Hell's Angel

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 1:57 am

Snowfire wrote: Mother teresa. What an awful woman. Did little to tend to the poor, believing it to be the will of god to allow them to suffer but took donations from some heinous people and a militant stand against contraception. The poor and suffering need less people like that in the world

Glaswegian wrote: You're quite right, Snowfire. Mother Teresa was a sadistic toad who ran hospices for the sick and dying in India which Josef Mengele would have been proud of. She milked millions of dollars from gullible affluent elites - some of them, as you said, heinous - and deposited the money straight into the Vatican bank. The sick and dying got nothing from this loot. Not even pain-killers. 'God wants you to suffer', was the consolation she offered the sick and dying when their pain became unbearable. Christopher Hitchens was correct when he wrote:

'Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.'

Unsurprisingly, the Purple Tarantulas in Rome are going to make the wretch a saint.

The shocking truth about Mother Teresa was revealed in the documentary Hell's Angel. It can be viewed here:

YouTube - Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa by Christopher Hitchens (1 of 3)

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:29 am

MOTHER TERESA SIMPLY WENT THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF 'BELIEVING'

Mother Teresa’s hypocrisy was not only apparent in her cynical exploitation of the poor. It also extended to her own religious beliefs. A recent biography of her - Come Be My Light - reveals that she suffered a crisis of faith in 1946 from which she never recovered. The Catholic Church sought to restore her faith by supplying a wave of priests and bishops to act as her confessors. But the efforts of these holy cheerleaders met with repeated failure.

For more information on Mother Teresa’s chronic loss of faith watch this:

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 9:30 am

The expose of Mother Teresa in Hellâ€™s Angel was carried out in a cool and clinical fashion. I would say that it was also done very tastefully - perhaps this is because it was made by an English television company.

However, the following film about Mother Teresa contains Americans - a race who are renowned for their candour. I say this for the sake of viewers with delicate sensibilities who may find the criticisms of the squalid nun made by the Americans a little raw.

YouTube - Mother Teresa - Sacred Cow

fae · Post by **fae** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 4:22 pm

I did hear that she would not give painkillers,, I found that hard to take,,, but,,,she gave shelter and love,, so the media tells me,,,, !! to people who would have had none of these things without her.. did not see the programme so cannot fully comment... I have seen people dying alone and uncared for on the streets of India let alone having the 'luxury' of pain killers..But I cannot understand not giving a simple and inexpensive 'luxury' out of sheer compassion,..I will never understand how intense physical suffering is good for any ones soul...

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:57 pm

fae;1322196 wrote: I did hear that she would not give painkillers,, I found that hard to take,,, but,,,she gave shelter and love,, so the media tells me,,,, !! to people who would have had none of these things without her.. did not see the programme so cannot fully comment... I have seen people dying alone and uncared for on the streets of India let alone having the 'luxury' of pain killers..But I cannot understand not giving a simple and inexpensive 'luxury' out of sheer compassion,..I will never understand how intense physical suffering is good for any ones soul...
In the case of children's 'souls', fae:

The intense physical suffering undergone by children in institutions set up by Mother Teresa is routine - as the following report makes very clear:

New Statesman - The squalid truth behind the legacy of Mother Teresa

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:32 am

fae;1322196 wrote: I will never understand how intense physical suffering is good for any ones soul
Neither will I.

The unnecessary suffering inflicted by Mother Teresa on the sick and dying under her â€˜careâ€™ in India should come as no surprise given her Churchâ€™s obsession with suffering. For this hellish organization gloats on suffering - positively wallows in it. Take its stance on Euthanasia, for example. How does the Catholic Church justify its implacable opposition to the merciful killing of individuals dying in excruciating pain? In the following manner:

â€˜Suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God's saving plan.â€™ Declaration on Euthanasia (1980). Prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly known as the Inquisition).

This obscene and pitiless declaration could only be hatched by minds polluted and perverted by religious dogmas and absurdities. As the declaration makes clear - in such minds compassion can become atrophied to a shocking degree.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:28 am

Must be "Bash Catholics day" again. Ho-hum. Zzzzzzzz.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 5:59 am

hoppy;1322228 wrote: Must be "Bash Catholics day" again. Ho-hum. Zzzzzzzz.
Donâ€™t take things so personally, hoppy. Youâ€™ll give yourself an ulcer.

