Monday, January 19, 2009

Gay bishop: 'Bless us with tears'


If a bishop spoke at a nationally televised event attended by 400,000, would anyone hear the prayer?

Not as many as you might think.

The Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Church's first openly gay bishop, delivered the invocation before Sunday's We Are One inaugural concert. But HBO started its live coverage after the prayer, and a problem with either the microphone or the speakers kept many in the audience from hearing his words.

I'm not among those who attribute this to a conspiracy to silence the controversial clergyman, whose election as bishop has stirred conflict and possible schism in the worldwide Anglican Communion. But I do think it's a shame, because the prayer is unusual in what it requests from God. How many of us would ask for the "blessings" of tears, anger and discomfort?

Here is what Bishop Robinson prayed:

“O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will bless us with tears – tears for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women in many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

"Bless this nation with anger – anger at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.

"Bless us with discomfort at the easy, simplistic answers we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth about ourselves and our world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.

"Bless us with patience and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be fixed anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.

"Bless us with humility, open to understanding that our own needs as a nation must always be balanced with those of the world.

"Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance, replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences.

"Bless us with compassion and generosity, remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable.

"And God, we give you thanks for your child, Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.

"Give him wisdom beyond his years, inspire him with President Lincoln’s reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy’s ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King’s dream of a nation for all people.

"Give him a quiet heart, for our ship of state needs a steady, calm captain.

"Give him stirring words; we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.

"Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.

"Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.

"Give him strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters’ childhoods.

"And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we’re asking far too much of this one. We implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand, that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity, and peace. Amen."

It is true, of course, that prayers need not be televised or amplified to reach the One to whom they are addressed. But I believe this particular prayer is worth reading, pondering and taking to heart. God save us from complacency!

What if you were asked to pray publicly for our incoming president? What would you say to God in earshot of a nation?

285 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 285 of 285   Newer›   Newest»
Iztok said...

Danbo: "Preists are not required to believe in the Holocaust."

What is there to BELIEVE about Holocaust?

This is like saying that one has to believe in gravity.

Danbo59 said...

Iztok droned (for the 100th time), "After all I don't condone, instruct or perform genocide like some particular character in the book. Neither I subscribe to the "woman has to learn in silence" or stone women for being unfaithful. Nor do I think that dashing childrens' heads against rocks is a happy thing."

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

Anything new?

Danbo59 said...

Iztok wrote, "This is like saying that one has to believe in gravity."

What's gravity?

Danbo59 said...

Iztok wrote, "What is there to BELIEVE about Holocaust?

This is like saying that one has to believe in gravity."

Not at all. One can observe gravity at work right now -- in the present. The Holocaust (as it relates to WWII and the Jewish Community) is history. One cannot observe it right now. One must conclude that it occurred based on reports, eyewitness accounts and visual media available. Some don't believe it happened.

Kind of like how you don't belive the Bible's evenets occurred. I'd have thought you'd be more understanding, atheist.

Iztok said...

Danbo, have you SEEN the evidence and first hand reports about holocaust?

We do not have evidence or first hand reports for the Bible at all.

Perhaps trip to DC Holocaust museum would be in order for mind refresher.

You could also go visit Bethlehem and Jerusalem and compare the true evidence (I've been to both and there is zero authentic evidence there).

Quibbles said...

Iztok:

Altruistic behavior is compatible with the selfish gene, if there is a reasonable probability that the altruistic behavior will be reciprocated in a way that advances the replication of the doer's genes. Otherwise, it is a dysfunctional meme (from the gene's standpoint). Where is the gene-relevant reciprocation in the case of your adoption? Who is doing something in return that is helping replicate your genes? Or does selfless love just feel right because you have been programmed by natural selection to feel right about certain behaviors without thinking rationally about them? The perfect chump is the one who believes his counter-intuitive self-sacrifice is rational and part of the way things should be. That's your religious delusion. And it is not sad at all. Carry on.

Danbo59 said...

Iztok wrote, "Danbo, have you SEEN the evidence and first hand reports about holocaust?

