I keep thinking that someone should start a thread about the recent revelations regarding Mother Theresa and her lack of faith--since I'm someone, here goes.

It seems that for most of her life, she was essentially an atheist. According to published excerpts from her journals, although she was a strong believer in her youth--due to visions and whatnot she received--when the visions stopped, her faith waned. She repeatedly referred to Jesus as "the Absent One" and felt like a total hypocrite when, in her frequent public statements, she would speak movingly of the joy to be found in being close to God--joy which was totally absent for most of her life.

Personally, I have no use for faith ,or the faithful--I once read a definition of faith as believing something you know isn't true. As far as I'm concerned, the more you know and the less you believe, the better off you are. Any belief is a limiting belief.

I KNOW that God is a reality--not some old man with a beard on a cloud somewhere, but God as a force--the unified field, the cosmic sentient and loving field of energy and information that pervades us all, makes us all one.

A field of pure consciousness, in other words. Too bad for Moms, she didn't know this. Living in India, there were probably people living outside on the street who could have told her as much.

Welcome to fairy tale land. And you are using your abusive and greedy Xtian god to mount an unnecessary and pointless attack on poor old Mother Theresa. At least she tried to make this a better world, your fairy tale entity only wallows in his stupor and crude vapid demoralizations of the human race. Pitiful.

What do you think would have happened to mother Theresa if she openly spoke about her lack of faith while she was alive. If you want to attack her religiously by all means, but theres no denying the good things she did in the world that have nothing to do with being christain.

I mean no offence, just saying that does it really matter if she had faith or not?

Welcome to fairy tale land. And you are using your abusive and greedy Xtian god to mount an unnecessary and pointless attack on poor old Mother Theresa.

Pardon me for speaking out of turn, but I don't believe ArmsMerchant ever claimed to be a Christian.

Pardon me for speaking out of turn, but I don't believe ArmsMerchant ever claimed to be a Christian.Well it's like this...

When some Xtians get tired of parroting that old god is love line...

they sometimes switch to the invisible omnipotent and omniscient happy go lucky god..

ignoring the filth and the waste and the pre-disposed wrath of the cruel, unforgiving relentless punishing god of the night before.

like ArmsMerchant did here.

A red herring by any other name...

...and if nothing else he is acting like yer garden variety blinkered Xtian, regurgitating the same old tired nonsense. For example notice this "revelation" 'I KNOW that God is a reality' prefaced by a long winded and circular denial of faith and not having any faith, i.e. not really believing in that horribly abused notion, one that many hold deer, that we call god.

anyway what difference does it make? i ask in all sincerity. He only wanted to bash Mother Theresa, willfully ignoring the good deeds she has performed, somehow attempting, and rather foolishly i might add, to devalue them, to subtract meaning from her life. That was the main thrust of his remarks.

anyway what difference does it make? i ask in all sincerity.

Not much difference, I see what you're saying.

In all sincerity - I was just giving you the short version and hoping to diffuse the situation before AM himself spent a great deal of keystrokes explaining to you the difference between his God and the Xtian God.

We can't very well steal the thunder from Momma T, which is the main premises of this thread! :D

Again, pardon my intervention.

In all sincerity - I was just giving you the short version and hoping to diffuse the situation before AM himself spent a great deal of keystrokes explaining to you the difference between his God and the Xtian God.

We can't very well steal the thunder from Momma T, which is the main premises of this thread! :D

Again, pardon my intervention.Thank you i appreciate that. somebody has to untangle this mess.

...and if nothing else he is acting like yer garden variety blinkered Xtian, regurgitating the same old tired nonsense. For example notice this "revelation" 'I KNOW that God is a reality' prefaced by a long winded and circular denial of faith and not having any faith, i.e. not really believing in that horribly abused notion, one that many hold deer, that we call god.

anyway what difference does it make? i ask in all sincerity. He only wanted to bash Mother Theresa, willfully ignoring the good deeds she has performed, somehow attempting, and rather foolishly i might add, to devalue them, to subtract meaning from her life. That was the main thrust of his remarks.

This is very simple:
1)What's your definition of "know"? How do you "know" things? This could all be an illusion and everything you "know" could be false. He could have "learned" that God is reality, so he wouldn't need to have faith. Well, he'd have to have faith that "reality" is real, but...that...goes no where.

2)He didn't "bash" her at all. This is a thread about Mother Theresa's possible atheism. He "ignored" her good deeds because they're not very relevant to this thread.

To the OP, how 'bout a source?

This is very simple:
1)What's your definition of "know"? How do you "know" things? This could all be an illusion and everything you "know" could be false. He could have "learned" that God is reality, so he wouldn't need to have faith. Well, he'd have to have faith that "reality" is real, but...that...goes no where.

2)He didn't "bash" her at all. This is a thread about Mother Theresa's possible atheism. He "ignored" her good deeds because they're not very relevant to this thread.Your post does not make any sense.. more religious bigotry... from a die-hard Xtian believer.

Amazing i say....

But since you asked...
I keep thinking that someone should start a thread about the recent revelations regarding Mother Theresa and her lack of faith--since I'm someone, here goes.

It seems that for most of her life, she was essentially an atheist. According to published excerpts from her journals, although she was a strong believer in her youth--due to visions and whatnot she received--when the visions stopped, her faith waned. She repeatedly referred to Jesus as "the Absent One" and felt like a total hypocrite when, in her frequent public statements, she would speak movingly of the joy to be found in being close to God--joy which was totally absent for most of her life.

