Hell's Angel

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1322582 wrote: When I wrote this: Better to believe in something that may or may not be real than to not believe and find out at death that it all was real.

I was writing in terms those who are uncertain might better understand. Sometimes I write as seen from different viewpoints. Sorry I confused you.


No problem.

Your clarification is welcome.

[gmc]

hoppy;1322453 wrote: I have little to no use for todays American liberal politician.


I don't think you have any in the states - they all seem to be right wing and more right wing. praise the lord and keep the poor and dispossessed out of sight and convinced it is all their own fault. You don't have any proper capitalists either, I think adam smith must have been birling in his grave when alan greenspan and gordon brown visited it in kirkcaldy.

first came religion, then came an argument about which version of the religion was the correct one and then came the war to shut up all those who didn't follow the correct version - if necessary burning them for the good of their immortal soul but at the very least making them all go to church and pay their dues.

Somewhere in it all the bits about love thy neighbour and do unto others etc etc got forgotten about or conveniently overlooked in favour if the much more entertaining hell and damnation of the old testament. but then you can't have one without the other or if you think you can here is probably a quote somewhere to prove you can't and you're going straight to hell if you don't believe it.



So mother teresa was a hypocrite. Why is anyone surprised and who cares except those that need to believe she was a saint or indeed believe in saints in the first place.

How do you tell the difference between someone who hears god and someone who is insane. The yorkshire ripper heard the voice of god telling him to kill prostitutes why is he insane and joseph smith not? (a rhetorical question in case you are wondering)

posted by hoppy

So it's better to not believe in something you can't see? So, how do you KNOW God does not exist? Because you can't see Him? Touch Him? Hear Him? Well, I see Him in many things. I hear Him in my heart. And I KNOW He knows I believe. None of your twisted arguments will change that.


You can't actually make fun of or detract from somebody's belief in god - not if it is genuinely held. If you could prove the existence of god you would not need faith so you either believe it or you don't. You can almost separate the believer from their religion, believing in a religion is not necessarily the same as believing in god. In other words people talking and discussing religion isn't going to make any difference to your faith - or it shouldn't be able to unless you have doubts - a metaphorical scab you are afraid to scratch.

If the religious groups could just believe it and leave everybody else alone the world would be a better place. But no if not starting a fight with each other over who has the right way of worship they are ganging up on those who don't share their beliefs in the first place using force or any other means to bring them in to the fold and ostracising those who won't conform. The only reason christian tolerates christian and muslim tolerates muslim and muslim tolerates christian is because people finally had enough of religious warfare and decided secular society was the best for all. Yet another benefit of a society with liberal principles at it's core.

If you want freedom for yourself you must be ready to extend it to others, my objection to religion is that given half a chance they will deprive me of my freedom of conscience and dictate how I behave and whom I am friends with and who must be despised and discriminated against.

[hoppy]

If you want freedom for yourself you must be ready to extend it to others, my objection to religion is that given half a chance they will deprive me of my freedom of conscience and dictate how I behave and whom I am friends with and who must be despised and discriminated against.

Governments do that. True religion preaches love, forgiveness and understanding.

[Ahso!]

hoppy;1322602 wrote: If you want freedom for yourself you must be ready to extend it to others, my objection to religion is that given half a chance they will deprive me of my freedom of conscience and dictate how I behave and whom I am friends with and who must be despised and discriminated against.

Governments do that. True religion preaches love, forgiveness and understanding.Actually conservatives do that.

You simply refuse to look the beast in the eye. If true religion preaches love, forgiveness and understanding then why do they practice the exact opposites?

[hoppy]

Why do 'crats? Because they are both political parties. You are trying to confuse religion with politics. Get your sh!t together.

[Ahso!]

*said in my best Ronald Reagan voice* There you go again.

If you're not using redirection of the conversation to be evasive you're using defensiveness.

[hoppy]

Ahso!;1322617 wrote: *said in my best Ronald Reagan voice* There you go again.

If you're not using redirection of the conversation to be evasive you're using defensiveness.


Argue all you want. I will always believe in God and dislike the American democratic party. NO ONE can change that.

[Ahso!]

Not even you.

[gmc]

hoppy;1322602 wrote: If you want freedom for yourself you must be ready to extend it to others, my objection to religion is that given half a chance they will deprive me of my freedom of conscience and dictate how I behave and whom I am friends with and who must be despised and discriminated against.

Governments do that. True religion preaches love, forgiveness and understanding.


Which true religion are you talking about? The ones that teaches we are all made in god's image but homosexuals must be condemned and used to preach black slavery was god's will and therefore not a sin? The ones that rants against abortion but also wants to prevent the use of contraception even for those who are not members of their sect? The ones that prevents the proper teaching of sex education in schools but condemns the teenage girl that gets pregnant because she didn't know how to prevent it and even if she did couldn't get her hands on the means because the religious don't think the choice should be hers? Is it the one that will excommunicate a member of they marry outside the faith or excommunicate a member for going to a funeral at a catholic church? Is it any of the ones that try and prevent their children mixing with the children of other faiths in case they stray from the true path? The ones, for example, that hold protests and terrorise children to try and prevent children of different faiths from mixing in a primary school. When the planes were flown in to the twin towers in the name of religion was it to save the souls of the ungodly? when the catholic church decided that paedophile priests deserved their protection where was their love for the little children - did they misinterpret the king james version when it said suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.