We do not have evidence or first hand reports for the Bible at all."

Iztok, have you been to the Vatican? Bodies that lay in state, uncorrupted for hundreds of years, etc. Lots of evidence there.

First-hand or nth-hand, it's all hearsay. I don't need to be convinced of the reality of The Holocaust. You, on the other hand....

Anal Slut said...

Danbo59,
Want to get together sometime? Maybe dinner, a drink or coffee?

Danbo59 said...

AS wrote, "Want to get together sometime? Maybe dinner, a drink or coffee?"

Pass.

Catholic101 said...

Changing identity name from Danbo59 to Catholic101

D.J. Williams said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
D.J. Williams said...

Anybody remember when you could actually have an intelligent conversation on this blog? Anybody?

Seriously, can we really blame Jane for disappearing from the blogosphere for months at a time?

Soli Deo Gloria

Catholic101 said...

What I find more perplexing is that they allow some of the perverse account names we see on this blog. MSL, AS, Porn Student, etc.

If jane would just take control by either banning trolls like Iztok and the others or simply approving posts in advance, we'd get somewhere.

PornStudent said...

The Catholic church has murdered more people than all the smut peddlers and sex workers. If any, it's your name that shouldn't be allowed.

Catholic101 said...

PS wrote, "The Catholic church has murdered more people than all the smut peddlers and sex workers. If any, it's your name that shouldn't be allowed."

Yeah. Good luck with that.

PornStudent said...

I don't care what you or anyone else calls themselves. Why be perplexed when others don't care either? Appreciate the things that make this country great. By the way, it's not your religion.

Iztok said...

Quibble, your delusion is that selfish gene is all about one personal gene to propagate. It has to do with survival of the species. Think globally act locally my friend. Not to mention that sometimes meme is the more important part of propagation in the big picture.

Iztok said...

"Iztok, have you been to the Vatican? Bodies that lay in state, uncorrupted for hundreds of years, etc. Lots of evidence there."

In fact I was. Still no evidence. There are no records from those who witnessed alleged events in the Bible (OT or NT) there. No other evidence either.

"First-hand or nth-hand, it's all hearsay."

Bunch of nonsense. If the author who wrote the Bible would actually witness the account it is not hearsay. Can you point us to a SINGLE account in the Bible that was written by a person actually there at the time alleged events took place? C'mon this should be easy, right? Many verses, many authors, big book, should be plenty of options for you. I am just asking for a SINGLE account.

Even gospels were written at minimum decades after the event by people who never were there in the first place. You compare this with Holocaust? What an insult to survivors of this tragic event. Perhaps soon your Catholic Church will again start celebrating Hitler's birthday as it once did, certainly it is on its way.

Iztok said...

"What I find more perplexing is that they allow some of the perverse account names we see on this blog. MSL, AS, Porn Student, etc."

Next will be banning books and burning them and burning people at the stake... hm... where have we seen that... oh... it was Catholic Church doing it. Seems Dumbo wants good old times with "higher morals" of Catholic Church in charge.

Iztok said...

Another good example of "higher" religious standards:

http://democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts/27752-texas-teacher-suspended-for-being-liberal-and-an-atheist

Anonymous said...

Why does someone need to be identified as a GAY BISHOP? Why can't he be just a bishop? That clearly states an agenda by his identification. Does he read his Bible? Does it clearly condemn homosexuality?
Yes, God made everyone, the alcoholic, the adulterer, but does that make it right? Alcoholics and adulterers "know how they feel" too. Does that include murder? But, that doesn't mean the behavior is acceptable in God's eyes. People are not born gay, but I do believe early on in life they become very passive.

Iztok said...

Anonymous Coward wrote: "People are not born gay"

"As with left-handedness, the sexual orientation of adopted children bears no relationship to that of adopted parents, clearly pointing to its biological origins. The twin studies show that twins share the trait of homosexuality more frequently than they do left-handedness, suggesting that genetics plays an even greater role in sexual orientation than in handedness."

