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 (8/30/2007 7:45:32 AM)

I am certainly glad the word "self-described" was used in the above definition of Atheism- because I think many people who  themselves as Atheists are really Agnostics, they just confuse their terminology. 

- Susan



LaTigresse -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 8:52:34 AM)

I just KNEW this would get reborn!

Now I am trying to decide if I care..........



kittinSol -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 9:32:36 AM)

No. Atheists hold the certitude that god does not exist. Agnostics say 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.

Agnostics are humble.

I fall in the agnostic category. I'm a Jewish agnostic (there's velvetears' answer for her lol).



SugarMyChurro -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 10:13:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse
Now I am trying to decide if I care...


So, you are "agnostic" about this thread?

[;)]



SugarMyChurro -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 10:40:10 AM)

SusanofO:

Is 50 years of doubting the existence of god tantamount to disbelief?

Full disclosure: I admit I am trying to understand what it would take to get you to acknowledge Teresa's hypocrisy. Teresa obviously did do something similar to what is described in the first sentence of this post - it is described in the article about the book about the letters that Teresa wrote to her confidant. The article actually says:

-----

The letters, many of them preserved against her wishes (she had requested that they be destroyed but was overruled by her church), reveal that for the last nearly half-century of her life she felt no presence of God whatsoever — or, as the book's compiler and editor, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, writes, "neither in her heart or in the eucharist."

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html

-----

Now, you don't doubt that source, or do you? That's almost from the mouth of Teresa (her letters) as interpretted by one of her own closest confidants. I mean, we could probably get the book at a library and check that the statement in the article very closely approximates the material in the book - that way we could source the original letters written by Teresa (perhaps in translation).

But see, to me that simply says she spent a very significant portion of her life doubting or disbelieving. And this while preaching to others about the very thing she doubted or disbelieved.

Can you see where I am going with this?

To me it's pointlessly absurd to suggest that this level of doubt is somehow a confirmation that she was actually heroically spiritual in the face of this "dark night of the soul." Let me recapitulate the position in favor of canonization. If she had simply believed without any doubt then she was pious and possibly worthy of canonization. If she doubted, even for as long as 50 years, then she experienced a challenging doubt that makes her steadfast adherence to her religion (N.B. I did not say "belief") and life as a nun even more heroic. In effect, regardless of what she did or what she actually believed - she is deemed "pious" and therefore wins the canonization jackpot.

That reasoning doesn't seem a little facile and ridiculous to you?




LaTigresse -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 10:51:20 AM)

At the moment.

I will keep checking back to see if I become swayed towards one side of the fence or other..... 



Rule -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 11:29:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro
That reasoning doesn't seem a little facile and ridiculous to you?

SMC is correct, Susan. The Vulture was without any awareness of spirituality as she has testified herself. She was a hypocrite.
 
Your obstinate refusal to recognize this derives directly from your sub nature: a superhuman stubbornness that is totally self centered. Nothing wrong with that, extremely advantageous in specific circumstances, but due to its limitations it must yield to those who have another and in specific circumstances a better perception of reality. Most prominently correct in this thread are DK and SMC. You have been wrong throughout.
 
The Vulture was emotionally shallow, like all people that have sadistic personality disorder. Probably that is why people with spd relish the misery of other people: because that touches them most strongly relative to any other emotion that they do not feel.
 
There are questions that one may ask about the way the Vulture viewed christianity. In any case her perception of christianity must have been severely warped by her nature of sadistic personality disorder. So she may have identified with christianity, perhaps being attracted to it by the suffering of Jesus on the cross, but she most certainly was no christian. To the contrary: she was the anti-christ.



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 12:58:19 PM)

SugarMyChurro: I've already addressed this, and yes I did read that entire article (and the very first time it was posted, too. Plus, I have a subscription to TIME myself). You managed to cite a source you failed to even read (Beatified vs. Canonized, re: Hitchens) - I'd say that is pretty hypocritical as well. l never suggested spirituality was the main issue - you did, though.

I also mentioned that I believe she is heroic for different reasons, and never tried to make her spirtuality the main issue or make that negate the value of the good she obviously (to me) managed to do in her life. I've mentioned that several times.You apparently have an issue with it, though.

And in any case, IMO how "spiritual" she was is at least a matter of interpretation, and that article also managed to state that having doubts is common to people who also have extreme faith as well (or did you just skip over that part fo the aryticler in TIME? I agree with Level on this.).Which goes back to the idea of - how can you doubt in a concept you don't believe exists in the first place?  And why would that necessarily weaken anyone's faith, rather than strengthen it?

So, if you are tired of debating, it appears to be partly your own fault.  

Also - since you don't intend (apparently) to ever answer my main question (that I posted about 5 times now, and for the very last time, below) and since I agree w/kittensol's definition of agnosticism, and atheism, too, I don't believe I am going to answer yours again (which I already did).

You are just going over the same ground that has been way covered (by me anyway) already in this thread - because you (apparently) don't like to read my posts (or parts of this thread, or TIME magazine) very closely, and are very intent on seeing her life via a cynical lens, IMO. I believe I've already covered this as well. See below.

