Here’s a video of Christopher Hitches and Bill Donohue arguing about Mother Teresa:
Donohue is a very angry man. I can’t believe he asked Hitchens “Do you want to take this outside?”
So much for the ethics of Jesus!
Recent Comments
- John C: Yes there is friend, but you can’t know/see Him in (y)our... on God Hates Checkered Whiptail Lizards!!!
- Adamf: There ain’t no god, it aint truth, and you are a pathetic... on God Hates Checkered Whiptail Lizards!!!
- Stony: My [highly conservative] family delight in calling on the ghost... on Mr. Conservative on religion and politics
- trj: Any ideas? Well, the Bible is cobbled together by a lot of contributors, and though... on Why Are You Here, Jesus?
- Manny: I’m a bit confused the more I read the Bible. Some of it just doesn’t... on Why Are You Here, Jesus?
- sdbear: Does it matter to anyone that what he said is simply the truth? on Cult Leaders vs The Pope
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
I’ve just discovered your web site and it is ex-plo-sive.
I wish everybody would be relaxed enough to have useful conversations on the topic.
This tension about knowing truth, is there deep down in virtually everyone, on both sides! Isnt’it ugly?
“Donohue is a very angry man.”
Donohue makes his living by being perpetually outraged at something. His Catholic League really got it’s start from outrage at Sinead O’Connor when she spoke out against the pope. He fills his coffers by stoking the fires of anger and feeding the persecution complex of his followers.
Oddly, as near as I can tell, he has no official standing within the hierarchy. Certain Catholic churches have told him to shut up in the past. At most, he can claim to speak for the 200,000+ membership (in yr 2000), and probably not all of them. I think he’s become the go-to American Catholic spokesman because the media knows he can be relied on to deliver the hate.
>This tension about knowing truth, is there deep down in virtually everyone, on both sides! Isnt’it ugly?<
You’re making a very broad – and untrue – generalization, Marie.
Those who believe something on on faith are not interested in knowing the truth, so in that sense, your assertion fails. On the "other side," faith is not so easily espoused, because truth requires evidence for belief.
Are you perhaps projecting our own feelings, ugly or otherwise, on others?
I love how Hitchens just lets Donahue make a fool of himself with the whole “an Englishman has to be quiet…” nonsense.
He doesn’t give him the pleasure of acknowledging him, and so he says it again later, and adds “I’m an Irishman.”
What a dunce.
Wow, Hitchens sure tells it like it is in his opening statement, doesn’t he?
Regarding Donahue, the first thing a person with a weak argument does when they feel uneasy about being challenged is to attack their opponent personally.
He certainly made himself look silly when he kept commenting on Hitchens’ book and that it had no citations. Christopher response that no point in his book has been provably denied, and received positive reviews in the Catholic Press, was quite good.
Donahue is, to put not too fine a point on it, an idiot. As said above he makes his money by living in a perpetual state of high blood pressure.
On Mother Theresa: I feel she was generally a good example. She lived what must be describe as a positive life, overall. It’s only her motivation that was faulty. Certainly it seems as though no-one else did what she did.
The bit that made laugh was the whole you’re claiming something for which you have no evidence. Can Donahue not see how funny that is?
Donahue is one angry guy. Too bad none of his arguments made any sense, considering the fact that these are letters written by Mother Teresa herself.
On talking about her charity: Although Mother Teresa did do a lot of good things for people, that doesn’t have any bearing on whether she believed in Christianity or not.
On insulting Hitchen’s book: Look at Mcbloggenstein’s post.
Overall, it was amusing more than anything.
Hitchens rules. Even if he often sounds drunk. What he says is pure gold.
I find the whole video somewhat amusing, but behind the surface I find it very sad.
Mother Teresa, whatever she believed, did many good works for the world. And I get the impression that she DID believe, but that she craved for the feeling of truth in her soul and that she could not find it.
Donahue essentially said nothing of consequence. Hitchens makes the point that she was exploited, which to me seems to be a bit of a reach. I don’t know enough about Mother Teresa to know if there is any truth to this assertion.
So, for me, the arguments are meaningless, and I am only left with a profound sadness I feel for Mother Teresa.
There were other, secular reasons for judging the things that she did as good. Her means justified the ends, in this case.
http://alphonsuspeck.wordpress.com
Jesus, speaking of acts of extreme mercy, sacrifice, compassion….says that when we have done these things to others its the same as if we did them unto Him. Mother Teresa was fond of calling the destitute, the hopeless throw away people of the world “Jesus in disguise”.
I think thats pretty cool. Her motivation was out of love and love is never a “faulty” motive.
Love is the greatest power in all the world. God is love.