Aug. 10, 2006 - Tom Moon, MFT

PornStudent said...

Anonymous,

It's others who identify the bishop as gay, not himself. What does this tell you about their agenda?

The Bible condemns many things that are ignored by even the most conservative Christians.

If God made something, I'm more inclined to believe He's OK with it than not.

There is evidence that people are born gay. See borngay.procon.org.

What does it mean that you believe gays become very passive early in life?

Bob said...

Iztok:

First Corinthians 15:8-9 is a first-hand account of Paul's vision of the risen Christ. Revelation is a first-hand account of a vision that the author, John, says that he experienced.

Iztok said...

Bob, are you for real? Nowadays you can find many people like that at CMC Randolph in Charlotte. It doesn't make their visions any more real if they write them on paper.

But even if I give you that. Where can we see original manuscripts written by Paul and John to verify the authenticity?

Bob said...

Iztok:

Sorry. I didn't mean to set you off. I was just responding to your claim that there are no first-person accounts in the Bible. I didn't want you to look dumb in front of everybody like that. You can do your own research next time.

And, just so you know, you can also forget about getting a peek at my original manuscript of Paul's letters. You'd probably just crumple it up, anyway, and I'm hoping its going to be worth money someday.

Iztok said...

Bob, first person accounts?

1 Cor 15:8-9

"He was seen of me."
In an apparent reference to his encounter on the road to Damascus, Paul says, "And last of all he was seen by me." But Acts (9:5) says he saw no one because he was blinded.

In regards to Revelation, John of Patmos (author) is not John the Apostle.

Bob said...

Iztok:

You're undermining your original point, aren't you? First, you challenge the reliability of the Bible because you think (erroneously) that it lacks any first-person accounts. Now, you challenge the reliability of a first-person account because you think it conflicts with a secondhand account. Make up your mind.

I have not said anything at all about reliability. But, if I were to engage in amateur guesswork, I would tend to be more skeptical of two perfectly identical accounts by two different authors than two similar, but not perfectly identical, accounts by two different authors. I also would tend to think that Paul, had he invented a personal experience of the risen Christ so as to give himself more prestige amongst early Christians, would have included the account in every letter, not just one. How was he to know which letters would be preserved and later included in the canon?

BTW, are you aware of any serious scholarship that challenges the authorship of First Cor. 15:8-9 by Paul or the Book of Revelation by John of Patmos? If the weight of evidence supports authenticity, it is unscientific to arbitrarily disregard it merely because it does not fit your prejudices.

catholic102 said...

"How many of us would ask for the 'blessings' of tears, anger and discomfort?"

I wouldn't. If we'll always have the poor among us, when would we stop crying?

D.J. Williams said...

Iztok,

I'm with Bob - where is your evidence that disputes Paul's authorship of 1 Corinthians or the apostle John's authorship of Revelation? If you're going to say that the original manuscripts are needed for verification, then you've just thrown out all of ancient history. Even skeptic extraordinaire Bart Ehrman recently admitted that the NT is most attested document of antiquity. Your arguments show little knowledge for how ancient history and textual criticism work.

Also, the gospels of Matthew and John were written by those who actually witnessed the events.

Soli Deo Gloria

Catholic101 said...

DJ Williams wrote, "Also, the gospels of Matthew and John were written by those who actually witnessed the events."

Iztok will want to cross-examine them first.

Anonymous said...

"Certain lines of evidence suggest that John of Patmos wrote only Revelation, not the Gospel of John nor the Epistles of John. For one, the author of Revelation identifies himself as "John" several times, but the author of the Gospel of John never identifies himself directly. While both works liken Jesus to a lamb, they consistently use different words for lamb when referring to him—the Gospel uses amnos, Revelation uses arnion. Lastly, the Gospel is written in nearly flawless Greek, but Revelation contains grammatical errors and stylistic abnormalities which indicate its author may not have been as familiar with the Greek language as the Gospel's author.""

Bob said...

