Sumerian
mythology and he was symbolized by a snake, it stands to reason that
the snake in the myth of the garden of Eden represented Ea. The
Hebrew word "Baal" meant "Lord" and thus "Baal" could have refered to
any god who was known as "Bel" kn the Sumerian panthenon. The Hebrews
were presumably told by their god to kill all followers of "Baal":
"While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled
themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women. These women
invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the
Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab.
Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor,
causing
the LORD's anger to blaze against his people. The LORD issued the
following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute
them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn
away from the people of Israel." So Moses ordered Israel's judges to
execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just
then
one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp,
right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were
weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of
Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and
left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man
into
his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's
body
and into the woman's stomach. So the plague against the Israelites
was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died." - Numbers 25:1-9
Incidentally, the myth of Moses was probably inspired by the legend
of
the historical pharoah Ahmose. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I
).
What is interesting is that theists today are willing to accept that
their god was the god An of Sumer but they don't see why this should
be a challenge to faith. ( http://www.christianblog.com/blog/thomas/abram-was-from-sumer-after-all/
) An was the most powerful god in Sumerian mythology and hence it is
understandable that Abraham would choose him as the "one true god" and
dismiss all the others but then the question would be if Anu (God)
exists then what about all the other gods.
So God is just a myth created by man to explain the world around him
and give him comfort. If that's not good enough for you, consider
the
fact that God had been used in the past to explain everything from
storms to floods to earthquakes to volcanic eruptions but that we now
have scientific explanations for all of these calamities and thus
don't need to use any gods (let alone God) to explain them. The fact
is that scientists can perform measurements today that agree with the
predictions of quantum theory to ten digit precision and accuracy.
The so called "God of the gaps" has become so infinitessimally small
that we can feel confident that it doesn't exist at all.
I would suggest that you may have been misinformed about what an
atheist actually *is*.
The term "atheist" is a very well defined and understood term. It was
defined that way (given below) when I took Intro to Religion in college and
it has been defined that way in all sources I've seen to date. There is very
little to no room for error on the definition of this term. However what you
may have thought of as atheism in the past may have actually been
agnosticism. Let me give you an example from a new book I got. It was
recommended to me by our former pastor who is has a PhD in Philosophy and
taught philosophy and world religions at our local college. The book is
called "Ways to the Center - 6th Ed," Denise L. Carmody & T.L. Brink.
Glossary -> page 318
atheist - "no deity or deities exist"
And that is how I use the term. Always have and always will. Agnosticism on
the other hand is defined on page 380 nad reads
agnosticism - "It is not possible to know or prove the existance of deities,
so we should doubt."
With the atheist there is zero doubt. To a true atheist God simply does not
exist in his mind.
If you seriously believe in the existance of your god then you are
atheist with respect to all other gods. The only difference with
those who call ourselves "atheist" is that we believe in one less god.
Whether or not gods exist is not important to
me, since the world goes merrily along in an identical fashion as it
would if they did not. There is no "crisis of faith" for me, because I
don't believe "in" something. My lack of belief in gods is not a
"belief" in and of itself-it is simply an opinion based upon the
evidence.
From your comment here it appears to me that your agnostic. Do you believe
that?
You don't get it. The lack of belief in any god is not a belief.
When babies are born into this world they are trivially atheist in
that they don't believe in God. You said yourself: agnosticism - "It
is not possible to know or prove the existance of deities, so we
should doubt." Babies lack any concept of God so there's nothing to
doubt. Most atheists are like that: theists haven't sufficiently
explained just what they mean by "God". Is he an old man with a beard
living in the sky? Is he a disembodied entity? Is he a burning
bush? Frankly, you haven't given us anything to believe in. You only
believe because other people have told you that you should believe.
That's all there is to it.
If your god would show his presence in a way that left no
doubt he existed, the evidence would be changed-and my opinion would
be forced to change as a result. What I *wish* to be true is
unimportant.