Since youâ€™re here let me ask you a question:

What do you think of the Catholic Churchâ€™s stance on Euthanasia? Are they right to oppose the merciful killing of dying individuals whose pain has become unbearable?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:37 am

Glaswegian;1322240 wrote: Don’t take things so personally, hoppy. You’ll give yourself an ulcer.

Since you’re here let me ask you a question:

What do you think of the Catholic Church’s stance on Euthanasia? Are they right to oppose the merciful killing of dying individuals whose pain has become unbearable?

Well, there's only one way I can answer that here. IF you believe what the Bible teaches, then the church is right. If you don't believe, then the church is wrong. I believe in the Bible however, there are circumstances where I might be inclined to end my own life. Such as to avoid capture and torture by terrorists. Otherwise, just dope me up until I croak by myself.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 1:21 pm

Glaswegian wrote: What do you think of the Catholic Churchâ€™s stance on Euthanasia? Are they right to oppose the merciful killing of dying individuals whose pain has become unbearable?
hoppy;1322251 wrote: Well, there's only one way I can answer that here. IF you believe what the Bible teaches, then the church is right. If you don't believe, then the church is wrong. I believe in the Bible
According to the logic of this argument the Catholic Church is right to oppose euthanasia.

Then you go on to say:

hoppy wrote: however, there are circumstances where I might be inclined to end my own life. Such as to avoid capture and torture by terrorists.
Only inclined? Youâ€™re no doubt aware that during the Second World War many resistance fighters were brutally tortured by their captors for the purpose of extracting information from them - information which would have led to the deaths of scores of their comrades. However, some of them took their own lives rather than give out this information (e.g., throwing themselves out windows). Were they right to do this or should they have told their captors what they wanted to hear? What would you have done if you had been one of those resistance fighters, hoppy? Would you have betrayed your comrades because the Catholic Churchâ€™s prohibition against suicide was more dear to you? Would you have done that rather than contravene this dogma?

hoppy wrote: Otherwise, just dope me up until I croak by myself.
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?

fae · Post by **fae** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:34 pm

' Suffering, especially suffering during the last moments of life, has a special place in God's saving plan.’

Everyone has the right to a peaceful and dignified dying, I would imagine intense pain would make the dying person distressed, agitated and unable to focus on anything, let alone a soul and the spiritual benefits of pain... I have the right to die in my own way, if and when my life becomes unbearable.... No-one has the right to deny me this... yet some have the influence and the power to do so.

fae · Post by **fae** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:37 pm

Glaswegian;1322210 wrote: In the case of children's 'souls', fae:

The intense physical suffering undergone by children in institutions set up by Mother Teresa is routine - as the following report makes very clear:

New Statesman - The squalid truth behind the legacy of Mother Teresa

Thankyou for the link.... much to think about

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 3:56 pm

fae;1322326 wrote: Thankyou for the link.... much to think about
You're welcome.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 4:00 pm

I seem to remember, the reason for ( Mother Teresa) allowing the continuation of such pain and suffering was a means to be closer to God. I sooner be much farther away if it takes such extreme cruelty

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:09 pm

I already answered your question. To avoid capture and torture, I most likely would kill myself. Otherwise, I oppose euthanasia. What you take on yourself to do is your business. People kill themselves everyday. It's illegal in many places.

Think of the cost. Legalize euthanasia and suicide and insurance costs will shoot upwards. The way it is now, insurance companies don't pay for death by suicide.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 6:26 pm

hoppy;1322332 wrote: I already answered your question. To avoid capture and torture, I most likely would kill myself. Otherwise, I oppose euthanasia. What you take on yourself to do is your business. People kill themselves everyday. It's illegal in many places.

Think of the cost. Legalize euthanasia and suicide and insurance costs will shoot upwards. The way it is now, insurance companies don't pay for death by suicide.All life insurance policies I've seen do in fact pay for suicide but not within the first 2 years.

I support assisted suicide.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Fri Jul 16, 2010 11:50 pm

hoppy;1322332 wrote: To avoid capture and torture, I most likely would kill myself. Otherwise, I oppose euthanasia.
I see.

So itâ€™s okay for you to avoid the terrible pain of torture by putting an end to yourself but itâ€™s not okay for others to avoid the terrible pain of, say, terminal cancer by putting an end to themselves.

Donâ€™t you think you are being rather selfish here, hoppy?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 2:45 am

That mother teresa was one sicko, but I have difficulty understanding why anyone would want to be a nun or a member of the catholic religion at this point due to the fact that its now well known thats its made up of a lot of pedophiles and sadists, not to mention general weirdos.