Too bad for Moms, she didn't know this. Living in India, there were probably people living outside on the street who could have told her as much.Notice the mix of fact and fiction, the incoherent tone, and the unqualified assertions, including that god was "missing" from her life. Yet he fails to go into the merest details of her life, her accomplishments, instead focussing on a guaranteed, tiresome and hopelessly redundant non-starter, her supposed and gleefully misinterpreted religious beliefs. We're talking comic books and superheroes here but hold on it gets worse. You know that childish and more or less redundant double standard of god-approved bigotry and see-through hypocrisy. And there is alot of poverty in India, only an insensitive, ignorant, and pitiful self-righteous Xtian cashclown/assclown would gloss over this point. Best defined as poppycock.

AM wasn't bashing MT. MT is the one who said that she had no faith and doubted the existance of God.

The following is one of several news stories concerning the writings found in MT's personal diary:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/29/wteres29.xml

Sorry, someone who uses money meant for helping people to build monasteries and lets the less fortunate die in crammed rooms that don't even have beds is not a saint, let alone a good person

Pardon me for speaking out of turn, but I don't believe ArmsMerchant ever claimed to be a Christian.

Thank you for pointing that out. I have stated repeatedly that Christianity is a religion of fear and denial--which is a description, not an attack. or judgement.

I should point out as well, that nowhere did I "attack" Mother Theresa. I repeated some info which has been widely reported.

To the OP, how 'bout a source?

Okay--I googled "mother theresa doubts" and got 194,000 results. Reading them should keep you out of trouble for a while.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=t&ie=UTF-8&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2006-50,SUNA:en&q=mother+theresa+doubts

I KNOW that God is a reality

Amen! :D

As for this whole thing about Mother Theresa, everyone has times of doubts.

Her private diaries shouldn't have been published. :rolleyes:

AM wasn't bashing MT. MT is the one who said that she had no faith and doubted the existance of God.i disagree truckfixr. The belittling and condescending tone of the OP sheds the worst possible light on Mother Theresa, it is nonsense to try to pretend to know what was really going on in her mind. Pay attention my man.

Thank you for pointing that out. I have stated repeatedly that Christianity is a religion of fear and denial--which is a description, not an attack. or judgement.

I should point out as well, that nowhere did I "attack" Mother Theresa. I repeated some info which has been widely reported. i hope you don't really believe that. The ONLY point of your OP is to cast dispersion upon Mother Theresa, and to ignore her good deeds, like who really gives a flying rats ass about what she did or did not believe? Get a grip on reality man. And the tone of your post was rather pathetic, i must say.

i disagree truckfixr. The belittling and condescending tone of the OP sheds the worst possible light on Mother Theresa, it is nonsense to try to pretend to know what was really going on in her mind. Pay attention my man.

"Pay attention"? My goodness, you so need to follow your own advice. Nowhere did I belittle the woman, although I will concede the "Moms" was less than deferential.

Had you paid attention to any of the numerous news stories that came out at the time, you would know that my condensation of the accounts is fair and accurate.

you would know that my condensation of the accounts is fair and accurate.WTF??

Denying and ignoring the good deeds that Mother Theresa is known for... though i admit i have no direct knowledge of this...is fair and accurate??

If that isn't a form of religious bigotry i don't know what is. And no the truth is you are sadly mistaken or willfully misinformed...

Let's be honest for a minute here...so let me ask you this..

Do you deny the that the condescending tone of your brief assessmentis exists, or did that just magically happen? And for starters, define fair and accurate. i'll be waiting.

WTF??

Denying and ignoring the good deeds that Mother Theresa is known for... though i admit i have no direct knowledge of this...is fair and accurate??

If that isn't a form of religious bigotry i don't know what is. And no the truth is you are sadly mistaken or willfully misinformed...

Let's be honest for a minute here...so let me ask you this..

Do you deny the that the condescending tone of your brief assessmentis exists, or did that just magically happen? And for starters, define fair and accurate. i'll be waiting.

Would you be so kind as to point me to the post in which Arms ignored or denied her good deeds?

Also, per your earlier post. It is quite simple to know what was going through her mind, as she wrote her thoughts down in her diary. No offense intended, but perhaps you should take your own advice, and pay attention?

the good deeds that Mother Theresa is known for

Overhyped bullshit and blatant lies. Enjoy your "saint"

Would you be so kind as to point me to the post in which Arms ignored or denied her good deeds?

Also, per your earlier post. It is quite simple to know what was going through her mind, as she wrote her thoughts down in her diary. No offense intended, but perhaps you should take your own advice, and pay attention?The OP truckfixr. Read it again. As for the diary issue, i haven't read any of it, could be bullshite, could be fake, but even so whose to say what she was really feeling, and does her personal diary tell the whole story or not, are they true reflections, the language of the day etc,? Please let's not go down that road.

The OP truckfixr. Read it again. As for the diary issue, i haven't read any of it, could be bullshite, could be fake, but even so whose to say what she was really feeling, and does her personal diary tell the whole story or not, are they true reflections, the language of the day etc,? Please let's not go down that road.

Why would you think that one's personal diary would not reflect one's actual thoughts and feelings? Why would you ask if it was written in *the language of the day*, as she died only 10 years ago?
I cannot understand why you would continue to deny something that is so simple to verify.

[QUOTE=neon;9028551] As for the diary issue, i haven't read any of it, could be bullshite, could be fake, but even so whose to say what she was really language of the day etc,? QUOTE]

Thank you for owning up to your complete ignorance and total lack of qualification for even commenting in this thread.

In the immortal phrase I stole from Rust-- "fucking moron."

FYI--the diary thing came out in a book, which was reviewed in numerous publications, and written by a fan of MT. There is no doubt to the authenticity or the language in the dairy, except perhaps among the ignorant, deluded, or schizotypal.

[QUOTE=neon;9026296]WTF??

Denying and ignoring the good deeds that Mother Theresa is known for... though i admit i have no direct knowledge of this...is fair and accurate??
QUOTE]


MT is a celebrity, one of the best-known women on the planet--why should I belabor the obvious vis a vis her alleged "good deeds"? That wasn't the point.

