Shocka: Mother Teresa’s letters reveal she had moments of doubt
posted at 8:36 pm on August 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Via Weasel Zippers, somewhere Hitchens is surfing a wave of Strange New Respect.
Forgive this benighted unbeliever his ignorance, but aren’t you supposed to have moments of doubt? Part of the “we’re only human and that’s why we need faith” rationale?
Seems a little thin:
Shortly after beginning work in Calcutta’s slums, the spirit left Mother Teresa.
“Where is my faith?” she wrote. “Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness… If there be God — please forgive me.”
Eight years later, she was still looking to reclaim her lost faith.
“Such deep longing for God… Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal,” she said.
As her fame increased, her faith refused to return. Her smile, she said, was a mask.
“What do I labor for?” she asked in one letter. “If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.”…
The letters were gathered by Rev. Kolodiejchuk, the priest who’s making the case to the Vatican for Mother Teresa’s proposed sainthood. He said her obvious spiritual torment actually helps her case.
“Now we have this new understanding, this new window into her interior life, and for me this seems to be the most heroic,” said Rev. Kolodiejchuk.
Yeah, needless to say, if she was faking it she sure played it cool with Sam Brownback.
Semi-related, a new poll from the AP and MTV(?) of kids and young adults:
Eighty percent of those who call religion or spirituality the most important thing in their lives say they’re happy, while 60 percent of those who say faith isn’t important to them consider themselves happy.
“If you believe God is helping you, then everything else isn’t as important and you can trust that there’s somebody there for you no matter what,” said Molly Luksik, a 21-year-old ballet dancer in Chicago and a Roman Catholic who attends Mass weekly. “Just going to church and everything … it’s very calming, and everyone is nice.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
For the good she did in this world, she can doubt the next all she likes.
Being decent is its own reward.
profitsbeard on August 25, 2007 at 1:16 AM
by safest, you really mean most logical, I take it?
ha! Tell that to the non-atheist Osama Bin Laden and his cronies, who are murdering thousands because they are so sure God demands it.
The Sinner on August 25, 2007 at 1:47 AM
Just to bring back a little of the Derb…
If you were to become seriously ill who would you rather see coming to visit you in hospital: Mother Teresa or Christopher Hitchens?
John on August 25, 2007 at 1:50 AM
Who doesn’t have their moments of doubt? In ANYTHING..no matter what they believe. This is such a non issue..they are making this out to be way more than it needs to be. I am Christian, I belong to NO church and I’m NOT catholic.
Them releasing these if they are even true is really disgraceful. From what I understand, she asked for them to be destroyed and they defied her wishes..I think that is really lame. So it makes me not trust them to begin with. Would you find a *friend* trustworthy that didn’t keep your wishes intact after your death?
This woman saw some pretty horrible stuff…that would color anyone’s outlook on life and any higher up that they look to and lots of questions would need to be asked.
Hey I have a few questions to ask God too..and am not too happy about a few things…does that make me any less Christian? NEWP. This woman did much good in the world. May she rest in peace and have a special place in heaven and have ALL her questions answered. She deserves it.
Highrise on August 25, 2007 at 1:52 AM
Oh and this would only be shocking to those who don’t understand the great relationship between a Christian and the Lord. We are allowed to question and ask questions and show discontent and yes..even show growing weary..do you realize what this woman did with her life?????, yet we are still loved and saved.
Yes, color me shocked :P . Few religions are like that..especially islam…/horror!
I’m not even religious but I understand that aspect..those who are not..of course do not understand.
Highrise on August 25, 2007 at 1:56 AM
If it is logical to ardently believe in nothing to the point of being obnoxious to others, fine. Of course, when you are ruled by nothing, by logical extension no-one else is. This theology was very popular among such atheist leaders as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao. You really don’t want to play the numbers game when comparing believers to nonbelievers. Nonbelievers lose.
The only difference between modern Jihadis and atheist scumbags of yesteryear is that Jihadists believe they serve Allah, who is their God, whereas atheists serve only themselves and hold themselves as the ruler and arbiter of all others. The Atheist is his own God.
Which is the most logical belief The Sinner: To belive that it is wrong to murder on the basis you will recieve an everlasting punishment after death, or to believe there is nothing particularly wrong with anything you happen to do, so long as you can get away with it? The atheist’s is the latter credo. After all, if you do not believe you will suffer for hurting your fellow men at the hands of an immortal, you need only find a way to keep mortals from touching you.
Atheism is the safest route, not the most logical. An Atheist has no need for any logic other than his own. He is bound only by his own prejudices and not subject to any laws he can avoid. When he dies, he presumes he will not be made to pay for his injustices. Atheist justice is individual and arbitrary. Atheism demands neither altruism not cruelty, it has no built in moral checks. It is, as I said, divine nihilism. The belief in a divine nothingness.