I can recall the outrage of the officials of the catholic church when it was revealed that Disney and Microsoft extended benefits to domestic partners of gay couples claiming both companies were encouraging immorality, but now its tolerable for its members to have a blind eye toward their immorality.

Can you imagine if it were learned that the democratic party had one known pedophile in its membership? The outrage of those conservative catholics.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:11 am

Glaswegian;1322350 wrote: I see.

So it’s okay for you to avoid the terrible pain of torture by putting an end to yourself but it’s not okay for others to avoid the terrible pain of, say, terminal cancer by putting an end to themselves.

Don’t you think you are being rather selfish here, hoppy?

Not at all selfish in a military situation where killing yourself might save other lives, as was pointed out in this thread earlier.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:17 am

I have a question. Why are liberals so quick to want to kill, yet so opposed to war? Liberals seem to have no qualms or fear of killing babies or the old and sick. Kinda makes liberals seem like a cowardly, gutless bunch.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:26 am

hoppy;1322372 wrote: I have a question. Why are liberals so quick to want to kill, yet so opposed to war? Liberals seem to have no qualms or fear of killing babies or the old and sick. Kinda makes liberals seem like a cowardly, gutless bunch. If this post weren't so ridiculously inaccurate I'd bother replying to it.

But there you go dragging out the children. Sound familiar?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:29 am

What do people that have never served in the military know about military situations other than what they've seen on the wall of Plato's Cave?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:11 am

No answer, huh? Typical of liberals. Cut and run when they can't answer.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 5:16 am

Ahso!;1322374 wrote: If this post weren't so ridiculously inaccurate I'd bother replying to it.

But there you go dragging out the children. Sound familiar?

But children are a big part of the liberal killing agenda.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:09 am

Don't run off guys. Lets discuss this baby killing more. I got an idea. Lets euthanize old people the same way we kill babies. Tear 'em apart. Hey look. Here's a leg of Louie. Oh, I got a rump of Rita. LMFAO.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:28 am

Trying to change the conversation? The topic is about mother teresa not abortion. Start a new thread if you want.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:29 pm

Ahso!;1322412 wrote: Trying to change the conversation? The topic is about mother teresa not abortion. Start a new thread if you want.

It ain't your thread either.:p

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:43 pm

hoppy;1322423 wrote: It ain't your thread either.:pNo it isn't but I at least endeavor to show respect toward the thread starter by remaining on topic. However, respect is a value that conservatives are completely void of.

fae · Post by **fae** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:12 pm

hoppy;1322372 wrote: I have a question. Why are liberals so quick to want to kill, yet so opposed to war? Liberals seem to have no qualms or fear of killing babies or the old and sick. Kinda makes liberals seem like a cowardly, gutless bunch.

I struggle very much with this, but as Ahsoo said,, tis another debate and I will give a considered response if you start a thread...

for me I feel that our state of mind on dying influences where our conscious selves go....ie if we die in an agitated and distressed state, this may well be the reality that we catapult into.. conversely, to die feeling prepared , calm and tranquil may catapult us into that kind of reality...hope this makes some sense to a few of you......

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 1:13 pm

hoppy;1322372 wrote: I have a question. Why are liberals so quick to want to kill, yet so opposed to war? Liberals seem to have no qualms or fear of killing babies or the old and sick. Kinda makes liberals seem like a cowardly, gutless bunch.

You live in a liberal democracy with liberal values enshrined in your constuitution, (you know FREEDOM of speech, FREEDOM from religion, 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). not bad for a bunch of gutless cowards don't you think?

Get the conection liberty/liberal, free man. If you value liberty you are a liberal whether you like ot or not.

Come to that you can thank all those who picked up weapons and went to war against a catholic church that preached that all men had their pre-ordained god given station in life that no man should question for fear of eternal damnation and a king that believed in the divine right to rule. Godless heretics and freethinkers precursprs of the liberals you love to hate. No one need apoligise for being a liberal when you look at their achievements, tghe right wing will always lose in the end. Power to the people.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 3:46 pm

gmc;1322428 wrote: You live in a liberal democracy with liberal values enshrined in your constuitution, (you know FREEDOM of speech, FREEDOM from religion, 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). not bad for a bunch of gutless cowards don't you think?