My god, man--what drugs are you on--or are you just completely stupid?

Pardon me for speaking out of turn, but I don't believe ArmsMerchant ever claimed to be a Christian.

Actually, I'm pretty sure he said he WASN'T a Christian there....

Overhyped bullshit and blatant lies. Enjoy your "saint"Yes i see your point. Although it appears that the criticism is blatant and perhaps excessive; http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/mother-teresa/ there are open questions about her charity.

As for the diary issue, i haven't read any of it, could be bullshite, could be fake, but even so whose to say what she was really language of the day etc,? Thank you for owning up to your complete ignorance and total lack of qualification for even commenting in this thread. i have owned up to nothing, i made only an observation, hinting that the diaries and letters could be fake... or could be the real thing. Nice see-through ad homimen attack there ArmsMerchant, but we still have as yet to dissect her diarys and letters. i for one really don't care. It appears that the good she may have accomplished initially is outweighed by her questionable behavior, political associations and questionable reliance upon religious like doctrine.

i have owned up to nothing, i made only an observation, hinting that the diaries and letters could be fake... or could be the real thing.

Are you saying that someone else could have written those letters and diary entries to be found? Thats an interesting thought...

mother theresa is an idiot bitch for believing in catholicism, the good things she did were incidental to that, philosophically, socially and rationally she was a fucking cretin.

Yeah, Mother Teresea openly admitted to not feeling the Holy Spirit inside of her. Despite that she still did great deeds for humanity in the name of God and that shows her faith in God. To say she's an Atheist is interesting but kinda ignorant seeings how most Athiests dont go out of their way to follow the Church.

^ I tend to agree--hence the "?" in the thread title.

Maybe "hypocrit" would be more accurate.

I keep thinking that someone should start a thread about the recent revelations regarding Mother Theresa and her lack of faith--since I'm someone, here goes.

It seems that for most of her life, she was essentially an atheist. According to published excerpts from her journals, although she was a strong believer in her youth--due to visions and whatnot she received--when the visions stopped, her faith waned. She repeatedly referred to Jesus as "the Absent One" and felt like a total hypocrite when, in her frequent public statements, she would speak movingly of the joy to be found in being close to God--joy which was totally absent for most of her life.

Personally, I have no use for faith ,or the faithful--I once read a definition of faith as believing something you know isn't true. As far as I'm concerned, the more you know and the less you believe, the better off you are. Any belief is a limiting belief.

I KNOW that God is a reality--not some old man with a beard on a cloud somewhere, but God as a force--the unified field, the cosmic sentient and loving field of energy and information that pervades us all, makes us all one.

A field of pure consciousness, in other words. Too bad for Moms, she didn't know this. Living in India, there were probably people living outside on the street who could have told her as much.

momma theresa was a dyke kiddy loving catholic!

I think Mother Theresa saw enough suffering in the world to realize there is nothing out there that gives a shit about us here on Earth.

I think she realized that believing in a benevolent force makes people feel nice as they sit back and relax and try to drown out the groans of agony from the starving and the unfortunates of the world.

She must have realized that GOD is going to do nothing for us and we have to do it ourselves. Whether it is b/c God is dead or does not exist doesnt matter. That realization of an abstentee God was probably what motivated her to do the great things she did.

I find it funny that she did not believe and yet SOMEHOW managed to be a better person than MOST all of the xtians on the planet. What does that tell you about God and the good things BELIEF in him accomplish?

What does that tell you about God and the good things BELIEF in him accomplish?

Nice generalization.

You really hate theism, don't you?

How do you rationalize that emotion?

No Obbe, you have it all wrong as usual. BrokeProphet made several good points, that you willingly choose to ignore them, instead relying upon your fairy-tale divine entity to offer you comfort and hope, shows that you don't have any critical thinking skills to speak of, or a conscience.

Actually her serious crisis of faith is a completely overblown media exaggeration, here are some examples.

"The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God."

"In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist."

"Because (I) was forever smiling, people thought my faith, my hope and my love are overflowing and that my intimacy with God and union with his fill my heart. If they only knew."

These are hardly the words of an atheist, her religious sentiments clearly showing through.

Nice generalization.

You really hate theism, don't you?

How do you rationalize that emotion?

Come, come now Obbe...

You have tried to bait me for weeks. Fact is most times when I see your name on a post I skip it. Here is why:

You have yet to make one interesting and valid point on this thread. But, to answer your question:

Yes, I despise theism (inprovable fantasy) that affects my daily life. That is how I rationalize it. You of ALL people should NEVER ask anyone to rationalize something. Your core beliefs are inane, simplistic and less rational than your average Xtian.

Yes, I despise theism (inprovable fantasy) that affects my daily life.

Actually, it seems that Christian extremists, the church mixing with the state, and censoring on basic cable effects your daily life much more then a belief such as mine.

How would my beliefs affect your life?

That is how I rationalize it. You of ALL people should NEVER ask anyone to rationalize something.

Why? How are my beliefs irrational?

You understand you do not KNOW the things you believe to be true are actually true, right? That you only believe in these things, and only really know your existence to be true? No, you don't, because you disagree with solipsism.

Oh, and...

You have tried to bait me for weeks ... most times when I see your name ... I skip it. Here is why: You have yet to make one interesting and valid point on this thread.

What?

How would my beliefs affect your life?

Although not many of us (does anyone?) agree with Obbe's view on things, he right saying this.

You seem to just have this negative outlook on all theism in general. Nothing affects you unless you let it. You said theism is an "improvable fantasy" that "affects your daily life." First off, I don't see how a fantasy could be something that could be provable or improvable anyway but with that aside I would like to hear how these fantasies affect your life.

This is not to be confused with those that make it a point to press their beliefs on other people, which seems like more your case than hating all theism.