Rule: Suppose you're absolutely right. I may be stubborn, but I don't believe I've been particularly uncivil in the last 3 pages). Care to answer how this really relates to my only real question on this thread: Insinuating this negates the value of her entire life, and the good she managed to do, and would you care to venture guessing placing a monetary value on the lives she enriched and-or helped?

I am pretty tired of debating this, too - I am just not going to let those 2 questions pass by completely un-addressed by her apparent detractors (since it's they are the only ones I really care about anyway, on the whole entire thread). 

- Susan



Rule -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 1:44:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
Rule: Suppose you're absolutely right. I may be stubborn
May? Care to elaborate on that? According to my model of subs they are able to be exceedingly stubborn - against all reason. If you deny that you can be exceedingly stubborn, I will have to take that into consideration.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
but I don't believe I've been particularly uncivil.

Uncivil? In any case, I can be very blunt. Not intending to hurt anyone's feelings, but completely unaware that I do. Some deep subs are very much the same. All indications are that you are such a super sub.
 
I have got a wedding to attend tomorrow and a barbeque the next day, so those days I will not frequent the forums of CM.



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 2:02:16 PM)

Rule: I didn't mean you were uncivil, I was just asking a few questions, and wanting to make clear that I don't believe I've been particluarly uncivil in addressing SugarMyChurro's points in the last 3 pages. Yes, I can definitely be stubborn, but don't see that as a bad thing, necessarily.**I actually do think that is an interesting take on spd re: Mother T, btw

I am pretty much done with this debate, too.Have fun at your BBQ and wedding. If anyone else wants to continue on with it, go right ahead, of course. 

- Susan



kittinSol -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 2:03:11 PM)

Rule, I know you disagree with Susan. But I think you're taking your 'analysis of a submissive' too far. She has been fiery and she has fought for her opinion; I see that you are arguing against her from a Dominant/submissive point of view, which of course, is an interesting way to approach it.

My only worry is that it's very personal, and it's completely off-topic. I wonder whether you fancy Susan and if that's not why you're going to those lengths.

Sugar is quite a hardcore debater (MAN! If only I weren't married!) and I can understand why anyone would wish to joust verbally with him. It's interesting, and I find the debate has shone some light on many things many of us had no idea existed before the thread was started (thank you, Level: please, do it again. Preferably, using "kittinSol finds enlightenment at the tip of a riding crop: right, or wrong?").

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...



kittinSol -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 2:06:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

At the moment.

I will keep checking back to see if I become swayed towards one side of the fence or other..... 



Oh ma Tigresse... que faudrait-il pour que tu viennes nous rejoindre dans notre camp... celui de la raison, tu sais? Oh, Tigrrrrressssssse.



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 2:07:11 PM)

Actually I don't think he disagrees w/me that much re: My main questions on this thrread - and I'm not particularly insulted (really). And I don't really care much if he disagrees with me, either (and hope he's not insulted by that). But I see your point - if I disagree, and that makes me a super-sub, though, I am quite happy to disagree.

- Susan



kittinSol -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 2:10:18 PM)

Hmmmm... I think it can be very interesting to introduce sexual politics into otherwise dry, sexless debates... What do you think, Susan? Rule named you a sub a few pages up, and kept on doing so... I'm not on Rule's side (I have clashed with him on a few occasions, because of his whacky ideas about us, Jews), but still...

Did it influence the way you posted? (You have no reason to answer me: I fully realise this question is out of order, as I am trying to dig deep into your psyche).



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 2:13:32 PM)

kittensol: Well, I am a sub (since I am a Switch, I am partly a sub, and also since he is entitled to his own POV). It doesn't bother me, really, that he says that.

But kittensol, IMO, makes a good point in that maybe some would think I am not a "twue" sub, because I debate (relative strangers, I might add). And me saying this is Not a slam at Rule (who thinks this makes me a super-sub, which is not an insult). At all. I think I know Rule, a little anyway, and maybe he was going to start that debate too: What is a "twue" __________anything? Which would be a good point to make as it relates to this thread, IMO.

- Susan



kittinSol -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 2:19:28 PM)

I was really trying to touch upon the fact that Rule, instead of using your name, kept on calling you 'the sub'. I realise you are a switch: I have read your profile. More than once: you are an interesting woman.

You know by calling you 'the sub' (and he alluded to me, 'the other sub, kittinsol' - I was touched), he was trying to put you back in your place. He is attempting to argue that submissives conduct discussions alongside a particular pattern.

It's a very interesting, thought-provoking subject. Let's let Theresa die a second time...



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 2:25:18 PM)

kittensol: Well, I don't think subs cannot debate, unless they are addressing their particular Dominant. Even then, a few questions, if it is an issue a submssive cares about deeply, are not a thing I'd consider way out of line, and their Dom/Master would probably decide how to handle that. I realize this is not everyone's POV.That's fine with me (I think maybe Rule was just trying to be protective, I honestly do. Thanks, Rule). 



kittinSol -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 2:27:42 PM)

I've just opened a new thread on that very subject , Susan.



SusanofO -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 2:31:01 PM)

kittensol: Great! I will drop in on that thread.

- Susan



kittinSol -> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul (8/30/2007 2:36:09 PM)

May I quote you on the other thread?



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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.15625