JC
I really can’t see this whole “Donohue is angry” thing? Sorry I’ve just watched it through again, the “lets take this outside” was said in (to me) obvious jest. I don’t particularly like/agree with the man but the comments here have been somewhat telling. Donohue had little to no argument but to be fair to him neither did Hitchens, who began and ended the entire thing with a sneer of contempt that left him looking like an absolute asshole. First time I’ve heard of Hitchins, last time I approach anything he says without disdain.
As for his book having no citations, although it was hardly relevant Donohue is correct; if there are no citations the book is as fictional as the Da Vinci Code i.e. there is no scientific means of determining the fact from the embellishment.
Rather Donohue should have pointed out that every person of faith has doubts. None of my Christian friends could honestly tell you otherwise. There are times, they say, when they feel faith has been lost to them. Now I don’t know just how deep-set this “loss of faith” was in Mother Teresa; the program hardly goes out of its way to give a counteracting statement. I would like to think that is simply because there aren’t any, that she truly did fill hundreds of pages of letters with doubt. But I also don’t believe it. Hardball has to sell a story, just like Time magazine, and giving unbias evidence doesn’t achieve that. I haven’t read the entire manuscript containing her released letters so hardly see myself fit to theorise over her actual mental state. However I can see evidence for the thousands of good acts she has done and if it was born out of a desire for faith or a love of a deity it matters not. I’d like to see how much good Hitchins has brought to this world.
@Gnorthern Gnome:
Hmm. That would mean pretty much every book before the 1800s were fictional.
Now I think he should have had footnotes or citations in that book, if he didn’t. But the absence of footnotes does not mean it is false, nor does the inclusion of footnotes mean it is false. It’s simply a way of citing sources.
Newspaper articles never have footnotes. Does that mean all the articles are “as fictional as the Da Vinici Code”?
@Gnorthern Gnome
“if there are no citations the book is as fictional as the Da Vinci Code”
Does the bible have citations?
@andy: some of them do actually. But I also fail to see why on earth everyone mistakes me for a fundamentalist Christian on this blog! :D I am not stop throwing the Bible in my face. I’ve read it enough, thanks.
@Daniel: Very few books prior to the 1800′s were not written by scholars, people of learning. Unfortunately in today’s society that is not true (just look at David Beckhams autobiography).
However I do appear to have come across overly harshly. I did not mean that the book was entirely fictional. Dan Browns’ Da Vinci Code contained bonafide facts (mason architecture is prevalent in London, Paris and New York; halos are an adaptation of previously held beliefs; his Fibonacci sequence is correct etc.) however there is also a whole lot of complete rubbish mixed in. If you were to simply sit and read through it is impossible to tell the two apart; if you went through with a fine tooth comb I’m sure you could. The point is his book attacks a world-famous humanitarian. It is going to sell. If he released a book about Mother Teresa that stated she was occasionally not all she was cracked up to be i.e. human it would still have sold but no where near in those numbers. Hitchins will have embellished. He will have chosen his facts to support his argument. He will have taken items out of context. And without citations, in footnote form or otherwise, it is impossible to validate his claims so it must be approached sceptically and first and foremost as a piece of scandal rather than a true study of a persons life.
As for believing mainstream newspapers I would suggest that most articles are as fictional as the Da Vinci code. Just take a look at recent allegations of Antarctica’s “climate crisis” in the newspapers which effectively make up links to global warming when referenced back to the original press release. And then reference that press release back to actual scientific data and you will find it is inconclusive and largely unscientific. Yet had you merely taken the newspapers (and CNN, BBC and Fox news) at face value you would no doubt believe that Antarctica has already melted.
Now that is but one example. Want more, I’ll find them. Every newspaper has to sell. Every paper has an agenda. Every journalist has his own set of beliefs, morals and issues. Nothing written by humans is without bias but some items are far more so. All I’m saying it, a man like Hitchins will not go in for “reader validation”. His book sounds akin to Heat magazine to me. But of course I myself am bias. As I stated originally, the man rubbed off as a complete twit to me, so my bias is set against him. So be it.
The interview shows Hitches is obviously more reasoned, Donohue more emotional. Not questioning that. But I do have a question that I think hits the mark of the debate here: are faith and doubt mutually exclusive?
@Wilbur: at any one moment in time, I would say yes. But given the span of a lifetime, no becomes the more logical answer. Nicely summed up question :)
@GG: Essentially our life ends up reflecting one or the other, and in this case Mother Teresa was a doubter rather than a believer?
@Gnorthern Gnome
Dan Brown could have provided a great number of citations. Of course, they would all have gone back to synthetic scholarship like “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” and other such, but he could have provided them. Holocaust denier David Irving is famous for citing primary sources and extensive research. But he’s also famous for misquoting the sources and misusing the documents. Citations are really just the first step, and they are no guarantee of reliability.