What do you think would have happened to mother Theresa if she openly spoke about her lack of faith while she was alive. If you want to attack her religiously by all means, but theres no denying the good things she did in the world that have nothing to do with being christain.

I mean no offence, just saying that does it really matter if she had faith or not?

Good things? Like taking stolen money from the Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti? The compromises she made with the tyrannical Indira Gandhi? How about that speech she made when she insisted that abortion is the greatest threat to world peace?

And it matters quite a bit to those who were pushing her for sainthood.

Good things? Like taking stolen money from the Duvalier dictatorship in Haiti? The compromises she made with the tyrannical Indira Gandhi? How about that speech she made when she insisted that abortion is the greatest threat to world peace?

I'll let you enjoy your sarcasm.

Were all human and we all make mistakes and do things that other people will disagree with. This is inevitable. It just seems that this thread is only interested in the negative things in her life, and no one really mentioned the poor and dying people she helped, the orphaned children that she took in and cared for.

And it matters quite a bit to those who were pushing her for sainthood.

And of course she prolly will get her sainthood. So what? What does that mean to you, or me, or anyone else?

^ Are you really this dense, or feigning ignorance for the sake of contentiousness??

There are roughly a billion people on this planet who are Catholic, and many of them still--for reasons I cannot begin to fathom--take this sainthood business quite seriously--they PRAY to saints, fer crissake.

And since in the Highest Sense, we are All One, anything that is of interest and/or concern to others is of concern to me.

Although not many of us (does anyone?) agree with Obbe's view on things, he right saying this.No he is wrong in saying this. The rest of his post didn't make a lick of sense... the usual. What is wrong with Obbe regurgitating the tired and wornout tenents of his particular faith here? Everything, beyond just mindless babbling the misconstructions and boring elitist doctrines of organized religion, he seems incapable of forming a coherent and original thought. He accepts at face value the insane and hypocritical moralizations that his faith has to offer, as an act of faith and social acceptance, never thinking about how this might affect others, this is just plain wrong.

As for the diary issue, i haven't read any of it, could be bullshite, could be fake, but even so whose to say what she was really language of the day etc,?FYI--the diary thing came out in a book, which was reviewed in numerous publications, and written by a fan of MT. There is no doubt to the authenticity or the language in the dairy, except perhaps among the ignorant, deluded, or schizotypal. No you're wrong, the entire thing could be fake or a grand misrepresentation. And may i suggest that the only one who is ignorant and/or deluded here is yourself... that you have to rely on such language and irrelevant ad hominems seems to show this to be true.

And relying upon "information" supposedly written by a fan of Mother Theresa is in no way is infallible proof that the diary is accurate and/or the real thing and not a forgery.

Maybe you could cough up some proof as to the validity of the aforementioned diarys, instead of just pointing to generalized mass media accounts.

No he is wrong in saying this. The rest of his post didn't make a lick of sense... the usual. What is wrong with Obbe regurgitating the tired and wornout tenents of his particular faith here? Everything, beyond just mindless babbling the misconstructions and boring elitist doctrines of organized religion, he seems incapable of forming a coherent and original thought. He accepts at face value the insane and hypocritical moralizations that his faith has to offer, as an act of faith and social acceptance, never thinking about how this might affect others, this is just plain wrong.

Well your talking about Obbe constantly protraying his own views and not taking into account anything outside of his own beliefs. This I agree with you on. But in the general sense, what one person believes doesnt affect another person at all unless they push their beliefs on others. You have your beliefs, and I would gladly listen to them and give my input, but its up to me whether they affect my life or not.

Forcing your beliefs on others and being ignorant of any other ideas is a totally different thing.

Unless its forced upon you, its up to you whether it affects your life, has any meaning, or is total bullshit. And even than if its forced on you, you can still think its total bullshit.

most spiritual/religious people have trouble with their faith at times. Their ability to regain it is what truly makes them stronger. Any intelligent believer (in anything) questions what they believe; why should Mother Teresa be different? So, she lost faith for a bit? That just makes her that much stronger.

most spiritual/religious people have trouble with their faith at times. Their ability to regain it is what truly makes them stronger. Any intelligent believer (in anything) questions what they believe; why should Mother Teresa be different? So, she lost faith for a bit? That just makes her that much stronger.

So many errors, so little time. First of all, it is grossly illogical to lump together "spiritual" and "religious"--if anything, the two are anthethical. Many deeply spiritual pople are not religious, and many religious people not spiritual.

Second, saying that "most" people do this is simply an unsupported generalization--thatg is, base don nothing but the poster's uninformed opinion.

Third. no "intelligent" person who is in tune with the Age of Aquarius --at least in my book--"believes" anything. "The LESS you believe, and the more you know, the better off you are" is axiomatic wih me.

Fourth, it was hardly "for a bit"--it was virtually all her adult life. And she never regained it. "Stronger" is a grossly inappropriate term in this context.

Welcome to fairy tale land. And you are using your abusive and greedy Xtian god to mount an unnecessary and pointless attack on poor old Mother Theresa. At least she tried to make this a better world, your fairy tale entity only wallows in his stupor and crude vapid demoralizations of the human race. Pitiful.

define "better"

define "better"

Well, she was a tireless crusader against birth control in general and condom use in particular--thus a "better" world--according to the official Catholic line--would be even more grossly over-populated and rife with people slowly dying of AIDS than there is now.

Damn, what does it matter, if someone leads a life and you look at their thoughts at the end of it and judge them for that instead of their actions then where does this shit stop.

Damn, what does it matter, if someone leads a life and you look at their thoughts at the end of it and judge them for that instead of their actions then where does this shit stop.

First of all, neither I nor any of the sources I cite "judge" Mother T--just make observations and speculation.