Oh, well. That old-time Wikipedia is good enough for me.

D.J. Williams said...

The evidence presented in the Wikipedia article isn't as clear as it would seem. Yes, there are indeed grammatical and lexical differences between Revelation and John's other writing. It should be noted, that Ehrman is hardly the first to point this out - early church father Dionysius of Alexandria made the same observations over 1800 years ago. Is non-Johannine authorship the only conclusion that fits the evidence?

Hardly. Consider these factors...

- Genre. John's other writings are his Gospel and epistles. The gospel is a collection of narrative and teaching. The epistles are his correspondence with and instruction to various churches. Revelation is a piece of apocalyptic literature, a genre common in the ancient world (and in the Bible - see the latter half of Daniel, for example) and filled with symbolism. If an author wrote an op-ed for the New York Times and then wrote an epic poem, should we be surprised that his form and verbage would be very different in the two works?

- Method of writing. Revelation is much sloppier gramatically than John's other writings. What other factor is particular about Revelation from his other work? He was in exile on Patmos - where he wouldn't have had access to a scribe or secretary to record his work (common in Biblical literature, esp. the letters of Paul). Also, John is recording a vision - would sloppy grammar not be more expected when one is scribbling down a vision as it happens rather than when one is assembling a collection of firsthand experiences to events or writing a carefully worded instructional letter? If John dictated his Gospel and epistles to a secretary who then composed them in writing, would the more semetic and less-grammatically-perfect Greek of Revelation not be evidence for Johannine authorship?

The evidence we have lends itself to more than one conclusion. You can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

Soli Deo Gloria

Anonymous said...

"You can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia."

Or the Bible. Just look at first two chapters of first book. Not to mention all the magic people expect us to believe w/o evidence.

Anonymous said...

Gay people don't randomly choose to be gay, just like straight people don't choose to be straight. It's just how they feel. And if that's so, I wonder:

Why would God make people who felt this way just to send them straight to Hell?

It doesn't make sense, does it? He loves all of His children, just like the kids' song.

Catholic101 said...

Anonymous put forth, "Gay people don't randomly choose to be gay, just like straight people don't choose to be straight."

Being gay is not a sin. Deciding to engage in homosexual activity is a sin. It's the unrepentent sinner that goes to Hell.

Straight people have just as many chances to sin as the gay person.

Anonymous wrote, "Why would God make people who felt this way just to send them straight to Hell?"

Feeling that way is not a sin, as I said. Feeling like you want to kill someone is not a sin. Acting on the urge is.

Anonymous wrote, "It doesn't make sense, does it? He loves all of His children, just like the kids' song."

Yes, God loves everyone, but some choose not to love back -- through sin.

Catholic102 said...

I don't think God would make people with the desire for the same sex would then tell them it's wrong to fulfill that desire.

Sex is nothing like murder. To compare them is stretching any truth you may think you have possession of.

Masturbation Saves Lives said...

I agree with Catholic102.

Iztok said...

To actually be obsessed with what two consenting adults do for fun in privacy of their bedroom is perversion to the highest degree. Being that purposely observes such act of love without knowledge or consent of those two individuals is pervert.

Quibbles said...

Really. One would think that obsession with sex would be quite natural, what with the evolutionary advantages and all. Obsession with what consenting adults do for meaning in the privacy of their religious institutions, now that's
. . .

Catholic101 said...

Catholic102 wrote, "Sex is nothing like murder."

I have no experience with murder, so I cannot say.

But both murder and homosexual sex are sins and intrinsic evils.

I'm not concerned at all with what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom. But sin is still sin. Sort of like militaristic atheism is a sin.

Catholic101 said...

MSL wrote, "I agree with Catholic102."

That's because you ARE Catholic102.

Iztok said...

Quibbles, obsession with your own sex life is fine. But to obsess about someone else's or to even observe without their consent is just perverted, don't you think?

Iztok said...

"But both murder and homosexual sex are sins and intrinsic evils."

Why are they sins?

Why are they intrinsic evils?