Get the conection liberty/liberal, free man. If you value liberty you are a liberal whether you like ot or not.

Come to that you can thank all those who picked up weapons and went to war against a catholic church that preached that all men had their pre-ordained god given station in life that no man should question for fear of eternal damnation and a king that believed in the divine right to rule. Godless heretics and freethinkers precursprs of the liberals you love to hate. No one need apoligise for being a liberal when you look at their achievements, tghe right wing will always lose in the end. Power to the people.Do you think it will ever sink in? I mean you must have explained this to him at least half a dozen times now that I can recall.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Jul 17, 2010 4:58 pm

I have little to no use for todays American liberal politician.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:06 am

What? No snappy reply from the board liberal atheist faction?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:58 am

Back to the topic. That mother teresa was one confused monkey, wasn't she.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:10 am

Snowfire;1322329 wrote: I seem to remember, the reason for ( Mother Teresa) allowing the continuation of such pain and suffering was a means to be closer to God. I sooner be much farther away if it takes such extreme cruelty
The pain and suffering wreaked by Mother Teresa and her Church in this life, Snowfire, is as nothing compared to what lies in store for countless human beings in the â€˜next lifeâ€™. I said earlier that the Catholic Church gloats on suffering - positively wallows in it. This becomes very clear when we consider the Catholic vision of â€˜heavenâ€™ and one of the pleasures which the faithful can expect to enjoy therein.

This particular pleasure - which is among the most exquisite according to the Church - consists of the faithful witnessing the eternal torture and suffering of the damned in â€˜hellâ€™. As the Catholic Churchâ€™s great teacher and saint, Thomas Aquinas, declared:

â€˜The blessed in the kingdom of heaven will see the torment of the damned, in order that their bliss be that much greater.â€™

For the Catholic Church, then, the horrendous suffering of the damned in hell is a source of pleasure and joy for the faithful in heaven who witness it.

This is sadism - sadism of the most depraved and loathsome kind.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:22 am

How does she compare with socialized medical care, I wonder?

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:27 am

Ahso!;1322412 wrote: The topic is about mother teresa not abortion.
On the subject of abortion, Ahso, you’ll be aware that Mother Teresa was one of the most fanatical opponents of it, milking every opportunity she could to proclaim its evils on the world stage. In her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, for example, she went so far as to describe it as ‘the greatest destroyer of peace today’.

One of the religious justifications which Mother Teresa often simpered in support of her anti-abortion stance was that God loved every child. A leading Humanist (Harry Stopes-Roe) once challenged her on this by saying, ‘Yes, after they are born’. Mother Teresa replied: ‘No, from the moment of conception.’ When Stopes-Roe pointed out that St Thomas Aquinas had held that the foetus did not receive the soul until quickening - i.e., until the foetus was felt moving in the womb - Mother Teresa replied, ‘I know no theology’, and walked away.

As you cannot fail to have noticed, Ahso, the Catholic Church is inordinately fond of proclaiming its love and concern for the unborn child. But does this showy display of love and concern extend to the living? Not when you look at the Church's stance on contraception. The Catholic Church condemns the use of contraception - even in countries like Uganda where more than a million of its population had AIDS by the mid-nineties. This stance - born of religious dogmas and supernatural absurdities - only served to promote the spread of the disease thereby causing misery, suffering and death to tens of thousands of Ugandans. What about the sanctity of their lives?

And that is only Uganda. The same Catholic-fuelled tragedy occurs in many other parts of the world as well.

Whenever you hear the Catholic Church and its adherents gushing about their love and concern for the unborn child, do not be fooled. Instead, be suspicious and smell the stench of Catholic hypocrisy.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:34 am

Glaswegian;1322488 wrote: On the subject of abortion, Ahso, you’ll be aware that Mother Teresa was one of the most fanatical opponents of it, milking every opportunity she could to proclaim its evils on the world stage. In her Nobel Prize acceptance speech, for example, she went so far as to describe it as ‘the greatest destroyer of peace today’.

One of the religious justifications which Mother Teresa often simpered in support of her anti-abortion stance was that God loved every child. A leading Humanist (Harry Stopes-Roe) once challenged her on this by saying, ‘Yes, after they are born’. Mother Teresa replied: ‘No, from the moment of conception.’ When Stopes-Roe pointed out that St Thomas Aquinas had held that the foetus did not receive the soul until quickening - i.e., until the foetus was felt moving in the womb - Mother Teresa replied, ‘I know no theology’, and walked away.