For better or worse, journalists – including folks like Hitchens – aren’t held to the same standards of rigor that historians are. Much of this comes from the fact that journalism is supposed to be original research, deriving from interviews and investigations that cannot be cited. Hitchen’s “Missionary Position” is largely based on personal observation, interviews and anonymous comments that he could not cite if he wanted to.
Donohue is an interesting choice to debate Hitchins.
I don’t get my news from MSNBC, nor my spiritual guidance from the Vatican, or the Catholic League.
But your blog is great Daniel. Thanks for provoking thought and discussion.
Most, if not all, people of faith have some doubt.
@Wilbur – “are faith and doubt mutually exclusive?”
Well, that would depend on your definition of faith. It’s a slippery word. If you define faith as a belief regardless of evidence, then doubt and faith are antithetical. If you define faith as a kind of hope, as in Moltmann’s Theology of Hope and liberation theology, then there is no conflict. If you take Tillich’s understanding of faith as a focus on the ultimate concern, then faith and doubt are not even on the same grid.
So what do you mean by faith?
Donohue made an ass of himself and appeared to be ready to stroke out by the end. It was painful to watch, and pointless really. She doubted her faith. Who hasn’t?
Penn and Teller did a great Bullshit about Mother Teresa:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuMmg9vLNw4
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbKqnv56gnY
There’s other stuff there too.
I just stumbled onto your blog. Absolutely phenomenal.
@Gnorthern Gnome
“But I also fail to see why on earth everyone mistakes me for a fundamentalist Christian on this blog!”
Heh! Okay, sorry about that. Honest mistake. You mentioned Christian friends… I assumed guilt by association ;)
I’m confused. What does the charity work she did have anything to do with her faith? Atheists are incapable of helping others? He is basically saying that “because she was selfless, she believed in God”. Doesn’t make sense at all…..
John C: “God is love.”
No…. LOVE is love.
“God”?….that it you attempting to project little ol’ you onto the Universe.
FAIL.
WWJD?
“Do you want to take this outside?”
‘Dogmatic atheists’? Is that even applicable? Let alone by bible-thumping-hypertension-man?
It’s interesting to hear of something like this after being in a discussion involving how religion gives you peace of mind and certainty.
@John C.
Wow–a concise, clear comment that I heartily agree with right down to the last pair of lines (where we diverge).
–Who are you and what have you done with John?
@Gnorthern Gnome
Hitchens is a drunk and a boor, but he’s a powerful writer.
Among other reasons to respect him: He’s wholeheartedly supported the use of “stressful interrogation techniques” on various POWs. But out of all the pro-torture voices, he’s the only one to have actually undergone waterboarding (And oddly enough he no longer supports its use, for some reason).
Donahue seems to live his life on the edge of that line most people arrive at after months of aggravation, just prior to sticking a garden fork in the ear of a neighbour who plays his stereo too loudly. One need only look at the Catholic League’s press releases to see this. He sees persecution everywhere.
It’s a shame, really. Because he’d be a much better spokesman if he wasn’t inclined to bloviate so much. And the Catholics of the world need good spokespeople.
@Metro: I’m not sure being pro-torture is helping his case personally ;)
I’ve always thought that Mother Theresa was a horrible, horrible person. She created “hospitals” where no medicine was allowed, where the poor could suffer and become closer to Christ (she says it is “the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ”). Of course, when she herself needed medical attention, she flew first class to the finest hospitals in the world, rather than being treated in her own system. She created orphanages that had millions of dollars in the bank, but if no-one donated free food, the children wouldn’t eat that day. She took money away from charities that did actual good for the poor, and locked it away in vaults where it was never used. She told women beaten half to death by their husbands that divorce would land them in hell while advising her rich friends (such as Princess Diana) that divorce was just fine.
There are few people I’d call actively evil, but she’s one of them.
wintermute
Seriously? Hospitals where no medicine was allowed?? That’s just insane! I didn’t know that.
…of course, I’ll need to see some citations… (kidding)
@Boomslang-
There is no such thing as pass/fail, this is not a competition, but rather a discussion.
So go ahead…whats your definition of love Boomer? A mere human derived emotion? Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing. I am speaking of radical, sacrificial, lay it all on the line love…for someone who can do absolutely nothing for you in return. Have you ever seen that kind of love in action?
I have…thats why I say love is a power…the greatest power in all the universe.