Is watching someone else having sex (w/o them knowing/approving) a sin?

What specifically is evil in same sex couples having sex? Are they hurting you? Are they hurting another person? If it is consentual and neither is hurt then why would be anyone else's concern? Same sex acts occur amongst other animals as well, it is not limited to certain animal species (humans for example).

Catholic101 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Catholic101 said...

Iztok wrote, "Why are they [murder and homosexual sex] sins?"

Because both interfere in God's plan of and for Creation. The former is a direct assault upon life, which is a gift from God. The latter is an assault on the unitive and procreative purpose of sex.

Iztok asked, "Why are they intrinsic evils?"

See response above.

Iztok asked, "Is watching someone else having sex (w/o them knowing/approving) a sin?"

Absolutely. It would even be a sin if the observees were knowing of and/or approving of since sex is a unitive act between two people -- a husband and a wife -- as well as being procreative. The addition of a third person into the unitive act (either directly or through voyeurism) is a violation of the sanctity of the marital act.

Iztok asked, "What specifically is evil in same sex couples having sex?"

Answered above. Re: unitive and procreative.

Iztok asks, "Are they hurting you? Are they hurting another person?"

Sin hurts the entire community of God, just as Reconciliation helps heal the entire body of God (the Church).

Iztok asked, "If it is consentual [sic] and neither is hurt then why would be anyone else's concern?"

As stated above, it hurts the entire body of God, therefore it is of concern to us all.

Iztok wrote, "Same sex acts occur amongst other animals as well, it is not limited to certain animal species (humans for example)."

Animals have neither a soul nor free will, therfore they cannot sin.

Catholic102 said...

"Judge not, lest ye be judged." - Jesus

Masturbation Saves Lives said...

Is it OK for Catholics to masturbate? Is it "an assault on the unitive and procreative purpose of sex?"

Are nocturnal emissions "an assault on the unitive and procreative purpose of sex?"

Some people are so "anal." Yet another "assault on the unitive and procreative purpose of sex?"

Catholic102 said...

Masturbation is OK, MSL. As are nocturnal emissions and anal sex.

Masturbation Saves Lives said...

I don't understand, Catholic102. Are masturbation, nocturnal emissions and anal sex OK because they aren't assaults "on the unitive and procreative purpose of sex?" Why aren't they?

Catholic102 said...

MSL,
Forget that crap about assaulting the purpose of sex. All God wants us to do is love each other. If we love, then God is happy with whatever we do.

Iztok said...

"Iztok asked, "Is watching someone else having sex (w/o them knowing/approving) a sin?"

Absolutely. "

I am glad you said it. I always considered God was sinful observing people during sex. I guess he must be burning in hell.

Anonymous said...

I apologize to all. I did not realize that the above comment was what Iztok was trying to say. I am sorry to have encouraged him and will refrain in the future.

Quibbles said...

That was me.

James Willamor said...

"But at least now we know that you are just another troublemaker looking for a fight in a blog that has absolutely nothing to do with you. Why are you here? Why are you not, instead, trolling atheist blogs?"

Because I have been a firsthand witness to the harm caused by conservative religion. I had and continue to study the Bible and other religious texts. The easiest way to make somebody become an atheist is to have them read the Bible, but that's getting off topic.

Bishop Gene Robinson is a great leader, and the church needs more leaders like him. I respect religious leaders who respect others and uphold good morals and values, and above all "do unto others." Leaders like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Bishop Oscar Romero (was assassinated by conservatives), Rev. Martin Luther King who spoke out against American imperialism as "greatest purveyor of violence in history," and Hindu spiritual leader Mohandas Gandhi.

I respect Christians who say "Lets look at the Bible and see what major morals and values being conveyed." It is generally the bigots who say "these are my socio-political beliefs, what verse or verses can I cherry pick and distort to support my agenda?"

These are the ones that take Old Testament verses out of context to support slavery or homophobia or war or genocide. If you actually studied your Bible you would know that, other than restricting homosexuality in the same way as consuming shrimp or covering your head, the Bible doesn't really say anything about homosexuality in the context of consensual, loving, monogamous relationships.

