RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/29/2007 11:34:56 PM)

P.S. - One thing I just thought about the Block feature: It has maybe saved the sanity of the Modertors here at CM

- Susan



SugarMyChurro -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 2:22:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
My take: Actually, Christopher Hitchens is no stranger to having a "dark night of the soul" himself. He has gone from Agnoticism, to full-blown Athiesm, and back to Agnosticism, in his own lifetime.


You will argue ABSOLUTELY anything in this thread...

Atheism and Agnosticism are basically brothers - there is no significant difference. Both are positions of the skeptic, and the more reasonable among us choose the refinement of Agnosticism as an option over Atheism (which is itself a kind of belief system, or "non-belief" system if you will). Both argue that there is no evidence of a deity. Adopting either position does not make one a hypocrite - it's more like moving from an absolute position to one of simply being skeptical. Shades of grey...

Agnes/Teresa's dilemma is strikingly different: her's is a conflict of either believing or not-believing in the deity - black and white contrasted. Actually, her real problem is that she marketed herself as believing when in fact she obviously doubted very strongly as well. It means she conned herself simultaneously as she conned others.

It's reprehensible to claim piety and to privately be anything but pious. That's flat-out hypocrisy.

Stop wiggling around, SusanofO. Your idol has been stripped bare.

<image deleted>

http://pulp.bluecircus.net/archives/Max_Ernst_The_Virgin_Spanking_the_Christ_Child_before_Three_Witnesses_Andre_Breton_Paul_Eluard_and_the_Painter.sized.jpg



Level -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 3:15:04 AM)

It isn't hypocrisy, it's a struggle she went through. Most people of faith experience it.
 
Nice Ernst painting, sadly, it'll be removed soon.



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 3:22:53 AM)

SugarMy Churro: It is reprehensible to claim to be pious and have private doubts. Really? It is reprehensible to claim you are one thing, and be another?  Watch your step...you are entering onto thin ice territory. When did she personally claim to be pious? I must have missed that. 

I WILL? I am not posting a piece of art, as if it concludes something about a religion, or Mother Theresa, or my debating skill. You are truly a sensationalist, when it comes to jumping to conclusions. So What? It's a piece of art, that's all. You must be joking.

I was never arguing over religion. Or someone's right to be an atheist**.

Why are you shocked she would have doubts? Think that makes her a hypocrite, do you? You obviously have doubts - maybe someone ought to string you up as well.

What does that apparent conclusion have to do with attempting to ruin the reputation of a person who helped millions, or evaluating it to the point of insinuating her life was useless, or her intentions were evil - simply because she had doubts?

My beef is with insinuating her inherent value as a person and her intent was wrong - on what amounts to IMO, pretty flimsy evidence. Especially a person, IMO - for whom there appears to be overwhelming evidence (to me) attempted to help millions of people - with no personal monetary goal, or particular personal recognition as far as fame in her own name - and someone's value system that apparently allows them to think insinuating she was completely evil is just a fine thing to do, simply because thay can (and to top it off, some of these folks are making a lot of money doing it).  

**And if you read that last post very closely (or parts of this thread) you'd realize that. 

As for your definition of Atheism vs. Agnosticism, I understand what you're saying - however it is not my POV.

My POV is that full-blown Atheism insinuates one has proven there is no God, due to not allowing for even the slightest possibility there could be one. Since that is impossible to prove - I consider it at least on an "reasonableness" par with religion.

However, don't conclude that means I don't believe someone has the right to be religious (or not).

Like I said before (3 times) I personally don't have enough faith to be an atheist, considering that some scientists have proven there are 12 dimensions and humans can only perceive 4 of them, that points to a few potential limitations, IMO, in any human's ablility to have this question "all figured out". Religions are sometimes referred to as "Faiths".

And I don't mean to be rude, but I don't notice atheists have unionized to the point they are attempting collectively to do good works for people in need, either.

Not that it doesn't mean they could not be doing them alone, on an individual basis, but there is something to be said for organized religion, IMO, despite the fact that the atheists I've encountered manage to conveniently overlook any good points it might have, in favor of bad points.  

Atheists are not particularly looking for logic, IMO - I learned that a long time ago. They just like to claim they are. And every  one I have ever encountered has not had a beef with a God existing or not - it has been with religion existing, or the acts done in its name - which, IMO are 2 entirely different things. But I don't want to go around that block again (I've been there, trust me).

P.S. Don't let any Catholics catch you on a BDSM website. They're all pretty "Vanilla", you know.

