Think the last post closed before i could post a link (non related to previous post)

My original accusation was that Mother Teresa allegedly renounced faith on her death bed. in her diary

Where is my faith?" she wrote. "Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness… If there be God — please forgive me."

''Such deep longing for God… Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal," she said

What do I labor for?" she asked in one letter. "If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.

There is loads of info on the net about it but i first read it in God is not great, religeon poisons everything by Christopher Hitchens.

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083

If this is true i'm still not sure she lost all faith completely as she was questioning it and never openly renounced it apparently for fear of the problems it would cause, being so aware how much of a public figure she had become. Anyway the info is there to be debated.

Hitchins needs a large pinch of salt taken with anything he says. A controversial figure at best.

Mother Teresa was questionable at best as well.

Ghandi- "No doubt the non-violent way is alawys the best, but where
that does not come naturally the violent way is both necessary
and honourable. Inaction here is rank cowardice and unmanly.
It must be shunned at all cost."

TJ – Through my experience of following his books and interviews i have found his tone quite aggressive at times but i would like to know why 'with a pinch of salt'. To me that means that you think he is lying. is that true? I only ask because i respect Chris.H for using facts and being very throurough in his work.

EDIT: Controversial because of his mannor and the subjects he studies or beacuse what he says simply isn't true? (i'm just re-reading what you wrote incase i'm misunderstanding)

Controversial because of the subjects he tackles and the way he does so
With a pinch of salt – be sceptical about things he says.

He is also deliberately contrary and holds some contrary and opposing views. How he can support he "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraqm is beyond me.

An interesting person in a debate but some of his views are odd to say the least

It's important tell the difference between his opinion and actual evidence. TBH i've mainly concentrated on the debates about religeon as that's what i'm most intersted in. Having not read any or seen much of his rebuttle on war i couldn't comment but another of his books on war in on my to do list. But coming back to the original thread i would challenge your comment against Chirstopher in that i belive he states fact when talking about Mother Teresa.

TJ, it's ok not to like the guy…no need to accuse him of bullshitting though. 🙂

I very carefully didn't accuse him of bullshitting. Just of being Odd and controversial with contrary views.

Hitchins needs a large pinch of salt taken with anything he says

With a pinch of salt – be sceptical about things he says

Both statements seem to imply, especially the first one, that you don't belive what he says until you see the evidence(or there abouts). I feel it is clear that what christopher has said about Mother Teresa has solid evidence supporting it. Considering the initial content of the thread it appears at first glance your comments shoot down what i have stated and supported as fact. I think that's possibly why Deadlydarcy's comment is like it is. I think we can all agree he's an odd sort of fellow.

Well he was/is a raving Trot who is now the darling of the right.

Not long ago he said "I am no longer a socialist, but I still am a Marxist". Sounds to me like he's full of shit. But then I don't waste any time reading any of his stuff. So I guess it would be fair to say that it's mostly perception, rather than based on hard evidence.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

Ok if thats how you read it. If I had meant "don't believe a word he says" I would have said that. Be sceptical is not the same as disbelieve.

ok, think this thread is done. Not really much Mother Teresa talk.

out of interest though. I'd like to hear how

I am no longer a socialist, but I still am a Marxist

sounds like he is full of shit. To me that sounds like a personal statement and doesn't make him sound full of shit

I suggest you read up on Marx in that case Bonty.

And this was Christopher Hitchens on Radio 4 in 2006 :

Leon Trotsky 8 Augusr 2006

A fiery return for the biographical series in which Matthew Parris chooses the living, and the living choose the dead. Christopher Hitchens proposes Leon Trotsky, hero of the Russian Revolution later assassinated with an ice pick in the skull. He sees him as the perfect combination of the man of ideas and man of action, and says Trotsky's writings still make the hairs on his neck stand up. Matthew Parris is joined by Professor Robert Service in resisting him all the way.

So he's still a Trot then

I very carefully didn't accuse him of bullshitting. Just of being Odd and controversial with contrary views.

Really? I agree with 99% of what he says and think he is one of the most interesting intellectuals on the planet.
I know a number of people who think the same maybe it's your views that are odd?

I like his writing style and used to follow his column in The Nation religiously (!!) Also he was a co-host on an American TV show called "Crossfire", which was generally very right-wing but CH provided "balance" and it was fun to watch him destroy conservative idiots.