Have you actually thought that out?
Yes, we have. Have you actually thought out your position? If you
had then you wouldn't be a theist: you would be an agnostic bordering
on atheism.
How would God go about doing that
He doesn't exist. Stop talking as though your fantasies are real.
without you questioning whether it was done all by illusion. God has made
his appearance on Earth several times and has done miracles witnessed by
man.
All lies. Jesus himself didn't exist.
See http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
All this was observed and written down for prosperity. Don't expect God
to keep doing this for everyone everywhere on Earth for an infinite number
of years.
We don't expect your nonexistant fairy to do anything. You are the
one with the beliefs. Nt us.
Where would faith be then. Faith is important to God.
No, it isn't. Your non-existant God doesn't care about faith because
he doesn't exist. Your non-existant God supposedly sent his non-
existant son to convince the world that He existed and yet He doesn't
really care if we believe or not. That's the nonsense you insist on
believing in.
The
problem is trying to convince yourself of something you can't possibly
know
is true or not. But all that is another very long story.
Yes, I often feel sorry for my theistic friends. I see them writhe in
mental agony trying to reconcile all this leftover debris from our
superstitious ancestors with a modern education.
That's quite odd. I do the same thing with amazement and enjoyment.
To us that is abominable evil. Why should people deceive themselves?
Why can't they be allowed to embrace common sense?
They just simply
ignore the simplest solution to the question...that perhaps there's
just nothing here but *us*.
Because its simple doesn't make it true.
Occam's Razor informs us otherwise.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael James" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist,phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
27 Aug 2007 09:02:33 AM |
|
|
Martin Phipps wrote:
On Aug 27, 10:59 am, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
<panamfl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188178653.007702.266590@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 8:59 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net>
snip
If this is true then all this tells us was thatMotherTeresawas just as
human as every other Christian and she too had a crisis of faith now and
then. I often wonder if God exists or not and whether my faith is based
on
an something false.
Only "false" re: the "supernatural". The religion *does* exist.
However, modern scholarship has revealed the religion as a creation of
worried, superstitious men.
That is impossible. No amount of scholarship is capable of such things due
to the very nature of the subject. If you disagree then please show me your
source for this claim.
Thousands of years ago the Christian
god was just a god amongst many. (See http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html
or http://www.usfca.edu/westciv/Sumerian.html or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sumerian_gods or
http://www.geocities.com/garyweb65/sumgods.html or
http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.3.1 or
look up the word "Elohim" on wikipedia.) Thousands
of years ago, God was known as "Anu" or the "Sky God" of Sumerian
mythology. We know this because the Bible claims Abraham came from Ur
which was located in Sumer. (See http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/ )
According to http://www.stevesdinner.plus.com/swd17.htm ,
"Orthodox tradition represents Abraham as a member of a Semitic tribe
from Ur. He probably spoke Akkadian, and the Akkadian counterparts of
the Sumerian gods Enki, An, Enlil, Utu, Nanna, and Inanna would have
been known to Abraham as Ea, Anu, Bel, Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar.
Abraham's tribe left Ur and travelled to Harran in southeastern
Turkey."
[Note: "Bel" is a Sumerian word meaning "Lord" which in this case
refers to Ea's brother.]
There's also the similarity between Sumerian mythology and the Bible:
in Sumerian mythology, the first man was named Adapa!
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapa ) Later the world was
destroyed by Anu in a great flood from which there was only one
survivor who survived by building a boat that carried him, his family
and all their animals! (See http://www.flood-myth.com/ )
These similarities are pointed out on http://www.historel.net/english/orient/03mesop.htm
which is a theist site that doesn't seem to mind admitting the
similarity between the Bible and other mythology! Yet it still
refers
to "God" as if he actually existed!