In addition, atheism is a very boring belief system. It is barren, devoid of any benefit to philosophy or culture. Atheist societies are incapable of providing art, music, or anything of intellectual worth because an atheist nation is a nation of anarchists, demi-Gods who serve only themselves at the expense of others. Never confuse secularism, which is the lack of an official religion, with atheism, which is the enforcement of no religion.
BKennedy on August 25, 2007 at 2:07 AM
Amen. I belong to Jesus, I belong to His Church. I stand or fall on that confession alone.
infidel4life on August 25, 2007 at 2:09 AM
Nonfactor:
What skeptic or atheist books would you personally recommend to me that you have benefitted from reading? What books do you think that I can benefit from in understanding your perspective?
As for myself, the following books have been very helpful to me.
Warning: they are slanted in favor of one author!
Stuart C. Hackett, Reconstruction of the Christian Revelation Claim: A Philosophical and Critical Apologetic
J.P. Moreland, William Lane Craig,
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian World View
Gordon H. Clark, Christian View of Men and Things
Gordon H. Clark, God’s Hammer: The Bible and its Critics
Gordon H. Clark, In Defense of Theology
Gordon H. Clark, Logic
Gordon H. Clark, Philosophy of Science and Belief in God
Gordon H. Clark, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark
Gordon H. Clark, Reconsidering Ayn Rand
J.P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City
J.P. Moreland, Christianity and the Nature of Science
Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey: A History of Philosophy
ColtsFan on August 25, 2007 at 2:20 AM
I have come to the conclusion that those without any religion may be the lucky ones.
Atheism abhors religion while believing religiously in the logic of an alpha and omega. But it is a religion.
Religion seeks to convert that which doesn’t believe in it’s gods mind vision of thy self. Which is destructive in any faith.
Whilst living in the bliss of ignorance can one find God.
Kini on August 25, 2007 at 2:26 AM
The one thing this post does leave out is that Mother Theresa did come out of the ‘dark night of the soul’. And it is old news that she suffered from spiritual dryness.
She felt like her prayers went up like rain drops that fell back down on her head. She couldn’t feel God. In the very latter part of her life she did and when she made the decision to become a nun.
Many saints have either gone through the spiritual dryness and/or the dark night of the soul. Their life and writings encourage others who go through the same thing; yet in lesser degrees. That normal people go through these rough spiritual patches and we must keep our faith and eyes on Christ.
The spiritual journey towards God is not an easy path.
Suz on August 25, 2007 at 3:30 AM
BKennedy on August 25, 2007 at 2:07 AM
The results of the Christians vs atheists in prison investigation
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 4:00 AM
When he dies, he presumes he will not be made to pay for his injustices. Atheist justice is individual and arbitrary. Atheism demands neither altruism not cruelty, it has no built in moral checks. It is, as I said, divine nihilism. The belief in a divine nothingness.
In addition, atheism is a very boring belief system. It is barren, devoid of any benefit to philosophy or culture. Atheist societies are incapable of providing art, music, or anything of intellectual worth because an atheist nation is a nation of anarchists, demi-Gods who serve only themselves at the expense of others. Never confuse secularism, which is the lack of an official religion, with atheism, which is the enforcement of no religion.
BKennedy on August 25, 2007 at 2:07 AM
The true test of character is what someone would do if they thought that no one else would ever know.
- Someone or other, I forget
This implies quite logically that only an atheist can have a true test of character.
Hitchens is an atheist. Schopenhauer was an atheist. Einstein was what most people would call an atheist. He did not believe in an afterlife. Jefferson may have been. Mother Teresa appears to have been at times. To name a few.
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 4:15 AM
“I want to know God’s thoughts; the rest are details.”
- Albert Einstein
Obviously the musings of an ardent atheist.
;-)
infidel4life on August 25, 2007 at 4:44 AM
Einstein may have been speaking metaphorically in your quote.
“I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew.”
Is this Spinoza’s “God”? “I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things.”
Do you believe in immortality? “No. And one life is enough for me.”
His belief in causal determinism was incompatible with the concept of human free will. Jewish as well as Christian theologians have generally believed that people are responsible for their actions. They are even free to choose, as happens in the Bible, to disobey God’s commandments,
despite the fact that this seems to conflict with a belief that God is all knowing and all powerful.
Einstein, on the other hand, believed–as did Spinoza–that a person’s actions were just as determined as that of a billiard ball, planet or star. “Human beings in their thinking, feeling and acting are not free but are as causally bound as the stars in their motions,” Einstein
declared in a statement to a Spinoza Society in 1932.