In the 1800's the Bible was used to support the long held institution of slavery, The Southern Baptist denomination was actually formed to defend the rights of slave owners. After all, even the New Testament condones slavery. Over time our understanding of the Bible and morality evolved, and (most) Christians abhor the concept of slavery. The same is true with homosexually and the Bible today. I'd recommend every see the documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So," for a good perspective from many different theologians on homosexuality and the Bible.

Catholic101 said...

MSL wrote, "Is it OK for Catholics to masturbate? Is it "an assault on the unitive and procreative purpose of sex?""

No and yes.

MSL wrote, "Are nocturnal emissions "an assault on the unitive and procreative purpose of sex?""

No. Free will is not involved.

MSL wrote, "Some people are so "anal." Yet another "assault on the unitive and procreative purpose of sex?""

Correct.

But then again, you already knew the answers.

Catholic101 said...

James, none of the persons you mention were members of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church adheres to the Law of Christ, not the law of Martin Luther.

Catholic101 said...

MSL and Catholic102 -- Stop talking to yourself.

Catholic102 said...

Please, everyone, don't take on the yoke that "Christians" like Catholic101 would have you carry.

Christ sets us free. All He wants us to do is love each other the best we can.

Catholic101 said...

Catholic102 wrote, "All He wants us to do is love each other the best we can."

Wrong, oh shallow one.

He [Christ] actually wants us to do two (2) things -- 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your strength and you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.'

The word and is important. You must do both. You cannot disregard God's laws by sleeping with anyone and everyone (including same-sex partners), masturbating and immersing yourself in pornography and then claim you were loving your neighbor.

Yours is a poorly thought out argument to have been refuted so easily.

Catholic102 said...

Think of a loving person. He doesn't say, "Love me." He says, "Love each other." He might say to those who love him, "If you love me and want to make me happy, love each other."

You don't have to be deep or shallow to understand. It's what love is.

Catholic102 said...

James,
Before we get too far along, thanks for your comment. As you may or not know, Jane kind of disappears after her post. So, welcome. I went to your profile and had a look at your blogs. They are inspiring.

James Willamor said...

James, none of the persons you mention were members of the Catholic Church."

I did mention Archbishop Oscar Romero who was a great role model. I could also add more, like Archbisop Dom Helder Camara, Dorothy Day of the Catholic Workers Movement, and of course Mother Teresa and many others.

Iztok said...

"and of course Mother Teresa"

A person responsible for many deaths and suffering. A person who kept money that was received despite knowing it was stolen?

A person who seem to find joy in suffering of others? A quote from her: "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."

How very loving of her.

~ LMA said...

And folks wonder why people are leaving the church in droves. Read all of this fundamentalist, exclusive drivel in the comments and you can find your answer if you're brave enough to look for it. (Except for you, Quibbles ... you were spot-on.)

I think the prayer was beautiful and inclusive -- much as many evangelicals may like to think otherwise, the U.S. is NOT a Christian nation. People of many other faiths are also U.S. citizens.

Iztok said...

There are many moral absolutists here that are pure talk no true action. Even when they would be reminded of Jesus' exact words they would find excuses not to follow them. But they would request others that do not worship the same god to comply with things.

Catholic101 said...

"Blessed are the poor [in spirit]...."

"The poor you will always have...."

Mother Teresa's prayer was as beautiful as was she. She wwas truly an example of the poor in spirit -- rich, though, in Grace and Faith.

Iztok said...

Mother Theresa was rich in faith? Somehow this doesn't fit the facts. Latest letters showed she lost faith long time ago. One could say she was a great pretender :)

Catholic101 said...

You need to read the book instead of reading atheist web site opinions and propaganda.

She questioned her faith in God at times, wondered, even could be said to have despaired at times. Yet she perservered. Remarkable woman of faith and an example for us all.

Even Christ [speaking for humanity], on the cross said, "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?"