It matters rather a lot, since--as I said earlier--Catholicism is one of the dominant religions on the planet (even though it seems to be in a well-earned decline),and Mother T was probably the second-best known Catholic on the planet.

First of all, neither I nor any of the sources I cite "judge" Mother T--just make observations and speculation.

It matters rather a lot, since--as I said earlier--Catholicism is one of the dominant religions on the planet (even though it seems to be in a well-earned decline),and Mother T was probably the second-best known Catholic on the planet.

I suppose it could matter.

I think Mother Theresa saw enough suffering in the world to realize there is nothing out there that gives a shit about us here on Earth.

I think she realized that believing in a benevolent force makes people feel nice as they sit back and relax and try to drown out the groans of agony from the starving and the unfortunates of the world.

She must have realized that GOD is going to do nothing for us and we have to do it ourselves. Whether it is b/c God is dead or does not exist doesnt matter. That realization of an abstentee God was probably what motivated her to do the great things she did.

I find it funny that she did not believe and yet SOMEHOW managed to be a better person than MOST all of the xtians on the planet. What does that tell you about God and the good things BELIEF in him accomplish?

"The LESS you believe, and the more you know, the better off you are" is axiomatic wih me.


Explain your view of the difference between 'believing' and 'knowing'.

When people believe things, they "know" them. eg. Christians know that their God is real. That is a part of their perception of reality. Your perception of reality is starkly different, yet it's still confined to the subjective nature of the human experience. How do you know that your perception of the way things are is ultimately correct and reflects things as they truly are? How do you know you're not living in an elaborate delusion? You're not omniscient, so you can't look at it objectively; you're confined to the human experience. And therefore, how do you know whether you "know" anything at all?

By "know", do you mean absolute knowledge? And if so, how could you possibly attain absolute knowledge? There are too many possible refutations.

Elaborate on your comment to the young'uns such as myself, old man.

ps. your NPD is showing ;)

And since in the Highest Sense, we are All One, anything that is of interest and/or concern to others is of concern to me.

I take the view that "we are All One" is just one of a myriad of ways in which we can percieve things. But it's just that, a perception.

Although I like it, so I go with it as well. In the sense that an analogy could be made between a body and the universe - many cells, all different yet all part of the same whole.

Scientifically, it makes some sense. As I read in New Scientist magazine, certain theories of quantum mechanics might indicate so.

The way you react to this perception of Oneness ("anything that is of interest and/or concern to others is of concern to me") is what I find slightly dubious. Are you really saying you're concerned with everyone's interests? You don't even know everyone's interests. If you're concerned with everyone's interests and/or concerns, are you concerned with mutually contradictory interests between two people? Not to insinuate that you necessarily support or agree with all of these interests.

I have no intention of insulting you with this, but self-admittedly you have a narcassistic temperment. You're not concerned so much about other people's interests when you're in a more narcassistic mode of thinking then, are you? Of course in my view... we aren't solid beings, we are dynamic and in a constant state of change and fleeting mental/emotional states. Every 'nanosecond' (so to speak) we are a different person. Extremely similar; albiet different. It all comes down to definitions. How far does one have to stray before one is defined as 'different'? But I digress.

With the knowledge that we are all One, I would react differently. From pure guesswork, I currently view the universe as being in a sort of 'chaotic order', much like an ecosystem or natural selection. Chaotic order. From a non-philosophical perspective, everything is roughly as it should be. If everyone were meant to be concerned with everyone's interests and devote our lives to universal altruism and the notion that we are all One, certain universal pressures would have made it so. But alas, no. Natural selection has instilled in us roughly what we should be. A balance of all things - anger, kindness, empathy, hate, altruism - the whole bag.

EDIT: wait, i just read in another thread that you think the universe (or God as you call it) is sentient. i attribute sentience to biological processes in the mind/brain, and cannot understand how something like the universe, which doesnt have a biological brain, could have sentience. our concept of god/the universe differs, so nevermind.

I think Mother Theresa saw enough suffering in the world to realize there is nothing out there that gives a shit about us here on Earth.

I think she realized that believing in a benevolent force makes people feel nice as they sit back and relax and try to drown out the groans of agony from the starving and the unfortunates of the world.

She must have realized that GOD is going to do nothing for us and we have to do it ourselves. Whether it is b/c God is dead or does not exist doesnt matter. That realization of an abstentee God was probably what motivated her to do the great things she did.

I find it funny that she did not believe and yet SOMEHOW managed to be a better person than MOST all of the xtians on the planet. What does that tell you about God and the good things BELIEF in him accomplish?

She chose change as her master, yet changed nothing. She wasted her life and accomplished nothing but a possible position in a church's hall of fame for putting so much of her effort into futility. How, BP, is the endless wasting of energy under the guise of charity justified as 'being a good person'?

She may have decided God does nothing, so we must do it ourselves...but what impact did she really have?

Mother Theresa was a humanitarian person, she was just dedicated to doing good and helping others, her personal beliefs are irrelevant.

She chose change as her master, yet changed nothing. She wasted her life and accomplished nothing but a possible position in a church's hall of fame for putting so much of her effort into futility. How, BP, is the endless wasting of energy under the guise of charity justified as 'being a good person'?

She may have decided God does nothing, so we must do it ourselves...but what impact did she really have?

What impact did she have?

For over forty years she ministered to the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying, while guiding the Missionaries of Charity's expansion, first throughout India and then in other countries.

In 1982, at the height of the Siege of Beirut, Mother Teresa rescued 37 children trapped in a front line hospital by brokering a temporary cease-fire between the Israeli army and Palestinian guerrillas. Accompanied by Red Cross workers, she traveled through the war zone to the devastated hospital to evacuate the young patients.

When Eastern Europe experienced increased openness in the late 1980s, she expanded her efforts to Communist countries that had previously rejected the Missionaries of Charity, embarking on dozens of projects. She was undeterred by criticism about her firm stand against abortion and divorce stating, "No matter who says what, you should accept it with a smile and do your own work."