It was a concept he drew also from his reading of Schopenhauer. “Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity,” he wrote in his famous credo. “Schopenhauer’s saying, ‘A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills,’ has been a real inspiration to me since my youth; it has been a continual consolation in the face of life’s hardships, my own and others’, and an unfailing wellspring of tolerance.”
I suppose it depends on how you look at it, but when you cut to the chase, he sounds pretty much like an atheist to me. At the minimum not exactly your typical believer for sure. He certainly did not seem to believe in a personal God, nor did he believe in an after life, which is integral to most peoples believe in God. His believing that the soul and body are one is not exactly the way most people who believe in a soul look at it. In fact it would seem that he did not believe in a soul to say that body and soul were one.
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 5:09 AM
Einstein spoke metaphorically. I often speak metaphorically. I think I understand the meaning. But I could be wrong.
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 5:16 AM
One thing bothers me…Mother Theresa asked for these “letters” to be destroyed upon her death. The Catholic Church (to which I adhere) refused.
Now, her words of despair and possibly questioning her faith are things many saints, and many simple people, go through. And it does present much insight into this fascinating woman. But to deny her a dying wish like that is uncalled for.
She didnt’ want them made public, and for all she did for humanity…her wish should have been granted. She never asked for much…
JetBoy on August 25, 2007 at 7:22 AM
I find it confusing that some of the atheists on this thread (not AP, of course) think this information about MT somehow gives them ammunition against faith in God. Because…
The fact that Mother Theresa continued to encourage others to faith and spoke about God constantly in public, and devoted her life to such saintliness, in spite of these doubts, however severe or long-lasting, presents these guys with a big conundrum:
Either Mother Theresa, given her public statements and dedication to her order, is a huge liar and hypocrite, and a fool to boot, since she lived and died in the worst of conditions, or she is a saint who despite not FEELING the presence of God, continued to have strong FAITH - else she would not encourage others to such and credit all her work to Jesus’ merit and a result of her faith.
So…to focus on her doubts while ignoring their context, forgive me, smells like intellectual dishonesty to me.
And while I too wished that this dying wish was not kept (maybe there were others we didn’t know about, that were granted), and the superiors evidently felt it would do more good for the Church as a whole to publish, the fact that she made it could be interpreted as “not wanting to make other people doubt,” especially given all her public statements about God and faith in Him. After all, it’s not like she cares now what people think of her. She’s got much better things to focus on now.
inviolet on August 25, 2007 at 8:08 AM
Uh, that would be…I too wished that this dying wish were KEPT.
**gets belated coffee**
inviolet on August 25, 2007 at 8:09 AM
I find the revelations about Mother Teresa quite encouraging for two reasons. In this age of “feelings are everything” it is well to be reminded that the essence of faith resides in the will and not in emotions. Even our intellect is weak and has it’s limitations. It is how we act that is the demonstration of faith’s reality. Apparently the good Mother acted for half a century on this faith, without the support of sensible consolation. I personally believe that her actions are a greater demonstration of the supernatural God she advocated, than any sentiments she might have shared. It is simply beyond human nature to act as she did. I think that is the lesson of her life, for which I am greatful.
rwbenson on August 25, 2007 at 8:19 AM
That’s a very interesting definition of “no one else.” However, such a statement requires that there be an objectively good and objectively evil actions, and presumably the test of character comes from chosing the good when it is uncomfortable.
But as I said, the atheist moral code is individual and arbitrary. Stalin was a man of character under such a test, because everything he did was for the “Greater Good (TM).” That is what any atheist leader who slaughtered millions says. Their chosen individual ethos was utilitarianism. Arbitrarily they could have chosen anything else at any other time, they are not bounded by any rules.
One more thing MB4, if atheists are so logical and hold logic in such high regard, why do they post up prison statistics and try to employ the fallacy of guilt by association? This may come as a shock to you, but more high-crime groups profess a Christian faith. This isn’t because Christians are bad, its because unlike Atheists, most of which are well off and well fed, many Christians are poor blacks and poor Hispanics who still profess to believe in Jesus, even if they do commit crimes.
But why bother you with logic, MB4? If an Atheist behaves himself it is only because he has so many other moral codes to choose from (and that will be enforced on him) and really doesn’t want to expend the effort to defy the law of the land. The atheist’s biggest restriction on his actions is legal, not moral.