Love never…fails 1 Cor 13:8
Here’s an expansion from an interview with Hitchens:
“HITCHENS: The care facilities are grotesquely simple: rudimentary, unscientific, miles behind any modern conception of what medical science is supposed to do. There have been a number of articles – I’ve collected some more since my book came out – about the failure and primitivism of her treatment of lepers and the dying, of her attitude towards medication and prophylaxis. Very rightly is it said that she tends to the dying, because if you were doing anything but dying she hasn’t really got much to offer.”
“F[ree]I[nquiry]: But if people go to her clinics for the dying and they need medical care, does she send them on to the proper places?
HITCHENS: Not according to the testimony of a number of witnesses. I printed the accounts of several witnesses whose testimony I could verify and I’ve had many other communications from former volunteers in Calcutta and in other missions. All of them were very shocked to find when they got there that they had missed some very crucial point and that very often people who come under the false impression that they would receive medical care are either neglected or given no advice. In other words, anyone going in the hope of alleviation of a serious medical condition has made a huge mistake. ”
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html
@Winter-
You cant be serious? Calling mother teresa who spent her life in the slums of calcutta caring for the sick and destitute evil? Thats a little extreme dont you think? Even for an..atheist?
I wonder how many of your colleagues here would agree with the label of evil for mother teresa??
Now your the one not making sense winter.
Making people suffer in pain because God told her that suffering is divine? Yes, that’s evil.
Taking money from charitable people to build hospitals and care for the poor, and then just lock that money away in Swiss bank accounts where it never gets used is evil. If she didn’t exist, those donors would have given to real charities that do real work, and actually improve people’s lives and alleviate suffering. People were concerned enough for the lives of the poor that they gave millions of dollars to her, under the mistaken impression that she would use it to help them improve their situation, but no-one has ever left her care in better shape than they went in. Very few, in fact, have ever left her care alive, even if they have eminently treatable problems.
She takes people with infectious diseases, locks them in a room together with no sanitation and no medical care (no antibiotics, no painkillers, not even any trained medical staff), and then pretends that she’s helping them.
She builds orphanages that literally starve children to death because they don’t want to have to spend the millions of dollars they have in the bank to buy bread for them.
If she actually cared for the sick and the poor, she’d do more for them than help them die in horrible pain. I really don’t understand how anyone can understand what Mother Teresa did and still think that she had a shred of human decency in her.
The fact that I think she was evil has nothing to do with the fact that I’m an atheist; it has to do with the fact that I think it’s evil to deliberately and maliciously cause suffering to another human being. I like to think most Christians would agree with that.
@wintermute: What you present is very different from what is usually portrayed about Teresa. Any recommended reading about what you are talking about that does give some sources?
If what you are saying is true, then she would be evil. However, I would want some documentation before I accepted that.
Daniel: Well, we have the testimonies of people who worked with her, the president of the Indian Rationalist Society.
And then, there are her own words, when she says things like:
or
Are those the words of someone who wants to alleviate suffering, or encourage it?
For books, I’d recommend Hitchens’ The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. He’s done a fair amount of research on the subject.
Excellent video. Can’t get over the “An Englishman has to be quiet bit . . .” Heard all about Mr Donohue and his expolits, but first time I’ve seen him. Made an arse of himself there.
TRF
@Winter-
These are strong allegations my friend. Typically, you employ analysis and reason but I’m afraid here you have made an unfortunate and giant leap into presumption and error.
Perhaps you should speak to some of those “throw away” people that she saw to before you draw such a conclusion. Perhaps they would be better suited to conclude whether she in fact did great good or great harm as you allege.
Since when has compassion, mercy, tenderness and human decency been worthy of such disdain? You may be allowing your contempt for the institution of the catholic church to cloud your assesment of mother teresa.
When we have come so far as to no longer be able to distinguish good from evil in their most elemental forms then we have surely lost our proverbial footing.
JC
Ah, yes. I can’t speak to the dead, so I clearly don’t know what I’m talking about.
Those are fine and noble traits. I would never dream of disdaining them. However, I fail to see the compassion in an organisation worth many millions of dollars refusing to buy bread for orphans in their care, and insisting that local businesses provide it free of charge, if they don’t want the children to starve. I fail to see the tenderness in staking patients with infectious diseases in small rooms thick with filth, and never providing them with medicine. I don’t see the decency in taking charitable donations intended to make life better for the destitute, and making sure that it never gets used for that purpose.
I can’t help but note that you’ve not tried to refute the fact that Mother Teresa does these things, but rather you’ve either ignored the points that I’ve raised, or you believe that allowing people to die in pain of diseases that can be easily cured at a real hospital is some kind of virtue. Does that fact that she prays for the souls of her patients mitigate the fact that she also prays that their bodies might suffer as much as Christ did?
You think I have reason to dislike the Catholic Church? Feel free to explain how you came to that conclusion. I’m almost certain I’ve never said anything here about the Church as a whole, or even about any aspect of their dogma.