- Susan



SugarMyChurro -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 3:24:05 AM)

Hypocrisy - noun
plural hy·poc·ri·sies
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 3:30:36 AM)

You expect perfection of mere human beings? Icons are always bound to have some circumstance in their life, somewhere along the line, IMO, that some will interpret as them having "clay feet" and that will allow some people to toss their worth as human beings completely out the window, due to that. It happens every day. 

You yourself insinuated "all media was crap". Plenty of folks make a living from it.

- Susan



Satyr6406 -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 3:38:38 AM)

ag·nos·ti·cism  [image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/t/pron.jpg[/image]  ([image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/abreve.gif[/image]g-n[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/obreve.gif[/image]s[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.gif[/image]t[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/ibreve.gif[/image]-s[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/ibreve.gif[/image]z[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/lprime.gif[/image][image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/schwa.gif[/image]m) KEY  

NOUN:
  1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
  2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.


a·the·ism  [image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/t/pron.jpg[/image]  ([image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/amacr.gif[/image][image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.gif[/image]th[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/emacr.gif[/image]-[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/ibreve.gif[/image]z[image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/lprime.gif[/image][image]http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/schwa.gif[/image]m) KEY  

NOUN:


  1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
    The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

  • Godlessness; immorality.

      copied, DIRECTLY from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, (on-line Yahoo edition)

      I will agree to rule out definition number 2 of Atheism as I find it to be inflamatory.

      If you ask me, based upon these definitions, Agnosticism and Atheism are not eaxactly polar opposites but, while one claims "no knowledge" (What the word means in Greek, by the way), the other claims that they BELIEVE that there IS NO deity. Definition 1B even calls it a doctrine!
       
      I think they are pretty different things.
       
       
       
       
       
      Peace and comfort,
       
       
       
       
       
      Michael

      [edited to correct the imprimatur]



      1. SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 4:22:56 AM)

      Thank you for those definitions, Michael.

      - Susan



      SugarMyChurro -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 4:34:22 AM)

      These words have complicated meanings, both historically and in modern usage. I'd suggest the following reading:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

      We have lived under the shadow of Christianity so long, we sometimes make the mistake of defining what we are doing in relation to it - which seems both reactionary and misguided. Many of us simply adopt a philosophical posture of "who cares?" unless some meaningful evidence can be offered to support theism. Atheism is historically reactionary - defining itself in opposition to belief. Agnosticism is a refinement more in keeping with an apathetic viewpoint given the total lack of evidence to support theism.

      Still, shades of grey - all of them evoke nonbelief. Not Doubt about belief - doubt about the possibility of obtaining relevant evidence and doubt that it matters in any case.




      Satyr6406 -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 4:36:34 AM)

      Funny. I quote (essentially) the same source as you quote and you choose to negate it.
       
      Just found that curious.
       
       
       
       
       
      Peace and comfort,
       
       
       
       
       
      Michael



      SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 4:46:55 AM)

      SugarMyChurro: I can appreciate your attempt to educate me, but, like I said before -I've read them, I understand them, and I've already had this kind of conversation many times, with various people (really and truly).

      In a nutshell, my take is: Agnostics allow for the possibility there might be a God, they just don't find sufficient evidence (yet). They have "doubts"

      Atheists (to my understanding) don't even allow for the slightest possibility there might be any kind of supreme being, or power, or force in the universe, that they could ever construe as God. 

      Btw, there are articles all over the internet at this moment, claiming Mother Theresa was actually an atheist.

      Where is there evidence for that, I ask? Maybe you (or anyone who cares) should refer these folks to Wikipedia? Or a dictionary (really, I mean it).

      So I can agree with you that some of the media really is "crap", due to the mis-understanding of this terminology.

      - Susan   



      SugarMyChurro -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 4:53:36 AM)

      quote:

      ORIGINAL: Satyr6406
      Funny. I quote (essentially) the same source as you quote and you choose to negate it.


      Well, there's quick and dirty - and then there's robust. I even looked at the OED and decided it did not offer a very complete discussion of the terms being used, hence the wiki links...

      In any case, I thought we agreed that Atheism and Agnosticism were not polar opposites. We're just fleshing out subtleties here...



      SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 4:58:34 AM)

      It can be seen as a subtle difference, I agree.

      - Susan



      SugarMyChurro -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 5:06:13 AM)

      quote:

      ORIGINAL: SusanofO
      Atheists (to my understanding) don't even allow for the slightest possibility there might be one.


      That's a hypothetical atheist you have there.

      ::sigh::

      From wiki:

      "Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

      compare with:

      "Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

      The key element to note is simply skepticism. There are a million shades of grey to describe exactly how each person expresses their own brand of atheistic/agnostic skepticism.