Mother Teresa traveled to assist and minister to the hungry in Ethiopia, radiation victims at Chernobyl, and earthquake victims in Armenia. In 1991, Mother Teresa returned for the first time to her homeland and opened a Missionaries of Charity Brothers home in Tirana, Albania.

By 1996, she was operating 517 missions in more than 100 countries. Over the years, Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity grew from twelve to thousands serving the "poorest of the poor" in 450 centers around the world.
From Wiki.

In short, Hex, she has done more with her life than you ever will (and without God) and you claim to have met God almighty face to face. This makes your transition from human to complete joke nearly complete.

Where you talk, she did. Where you believe with a fervor, she did not. She is better than you in every possbile way. Ask God next time you see him face to face if you don't believe me.

Well to be fair, most of those "missions" were nothing more than places to suffer and die. They didn't provide proper medical care, even though they had the money. She saw suffering as a good thing.

Mother Teresa was pretty fucking despicable.

Well to be fair, most of those "missions" were nothing more than places to suffer and die. They didn't provide proper medical care, even though they had the money. She saw suffering as a good thing.

Mother Teresa was pretty fucking despicable.

It's not too often I see this...but Rust said what I had to say.

Well to continue with the spirit of fairness, you too agree with suffering when its at the hand of your delusions (delusions because you've provided no evidence for them even after you've been repeatedly ask to do so).

You are pretty similar to her in that regard.

Well to continue with the spirit of fairness, you too agree with suffering when its at the hand of your delusions (delusions because you've provided no evidence for them even after you've been repeatedly ask to do so).

You are pretty similar to her in that regard.

I have no affinity for suffering. As to what constitutes a delusion: It's a belief that goes against reality. That you think your awareness is a better measure of reality than another's is a delusion far more grave than any mistakes I may have in my understandings. Specifically in regards to human relations: You come off as a complete prick, Rust. I'm sure I do, too, at times; but you do it with consistency. Have fun on the throne with your crown of shit; you've earned it.

I have no affinity for suffering.

"If 'good' is defined in Judaic-Christian systems as 'the will of God', wouldn't that articulate that anything that goes against God's will is evil, even if it is giving someone food and shelter? Does that not also articulate that anything in line with God's will is good, even if it is slaughtering children?"

Thus, "if god caused suffering, suffering is good". Or is it that you don't have an affinity for that which is good? Do you have an affinity for that which is bad then?

Like I said, you're no different than Mother Teresa.

As to what constitutes a delusion: It's a belief that goes against reality....and, since you've provided absolutely nothing to substantiate the endless amount of baseless claims that you bombard 'My God...' with, it's safe to say they go against reality. Sorry but you can't maintain your claims represent reality and then not supported a single shred of them.

Specifically in regards to human relations: You come off as a complete prick, Rust. I'm sure I do, too, at times; but you do it with consistencyGood thing I don't give a shit then, huh? I try not to concern myself with how other people - on the Internet no less! - perceive me. If they think I'm a prick, so be it.

Also just how do you know that you don't come off as a prick with consistency? Do you read people's minds? Is your ego so inflated that you automatically assume that you just can't come off as a prick consistently?

Seems rather easy to whine about "inflated egos" when you're conveniently free to make presumptuous claims about yourself and other people (or how you or they are perceived) without a care in the world.

Well to be fair, most of those "missions" were nothing more than places to suffer and die. They didn't provide proper medical care, even though they had the money. She saw suffering as a good thing.

Mother Teresa was pretty fucking despicable.

I know there were problems and her main goal was to spread the word.

I am sure she accidently saved a fucking life or two, c'mon. My point was that for a theist to bad mouth a women that has has brought more good things into the world than any of them probably will, AND brought more people to Jesus than they ever will, seems foolish and ego centric.

To call what mother teresa did a COMPLETE waste of energy (looking at Hex, here) is so fucking retarded, I do not even know where to begin.

Fact is she did some good things for people, even if it was to provide comfort to the dying and offer them a chance to hear the word of God, repent and go to heaven (I don't put much stock in how worthwhile that is, but a theist certainly should), and has done more good things than many of us ever will. I simply love the fact that she did these things while not believing in God.

So again, Hex, the impact she has had is infinitely greater than your simple ego motivated talk. And again NEXT time you see God face to face simply ask him how he feels about mother teresa.

[QUOTE=Whore of God;9672150]Explain your view of the difference between 'believing' and 'knowing'.

QUOTE]

It isn't exactly rocket science. When I "know" something, it is because of personal experience, personal observation, or because it resonates within my heart, wherein all wisdom resides--the "place" Jesus referred to when he said that the kingdom of God is within you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQejG7-sGk4

Wow, I take it back. If this video is halfway correct, I am wrong and she is a total cunt.

Yeah that's pretty much what I was talking about. You should get Hitchen's book, "The Missionary Position" (best title ever).

I might check it out.

I have never studied Mother Teresa or really any saints. Got me thinking though. If one were to dig, how many saints would be saintly?

[QUOTE=Whore of God;9672150]Explain your view of the difference between 'believing' and 'knowing'.

QUOTE]

It isn't exactly rocket science. When I "know" something, it is because of personal experience, personal observation, or because it resonates within my heart, wherein all wisdom resides--the "place" Jesus referred to when he said that the kingdom of God is within you.

If that's how you define knowing, many Christians know their God is real through the same methods as you know your 'God' is real.

One of you must be wrong. ??? "Knowing" doesn't sound any more reliable than believing.

So why then do you say "The less you believe and the more you know, the better"? :confused:

You've articulated your definition of knowing, which leans toward the intuitive side of things. You have not articulated your definition of believing. Is there even any difference between the two?