True religion might preach love, forgiveness and understanding - I would put it to you there is not an awful lot of true religion around. True religion I have no problem but there is a fine line between the truly religious and the truly bigoted.

Argue all you want. I will always believe in God and dislike the American democratic party. NO ONE can change that.


The american people should rise up and seize back control - no you can't do that though can you - because that smacks of socialism.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


1776 a cry for liberty, 2010 don't even dare to think you are entitled to anything from the government.

Understand how you feel about the american democratic party. I still hate thatcher.:-3

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1322593 wrote: Somewhere in it all the bits about love thy neighbour and do unto others etc etc got forgotten about or conveniently overlooked in favour if the much more entertaining hell and damnation of the old testament.
The mental and emotional damage which the doctrine of hell and damnation has wreaked on humanity across the centuries is beyond calculation. You are right to use the word ‘entertaining’ in respect of this doctrine, gmc, because clerics of every persuasion have revelled in preaching it. Let me give you a literary example which describes in some detail the suffering of the damned. It comes from James Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Here is the character, Father Arnall, gloatingly preaching a sermon on the fires of hell to a group of young people:

CATHOLIC HELL


'The torment of fire is the greatest torment to which the tyrant has ever subjected his fellow creatures. Place your finger for a moment in the flame of a candle and you will feel the pain of fire. But our earth fire was created by God for the benefit of man, to maintain in him the spark of life and to help in the useful arts, whereas the fire of hell is of another quality and was created by God to torture and punish the unrepentant sinner.

Our earthly fire also consumes more or less rapidly according as the object which it attacks is more or less combustible, so that human ingenuity has even succeeded in inventing chemical preparations to check or frustrate its action. But the sulphurous brimstone which burns in hell is a substance which is specially designed to burn for ever and ever with unspeakable fury. Moreover, our earthly fire destroys at the same time as it burns, so that the more intense it is the shorter is its duration; but the fire of hell has this property, that it preserves that which it burns, and, though it rages with incredible intensity, it rages for ever.

Our earthly fire again, no matter how fierce or widespread it may be, is always of a limited extent; but the lake of fire in hell is boundless, shoreless and bottomless. And this terrible fire will not afflict the bodies of the damned only from without, but each lost soul will be a hell unto itself, the boundless fire raging in its very vitals. O, how terrible is the lot of those wretched beings! The blood seethes and boils in the veins, the brains are boiling in the skull, the heart in the breast glowing and bursting, the bowels a red-hot mass of burning pulp, the tender eyes flaming like molten balls.’

~o0o~


The Catholic Church has relished inflicting this kind of moral terrorism on men, women and children since its birth. Apologists will say that the doctrine of hell and eternal damnation has been toned down by the Church in the present age. But this has not come about through any recognition on its part that the doctrine is vile and psychologically damaging. No. The Church has done this only out of expediency - out of a need to curry favour with the forces of secularisation which not only hold sway over it but which hold it in the highest contempt as well.

[hoppy]

I said all I'm going to say on the subject. My views on religion and American liberals WILL NOT change. Good bye and may God bless you.

[Ahso!]

But you haven't said anything, really.

if all this stuff is true then mother teresa was a witch, wasn't she, hoppy?

[Glaswegian]

hoppy;1322796 wrote: I said all I'm going to say on the subject. My views on religion and American liberals WILL NOT change. Good bye and may God bless you.
hoppy wrote: No answer, huh? Typical of liberals. Cut and run when they can't answer.


The only person I see running away is you, hoppy.

This is what you always do when I discuss your religious beliefs with you.

Whenever I put a question to you about these beliefs you continually evade it, and then you finally run away.

Why are you so slippery and defensive about your religious beliefs? Do they make you uncomfortable? Are you secretly embarrassed by them?

Well, whatever the case may be, hoppy, you’re welcome to return to this thread anytime you like. I, for one, am missing you already.

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1322794 wrote: The mental and emotional damage which the doctrine of hell and damnation has wreaked on humanity across the centuries is beyond calculation. You are right to use the word ‘entertaining’ in respect of this doctrine, gmc, because clerics of every persuasion have revelled in preaching it. Let me give you a literary example which describes in some detail the suffering of the damned. It comes from James Joyce’s Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Here is the character, Father Arnall, gloatingly preaching a sermon on the fires of hell to a group of young people:

CATHOLIC HELL


'The torment of fire is the greatest torment to which the tyrant has ever subjected his fellow creatures. Place your finger for a moment in the flame of a candle and you will feel the pain of fire. But our earth fire was created by God for the benefit of man, to maintain in him the spark of life and to help in the useful arts, whereas the fire of hell is of another quality and was created by God to torture and punish the unrepentant sinner.

Our earthly fire also consumes more or less rapidly according as the object which it attacks is more or less combustible, so that human ingenuity has even succeeded in inventing chemical preparations to check or frustrate its action. But the sulphurous brimstone which burns in hell is a substance which is specially designed to burn for ever and ever with unspeakable fury. Moreover, our earthly fire destroys at the same time as it burns, so that the more intense it is the shorter is its duration; but the fire of hell has this property, that it preserves that which it burns, and, though it rages with incredible intensity, it rages for ever.

Our earthly fire again, no matter how fierce or widespread it may be, is always of a limited extent; but the lake of fire in hell is boundless, shoreless and bottomless. And this terrible fire will not afflict the bodies of the damned only from without, but each lost soul will be a hell unto itself, the boundless fire raging in its very vitals. O, how terrible is the lot of those wretched beings! The blood seethes and boils in the veins, the brains are boiling in the skull, the heart in the breast glowing and bursting, the bowels a red-hot mass of burning pulp, the tender eyes flaming like molten balls.’