      And that's skepticism about evidence. You are still a long way off from the possibility that any proffered evidence could or should induce belief. Of course, there is no evidence in the first place...



      SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 5:13:48 AM)

      Not to repeat myself: IMO, that is why religion and a belief in God, is referred to as faith. And? So?

      There is this incidental point, too:
      Someone who keeps working anyway, on God's behalf, their entire life, despite having doubts, doesn't seem to have enough of a problem with a lack of belief in His/Her/Its existence to let it upset them working on behalf of his goals in His name, ***for no personal monetary gain, no personal recognition they deliberately sought for themselves (or personal claims of piety- not that I've seen), and, under personal conditions of poverty and hardship, and also at times, some public skepticism. 

      You want to see this as hypocrisy. You insist on focussing on unproven allegations and ignoring the lives she undoubtedly enriched and probably saved. 

      I see her as brave. You appear to want to see her entire life's contribution to the world through a cynical lens. I prefer to view her as heroic and rather inspirational.

      Like I said, we are all entitled to our own POV.

      - Susan 



      Rule -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 5:21:29 AM)

      I was taught at school that agnostics are indifferent to whether or not gods exist, whereas atheists are not convinced that gods exist. Neither is anti-religious.
       
      The vulture of Calcutta was not a religious nor a spiritually aware person.



      SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 5:24:20 AM)

      I didn't say it was not okay to have a particular POV re: belief in God.

      Care to expound on that use of the word "Vulture" a little, Rule? and why you think she wasn't? Think she was merely indoctrinated from birth, and never examined her beliefs?

      **I don't think you really think that (then again, maybe you do. But I think I might know a bit about how you operate, too). After all, she went through some "doubts" - and I do think one has to be somewhat spiritually aware in the first place, to do that, don't you?

      And I think maybe that your point is that neither POV (atheism, agnosticism, Chrisitanity, or any religion) is superior in a completely objective sense. I agree). Except - 

      I stand by my POV that when people insist on tying belief in God to joining organized religion, and insist on focussing on bad points vs. the good -they seem to mostly ignore that people who believe in God and organized religion can do a lot of good in the world as well. Some folks sometime seem (to me) mostly to ignore that. 

      She certainly never personally claimed to be pious. Not from what I've read.

      - Susan



      kittinSol -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 5:53:45 AM)

      Why did I think it was a Dali?!



      SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 5:55:44 AM)

      Maybe it will be. Doesn't bother me - I as an Art major for over a year in college. I think it's well done, myself. I can appreciate some pieces of "erotic" art.

      - Susan



      SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 6:42:26 AM)

      Re:What Rule said in his last post:

      SugarMyChurro: No, I don't believe she was ever a "hypothetical atheist". After all, she went through some "doubts" - and I do think one has to be somewhat spiritually aware in the first place, to do that. After all  *how could anyone doubt something, unless they believe it exists, (or at least might exist) to begin with? (there has to be something to doubt. Seems (to me) you'd have to at least believe in the possibility of a concept, in order to doubt it). Atheists leave no room for that, or don't argue in its favor - at all - they don't believe in even the slightest possiblity that God could exist. 

      An agnostic might not believe, but at least leave room for the possibility.

      Personally I don't really even think what she went through qualifies as Agnosticism, in her case, because she believed in God from the beginning - unless one chooses to believe she was merely indoctrinated at first, into an "unthinking mode" of acceptance of God's existence and belief in Catholicism  - although it sounds like she went through a long period of  what I'd call "spiritual wavering" in mid to late life.

      In any case, it seems like her beliefs motivated her to attempt to try to help millions of people, and that she managed to persist at it, despite having personal doubts about her own mission and value.

      A Vulture preys on the dead - and if you want to use Rule's analogy, she maybe made more than a few people she helped become spitirually aware - or perhaps she merely managed to indoctrinate them.

      *In any case, my bottom line is: It seems clear (to me) that her intent was to help. And that she succeeded in attempting to help (and did help) many, despite a few possible screw ups along the way.

      Wow, she was human. Hope some people can manage to get over it. 

      I don't really understand how some people can really object to her being "indoctrinated" and-or insinuate she was "just" some "Christian robot" - and then at the same time object to her having doubts? This makes no objective sense (to me).

      It seems (to me) as if that belief reeks of the disappointment of people who insist on seeing her as an Icon - instead of as a very persistent human who believed in, (and acted on, and had very considerable success with), a mission to attempt to help others. 

      - Susan



      Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>

      Valid CSS!




      Collarchat.com © 2025
      Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
      0.046875