Agreed. I think that starving babies when buying them food would be a trivial matter is evil. I think that pretending to help the sick while doing everything you can to keep them away from actual medicine is evil. I think that soliciting charitable donations to help the poor, and then locking that money in a bank vault, never to be used, is evil. You disagree.
Clearly, one of us has a faulty moral compass.
@Winter-
Listening to Hitchens on such matters is akin to asking Rush Limbaugh his opinion of the political left. An imbedded bias is at least an expectation from such a source…no?
I gather from your post you are claiming that mother teresa (herself, or at least in collusion with the catholic church) intentionally starved children and denied them healthcare in an effort to make herself…look good?
Hitchens pours a wicked cup of koolade.
JC
Perhaps so. And no doubt the former Missionaries of Charity have good reason for wanting to lie about how the organisation behaves. And no doubt those Indian health officials that have suggested that her charities be closed down as health hazards are motivated purely by a hatred of Catholicism, right?
No, she did not do it to make herself look good. She did it because she believes that suffering makes people close to Christ, and therefore she encourages their suffering as a Theological Good in and of itself. I honestly think that she had the best of intentions and thought that the poor would be best served by causing them to suffer. Hence the old saw about it taking religion for a good man to do evil.
And what does the Catholic Church have to do with this, other than that Mother Teresa was a Catholic? I’m pretty sure that her opinions on the nobility of suffering are not official Catholic dogma.
John C: “There is no such thing as pass/fail, this is not a competition, but rather a discussion.”
From a subjective standpoint, there most certainly are such things as propositions that “pass”, and propositions that “fail”. Meaning, the highly popular, Christian soundbite, “God is love!”, fails to convince *me* that said statement – along with the philosophy from where it is derived – is any sort of objectively true proposition.
“Love” – both as a noun, and a verb – exists independently of invisible, conscious beings….i.e..”God”/gods.
Continues….”So go ahead…whats your definition of love Boomer?”
Most likely, the opposite of yours, Johnny.
Continues….”A mere human derived emotion?”
It would only make sense that you would seek minimize “love” to a “*mere* human emotion”. After all, the religious philosophy you’ve adopted teaches you that humans are lowly, untrustworthy, and wreched. Of course, I don’t believe that, so “mere human” is a Christian projection that doesn’t apply to me. Nonetheless, I’m curious about something: Is it a fair assessment on my part that without a belief in “God” that you’d be incapable of showing compassion and that you genuinely care about your friends and family? You truly believe you couldn’t muster up those feelings on your own? My goodness, I hope I’m wrong.
Continues….”Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing.”
‘No “perhaps” about it; I know were not.
Continues…. “I am speaking of radical, sacrificial, lay it all on the line love…for someone who can do absolutely nothing for you in return. Have you ever seen that kind of love in action?”
By “radical”, do you by chance mean if certain conditions aren’t met, that there will be grave reprecussions of some sort? And how would you define “sacrificial”? Would that include something given up, permanently? Or are we talking temporarily? You know, like, for 2 or 3 days.
Continues…. “I have…thats why I say love is a power…the greatest power in all the universe.”
Pardon me, but saying “love” is powerful is not quite the same thing as saying an invisible, conscious being = “love”
John C: “Love never…fails 1 Cor 13:8″
But lengendary thinking….does. Reality 1:01
Pingback: If Abortion Were Illegal, What Should Be Done With Women Who Have Illegal Abortions? « Vitamin Briefcase
@BoomSLANG-
What if the Legend is truth Boomer? What then? What if love, like truth is literally a Person, One in the same?
I appreciate you Boomer…have an awesome week my friend.
JC
GG wrote:
> Just take a look at recent allegations of Antarctica’s “climate crisis” in the newspapers which effectively make up links to global warming when referenced back to the original press release. And then reference that press release back to actual scientific data and you will find it is inconclusive and largely unscientific. <
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you are saying here. Could you rephrase it? What are the "made up links"? Where does the "press release" come from?
John, your witnessing isn’t very convincining. I think I’ve mentioned that before.
Today, I’m going to hassle you for this ‘god is love’ business. Your claim is that god is an emotion. To me that means no more than an emotion, no less than an emotion. Do you really mean that, or do you just parrot the phrase and not consider what the words actually mean?
Considering how often you have been caught in lies John, how can you expect your witnessing to be valuable? Do you still claim not to be religious? Do you still claim that you aren’t proselytizing? Do you still claim that atheists can’t feel love the way you can, that atheists aren’t the same species as you? Remember that John?
Those claims don’t just disappear when you want them to.
John C: “@BoomSLANG-
What if the Legend is truth Boomer? What then? What if love, like truth is literally a Person, One in the same?”