~o0o~


The Catholic Church has relished inflicting this kind of moral terrorism on men, women and children since its birth. Apologists will say that the doctrine of hell and eternal damnation has been toned down by the Church in the present age. But this has not come about through any recognition on its part that the doctrine is vile and psychologically damaging. No. The Church has done this only out of expediency - out of a need to curry favour with the forces of secularisation which not only hold sway over it but which hold it in the highest contempt as well.


Why just pick on the catholic church? As it happens I know more protestant bigots than I do catholic ones

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1322858 wrote: Why just pick on the catholic church?
Glaswegian wrote: You are right to use the word ‘entertaining’ in respect of this doctrine, gmc, because clerics of every persuasion have revelled in preaching it.
As I stated in the above quote - it is not only the priests of the Catholic Church who like to get their rocks off by preaching hell and damnation.

Are you trying to question my righteousness, gmc? Is this what you’re trying to do? How can you do this? How can you insult me in this way? How can you just walk all over my feelings? Do you know what you are? You are a cruel and insensitive man. A wicked man! Respect my righteousness! :-1

gmc wrote: As it happens I know more protestant bigots than I do catholic ones
I’m sorry to hear that.

Have you ever thought of leaving the Orange Lodge?

Maybe you should also consider abandoning Larkhall as a holiday destination.

[Glaswegian]

WHY MOTHER TERESA SHOULD NOT BE A SAINT


'Mother Teresa was given, to our certain knowledge, many tens of millions of pounds. But she never built any hospitals. She claimed to have built almost 150 convents, for nuns joining her own order, in several countries. Was this where ordinary donors thought their money was going?'

Extracted from the following article: IMC India - Why Mother Teresa Should Not Be A Saint

[Glaswegian]

MOTHER TERESA REFUSED TO HAND BACK MONEY STOLEN FROM AMERICANS

Mother Teresa accepted more than one million dollars from the crooked American banker Charles Keating. This money was part of a vastly greater sum which Keating - a fundamentalist Catholic - stole from many thousands of American citizens. In numerous cases, the money stolen represented the entire life-savings of individuals and families.

In 1992 Keating was sentenced to ten years in prison by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, Lance A. Ito, who said that the banker’s crimes merited the maximum sentence. Before Keating was sentenced, Mother Teresa wrote to Judge Ito asking him to show clemency towards the banker, and urged him 'to do what Jesus would do'.

One of the prosecutors in the trial was outraged by Mother Teresa’s request and wrote back telling her of '17,000 individuals from whom Mr. Keating stole $252,000,000'. The prosecutor continued: 'You urge Judge Ito to look into his heart - as he sentences Charles Keating - and do what Jesus would do. I submit the same challenge to you. Ask yourself what Jesus would do if he were given the fruits of a crime; what Jesus would do if he were in possession of money that had been stolen; what Jesus would do if he were being exploited by a thief to ease his conscience.'

The prosecutor asked the nun to return the stolen money, and offered to put her 'in direct contact with the rightful owners of the property now in your possession'.

Mother Teresa never replied to his letter.

~o0o~


You can read more about this nefarious woman here: Exposing Mother Teresa by JOHN M. SWOMLEY

And here: brutik: Mother Teresa - not a saint, not even a good person

[gmc]

posted by glaswegian

As I stated in the above quote - it is not only the priests of the Catholic Church who like to get their rocks off by preaching hell and damnation.


OK I'll concede I didn't notice that

Are you trying to question my righteousness, gmc? Is this what you’re trying to do? How can you do this? How can you insult me in this way? How can you just walk all over my feelings? Do you know what you are? You are a cruel and insensitive man. A wicked man! Respect my righteousness!


Walked all over them you say - how much more respect did you expect?

Have you ever thought of leaving the Orange Lodge?




One thing I have learned is never ever say you wouldn't join the orange lodge because the flute is a bit of a gayboy's instrument. Some of these people have no sense of humour.

So would you ban the orange order or is it such an important part of our history and we need to remember it wasn't simply a religious conflict?

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian wrote: Are you trying to question my righteousness, gmc? Is this what you’re trying to do? How can you do this? How can you insult me in this way? How can you just walk all over my feelings? Do you know what you are? You are a cruel and insensitive man. A wicked man! Respect my righteousness! :-1


gmc;1323054 wrote: Walked all over them you say - how much more respect did you expect?
To my mind, The Hope of Righteousness thread has something of 'The Bates Motel' about it - Motheeeer! I think you were wise to exit from it.

gmc wrote: So would you ban the orange order or is it such an important part of our history and we need to remember it wasn't simply a religious conflict?
Pregnant question. Let me think it over for a while.

[mikeinie]

What is a saint? This is the issue.

It is not someone who is perfect.

It is not someone who is infallible.

It is someone who lives there life in dedication to God, and who gives their life to do ‘good deeds’ in the name of God, and in the name of the church, to the point where it is beyond the level of humanity to where it is considered to have divine intervention.

Mother Teresa was a nun, who is part of the Catholic Church, who lived by the rules of the church and did in fact care for people who were rejected from society and were sick and dying. She did so according to her belief.