In regards to AM's defining faith/belief...I think he's said that it is thinking something true that you know to be false; much like 1984's doublethink. I could be incredibly wrong on that though.

As to Christians 'knowing' their God as much as AM knows his...they know the same God. The difference is the belief; many folks claiming to be Christian have beliefs regarding God. The beliefs may be errant, but the knowledge of God being is not. Spiritual awakening brings something completely undefinable into one's awareness of reality...some will choose to define it anyways in systems of belief; Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Gnosticism, Christianity, Shintoism, Buddhism, and so on. They all center around the fundamental idea of the ethereal, yet come to different understandings and beliefs of this ethereal 'something'. These beliefs are often resulting from the society around them and attempting to compare and contrast a perfect 'something' with people that are perceived as a whole variety of moral shades.

Atheists do this as much as theists: In every last human being is the fundamental concept of 'something perfect'; we see disparities between our perception of this 'something' and the actions of ourselves and the people around us and see 'evils', 'wrongs', 'misdeeds', 'sins' or whatever we have chosen to call them. We often desire to be more than we are capable of being as a further result.

In regards to AM's defining faith/belief...I think he's said that it is thinking something true that you know to be false; much like 1984's doublethink. I could be incredibly wrong on that though.

As to Christians 'knowing' their God as much as AM knows his...they know the same God. The difference is the belief; many folks claiming to be Christian have beliefs regarding God. The beliefs may be errant, but the knowledge of God being is not. Spiritual awakening brings something completely undefinable into one's awareness of reality...some will choose to define it anyways in systems of belief; Judaism, Islam, Taoism, Gnosticism, Christianity, Shintoism, Buddhism, and so on. They all center around the fundamental idea of the ethereal, yet come to different understandings and beliefs of this ethereal 'something'. These beliefs are often resulting from the society around them and attempting to compare and contrast a perfect 'something' with people that are perceived as a whole variety of moral shades.

Atheists do this as much as theists: In every last human being is the fundamental concept of 'something perfect'; we see disparities between our perception of this 'something' and the actions of ourselves and the people around us and see 'evils', 'wrongs', 'misdeeds', 'sins' or whatever we have chosen to call them. We often desire to be more than we are capable of being as a further result.

So you think people worship the same God, but have different conceptions of him?

I disagree; I think there are many seperate different Gods which people have different conceptions of.

But it is kind of beside the point here. Instead of saying "many Christians know their God is real through the same methods as you know your 'God' is real.", I could just say "Many Christians know their concept of God is real through the same methods as you know your concept of God is real. You both use the same method of knowing, so one of you must be wrong."

"[/B]?"



Good thing I don't give a shit then, huh? I try not to concern myself with how other people - on the Internet no less! - perceive me. If they think I'm a prick, so be it.

Also just how do you know that you don't come off as a prick with consistency? Do you read people's minds? Is your ego so inflated that you automatically assume that you just can't come off as a prick consistently?

Seems rather easy to whine about "inflated egos" when you're conveniently free to make presumptuous claims about yourself and other people (or how you or they are perceived) without a care in the world.

I find it odd that you wouldn't care what other people think... of course, it's only natural to. You'd be hard-pressed to suppress that function of ourselves entirely.

I believe that most people (except perhaps Aspies and autistics) have some idea of what constitues arrogance, being rude etc. and can gauge pretty well how they are percieved by those around them. It's intuitive, people pick up on these things. in real life, even more via. body language and voice tone. Dont you agree?

Oh and, what information is lacking/why can't people (according to you) do this consistently? the information cosntantly updates based on what actions you've taken, whether youve been involved in any negative or positive situations with that person, their body language/tone of voice during your last conversation etc. etc. It's often quite apparent how someone else feels about you, and quite often people can tell the impression they're giving

I find it odd that you wouldn't care what other people think... of course, it's only natural to. You'd be hard-pressed to suppress that function of ourselves entirely.

You find it odd and believe it's difficult? Neat.


Dont you agree?

I already told you that I would agree people could make assumptions about how other peoples perceive them. That is not in question.


Oh and, what information is lacking/why can't people (according to you) do this consistently? the information cosntantly updates based on what actions you've taken, whether youve been involved in any negative or positive situations with that person, their body language/tone of voice during your last conversation etc. etc. It's often quite apparent how someone else feels about you, and quite often people can tell the impression they're giving

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying they can't do this consistently, I'm saying he can't know others consistently see someone else as an asshole. Two different things.

He essentially claimed to know that others consistently see me as an asshole, but don't consistently see him as one too.

He has no fucking clue that's the case.

1. Body language and tone of voice are completely absent from the internet.

2. Whatever small amount of information we could glimpse through text would be absent in conversations I had with other people which he might have not seen (conversations in which I may not have been seen as an asshole, thus refuting the "consistently" part).

3. That small amount of information would also be absent in the private opinions of other people, that is, when people have read what I've said and then provided absolutely no comment (posts) about it.

In any case, this is all meaningless. It was a petty remark he was making - ironically at the same time he was accusing me of being an asshole - and I responded. If you don't agree with my response, too bad. I'm not going to waste any more time with this non-issue.

/nonissue

Well to be fair, most of those "missions" were nothing more than places to suffer and die. They didn't provide proper medical care, even though they had the money. She saw suffering as a good thing.

Mother Teresa was pretty fucking despicable.

But [and I direct question very generally], can she really be blamed because she had acquired these deluded beliefs due to environmental (and perhaps to a lesser extent genetic and epigenetic factors), then naturally acted upon them?

What beliefs? That sending sick people to suffer is a better alternative than actual proper medical care? I don't see anything to suggest she acquired that position "genetically" or that the environment influenced her so much that she shares absolutely no blame on the issue.