The Bible also makes reference to the ancient Hebrew goddess Astarte
and refers to her as the "Queen of Heaven":
"The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the
women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to
pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to
anger." - Jeremiah 7:18
"But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own
mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out
drink
offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings,
and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of
Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw
no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of
heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all
things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And
when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink
offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour
out
drink offerings unto her, without our men?" - Jeremiah 44:17-19
"We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense
to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye
will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows." -
Jeremiah 44:25
The name Astarte is easily associated with that of the Sumerian
goddess Ishtar who was also known as the "Queen of Heaven". (See
http://www.dhushara.com/book/orsin/origsin.htm
http://www.cmy.on.ca/newletters/aug2004.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar
and http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/ishtar.html )
Besides mentioning that Abraham came from Ur in Sumer, the Bible also
mentions the city of Babylon and the "Tower of Babel" that was
supposedly built there. The Babylonians were hated by the Hebrews and
to this day "to babble" means to speak nonsense. The Garden of Eden
was also located in Sumer according to Genesis 2:10-14:
"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it
was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is
Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where
there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium
and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the
same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of
the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east
of
Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."
The Euphrates river ran through Sumer, which is now Iraq.
It is worth noting that http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/
is actually a theist site! They refer to Anu as " the one God" but
claim that "Ea" and "Bel" were just other names for the same god.
This contradicts the fact that Anu, Ea and Bel were worshipped
separately in Sumer as three distinct Gods. (Anu was the god of the
sky, Bel was the god of wind and Ea was the god of water. Sumerian
mythology claimed that humans were created by Ea.)
According to http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html
"Enki unraveled the secrets of life and death. His emblem was two
serpents ... entwined on a staff - the basis for the winged caduceus
symbol used by modern Western medicine." As Ea was the god of
knowledge, was the guardian of the "Tree of Life" in Sumerian
mythology and he was symbolized by a snake, it stands to reason that
the snake in the myth of the garden of Eden represented Ea. The
Hebrew word "Baal" meant "Lord" and thus "Baal" could have refered to
any god who was known as "Bel" kn the Sumerian panthenon. The Hebrews
were presumably told by their god to kill all followers of "Baal":
"While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled
themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women. These women
invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the
Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab.
Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor,
causing
the LORD's anger to blaze against his people. The LORD issued the
following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute
them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn
away from the people of Israel." So Moses ordered Israel's judges to
execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just
then
one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp,
right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were
weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of
Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and
left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man
into
his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's
body
and into the woman's stomach. So the plague against the Israelites
was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died." - Numbers 25:1-9
Incidentally, the myth of Moses was probably inspired by the legend
of
the historical pharoah Ahmose. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I
).
What is interesting is that theists today are willing to accept that
their god was the god An of Sumer but they don't see why this should
be a challenge to faith. ( http://www.christianblog.com/blog/thomas/abram-was-from-sumer-after-all/
) An was the most powerful god in Sumerian mythology and hence it is
understandable that Abraham would choose him as the "one true god" and
dismiss all the others but then the question would be if Anu (God)
exists then what about all the other gods.
So God is just a myth created by man to explain the world around him
and give him comfort. If that's not good enough for you, consider
the
fact that God had been used in the past to explain everything from
storms to floods to earthquakes to volcanic eruptions but that we now
have scientific explanations for all of these calamities and thus
don't need to use any gods (let alone God) to explain them. The fact
is that scientists can perform measurements today that agree with the
predictions of quantum theory to ten digit precision and accuracy.
The so called "God of the gaps" has become so infinitessimally small
that we can feel confident that it doesn't exist at all.
I would suggest that you may have been misinformed about what an
atheist actually *is*.
The term "atheist" is a very well defined and understood term. It was
defined that way (given below) when I took Intro to Religion in college and
it has been defined that way in all sources I've seen to date. There is very
little to no room for error on the definition of this term. However what you
may have thought of as atheism in the past may have actually been
agnosticism. Let me give you an example from a new book I got. It was
recommended to me by our former pastor who is has a PhD in Philosophy and
taught philosophy and world religions at our local college. The book is
called "Ways to the Center - 6th Ed," Denise L. Carmody & T.L. Brink.