People do or do not have to agree with it, it is not up to public opinion. It is the church who dictates who is a saint or not. To claim her beliefs are ‘zealot and radical’ is an oxymoron, of course it is. It is the extreme of the church, and she promotes the agenda of the church, why would this be a surprise?

Because people create their own definition of what a saint is, and they think it is someone who is perfect, this in incorrect, she lived her life in strict accordance to the rules of church, that is why she was made a saint.

Because the commentator does not agree with her stand on family planning, doesn’t make him right, or her wrong, he just does not agree with her view, and her view is that of the church.

Joan of Arc is a Saint and how many people died following her into battle? How many did she kill or have killed? It is not the point, she is believed to have answered a call directly from God to free France and sacrificed herself to do so.

[Glaswegian]

Hello mikeinie

There's a few things in your post I'd like to ask you about for now. I'll come back to other things in it later if you don't mind.

mikeinie;1323087 wrote: What is a saint? This is the issue.

It is not someone who is perfect.

It is not someone who is infallible.

It is someone who lives there life in dedication to God, and who gives their life to do ‘good deeds’ in the name of God, and in the name of the church, to the point where it is beyond the level of humanity to where it is considered to have divine intervention.


Can you give me an example of a good deed performed by a 'saint' while they were upon this earth which could not also have been performed by an atheist or any other ordinary mortal?

mikeinie wrote: Mother Teresa was a nun, who is part of the Catholic Church, who lived by the rules of the church and did in fact care for people who were rejected from society and were sick and dying.
Non-believers also care for the sick and the dying rejected by society.

You claim that Mother Teresa 'did in fact care' for the sick and the dying.

Are you serious, mikeinie? Have you read the reports about the hellish conditions which the sick and the dying endured, and continue to endure, in her ‘care’ homes? Eyewitness accounts have described these homes as an absolute disgrace, and compared them to concentration camps and the nightmarish orphanages in Ceausescu’s Romania. Mother Teresa received tens of millions of dollars in donations but she could not find it in her heart to provide the sick and the dying with painkillers: and for those who got any medication at all it was always of the most basic kind. But when this pious sadist became gravely ill herself she did not think twice to jet first class around the world to obtain the best medical treatment money could buy.

mikeinie wrote: Mother Teresa was a nun, who is part of the Catholic Church, who lived by the rules of the church and did in fact care for people who were rejected from society and were sick and dying. She did so according to her belief.


Does this mean that Mother Teresa’s care for the sick and the dying was dependent on her religious beliefs? And that she would not have cared for these individuals in the absence of such beliefs? If this is the case then Mother Teresa was morally bankrupt. Non-believers care for the sick and the dying because they recognise that it is ethical to do so. This is done without reference to religious beliefs or supernatural absurdities of any kind.

[gmc]

posted by mikeinie

People do or do not have to agree with it, it is not up to public opinion. It is the church who dictates who is a saint or not.


As a non-catholic it is actually a matter of complete indifference whether she gets made a saint or not - I find the whole thing absurd anyway. I know quite a few protestants to whom the issue is simple - there should be no other god but me therefore the veneration of saints and the virgin mother is idolatry. Mind you I also know some who claim you can tell a catholic by the close set eyes and tendency towards a mono brow. Entertaining thought process but somehow disturbing at the same time.

But you've kind of put your finger on the crux of the matter and the main reason behind the protestant reformation. You as a catholic have to accept the diktats of the church without question you have no right to dissent or disapprove no matter how venal and corrupt or just hypocritical or even just plain silly those diktats might be. From whether a woman has the right to decide when she gives birth to who you are supposed to discriminate against. You have to decide as an individual whether you are prepared to accept that. It's not something you (not you specifically but rather you as in representing Catholics generally. I have no intention to criticise or enter a discussion about your personal beliefs. We won't agree let's just agree on that and leave it alone). My actual response to the original question - if there was one would be if they want to make her a saint go ahead I don't care, I think the notion daft but that's me.

It took centuries of the bloodiest warfare in europe's history to win the right to dissent. On the other hand the protestants were just as bad when it came to bending others to their will - just have a look at some of the atrocities committed by the puritans in the name of god and not just on catholics. In the new world you had genocide justified by religion. Now we see muslim fundamentalists imposing their will by force and cheerfully ready to commit genocide, especially on rival muslims if only they had the means. For would be spiritual leaders they along with other religious leaders seem quite keen on acquiring temporal power. Does that make them less spiritual?

Whether it's something inherent in monotheism or just the nature of mankind I don't know. What is it about some people that they need someone to tell them right from wrong?

[Glaswegian]

ASTONISHING FILM

The Christian religion - as is well documented - often has an extremely damaging effect on the psychological health of individuals who are exposed to it. This is especially true of the religion in its more conservative forms - as is exemplified by the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestant denominations. One group of believers that tends to suffer high levels of psychological impairment as a result of incessant exposure to the Christian religion are Catholic nuns.

By 1971 psychological maladies had reached alarming levels within Catholic convents and the Vatican, no longer able to overlook the problem, took the unusual step of releasing a film warning of the risks faced by females who considered embracing the vocation of nun or who had already done so - a film which many have described as ‘extremely disturbing’ in parts. Shortly after the film’s release The New Yorker magazine’s renowned film critic, Pauline Kael, was granted a special audience with the then leader of the Catholic Church, Paul VI, and asked him his reason for making it. He said:

‘I felt I wanted to send out a message not just to the Catholic faithful but to everyone. I wanted them to understand this message very clearly. I wanted them to be under no illusion.’