What beliefs? That sending sick people to suffer is a better alternative than actual proper medical care? I don't see anything to suggest she acquired that position "genetically" or that the environment influenced her so much that she shares absolutely no blame on the issue.

You might be misunderstanding what I'm saying. Genetic to a much lesser extent if at all, of course. By genetic I mean.. say some of her genes had a role to play in the shaping of her personality (such as an influence on introversion or extroversion) - and this personality was one with more of a propensity to be be attracted to religiosity. Make sense?

To give this claim substance:
http://www.healthleader.uthouston.edu/archive/Mind_Body_Soul/2005/introvertsvsextroverts-1221.html - read: The Social Gene for one example of a gene which may have a role to play in introversion and extroversion.

Through no choice of her own due to environmental influences throughout her life (one of those major influences being the church), she acquired a belief system and worldview which saw suffering as a good, beautiful thing - a noble gift from god or whatever. So she acquired these deluded beliefs due to causal factors throughout her life - as do we all. Naturally, she responded to these deluded beliefs and let the poor suffer

"The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering"

I lean somewhat toward free will being a pitifully weak force on people's decisions, so it was more of a comment to make people think.

"If 'good' is defined in Judaic-Christian systems as 'the will of God', wouldn't that articulate that anything that goes against God's will is evil, even if it is giving someone food and shelter? Does that not also articulate that anything in line with God's will is good, even if it is slaughtering children?"

So I'm quoting you, quoting me, to show you why you're not literate, Rust. Notice the FIRST word in this paragraph, then what follows :"'good' is defined in Judaic-Christian systems." Please Rust, where do I say that I hold to that view?

So are you saying that if your god, who or what ever it may be, said to you that "X is good", it wouldn't necessarily be good? Are you suggesting you would know more about what is good than your god?

If that is not what you're suggesting, this attempt of yours to weasel yourself out of the larger point, fails miserably. If that is what you're suggesting, then I apologize; it would seem that you are indeed much different than Mother Teresa: unlike you, she wasn't so full of herself that she thought she knew more about 'what is good' than her own god.

Through no choice of her own due to environmental influences throughout her life (one of those major influences being the church), she acquired a belief system and worldview which saw suffering as a good, beautiful thing - a noble gift from god or whatever. So she acquired these deluded beliefs due to causal factors throughout her life - as do we all. Naturally, she responded to these deluded beliefs and let the poor suffer

You haven't substantiated that at all - the link doesn't come close.

I know you didn't mean she acquired everything genetically, I apologize if that's wasn't the impression that I gave in my comment, however, my point still stands:

I don't see anything to suggest the her genes and/or the environment influenced her so much that she shares absolutely no blame on the issue.

You haven't substantiated that at all - the link doesn't come close.

I know you didn't mean she acquired everything genetically, I apologize if that's wasn't the impression that I gave in my comment, however, my point still stands:

I don't see anything to suggest the her genes and/or the environment influenced her so much that she shares absolutely no blame on the issue.

I only meant to give credence to the fact that genotype has a role in shaping everyone's personality, I'm clearly not trying to back up everything I said.

my understanding of reality is that everything a person is/does/thinks is down to genetic/epigenetic/environmental factors, from my own observations i believe in a causal universe with free will virtually negated. all actions attributed to free will have an intricate web of causal compenents behind them. some theories of quantum mechanics try to create a "random factor", but this indeterminancy does not imply free will only opens the possibility for it. there is a new mathematical theory arguing against quantum determinancy itself so that has yet to convince me, though i could certainly accept that this "random factor" exists without believing in free will. i operate under this set of beliefs until i see more evidence for libertarian metaphysics, which i almost inevitably will.

christ, im not here to get into an intricate discussion about free will, compatibalism and determinism in a mother teresa thread! im just stating a viewpoint to consider whether she is ultimately responsible for her actions. im already aware of the implications of this belief and solutions; so i'd prefer you dont bring too much of that up.

if you do however wish to take this to humanities sometime (not right now), inform me and ill tell you if im up for it. any opportunity is a good opportunity to learn. hell, just today you've brought to my mind the value of a rigourous methodology

i should mention that i believe in dependent origination, which is somewhere in-between.

When this is, that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't, that isn't.
From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_origination

If you just want to muse about the possibility that she isn't responsible for her actions, that's wonderful. I personally am not up to a purely speculative discussion. However, when you reply to me, and indeed ask me a question, I answer. You asked:

"can she really be blamed because she had acquired these deluded beliefs due to environmental (and perhaps to a lesser extent genetic and epigenetic factors), then naturally acted upon them?"

I answered that I have seen nothing to suggest that environmental and/or genetic factors affected her to such an extent that she would not share responsibility. In other words, I believe she is responsible, because I don't believe she was predetermined to these beliefs, but if you manage to provide some evidence for it, then I'm willing to change my mind. That's my answer.

If you just want to muse about the possibility that she isn't responsible for her actions, that's wonderful. I personally am not up to a purely speculative discussion.

Well I did already say, "so it was more of a comment to make people think." implying that I am musing. 'kay. shoo!

However, when you reply to me, and indeed ask me a question, I answer. You asked:

"can she really be blamed because she had acquired these deluded beliefs due to environmental (and perhaps to a lesser extent genetic and epigenetic factors), then naturally acted upon them?"


The question was somewhat rhetorical in nature, a vehicle to get my point across. I guess these things don't come across well on the internetz :(

I have a challenge for you: Think hard. Tell me something that cannot be explained via. causality

nvm ill make a thread about it in humanities sometime. if you wnat you can refute it which would help me refine this axiom i work upon.

A question: Were you ever a mod of humanities? I vaguely recall so, though this was probably over a year ago so I could be mistaken.

Nope. I was a mod of 'Conspiracy!' and then 'Paranoid Delusions' when it was merged with 'Science of the Damned'.