As you cannot fail to have noticed, Ahso, the Catholic Church is inordinately fond of proclaiming its love and concern for the unborn child. But does this showy display of love and concern extend to the living? Not when you look at the Church's stance on contraception. The Catholic Church condemns the use of contraception - even in countries like Uganda where more than a million of its population had AIDS by the mid-nineties. This stance - born of religious dogmas and supernatural absurdities - only served to promote the spread of the disease thereby causing misery, suffering and death to tens of thousands of Ugandans. What about the sanctity of their lives?

And that is only Uganda. The same Catholic-fuelled tragedy occurs in many other parts of the world as well.

Whenever you hear the Catholic Church and its adherents gushing about their love and concern for the unborn child do not be fooled. Instead, be suspicious and smell the stench of Catholic hypocrisy.

It's not only Catholics. Lots of people are disgusted and sickened at the thought of tearing apart an unborn child.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:47 am

hoppy;1322371 wrote: Not at all selfish in a military situation where killing yourself might save other lives, as was pointed out in this thread earlier.
Earlier in the thread you said that you â€˜might be inclinedâ€™ to end your own life to avoid capture and torture. Then later you went on to say that you would â€˜most likelyâ€™ kill yourself faced with this situation. But would you actually do this, hoppy?

According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, if you did kill yourself then you would be punished in hell for this â€™grave sinâ€™. Do you think itâ€™s true what the Church says?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:00 am

Glaswegian;1322495 wrote: Earlier in the thread you said that you ‘might be inclined’ to end your own life to avoid capture and torture. Then later you went on to say that you would ‘most likely’ kill yourself faced with this situation. But would you actually do this, hoppy?

According to the teachings of the Catholic Church, if you did kill yourself then you would be punished in hell for this ’grave sin’. Do you think it’s true what the Church says?

I think there are gray areas. If I were captured, tortured and perhaps gave up info that led to the capture, torture or death of others, I'm sure I would be punished more for that than if I just killed myself to avoid that.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:11 am

hoppy;1322498 wrote: I think there are gray areas. If I were captured, tortured and perhaps gave up info that led to the capture, torture or death of others, I'm sure I would be punished more for that than if I just killed myself to avoid that.
Punished by whom?

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:20 am

Glaswegian;1322499 wrote: Punished by whom?

OK, here's how I see it. 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.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:28 am

hoppy;1322500 wrote: OK, here's how I see it. 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.
Pascal's wager a la hoppy.

More about this later.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 9:28 am

hoppy;1322500 wrote: OK, here's how I see it. 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.Thats not belief. Hell, thats not even faith.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 12:33 pm

Ahso!;1322502 wrote: Thats not belief. Hell, thats not even faith.

But I have faith that it all is real.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 6:40 pm

hoppy;1322500 wrote: OK, here's how I see it. 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.
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. We see countless examples of this kind of belief on display in totalitarian regimes where people simply feign belief because the risk of non-belief is too dreadful. In North Korea, for example, millions of people outwardly believe that Kim Jong-il is the most wonderful being who walks on this earth but in their hearts they believe he is an abomination who has made their lives a living-hell.

hoppy wrote: 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.

This is not belief, hoppy. It is grovelling of the most abject and craven kind. It is no better than licking the arse of a tyrant in the hope that this will spare you his wrath.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sun Jul 18, 2010 7:42 pm

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.

Glaswegian · Post by **Glaswegian** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 4:06 am

hoppy;1322558 wrote: 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?
I don’t know with certainty that God doesn’t exist. Nor do I know with certainty that He does exist.

And nor does anyone else know these things.

Earlier you demonstrated that this was the case regarding yourself when you said:

hoppy wrote: 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.

Clearly, for you God's existence is uncertain. And you will not know one way or the other about it until you 'find out at death'. Therefore, the following claims of yours are false:

hoppy wrote: Well, I see Him in many things. I hear Him in my heart. And I KNOW He knows I believe.

How can you possibly make these claims when you aren't even certain God exists?

They are utter self-deception on your part. If I had made those claims I would be black with shame.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:08 am

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.

Myself, I'm certain God exists, God listens and God answers. I have no doubts. I am comfortable with my beliefs.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Mon Jul 19, 2010 5:12 am

Feeling comfortable with a belief does not establish it as legitimate. Pol Pot, Hitler and Bush were comfortable with their beliefs too.