‘What is the message?’, Kael asked.

‘The message is this’, said the Holy Father. ‘This organization means business. And every person better get that through their head. Because if you think you can fu*k with us you are in error - serious fu*king error. Make no mistake about it. We will tear your fu*king head off and sh*t down your throat if you even think of fu*king with us. And that’s just for starters. After that we will rip your nervous system out and rape your fu*king kids. Then we will really go to work on you.’

~o0o~


For those of you interested in seeing this film it is called The Devils and was directed by Paul VI himself, and stars Oliver Reed and a young Mother Teresa. You can view an excerpt from it here:

YouTube - The Devils - Confession Scene (Ken Russell, 1971)

[fuzzywuzzy]

This is just another rendering of Pascal’s wager. As such, it amounts to this:

If I believe God exists, and the belief turns out to be true, then I will gain eternal salvation. On the other hand, if I believe God doesn’t exist, and the belief turns out to be false, then I will suffer eternal damnation. So I’d better believe God exists just to be on the safe side.

This is a 'belief' born of fear - not conviction.


Nope..It's called fire insurance. LOL

Dave Allen................

[Glaswegian]

fuzzywuzzy;1323513 wrote: Nope..It's called fire insurance. LOL
What's your view of Hell, fuzzy?

Do you think the punishments allegedly suffered by sinners in Hell fit their 'crimes'?

[fuzzywuzzy]

What is a saint? This is the issue.

It is not someone who is perfect.

It is not someone who is infallible.

It is someone who lives there life in dedication to God, and who gives their life to do ‘good deeds’ in the name of God, and in the name of the church, to the point where it is beyond the level of humanity to where it is considered to have divine intervention.


They also have to had to perform three miracles . and of course these miralces have to have no medical interpretation or excuse (as far as healing goes) and if it's another kind of miracle then no other human intervention.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Glaswegian;1323516 wrote: What's your view of Hell, fuzzy?

Do you think the punishments allegedly suffered by sinners in Hell fit their 'crimes'?


Hmm that's a doozy for me because I changed religions ....was a catholic, (strict roman Catholic) . I was told it was up to god whether or not I would be punished ( and consequently sent to hell) because I had a baby out of wedlock 23 years ago.

I changed religions because of this because I thought my father would be happy to have a beautiful grandson and he was, of course (but he was ultra religious and still getting over the fact that he was supposed to be the priest in his family and got my mum pregnant out of wedlock and had to marry her ...a man of principle) LOL

Then I became a JW...........nicest people I've ever met . still hold principles of them to this day. They taught me that hell is not what the Catholic church preaches and if I had to choose I'd rather their version of the 'abyss' and simply not being brought back after death.....nothingness. Dead. Which is very close to athiesm.

But for now I'm an agnostic. But not so convinced to be sucked into my DNA as the principle of all life and loves, so I'm not so convinced as to be a science religious freak.........has to be something else that makes me want to respond other than to be ......heard, wanted, wanting to respond to you as an individual. Or even acknowledging you as a human being .

I've learnt about helles, shoel etc etc in many different religions....none of them fuss me. Genetics tells me I have another 30 to forty years left breathing ......the last 40 went so quick so I'm going to do as much as I can meanwhile. Ask me again in about 25 years I may well have pondered it more carefully by then.

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1323512 wrote: ASTONISHING FILM

The Christian religion - as is well documented - often has an extremely damaging effect on the psychological health of individuals who are exposed to it. This is especially true of the religion in its more conservative forms - as is exemplified by the Catholic Church and fundamentalist Protestant denominations. One group of believers that tends to suffer high levels of psychological impairment as a result of incessant exposure to the Christian religion are Catholic nuns.

By 1971 psychological maladies had reached alarming levels within Catholic convents and the Vatican, no longer able to overlook the problem, took the unusual step of releasing a film warning of the risks faced by females who considered embracing the vocation of nun or who had already done so - a film which many have described as ‘extremely disturbing’ in parts. Shortly after the film’s release The New Yorker magazine’s renowned film critic, Pauline Kael, was granted a special audience with the then leader of the Catholic Church, Paul VI, and asked him his reason for making it. He said:

‘I felt I wanted to send out a message not just to the Catholic faithful but to everyone. I wanted them to understand this message very clearly. I wanted them to be under no illusion.’

‘What is the message?’, Kael asked.

‘The message is this’, said the Holy Father. ‘This organization means business. And every person better get that through their head. Because if you think you can fu*k with us you are in error - serious fu*king error. Make no mistake about it. We will tear your fu*king head off and sh*t down your throat if you even think of fu*king with us. And that’s just for starters. After that we will rip your nervous system out and rape your fu*king kids. Then we will really go to work on you.’

~o0o~


For those of you interested in seeing this film it is called The Devils and was directed by Paul VI himself, and stars Oliver Reed and a young Mother Teresa. You can view an excerpt from it here:

YouTube - The Devils - Confession Scene (Ken Russell, 1971)


What on earth are you talking about. That is utter bollocks. The devils was not a film made by the vatican, or directed by paul V1, or in any way approved by them. It was in fact a horror film directed by Ken Russell based very loosely on actual events at a time when the french were persecuting the Huguenots in the 16th century trying to extirpate them from french society. At the time it caused outrage the more so because of it's basis in fact. Reality is always more horrific than any imagined horror.