As I said (or at least implied), an atheist by his own system cannot do any action that can be proven evil, he can only be condemned under someone else’s rules. It is an intellectually weak and flimsy (non)belief because as it is a belief in nothing, it requires no thinking. Apparently however, it does require one to be extremely smug and to pretend Occam’s Razor can be applied to religion. Atheism has no depths to plumb. While it states there is no God, in reality it makes the individual a God. They are not subject to any social rules or mores that they can successfully break while avoiding punishment.
The atheist is the ultimate outlaw. He is not even in the jurisdiction of God. But I shall state it again: Most atheists are not criminals. This is because philosophically they can do whatever suits their individual, arbitrary fancy. In practicality, because others have strongly fought for many laws and restrictions on behavior, most atheists stand to lose if they take their philosophy to its logical conclusion. They are well fed and well to do, and violating the law would likely diminish their wealth, not increase it. Socialist mass murderers did not have such restrictions because they were the law.
BKennedy on August 25, 2007 at 9:34 AM
Mother Teresa is the Saint of the final hours if you accept that we are in the End Times. If, as has been told to the Visionaries @ Medjugorja, the Faithful are now making the Way of the Cross then Mother Teresa carried the Moment when Jesus,before dying, felt completely abandoned.
As Catholic, to be allowed to share in the Suffering of This Master is to carry w/ Him. some part of His suffering in our life. We do this for the sake of ALL,as He did. I suppose one could call it the Science of Redemption.
Mother Teresa will be know as the Patron Saint of the Dark Hour of the Soul. And anyone who thinks this Catholic Faith thing is easy & some kind of panacea is very wrong.
lobosan5 on August 25, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Once again those who do not believe in Christianity are explaining Christianity to us on this blog! Amazing! We Christians believe because God has given us the Holy Spirit to believe. It’s not about how we “feel”! And our faith IS different from all others in that it is the ONLY faith that teaches that we can do NOTHING to please God or save ourselves. We must only trust in Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection on our behalf for our salvation. A much different message than any other man made religion! Don’t try to explain Christianity to Christians…you only look foolish! We know our faith better than you!
sabbott on August 25, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Highrise:
No doubt. I am by no means a Christian, but cmon folks, we have to be realistic here. While we armchair theologians blog about ‘The Problem of Evil’ from the relative comfort of our homes, this woman Saw and Lived the Problem of Evil for the majoritiy of her life. I would be doubting the existance of God to though, no matter how much good she may have seen in her God, she no doubt saw much evil, much suffering, pain, disease and death in her life. So what if she doubted? Name me a Christian who does not? Name me a Christian who would persevere in faith under her circumstances????
Now if you want a *real* shocking contriversy, how about the process of her canonization to sainthood..??
HeIsSailing on August 25, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Good point. Christ speaking the words of the greatest prophetic psalm on the Cross would be the ultimate communication to the Jews of his day that he was fulfilling the prophecy. Even His last words ‘it is finished’ was a phrase used at the end of Passover.
The Last Supper was a ritual passover supper. The meal reminds Jews of their escape from bondage, the covenant with God, and the prediction of Messiah. Bread and wine are blessed with prayers and shared as an obligation. John shows how Jesus declared Himself to be the true Passover sacrifice paraphrasing every step of the sacred ritual. The arguments begun at that table continue today.
Jesus fulfilled so many of the old prophecies, from riding the ass into the city to saying no word in His own defense at the trial that it is all or nothing to respect Him. He was either Messiah, a con man or a nutcase. He knew Jewish lore and covered the bases. Not a nice guy if he was not Messiah, IMHO.
entagor on August 25, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Sorry, this was the last part of my post:
Apostle John believed Christ fulfilled the Word
entagor on August 25, 2007 at 12:55 PM
So because we know there is no God, we must not know the difference between right and wrong? Believe it or not, we do, and we don’t need a 2000 year-old book written by ??? to tell us either.
The Sinner on August 25, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Had you been listening to me, you would have noticed what I have repeated many times: morality for an atheist is individual and arbitrary.
Any beliefs you have regarding right and wrong come solely from the voice in your head, known mostly as your conscience. Of course, your values don’t come from atheism; an atheist is nothing more than a cafeteria theist when it comes to ideas of right and wrong. Atheism is a freeloading belief. It is empty because its only assertion is that all others are wrong.
The difference between you and me is that you claim to know there is no God, while I claim to believe there is one. This is why the ranting atheist is my favorite religious discussion participant: not only are they the only ones smug enough to claim they know the truth, the truth they claim to know of contains no moral value: their one claim is simply that “all other faiths are wrong.” The atheist is like a whiny child calling his parents meanies who don’t know anything. As I said, atheism is boring, safe, and requires no thought. Atheism can be summarized: “I’m right. You’re wrong. I win!”