Glossary -> page 318
atheist - "no deity or deities exist"
And that is how I use the term. Always have and always will. Agnosticism on
the other hand is defined on page 380 nad reads
agnosticism - "It is not possible to know or prove the existance of deities,
so we should doubt."
With the atheist there is zero doubt. To a true atheist God simply does not
exist in his mind.
If you seriously believe in the existance of your god then you are
atheist with respect to all other gods. The only difference with
those who call ourselves "atheist" is that we believe in one less god.
Whether or not gods exist is not important to
me, since the world goes merrily along in an identical fashion as it
would if they did not. There is no "crisis of faith" for me, because I
don't believe "in" something. My lack of belief in gods is not a
"belief" in and of itself-it is simply an opinion based upon the
evidence.
From your comment here it appears to me that your agnostic. Do you believe
that?
You don't get it. The lack of belief in any god is not a belief.
When babies are born into this world they are trivially atheist in
that they don't believe in God. You said yourself: agnosticism - "It
is not possible to know or prove the existance of deities, so we
should doubt." Babies lack any concept of God so there's nothing to
doubt. Most atheists are like that: theists haven't sufficiently
explained just what they mean by "God". Is he an old man with a beard
living in the sky? Is he a disembodied entity? Is he a burning
bush? Frankly, you haven't given us anything to believe in. You only
believe because other people have told you that you should believe.
That's all there is to it.
If your god would show his presence in a way that left no
doubt he existed, the evidence would be changed-and my opinion would
be forced to change as a result. What I *wish* to be true is
unimportant.
Have you actually thought that out?
Yes, we have. Have you actually thought out your position? If you
had then you wouldn't be a theist: you would be an agnostic bordering
on atheism.
How would God go about doing that
He doesn't exist. Stop talking as though your fantasies are real.
without you questioning whether it was done all by illusion. God has made
his appearance on Earth several times and has done miracles witnessed by
man.
All lies. Jesus himself didn't exist.
See http://www.jesusneverexisted.com
All this was observed and written down for prosperity. Don't expect God
to keep doing this for everyone everywhere on Earth for an infinite number
of years.
We don't expect your nonexistant fairy to do anything. You are the
one with the beliefs. Nt us.
Where would faith be then. Faith is important to God.
No, it isn't. Your non-existant God doesn't care about faith because
he doesn't exist. Your non-existant God supposedly sent his non-
existant son to convince the world that He existed and yet He doesn't
really care if we believe or not. That's the nonsense you insist on
believing in.
The
problem is trying to convince yourself of something you can't possibly
know
is true or not. But all that is another very long story.
Yes, I often feel sorry for my theistic friends. I see them writhe in
mental agony trying to reconcile all this leftover debris from our
superstitious ancestors with a modern education.
That's quite odd. I do the same thing with amazement and enjoyment.
To us that is abominable evil. Why should people deceive themselves?
Why can't they be allowed to embrace common sense?
"The world is round? Ridiculous!!"
(Anonymous circa 1491)
They just simply
ignore the simplest solution to the question...that perhaps there's
just nothing here but *us*.
Because its simple doesn't make it true.
Occam's Razor informs us otherwise.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
27 Aug 2007 12:04:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:59:23 -0400, "Pmb" <someone@somewhere.net>
wrote:
<panamfloyd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188178653.007702.266590@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 8:59 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net>
snip
If this is true then all this tells us was that Mother Teresa was just as
human as every other Christian and she too had a crisis of faith now and
then. I often wonder if God exists or not and whether my faith is based
on
an something false.
Only "false" re: the "supernatural". The religion *does* exist.
However, modern scholarship has revealed the religion as a creation of
worried, superstitious men.