The Devils (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're not exactly doing yourself any justice coming out with claptrap like that. You're beginning to sound like one of those conspiracy nuts that favour ridiculous theories when the reality is actually far worse then the imagined fantasy.

St. Bartholomew's Day massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So would you ban the orange order or is it such an important part of our history and we need to remember it wasn't simply a religious conflict?


Personally I think we should remember what horrors any kind of religious warfare brings lest we see history repeat itself and reason fly out the window. I think Europeans have a visceral fear of extremism that make us tend towards a secular society, course that's probably just wishful thinking.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1323527 wrote: What on earth are you talking about. That is utter bollocks. The devils was not a film made by the vatican, or directed by paul V1, or in any way approved by them.
Pope Paul VI directed The Devils under the pseudonym ‘Ken Russell’. Furthermore, he wanted very much to play a sex scene in that film with Mother Teresa (’Vanessa Redgrave’) and only abandoned this idea after the College of Cardinals persuaded him that cinema audiences might be shocked by the sight of his ageing body.

The Devils is not the only film which was directed by Paul VI. In 1972, he directed and wrote the screenplay for Last Tango in Paris under yet another pseudonym (‘Bernardo Bertolucci’). In this film Paul VI initially wanted to explore the ramifications of a homosexual relationship - ‘intense and sexually-charged’ - between two men fatefully brought together in a Parisian apartment, with himself playing the role of one of these characters. However, the movie star signed up to play the role of his lover in the film, Marlon Brando, found the prospect of doing sex scenes with the ageing Pope revolting. ‘I would rather fu*k the thing in the fruit cellar in Psycho’, Brando complained, and threatened to pull out.

Afraid of losing a star of the magnitude of Brando - who had arrived in Paris on a tidal wave of success garnered from The Godfather - Paul VI reluctantly transformed the homosexual theme of Last Tango in Paris into a heterosexual one. Thus, the character ‘Jean’ in the film - which the Pope had originally intended to play himself - was changed to that of ‘Jeanne’, and offered to Mother Teresa instead. However, Mother Teresa - whom the Pope had already worked with in The Devils - was forced to turn down the part because of pregnancy, and, as history records, it was ultimately given to Maria Schneider. In 1972, Paul VI wrote and directed another film - this time under the pseudonym ‘Gerard Damiano’ - which was just as controversial as the two that preceded it: namely Deep Throat. Clearly, 1972 was a busy year for the Holy Father.

[Clodhopper]

Oh good grief.

So Ken Russell allowed Paul VI to borrow his name for The Devils and has never breathed a word about it since? Or are you claiming that we should be crediting Paul VI with also directing Tommy and currently writing fim reviews for The Times despite being dead?

(Shakes head in amazement)

Please tell me this is a wind up.

[Glaswegian]

Clodhopper;1323546 wrote: Oh good grief.

So Ken Russell allowed Paul VI to borrow his name for The Devils and has never breathed a word about it since? Or are you claiming that we should be crediting Paul VI with also directing Tommy
No, Paul VI should not be credited with directing Tommy - but only with starring in it.

As the 'Acid Queen'.

He was originally scheduled to play ‘Uncle Ernie’ in the film but the College of Cardinals advised him against it - describing the role as ‘a little too close for comfort’.

Watch Paul VI act his socks off as the ‘Acid Queen’ here: YouTube - Tommy- Acid Queen

Here is the role in Tommy which Paul VI wanted to play but was forced to turn down - ‘Uncle Ernie’: YouTube - Keith Moon - Fiddling About

[Clodhopper]

:wah::wah::wah:

Thank Heavens for that! (If you'll excuse the expression:sneaky:)

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1323054 wrote: So would you ban the orange order or is it such an important part of our history and we need to remember it wasn't simply a religious conflict?
No, I wouldn’t ban the Orange Order or any Catholic equivalent of it. Banning organizations in a democracy is not a good idea. I think you’ll find that a strong correlation holds between the number of organizations which a society bans and the number of prisons it has to build.

That said, I’m totally opposed to religious segregation in schools. I attended a secondary school in the West of Scotland where I witnessed violence on a daily basis between its pupils and those of a nearby school, and this violence was invariably caused by religious sectarianism. Thus, pupils were attacked, beaten up and sometimes stabbed and slashed not because they lived in a certain part of town, or because their skin was a certain colour, or because they wore a certain style of clothes, or because they looked in any way different from the average person their age. No. They suffered violence simply because they were perceived as having a different religion from that of their assailants (Protestant as opposed to Catholic, and vice versa).

[Clodhopper]

Many people experience intense pain in the course of dying - for example, those with terminal cancer. In such cases the pain can become so acute that dope and every analgesic known to medical science is powerless against it. Is it right to deny these people euthanasia?


That's a surprise. My understanding was that the worse the pain someone is in, the better morphine works. Certainly seemed that way in the case of a liver cancer sufferer I knew.

[Glaswegian]

MIRACLE? MY ARSE!


Mother Teresa is well on the way to becoming a saint. The loathsome toad was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 2003 on the back of a 'miracle' that is so phoney and preposterous that even the most benighted faith-head must see through it. In order to gain sainthood, Mother Teresa must perform one more 'miracle'. Will she do it? Count on it. Count on it more than you count on diarrhoea in a case of dysentery.