Christopher Hitchens has spent more time, ink, and paper attempting to disprove a deity he doesn’t even believe exists. God must have a sense of humor, he’s so powerful he can even get nonbelievers to write a series of books about him. I imagine Chris has put more ink to paper on the subject of God than most other religious commentators.
Going back to your assertion you know right from wrong: Yes, you do. But that knowledge doesn’t have its base in atheism. Atheism has no moral mechanisms, the only thing an atheist can ever be is inconsistent, not immoral. Take Stalin, on what moral basis could you call his actions wrong? You’d have to borrow from any of the many religions that assert murder is wrong. As far as the law is concerned, Stalin is the law in his country. There is absolutely nothing illegal about what he has done, and why should the laws of other humans apply to him anyway? Stalin’s individual morality says might is right, and he is the mightiest, therefore he is the most moral.
Atheism is a weak, freeloading belief. Atheism by itself excuses monsters because it is fundamentally unable to answer moral questions. Atheism’s only assertion is a negative. Its only claim is that all other claims are invalid. It is a wretched belief that is poison to all its believers, not just some. The Atheist claims to be above everyone else because they assert that they know the truth, not that they believe in a particular version of it. Arrogance and narcissism are the only things atheism has ever broght to the philosophical table.
BKennedy on August 25, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Farrell Till former evangelical minister on
prophecies.
and more on prophecies
Reading vaious scholarship can only help but strengthen your faith.
frreal on August 25, 2007 at 5:08 PM
One more thing MB4, if atheists are so logical and hold logic in such high regard, why do they post up prison statistics and try to employ the fallacy of guilt by association?
I was implying no quilt by association. The statistics are what they are, nothing more, nothing less.
This may come as a shock to you, but more high-crime groups profess a Christian faith. This isn’t because Christians are bad, its because unlike Atheists, most of which are well off and well fed, many Christians are poor blacks and poor Hispanics who still profess to believe in Jesus, even if they do commit crimes.
I do not think that is an invalid point.
But why bother you with logic, MB4?
If you say so.
If an Atheist behaves himself it is only because he has so many other moral codes to choose from (and that will be enforced on him) and really doesn’t want to expend the effort to defy the law of the land. The atheist’s biggest restriction on his actions is legal, not moral.
That is NOT correct. I am quite able, as most people are, to break many laws and get away with it. What guides me is a belief in what is right and what is wrong, not “what I can get away with”. It is called a conscious and no belief in God is necessary to have or not have one. In fact there seems to be little correlation between a belief in God and having a conscious.
As I said (or at least implied), an atheist by his own system cannot do any action that can be proven evil, he can only be condemned under someone else’s rules. It is an intellectually weak and flimsy (non)belief because as it is a belief in nothing, it requires no thinking. Apparently however, it does require one to be extremely smug and to pretend Occam’s Razor can be applied to religion. Atheism has no depths to plumb. While it states there is no God, in reality it makes the individual a God. They are not subject to any social rules or mores that they can successfully break while avoiding punishment.
Atheism is NOT a belief in nothing, it is just the absence of a belief in one thing, that being God. Atheist are as subject to social rules and mores as much as anyone else. I think that you are confusing atheism with narcissism.
The atheist is the ultimate outlaw.
That is utter rubbish. Why do you hate atheists so?
He is not even in the jurisdiction of God. But I shall state it again: Most atheists are not criminals. This is because philosophically they can do whatever suits their individual, arbitrary fancy. In practicality, because others have strongly fought for many laws and restrictions on behavior, most atheists stand to lose if they take their philosophy to its logical conclusion. They are well fed and well to do, and violating the law would likely diminish their wealth, not increase it. Socialist mass murderers did not have such restrictions because they were the law.
Again, I think that you are confusing atheism with narcissism. You also seem to be unaware of something called a conscious. You also seem to be implying even if you do not realize it that believers would do all manner of bad things but for fearing punishment by God. Not exactly very faltering to believers.
BKennedy on August 25, 2007 at 9:34 AM
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 5:18 PM
I am puzzled by atheists that argue quite persistently that there is no God…why would one bother to argue about something they do not believe exists?
The only way either believers or atheists will know the truth is when they die, and then one or the other is going to be damned surprised. I hope it is the atheists.
the witch on August 25, 2007 at 7:51 PM
the witch on August 25, 2007 at 7:51 PM
I am puzzled by
atheiststhose who don’t believe in global warming that argue quite persistently that there is noGodglobal warming…why would one bother to argue about something they do not believe exists?If there is no God, no one will be at all surprised by anything after they die as they will be, well, dead.
Even if there is a God, that by no means guarantees that any human will come back from the dead.