Frankly, I’m not sure if such an argument is even worthy of refutation. Nonetheless, unlike you, Johnny-boy, I’ll actually entertain my antagonist’s position:
Okay, “if” there is truth to your claim that a “God” exists, and further, that this entity has a monopoly on the emotion known as “love”?…. then subsequently, I should be able to fully trust this “God”(like I trust “love”), in which case, I trust that this “God” will judge and “love” me based on my character as a human being(similar to how my fellow humans judge/love me, and I, them), as opposed to judging me/loving me based on what I believe, including where I believe the emotion “love” comes from.
“I appreciate you Boomer…have an awesome week my friend.”
Hmm, well….evidentally, you must not appreciate me too, too much, since you have chosen not to address all of my counter-arguments to your unsubstatiated, fanciful, legendary claims.
@BoomSLANG-
Thx for the feedback. As you are well aware, I can not MAKE anyone believe anything they dont want to. Furthermore, I do not demean or belittle you for your current perspective or place in the journey into truth. As I have told Daniel, we are ALL on a journey and we are fellow-journey’ers on this pilgrammage of humanity together. The charge to care for our fellow-man, regardless of his or her “belief” is one I take seriously.
Occasionally, I will take the liberty to share some of what I have learned along the journey when relevent. What a long strange trip its been.
So, with that being said…yes I do sincerely appreciate you and our candid discourse. My only response to your most recent post is that I do not view love as an emotion but rather a…One, a being whose very nature and character is love itself. In light of this, my only “reasonable” response to this unconditional love is to love Him in return. Jesus being the visible image of the invisible God.
Love is the soil by which our nature grows.
JC
@Aor-
Regardless of your persistant claims, I have never lied to you. If the truth, being so very good is too much for you to receive, (at least for now) then I can appreciate that Aor.
When I say there is a love, there is a life and that love is a power…I am speaking truth Aor. These are not delusional positions that I have merely made up for my own purposes but rather experiential knowledge from a quarter century in…love, in power, in truth. These are places we can live in and know personally. Is there any law against such things?
I do hope you have a good week Aor. I appreciate the fact that you maintain a dialogue regardless of the disparate viewpoints….this is a good thing.
JC
John, not only have you lied to me but I proved it. Using your own words, on multiple posts on this blog. You claimed you weren’t religious (blatantly false). You claimed you weren’t here to proselytize, yet admitted later you were here to witness. Witnessing is proselytizing. You claimed that you aren’t the same species as the rest of us. I mean, seriously! Your credibility is completely gone and you think you can lie your way out of it yet again? How can you just ignore those comments on other threads?
So, John… if I didn’t catch you in lies, then you will readily admit to being religious. You may have to admit to being the same species as the rest of us too, that would be nice.
These are just claims, John. Provide proof. I could claim that Thor is Revenge, and it would have exactly the same value as your ‘god is love’ crap. If it is true, then I expect you to be easily able to prove that it is true. I’ll wait, like I’ve been waiting for you to make sense since you began to comment here. I’m patient.
Considering your history of delusions (you aren’t the same species as us, remember?) I think you will have to provide much more than the same silly claim that so many others have trotted out. It doesn’t mean anything. Thor is Revenge. Odin is happiness. L Ron Hubbard is Lunacy. Those little phrases mean nothing, John. Never have, never will.
Also John.. I notice you didn’t claim that you never said you were a different species. Considering how important such words are, and how an honest person would react to that being said… I think the readers here can judge by your reaction that you did indeed say those words. If you hadn’t, you would have denied the specifics quote.
Are you one of those lizard people? Are you David Icke?
If you want to admit that you are the same species as the rest of us, now is the time. Just admit it. Honesty shouldn’t hurt you, John. How could it?
@Aor:
Do not profane the sacred name of L. Ron Hubbard!
Was it not Hubbard who said: “Happy are the confidence tricksters, for banking on human stupidity will make you rich every time”?
Okay, so it might not have been, but it could have, so it probably was, you see?!
L. Ron is love. And all his biggest fans should have Anonymous encounters.
Aor-
I am here to…love, thats all man. I explained the species thing clearly in my words to Metro, call it what you wish.
The longer you deny love the longer you live outside of it. Like everything else, its a choice.
When He was asked what the most important thing was (they were expecting some “religious” rule”) Jesus simply said “to love the lord your God with all your heart, soul & strength”.
I say yes to that, and that has made all the difference.