That is impossible. No amount of scholarship is capable of such things due
to the very nature of the subject. If you disagree then please show me your
source for this claim.
It's the existentially POSITIVE assertion that bears the burden of
proof. The default position, barring such proof, is "is not". (The
positive assertion, in this case, is that your god objectively exists,
so you'll have to produce objective evidence of that existence to be
taken seriously.)
I would suggest that you may have been misinformed about what an
atheist actually *is*.
The term "atheist" is a very well defined and understood term. It was
defined that way (given below) when I took Intro to Religion in college and
it has been defined that way in all sources I've seen to date. There is very
little to no room for error on the definition of this term. However what you
may have thought of as atheism in the past may have actually been
agnosticism. Let me give you an example from a new book I got. It was
recommended to me by our former pastor who is has a PhD in Philosophy and
taught philosophy and world religions at our local college. The book is
called "Ways to the Center - 6th Ed," Denise L. Carmody & T.L. Brink.
Glossary -> page 318
We're talking about the ACTUAL definitions:
A-Theism - lack of god-belief. Same as a-synchronous, a-temporal ...
lack of, not "belief in the opposite".
Agnosticism ... I'll let the man who coined the term tell you what HE
meant by it.
"Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the
intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without
regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the
intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not
demonstrated or demonstrable."
You'll notice the total lack of connection to anything religious.
atheist - "no deity or deities exist"
And that is how I use the term.
So you use it wrong. No surprise. Atemporal doesn't mean "belief
that there's no time."
Always have and always will. Agnosticism on
the other hand is defined on page 380 nad reads
agnosticism - "It is not possible to know or prove the existance of deities,
so we should doubt."
Since Huxley never mentioned deities, you have to admit (if you have
the slightest shred of honor) that your source got it wrong. It has
nothing (according to Huxley, who should know what he meant) to do
with deities.
With the atheist there is zero doubt.
With the gnostic atheist there's no doubt. With the agnostic atheist
there's no assertion.
Gnosticism and theism are orthogonal.
To a true atheist God simply does not exist in his mind.
You're telling us what we think? And you call *US* uneducated and not
scholarly? Unless you can post evidence of your telepathic ability,
telling others what they think is VERY unscholarly.
Whether or not gods exist is not important to
me, since the world goes merrily along in an identical fashion as it
would if they did not. There is no "crisis of faith" for me, because I
don't believe "in" something. My lack of belief in gods is not a
"belief" in and of itself-it is simply an opinion based upon the
evidence.
From your comment here it appears to me that your agnostic. Do you believe
that?
He probably is - MOST atheists are. Most intelligent Christians are
too. Intelligent people don't insist that they know something when
there's no way they can know it.
If your god would show his presence in a way that left no
doubt he existed, the evidence would be changed-and my opinion would
be forced to change as a result. What I *wish* to be true is
unimportant.
Have you actually thought that out? How would God go about doing that
without you questioning whether it was done all by illusion.
He's omniscient, so he'd know how. Or are you claiming that how to
prove he exists to atheists is something he doesn't know?
God has made his appearance on Earth several times and has done miracles witnessed by
man.
Not one of whom is alive to tell us about it.
All this was observed and written down for prosperity.
The civilization on Mars was also written down for posterity. Things
like Barsoom and the Bible are known as "fiction". And we have so
much proof that the Bible is false. Absolute, physical, proof.
Don't expect God to keep doing this for everyone everywhere on Earth for an infinite number
of years. Where would faith be then.
Where was faith when he DID appear?
Faith is important to God.
But not so important that he couldn't make himself known to people a
few thousand years ago? Sorry, your story lacks all logic.
Yes, I often feel sorry for my theistic friends. I see them writhe in
mental agony trying to reconcile all this leftover debris from our
superstitious ancestors with a modern education.
That's quite odd. I do the same thing with amazement and enjoyment.
More's the pity.
They just simply
ignore the simplest solution to the question...that perhaps there's
just nothing here but *us*.