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Wouldn’t that be the grand cosmic irony.
If believers are right that there is a God and non believers are right that there is no such thing as a soul and an afterlife.
The joke would be pretty much on everyone.
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 9:09 PM
MB4, the fact remains is that any value input your conscience has does not have its source in atheism. You can either accept that your denial of God has zero moral and intellectual value, or you can continue to try and persuade me that somehow “let your conscience be your guide” does not require input before it can function.
Fact is, atheism as a philosophy is silent on murder, torture, rape, war, child abuse, love, compassion, sacrifice, and kindness. It requires any moral programming to come from somewhere else. If you know the difference between right and wrong it’s because you got your notions of it from somewhere else.
Which is why I keep going back to that atheist monster Stalin. Stalin knew right from wrong too. And he didn’t need some stupid book written by ??? 2,000 years ago either. Fancy that, how both he and you (well, The Sinner actually) could say the same thing. Atheism is “substitute my preferred personal beliefs for any actual moral code,” and nothing more.
I don’t hate atheists, I just detest atheism. It is bankrupt. You can tell because the only thing seemingly universal among its practictioners is a condescending smugness, at least whenever other faiths are brought up. If you judge a religion by its fruits, atheism is the freeloading slacker of the theological world. I suppose that’s one step above being backwards like Radical Islamism, but it isn’t that big a step.
Atheism has never spurred intellectual thought. Atheism has never inspired anyone to do anything, bar maybe spend all their time “disproving” a deity they don’t even believe exists. The atheist’s problem is that their premise is flawed. The atheist claims to know the truth, then tries to work backward to “prove” it to everyone else. If they weren’t so insulting in the process they’d be endlessly amusing. Seriously, I’ve never seen an atheist argue the merits of their belief, they just try and drag others down in the process. Atheist writings on religion are voluminous, but substitutable with each other. How many times can you flog the same dead horse? It really is a sad belief, the more entrenched in it you are the more ridiculous you become. As I said before, Chris Hitchens isn’t happy not believing in God, he wants to assert that you shouldn’t believe in God either, read his several hundred page book discussion a deity whose existence he doesn’t believe in.
So in summary: Atheism is ridiculous. Nobody has more certitude about unknowable knowledge than they do, and noone spends more time trying to “prove” what they “know” than anyone else. As I said, the ranting atheist is my favorite religious discussion participant. If they really believed they had the truth, they wouldn’t need to knock anyone else’s beliefs. So basically, I view them as jesters deserving of the sarcastic ridicule they so readily heap on others.
BKennedy on August 25, 2007 at 9:51 PM
MB4, the fact remains is that any value input your conscience has does not have its source in atheism.
I have never and do not now disagree with that.
Fact is, atheism as a philosophy
Atheism is not a philosophy, not to me anyway, any more than not believing in alien visitations is a philosophy.
Which is why I keep going back to that atheist monster Stalin
Weren’t you the one accusing me of the “fallacy of guilt by association”? And OBL, who would detonate nuclear bombs on the U.S.A if he could, is an atheist?
I don’t hate atheists, I just detest atheism. It is bankrupt.
Hate? Detest? Pretty much same-same. How can not beleiving in things that are such a leap of faith be bankrupt and make you so angry? Is not believing in Bigfoot being bankrupt and make you so angry? If your faith is strong you should not be threatened by it.
So in summary: Atheism is ridiculous.
Not believing in Gods and spirits and not really being dead when one is clearly dead is no more ridiculous than not believing in the Lock Ness monster or alien visitations or leprecons, probably a lot less.
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 10:46 PM
If they really believed they had the truth, they wouldn’t need to knock anyone else’s beliefs. So basically, I view them as jesters deserving of the sarcastic ridicule they so readily heap on others.
BKennedy on August 25, 2007 at 9:51 PM
LOL. Kettle meet pot.
MB4 on August 25, 2007 at 10:51 PM
You are tying Radical Islam to atheism? I’m sorry but who were those 9/11 hijackers praying to when they crashed those planes? The same “god” you pray to, not mine, which is none, because I know there isn’t one.
The Sinner on August 26, 2007 at 12:21 AM
I know there isn’t one.
The Sinner on August 26, 2007 at 12:21 AM
Or maybe there is a God and he is just real good at playing hide and seek!
MB4 on August 26, 2007 at 12:33 AM
So … this god of your’s … he lies and plays headgames with you?
Look … I cannot disprove the supernatural … I’ll agree to not ridicule your giant invisible friend provided you don’t bother me touting “him”.
Kristopher on August 26, 2007 at 3:14 AM
Sorry for the shot, MB4 … with all the crap flying, I need a playbill to keep the players straight.