JC
@Metro-
You let us down man, you are supposed to keep that frozen arctic air up there north of the border…im freezin my #@$% off down here! lol
“Warm” regards,
JC
@Aor
David Icke — I’d forgotten about him, absolutely mad as a hatter. Probably the worse thing is I remember him being a football goal keeper then TV sports commentator then the next thing you know he’s wearing purple tracksuits and claiming that lizards are in charge of a global elite. Saying this there could be some truth in the rumours about the Queen Mother, god rest her soul [said while removing flat cap and clutching to heart], and I’m not talking about the gambling or gin and tonic problems!
John C: ” As you are well aware, I can not MAKE anyone believe anything they dont want to.”
You are implying that the reason I don’t share your belief in “God”, specifically, the Christian biblegod, is because I “don’t want to”. I not only resent that, but you would have to know my thoughts, including my “journey”, to be able to make such a determination. You talk of “care” for your “fellow-man”, yes? Yes…and does that include *respect* for your fellow-man, as the individuals they are? If so, I would implore you to refrain from such asinine, disingenuous tactics, not only here, but in ALL of your future exchanges with nonbelievers.
Continues…”Furthermore, I do not demean or belittle you for your current perspective or place in the journey into truth.”
Implicitly, yes…yes you do. Until I hear differently, you give way to the philosophy that all of humanity is wreched, unworthy of life, and in need of “saving”. If I’m wrong, and your version of Christianity differs from that of the Christianity found in Christian doctrine?…. then by all means, feel free to tell me all about it, which, bear in mind, will ultimately be a waste of your time unless you can demonstate that your version of Christianity is the One True Version.
Continues…”As I have told Daniel, we are ALL on a journey and we are fellow-journey’ers on this pilgrammage of humanity together. The charge to care for our fellow-man, regardless of his or her ‘belief’ is one I take seriously.”
I spent(wasted) 2/3rds of my life as a proponent/follower of the Christian worldview. FYI, I will not waste one more second of the only life that I *know* I have(this one), hoping for, or worrying about, getting into a “next life”, which incidentally, is an unconfirmed hypothesis for which there is not one scrap of objective evidence. None.
Continues…”Occasionally, I will take the liberty to share some of what I have learned along the journey when relevent. What a long strange trip its been.”
Make a mental note—–it’s never “relevent”, to my thinking, that is, until/unless you can substantiate what you are proposing, as the Truth that you insist it is.
Continues…”My only response to your most recent post is that I do not view love as an emotion but rather a…One, a being whose very nature and character is love itself.”
Yes, ‘got it…..you’ve essentially just repeated what you’ve already “shared” with me. Since I get the impression that you view repeating yourself as an effective way to change people’s minds, I now give you the same response I gave you before:
Previously, I said to John C…….
“Okay, ‘if’ there is truth to your claim that a ‘God’ exists, and further, that this entity has a monopoly on the emotion known as ‘love’?…. then subsequently, I should be able to fully trust this ‘God’(like I trust ‘love’), in which case, I trust that this ‘God’ will judge and ‘love’ me based on my character as a human being(similar to how my fellow humans judge/love me, and I, them), as opposed to judging me/loving me based on what I believe, including where I believe the emotion ‘love’ comes from.”
‘Hope it’s clear now.
Continues…”In light of this, my only ‘reasonable’ response to this unconditional love is to love Him in return.”
Again, if you believe in the concept of “hell”, then the “love” that you insist that your biblegod is “offering” me is nothing short of coersion. It is certainly NOT “unconditional”.
Continues…”Jesus being the visible image of the invisible God.”
Existential fallacy.
Continues…”Love is the soil by which our nature grows.”
That’s a beautiful little quote you have there. Unfortunately(for you), it does nothing in the way of substantiating your fantastic religious claims.
@BoomSLANG-
Sounds like you spent “2/3″ of your life in religion. I can understand how that would leave one resentful and unfulfilled. That is not what He offers, it couldnt be further from the Truth.
A “worldview” is a worthless thing devoid of the life of Christ within. The institutional church (IC) is largely the biggest barrier to the freedom He offers.
I appreciate your candor…thanks for sharing and I do respect and (somewhat) understand where you are coming from Boomer.
JC
John C wrote:
>love the lord your God with all your heart, soul & strength<
John C claims that JC was asked about the most important thing. That’s not what Jesus was asked – John C should read the passage. I think he’ll see that Jesus was asked how inherit eternal life (Luke 10:25).
Thus it’s difficult to believe anything Johns asserts, because John misquotes his own bible and twist the words of his god.
And of course he ignores some other advice in his fairy-tale bible, avice which offers other ways to enjoy an after-life. A few examples:
"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:53-54
How about this one:
"Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:20
Then there’s the requirement to accomplish something worthwhile:
"For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works." Matthew 16.27
But then:
"A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ." Galatians 2:16
John has only selected from his bible that which he wants to accept, and he’s left out all the other requirements his imaginary friend, Jesus Christ, wants him to fulfill.