Because its simple doesn't make it true.
Because you believe in a god doesn't make it any more true than all
the thousands of other gods our ancestors have invented.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
27 Aug 2007 12:39:02 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:0306d3derjunmim9ueah5aqj7pc6si2ei0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:59:23 -0400, "Pmb" <someone@somewhere.net>
wrote:
<panamfloyd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188178653.007702.266590@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 8:59 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net>
snip
If this is true then all this tells us was that Mother Teresa was just
as
human as every other Christian and she too had a crisis of faith now
and
then. I often wonder if God exists or not and whether my faith is based
on
an something false.
Only "false" re: the "supernatural". The religion *does* exist.
However, modern scholarship has revealed the religion as a creation of
worried, superstitious men.
That is impossible. No amount of scholarship is capable of such things due
to the very nature of the subject. If you disagree then please show me
your
source for this claim.
It's the existentially POSITIVE assertion that bears the burden of
proof. The default position, barring such proof, is "is not". (The
positive assertion, in this case, is that your god objectively exists,
so you'll have to produce objective evidence of that existence to be
taken seriously.)
Take seriously? by who, another atheist? I'm not that interested in
discussing the logic of proofs with atheists.
Plonk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
27 Aug 2007 07:33:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:39:02 -0400, "Pmb" <someone@somewhere.net>
wrote:
I'm not that interested in discussing the logic of proofs with atheists.
Plonk
Just in posting to alt.atheism. Well, there goes another
self-admitted troll.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "_ Prof. Jonez _" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
27 Aug 2007 03:12:20 PM |
|
|
Pmb wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 22:59:23 -0400, "Pmb" <someone@somewhere.net>
wrote:
<panamfloyd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
On Aug 26, 8:59 pm, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.net> wrote:
From: "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net>
snip
If this is true then all this tells us was that Mother Teresa was
just as
human as every other Christian and she too had a crisis of faith
now and
then. I often wonder if God exists or not and whether my faith is
based on
an something false.
Only "false" re: the "supernatural". The religion *does* exist.
However, modern scholarship has revealed the religion as a
creation of worried, superstitious men.
That is impossible. No amount of scholarship is capable of such
things due to the very nature of the subject. If you disagree then
please show me your
source for this claim.
It's the existentially POSITIVE assertion that bears the burden of
proof. The default position, barring such proof, is "is not". (The
positive assertion, in this case, is that your god objectively
exists, so you'll have to produce objective evidence of that
existence to be taken seriously.)
Take seriously? by who, another atheist? I'm not that interested in
discussing the logic of proofs with atheists.
Plonk
^^^^^^
LOL!
The sound of another baaable-thumpin' christian's brain hitting the toilet water
in the morning ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: __ Breaking News: Mother Teresa: "I have no Faith" ! <= atheist, phony christian, now burning in HELL __ |
27 Aug 2007 11:43:49 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:59:07 -0400, "Pmb" <someone@somewhere.net>
wrote:
Mother Teresa was beatified just six years after her death, when late pope
John Paul II set on her a fast track to sainthood. It was something the
nun seemed to have predicted as early as 1962, when she wrote in one
letter:
"If I ever become a Saint -- I will surely be one of 'darkness.' I will
continually be absent from Heaven."
If this is true then all this tells us was that Mother Teresa was just as
human as every other Christian
You mean just as dirty, just as deceitful, just as lying and just as
crooked.
I often wonder if God exists or not and whether my faith is based on
an something false.
Since he doesn't, it is.
But if I was an atheist I'd have the same problem.
Lacking belief in your god is a problem? You lack belief in thousands
of them.
The problem is trying to convince yourself of something you can't possibly know
is true or not.
So you don't - you reserve judgment until you know - if ever.
But all that is another very long story.
It's a very short story - you choose (for whatever reason) to believe.
We don't.
.
|
|
|
| |