Kristopher on August 26, 2007 at 3:16 AM
I haven’t read all the posts in this thread. I just hope you are not equating the islamist god to the GOD that the Christians follow…because that would be wrong information there. Just checking.
Highrise on August 26, 2007 at 4:02 AM
Two things:
1. The difference in tone is that I claim to believe in God and don’t hold it against you if you don’t. You claim to know God does not exist and consider all religions equally villianous for no reason other than they believe in a deity that you don’t.
2. I’m still waiting to hear the philosophical and practical merits of atheism. For any attack or comparison you could level against Christianity, I can mount a defense. Whereas, my rather blistering criticism has recieved a “the best defense is a good offense” type of response. Like I said: Atheism is empty.
As to the parallels between Christianity and Islam, they are both monotheistic and that single God shares similar powers and responsibilities. That is where the comparison ends since Muslims make it as much a point as atheists to declare Christians, Jews, and any other faith practictioners are wrong. Atheists, praise the Lord, stop at smug, brash, annoying, logically inept criticism; Islamists resort to murder and explosives.
No The Sinner, Atheism and Radical Islam are totally different as far as their justifications. An Atheist answers to noone, an Islamist answers to Allah. Stalin killed more people because he could than Islamists do because they believe Allah ordered them to. Islam, thank merciful heaven, does not consist entirely of radicals and could theoretically be changed from within. Atheism however, is an empty shell for self-God status. There’s nothing to fix because there’s nothing there to begin with. It is empty, it always has been empty, and it always will be empty because it revolves around the notion that all other belief systems are wrong. It brings nothing to the table and such nothingness is already on display here.
Second, last I checked my God’s name was not Allah, his name was Jesus Christ. He is also The Father and The Holy Spirit, and the example he gave us to follow was a humble preacher, not a war-mongering pedophile. I’d rather have an imaginary friend than a grand self-imposed, infallible delusion of the afterlife. I’m the idiot who professes to believe in a moral and just God who promises eternal salvation to those of good faith and good works, not the idiot who claims to know with certainty what the afterlife is like.
So take your delusions elsewhere. You know nothing with certainty because there are no human mechanisms with which to prove your hypothesis. That is why believers find you intolerable, you’re the Holy Rollers for nihilism.
BKennedy on August 26, 2007 at 4:32 AM
and why unbelievers find you intolerable is that you time and time again defend the actions of a God/Jesus that praises the killing of babies, raping of virgins, child sacrifice, slavery, animal sacrifice, and more killing of babies all the while claiming that the God you worship is the most mercyful. Wow.
So God/Jesus gave us this conscience and morality (as you say) but we are just supposed to deny that conscience he gave us when reflecting on the atrocities in the OT. I guess he gave believers a special kind of conscience where killing the babies of your enemy when you want their land is OK as long as you think God told you to do it. I must have been in the wrong conscience line.
Thank God?
frreal on August 26, 2007 at 7:32 AM
So … this god of your’s … he lies and plays headgames with you?
Look … I cannot disprove the supernatural … I’ll agree to not ridicule your giant invisible friend provided you don’t bother me touting “him”.
Kristopher on August 26, 2007 at 3:14 AM
Sorry for the shot, MB4 … with all the crap flying, I need a playbill to keep the players straight.
Kristopher on August 26, 2007 at 3:16 AM
Nice. You apologize to the atheist for accidentally criticizing his (sarcastic) comment, but not to all the Christians–who didn’t even make the original comment by the way–whose faith you ridiculed anyway with your own sarcastic “giant invisible friend” comment.
inviolet on August 26, 2007 at 8:37 AM
correction: all the
Christiansbelieversinviolet on August 26, 2007 at 8:39 AM
Hey buddy, do quote to me the verse where Jesus did any babykilling and woman raping? Get your facts straight first, then we talk. Yeah, the old testament is full of murderers and adulterers and so forth, but guess what (not)frreal, nowhere is any follower implored or commanded to do any such thing.
As I said: Atheism is safe. It has no history, it has no content, it can’t be misquoted because it is nothing more than the belief that all other beliefs are wrong. It doesn’t even suggest a substitution. It’s like the Democratic party; it whines and pretends to be morally superior while it never bothers to come up with an actual alternative plan. The only reason most socialist Democrats don’t claim to be atheists is that it might hurt their god: poll numbers.
BKennedy on August 26, 2007 at 10:28 AM
You need to read up on your OT BKen. Trinity = God is Jesus, Jesus is God. You can’t have the NT without the God of the OT who is in fact according to scripture the same God.