I’ve got some good news and bad news for John. First the bad news: His imaginary god is going to send John to Hell for not fulfilling those other important obligations.
The good news: Hell is imaginary. (Depending on his point of view, that might also be bad news, because it means his after-life will be imaginary too – I suggest John should imagine how much he’s going to enjoy his after-life now, before he dies, rather than waiting for it to occur later).
@Dave-
I was quoting (accurately) from Mark 12:28 not Luke’s gospel.
With all due respect, you do not know the heart of the Author so you can not accurately discern the letter. I understand each of those verses that you referenced in the context by which they are spoken and they are all…liberating not condemning. I would be happy to explain if you would really like to know.
Religion (endless rules devoid of love) is bad, but life and freedom (what Jesus offered) is the most beautiful thing.
Take Care Dave
JC
John C: “Sounds like you spent ’2/3′ of your life in religion.”
Sounds like….
- If you learned about who and what “He” is via the Christian doctrine..i.e..the “Holy Bible”, then you learned the same way I learned….through religion.
- If you have a “personal relationship” with “Him”, then unless you keep that relationship “personal” where it belongs, then again, you have a religion.
John C: “I appreciate your candor…thanks for sharing and I do respect and (somewhat) understand where you are coming from Boomer.”
The name’s “boomslang”, or “boomSLANG”, either one……and again, I cannot reciprocate an appreciation for your “candor”, simply because I find some of your words highly offensive. For example, when you have the audacity to tell other human beings that they are incapable of love, or, quote….”live outside of it”.
Again, because you have some thoughts rolling around in your noggin, you evidentally believe this gives you a license to judge other human beings. Frankly, I don’t see how/why the blog owner/operator/moderator puts up with your tactics, that is, unless maybe he keeps you around to serve as a constant reminder to other Christians how NOT to win us over/back to belief in “Christ”. Yeah, I’ll run with that theory, until/unless I hear differently.
I was quoting (accurately) from Luke 10:27, not Mark’s gospel.
With all due respect, John, you do not know the heart of the Author, so you can not accurately discern the letter.
You don’t understand any of those verses that you’ve referenced in the context by which they are spoken and so many of them are condemning, not liberating. I would be happy to explain if you would really like to know. Oops, I already did, in the post above yours.
As I also wrote above, you only select from your bible that which you wants to accept, and that’s why you’re headed, if you’re not already there, for your own Hell.
Or as you didn’t quite put it: Religion (endless rules devoid of love) is bad, but life and freedom (what Jesus did not offer) is the most beautiful thing. But, as you say, not the most important thing.
John, I notice you didn’t deny the things I said.
I can’t imagine any other way to read that than as a complete admission of guilt, combined with an utter reluctance to admit guilt.
Is that what your god would tell you to do? Is that the way you Witness? Is this the example of christianity that you wish to present in your proselytizing?
It is not going to be forgotten, John. The first step to fixing the damage you have done to your credibility is to admit past mistakes and make an effort to patch them up. Admit that you are not a separate species. Admit you lied, admit you got caught, and stand up like a man.
Another point John… you can’t say “literally” and then later say “I didn’t mean to for you to take me literally.” In case that went over your head, it relates to your claim to be a separate species. Please, just for once in your life, concede a point. Show that you have the ability to learn from your own mistakes. Just this once. Well, maybe not just once. Hopefully for your whole life. Please.
I’m coming late to this, but I just have to say I would LOVE for Donohue to ask me to ‘take it outside’. I know it makes me a bad person, but I would take a lot of joy in kicking that blowhard’s ass.
In fact, I think I need to become a famous skeptic just so I get that chance. I wonder what he would say if someone actually replied with, “Yeah, let’s do it right now, you idiotic blowhard.”
I lived in Egypt when Mother Theresa visited Cairo and told the local population that God did not want them to use contraceptives (condoms) – this led to an explosion in the local birthrate, a rise in STDs and axacerbaton of the problems of high poverty levels and poor social and medical infrastructure.
This was not an act of God but an act of wickedness by her in the name of God. Saint? Perhaps she’s a Catholic saint, but she’s a well meaning but misguided nut case in my view, based on the evidence.
Well Tim, Roman Catholic also disallow extramarrital sex and irresponsible conceiving.
Together with the no-condom move, it means that you don’t have the intercourse with others except your wife and have it with responsibility (if you think that you cannot afford having another child, then make sure that you have it during infertile period of your wife)
Wintermute’s opinion is supported by the book
“Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict” by Aroup Chatterjee, which can be read on-line (http://www.meteorbooks.com/). If even a fraction of the allegations against her are true, she is certainly sounds like an evil sadist to me.