Regarding Mother Teresa’s ‘miracle’, one writer comments:

‘¦[W]hat can one say? Surely any respectable Catholic cringes with shame at the obviousness of the fakery. A Bengali woman named Monica Besra claims that a beam of light emerged from a picture of MT, which she happened to have in her home, and relieved her of a cancerous tumor. Her physician, Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, says that she didn't have a cancerous tumor in the first place and that the tubercular cyst she did have was cured by a course of prescription medicine. Was he interviewed by the Vatican's investigators? No.’



Read more about this risible ‘miracle’ here: The fanatic, fraudulent Mother Teresa. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

[Glaswegian]

THE DEVIL IS A WOMAN



Mother Teresa minus uniform


(Photo courtesy of Vatican Archive)

[mikeinie]

Before I reply, I think there is a misunderstanding here. I am not arguing in favor that she is a ‘saint’ or not, I am simply saying that the whole ‘Saint’ thing is part of the Catholic church, so if non believers do not think she is a Saint it is irrelevant. She lived her live in line with the strict rules of the church and they have made her a saint for that.

Now on to your questions: Replied in red after your statements:

Glaswegian;1323133 wrote: Hello mikeinie

There's a few things in your post I'd like to ask you about for now. I'll come back to other things in it later if you don't mind.



Can you give me an example of a good deed performed by a 'saint' while they were upon this earth which could not also have been performed by an atheist or any other ordinary mortal?

Non-believers also care for the sick and the dying rejected by society.



I am sure there would be many atheists have done wonderful things that would be equivalent to Saints, however being an Atheist would immediately disqualify them. (The church does not make Atheists into saints.)

You claim that Mother Teresa 'did in fact care' for the sick and the dying.

Are you serious, mikeinie? Have you read the reports about the hellish conditions which the sick and the dying endured, and continue to endure, in her ‘care’ homes? Eyewitness accounts have described these homes as an absolute disgrace, and compared them to concentration camps and the nightmarish orphanages in Ceausescu’s Romania. Mother Teresa received tens of millions of dollars in donations but she could not find it in her heart to provide the sick and the dying with painkillers: and for those who got any medication at all it was always of the most basic kind. But when this pious sadist became gravely ill herself she did not think twice to jet first class around the world to obtain the best medical treatment money could buy.

Again, depends on your definition of ‘care’. If you see an injured animal on the side of a road and you sit with it, pet it, and comfort it so it does not die alone, did you care for it?

The people who she ‘cared for’ would have died outside on the side of the road because other people cared even less than she did. Does not the Indian government also have a responsibility to care for it’s own people? Where were they to provide proper hospital care and medicine? Did she ever claim to be providing hospital and medical care for them? I don't believe so.



Does this mean that Mother Teresa’s care for the sick and the dying was dependent on her religious beliefs? And that she would not have cared for these individuals in the absence of such beliefs? If this is the case then Mother Teresa was morally bankrupt. Non-believers care for the sick and the dying because they recognise that it is ethical to do so. This is done without reference to religious beliefs or supernatural absurdities of any kind.


No it does not mean that, maybe it was her moral beliefs that had her become a nun in the first place, then she exercised her morality through her vocation. (I don’t know..)

[mikeinie]

gmc;1323300 wrote: posted by mikeinie



As a non-catholic it is actually a matter of complete indifference whether she gets made a saint or not - I find the whole thing absurd anyway. I know quite a few protestants to whom the issue is simple - there should be no other god but me therefore the veneration of saints and the virgin mother is idolatry. Mind you I also know some who claim you can tell a catholic by the close set eyes and tendency towards a mono brow. Entertaining thought process but somehow disturbing at the same time.

But you've kind of put your finger on the crux of the matter and the main reason behind the protestant reformation. You as a catholic have to accept the diktats of the church without question you have no right to dissent or disapprove no matter how venal and corrupt or just hypocritical or even just plain silly those diktats might be. From whether a woman has the right to decide when she gives birth to who you are supposed to discriminate against. You have to decide as an individual whether you are prepared to accept that. It's not something you (not you specifically but rather you as in representing Catholics generally. I have no intention to criticise or enter a discussion about your personal beliefs. We won't agree let's just agree on that and leave it alone). My actual response to the original question - if there was one would be if they want to make her a saint go ahead I don't care, I think the notion daft but that's me.

It took centuries of the bloodiest warfare in europe's history to win the right to dissent. On the other hand the protestants were just as bad when it came to bending others to their will - just have a look at some of the atrocities committed by the puritans in the name of god and not just on catholics. In the new world you had genocide justified by religion. Now we see muslim fundamentalists imposing their will by force and cheerfully ready to commit genocide, especially on rival muslims if only they had the means. For would be spiritual leaders they along with other religious leaders seem quite keen on acquiring temporal power. Does that make them less spiritual?

Whether it's something inherent in monotheism or just the nature of mankind I don't know. What is it about some people that they need someone to tell them right from wrong?


Again, my reply was not an indication that I agree with it, I do not believe in religion, I think it always ends up with people killing each other, I was only making the point that she did what she did in line with her faith and the guidelines of the church and that is why they made her a saint. it is a church thing.

[fae]

I want to thank Glaswegian for this thread... I had no opinions one way or the other but did have a general belief that Mother Teresa was a 'good woman'.... however, since googling for more information I think she was anything but,,,

The Truth Seeker - Former Catholic Sister Says Even Mother Teresa Is a Fraud

I have read many articles from some very respected people who are highly critical of the acclaim and myth that has come to surround her, her 'work' and for her, seemingly, promotion of suffering.....No where can I find any validation for her 'work' from any one other than Catholics and the Church... It appears that she saw suffering, (not her own of course, though she was careful to stage her humble simple approach) as a blessing that brought one close to God, that he was pleased to have people suffer for Him, so she promoted suffering as a 'sacrifice' to her God....