Here’s a good rundown of the baby killing verses written by an evangelical minister (look up his testimony). BKen. When I first started on my road to deconversion I kept my bible handy and referenced every single one. Then I moved on to prophecies, errors, contradictions, absurdities. It was the moral atrocities that really got me though. Refute them … if you can. If you can’t then it’s time to step away from the athiests are moral degenerates argument and do a little introspection.
Suffer, Little Children
frreal on August 26, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Oh and BTW. I am a prolife, progun, promilitary, conservative agnostic so you can stop already with the liberal insinuations. I just don’t believe in the Bible God because I simply can’t fathom a God can be both mercyful and a happy killer of children.
Even wrote songs about it. Happy shall HE be.
O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. Psalm 137: 8-9
frreal on August 26, 2007 at 11:00 AM
I just went and read the passage you cited… and I cannot believe how out of context you took that verse. Did you even bother to read the verse before it?
7 Remember, O Lord, what the Edomites did on the day Jerusalem fell. “Tear it down,” they cried, “tear it down to its foundations!”
8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us–
9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.
The Psalmist here is not God, but a person undergoing God’s specific judgment of the Babylon captivity. The Edomites (who were related to the Isrealites) did not come to their aid when Jerusalem was besieged by the Babylonian army. In fact, they rejoiced when the city was destroyed. The phrase about the infants described their anguish from witnessing their own infants murdered, and crying out for a similar judgment against those who celebrated that barbarity.
To put it in modern perspective… 9/11 was a horrible experience for Americans… and yet half the world away, people celebrated and danced in the streets. How many of us that day wished that those celebrating people would experience the same thing that we had? How many of us whiched that mosques in Mecca be reduced to flaming crematoriums and that thousands would die?
Just because this reaction is included in the Bible doesn’t mean that God endorses it. Although in this case, it does fit some Old Testament ideas of justice. Should a society that stood by and celebrated such horrible barbarities, be judged themselves and experience the same barbarity that they celebrated? I believe that they should.
Regardless of our feelings, God keeps his own counsel and will decide how and when to judge. In this Psalm, the Bible simply records a grieving Psalmist crying out to God for justice.
dominigan on August 26, 2007 at 10:46 PM
Ok, I’m going to address another of your ideas out of context… slavery.
I’m taking a Sunday school class on Exodus and we came across some slavery verses and decided to do some in-depth research.
There are three forms of “slavery”: 1) Chattel, 2) Foreigners, 3) Servanthood.
When we hear of slavery in America, we immediately think of chattel slavery… the practice of kidnapping people and selling them into slavery for profit, and then treating them like property. However, this is explicitly dealt with in the Bible. “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)
The second form of slavery was allowed… the capturing of enemies fighting against Israel. These slaves served to help families deal with the loss of sons in war. However, even these slaves were to be treated humanely, and were given the opportunity to be redeem himself. In any case, these slaves were to be released upon the year of Jubilation. Slavery was never for life.
The third form of slavery was encouraged for economical reasons… servanthood. A person could sell himself into servanthood in order to pay a debt… either a debt taken on through normal means, or in the form of entrepreneurship. At the beginning of the seventh year, the servant was given his freedom… and payment. “If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the Lord your God has blessed you. (Deuteronomy 15:12-14)
I find it hard to believe that you’ve done any serious research on the subjects you mentioned. But this is a dead thread and I don’t have enough time tonight to address the rest of your rants.
dominigan on August 26, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Since you seem to be implying that you cannot believe in something that can’t be seen, touched or described with physical science, let’s play the reverse.
Do you believe in the mind? or justice? how about love? what about compassion, guilt, intellect, or reason? None of these things are addressed by physical science. And yet I believe in them. They are described accurately by the Bible, and born out in Christianity. I believe in them, and yet they are insubstantial. I believe in them because they are concepts and ideals that I have experienced in my own life… just like Jesus. He has changed my life… more than any physical manifestation.
And yet the physical sciences continue to support the claims made by the Bible. Jesus Christ was documented by ancient historians, and reams of documents within a few dozen years of his death. Believers died for their beliefs (at a time when witnesses to his works still would have been around). He fulfilled prophesies written hundreds of years before his birth, and testified to by the Dead Sea Scrolls (carbon dated over a hundred years before Christ’s birth). And when looking at this overwhelming mass of evidence, I cannot come to any other conclusion than Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and that he came to earth to redeem me.
And that is why I am a believer.
dominigan on August 26, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Hitler thought he was right, and he was an atheist. Was he right or wrong? In his mind he was right. You can say he was wrong. Now try to justify your response as an atheist. Where is your moral authority?
dominigan on August 27, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]