However, in recent years he seems to have disappeared up his own backside with his conversion to conservatism, so I can't be bothered with reading what he writes any more.

being Odd and controversial with contrary views.

pot, kettle? 😉

TandemJeremy – Member

Hitchins needs a large pinch of salt taken with anything he says. A controversial figure at best.

Mother Teresa was questionable at best as well.

Ohhh TJ I am so desperate to use this quote but slightly changed:

Hitchins TJ needs a large pinch of salt taken with anything he says. A controversial figure at best.

Mother Teresa was questionable at best as well.

But I won't, because it's not as funny as I first thought….

I found Chris Hitchens view on the modern left interesing in regard to their apparent support of the terrorists, limb-hackers, book burners and mysogynists of Islam, because these are against the "Capitalist" West.

"See just how deep the termites have eaten away at them…"

I admire Hitchens very much for his entertaining expositions and writing. His view always seems fresh and insightful, often from completely unexpected directions. His "team" lectures in harness with various religious apologists of much narrower intellect are often rib-shakingly funny.

PS: And yes, his television expose of the real "Mother" Teresa was an eye-opener and food for thought.

I think Mother Teresa might have a pretty solid precedent when it comes to doubting the existence of a higher being on her deathbed…

Who was it who asked "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" whilst nailed to his cross?

ernie_lynch – Thanks for your concern but that comment is taken out of context, i suggest doing some research.

except the "cry of dereliction" as it's known isn't doubting the existence of a higher being – it's affirming that existence, while simultaneously expressing the speaker's bewilderment that he, a righteous man, has been abandoned by the God of the righteous.

The Old Testament has a number of people expressing doubt in the way mother Theresa was in the OP – there's also quite a tradition of it throughout the writings of the Christian mystics and generally it's known as the "dark night of the soul".

It's an unfortunate thing that many people's experience of the Christian faith is the sort of verbal certainty expressed by fundamentalists that is often, paradoxically, intellectually fragile and very unreflective. Sadly, that also makes them easy meat for people like Chris Hitchins and RIchard Dawkins, who delight in dismantling the easily ridiculed. Unfortunately, many Christians only engage with contemporary scientific thought via people like Richard Dawkins, so have a very distorted, and limited, view of the relationship between science and faith.

There used to be (and probably still is) a nun called "Wendy Beckett" who made a series of programmes for the BBC in which she sought to convince that she was an art critic, to the amusement of those who actually are.

She surfaced again recently as part of this debate in which she said that Atheists can't argue for the existence or not, of "god" because – and I quote – "they don't have any theology, poor lambs." A remark that I found to be remarkable in that it is both patronising and ridiculous at the same time.

It's true that, as an atheist, I don't have any theology. I am however, perfectly comfortable in saying that Leprechauns don't exist, despite not having (shock! horror!) any Leprechaunology, either. Or Santa-Clausology, Unicornology or Fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-gardenology…

Unfortunately, many Christians only engage with contemporary scientific thought via people like Richard Dawkins, so have a very distorted, and limited, view of the relationship between science and faith

what exactly is the relationship between science and faith you hint at? It seems that science knocks down all religions pillars and offers no evidence for creationism, soul or a diety. Whilst not natural enemies it's findings are clearly contrary to religious evidence on the issue of how we got here.
EDIT:Woppit Theology is the study of god /religious belief ,practices etc it is not the practice of worshiping god. So clearly an atheist could be versed in theology- she is wrong. Probably meant better to listen to an informed person than an ill informed person which is generally true but religion may be the exception to this rule. Many atheists when I did theology at Uni and many fanatically devout types.
Theo –God from greek
ology – from greek logos study of now a branch of learning.

With a pinch of salt – be sceptical about things he says.

Shouldn't this apply to everyone by default?

religious evidence

The world awaits with baited breath. Your Nobel Prize also.

BontyBuns – Member

ernie_lynch – Thanks for your concern but that comment is taken out of context, i suggest doing some research.

I am not in the least bit concerned………why do you think I might be ?

You asked me a direct question – so I felt vaguely obliged to respond.

The question you asked me, in case you've forgotten, was :

BontyBuns – Member

out of interest though. I'd like to hear how

"I am no longer a socialist, but I still am a Marxist"

sounds like he is full of shit.

Since I couldn't be arsed to explain, I suggested that you read up on Marx – if you wanted to know the answer.

But quite frankly I couldn't give a monkeys whether you do or don't.

BTW, what comment was taken out of context ?