As for Sainthood, what does it matter, tis a Catholic thing and reflects, seemingly, Catholic values.

[Glaswegian]

fae;1324126 wrote: I want to thank Glaswegian for this thread... I had no opinions one way or the other but did have a general belief that Mother Teresa was a 'good woman'.... however, since googling for more information I think she was anything but,,,
What a nice thing to say. Thank you, fae.

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1323708 wrote: No, I wouldn’t ban the Orange Order or any Catholic equivalent of it. Banning organizations in a democracy is not a good idea. I think you’ll find that a strong correlation holds between the number of organizations which a society bans and the number of prisons it has to build.

That said, I’m totally opposed to religious segregation in schools. I attended a secondary school in the West of Scotland where I witnessed violence on a daily basis between its pupils and those of a nearby school, and this violence was invariably caused by religious sectarianism. Thus, pupils were attacked, beaten up and sometimes stabbed and slashed not because they lived in a certain part of town, or because their skin was a certain colour, or because they wore a certain style of clothes, or because they looked in any way different from the average person their age. No. They suffered violence simply because they were perceived as having a different religion from that of their assailants (Protestant as opposed to Catholic, and vice versa).


I would agree with you there. When I was in primary school they opened a catholic primary in the town, took only a month for the violence to start. I think we should keep the history alive if only to try and stop it repeating itself. When you ask yourself whose side would you have been on back in those days it's not such a simple question to answer, not getting involved was not an option.

[Glaswegian]

MOTHER TERESA: WHERE ARE HER MILLIONS?

On the 10th September 1998, Germany’s Stern magazine published a report on Mother Teresa and her misuse of millions of dollars which she had received in charitable donations. People from around the world had given this money in the belief that she would use it to help the poor and the sick and the dying through her Missionaries of Charity. But out of the enormous sums of money given to Mother Teresa for their sake only a tiny portion of it ever reached them.

The following is an excerpt from the report:

'Perhaps the most lucrative branch of [Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity] is the "Holy Ghost" House in New York's Bronx.

Susan Shields served the order there for a total of nine and a half years as Sister Virgin. "We spent a large part of each day writing thank you letters and processing cheques," she says. "Every night around 25 sisters had to spend many hours preparing receipts for donations. It was a conveyor belt process: some sisters typed, others made lists of the amounts, stuffed letters into envelopes, or sorted the cheques. Values were between $5 and $100.000. Donors often dropped their envelopes filled with money at the door. Before Christmas the flow of donations was often totally out of control. The postman brought sackfuls of letters - cheques for $50000 were no rarity."

Sister Virgin remembers that one year there was about $50 million in a New York bank account. $50 million in one year! - in a predominantly non-Catholic country. How much then, were they collecting in Europe or the world? It is estimated that worldwide they collected at least $100 million per year - and that has been going on for many many years...



...Most of the money remains in the Vatican Bank.'

~o0o~


You can read Stern magazine’s damning report on Mother Teresa and her Missionaries of Charity here:

http://members.multimania.co.uk/bajuu/

[Glaswegian]

MOTHER TERESA SAYS A PRAYER FOR THE DYING




(Photo courtesy of Vatican Archive)

[gmc]

YouTube - Hitch vs. Donohue

[Glaswegian]

HELL'S PUPPET BEATIFIED: THE UNSEEN HANDS BEHIND MOTHER TERESA OF CALCUTTA

In case you think it is only atheists who are severely critical of The Nun Who Fooled The World here is a scathing view of Mother Teresa expressed by one set of Christians:

EIPS - Hell’s Puppet Beatified: The Unseen Hands Behind Mother Teresa Of Calcutta

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1324694 wrote: HELL'S PUPPET BEATIFIED: THE UNSEEN HANDS BEHIND MOTHER TERESA OF CALCUTTA

In case you think it is only atheists who are severely critical of The Nun Who Fooled The World here is a scathing view of Mother Teresa expressed by one set of Christians:

EIPS - Hell’s Puppet Beatified: The Unseen Hands Behind Mother Teresa Of Calcutta


They're not Christians they're protestant heretics! Don't you know anything? :sneaky:

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1324709 wrote: They're not Christians they're protestant heretics!
‘They are not Protestant heretics. They are Huns! Every cheque they have sent me has bounced.’ Mother Teresa

(Extracted from one of her annual addresses to the Vatican Bank.)

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian wrote: ‘They are not Protestant heretics. They are Huns! Every cheque they have sent me has bounced.’ Mother Teresa


REVEREND IAN PAISLEY




Sent £280,000,000 of bad cheques to Mother Teresa

(Photo courtesy of Vatican Archive)

[gmc]

Glaswegian;1324721 wrote:


REVEREND IAN PAISLEY




Sent £280,000,000 of bad cheques to Mother Teresa

(Photo courtesy of Vatican Archive)


Now I understand where the vitriol comes from. You are a closet wee free aren't you.

[Glaswegian]

gmc;1324725 wrote: You are a closet wee free aren't you.
There is no question mark at the end of the above sentence, gmc. A Freudian might view this slip as signifying that the question is really being asked of oneself.