Iztok said...

"You need to read the book instead of reading atheist web site opinions and propaganda."

I did read the book. Marvelous work isn't it! "The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" is definitely worth reading.

"Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear."
— Mother Teresa to the Rev. Michael Van Der Peet, September 1979

Bob said...

What Iztok is trying to say is that he thinks Mother Teresa was a heartless, vicious, low-down, thieving atheist.

By the way, Perfesser, did you authenticate that letter yourself? I'm sure a skeptic like you wouldn't just take someone's word for it on faith.

Iztok said...

"What Iztok is trying to say is that he thinks Mother Teresa was a heartless, vicious, low-down, thieving atheist."

No, I think she was a typical high ranking Catholic.

Bob said...

At least you're spelling her name right now. Who says you can't be educated?

Iztok said...

"At least you're spelling her name right now. Who says you can't be educated?"

When everything else fails ad hominem is never far behind.

I understand it must be frustrating when facts show "saint" Teresa kept stolen money and even lobbied for lenient sentence for person who stole it and gave some of it to her. What is next? Telling me I will end up in hell?

Bob, are you Bible literalist and moral absolutist or you pick and choose what fits you?

Bob said...

Yes.

Bob said...

By the way, no personal offense was intended. I had assumed you were misspelling her name out of deliberate disrespect, not simple ignorance. My bad. As to the afterlife, it's not so much a matter of where you will go as where you can.

Iztok said...

Bob, Theresa vs. Teresa is not ignorance per se it is more of an issue of switching languages back and forth and sometimes gets typed wrong.

As per afterlife. I don't see a point living to score some brownie points with celestial dictator of any sort. Our life is much too precious and too short for one to spend it trying to please aforementioned dictator. Instead of prayer I figured it long time ago that good deeds and hard work do much better job in making life of those around me much better and as such make mine better. I don't need a carrot or a stick to be good and to do my best. I understand that some people need fear of hell and potential reward of heaven to do good but some of us are good for goodness sake alone w/o being bullied or bribed into.

Bob said...

You didn't get it, did you?

Catholic101 said...

Iztok should be the one to talk about ad hominem attacks. That's all he has against Mother Teresa. But then again, what do you expect from a man who selectively quotes out of context.

Iztok is the most disingenous poster on this board.

Iztok said...

"That's all he has against Mother Teresa."

Danbo, sorry if your vision of "saint" doesn't fit the facts. She (and now whoever runs the show) has not returned stolen money (that was pointed out to her that was stolen) yet. She was responsible for much pain and suffering as well as death due to her doctrine. This is not personal attack, these are simply facts.

Anonymous said...

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/02/27/style/

Catholic101 said...

Iztok drones, "She (and now whoever runs the show) has not returned stolen money (that was pointed out to her that was stolen) yet. She was responsible for much pain and suffering as well as death due to her doctrine. This is not personal attack, these are simply facts."

It's hard to return money that's already been disbursed -- and she had no inkling the money was "stolen" when it was donated to her charities. As for your other facts, I'd love to see the references -- and don't try any of your atheist websites with an axe to grind.

Sad that you are so empty inside that you feel the need to try to disparage one of the greatest humanitarians of all time.

Iztok said...

"It's hard to return money that's already been disbursed -- and she had no inkling the money was "stolen" when it was donated to her charities."

I guess that is why she didn't even bother to respond to DA asking to return the money? Are you saying her order is broke and doesn't have money to return?

"As for your other facts, I'd love to see the references"

Since when Catholics require any reference/evidence? Thought you take things on faith? Or you do have different requirements weather story comes from your church or from outside? Say it isn't so?

Are you saying that her praising the Albanian dictator Enver Hoxha and sucking up to the Duvaliers is not true?

Perhaps are you saying she was not twofaced? Advocating against divorce then praising divorce of Princes Diana?

Bob said...

The Library Journal does not recommend that libraries stock Hitch's book on Mother Teresa unless they have a more accurate biography available to the public.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 285 of 285   Newer› Newest»