I'd heard that she was a bit dodgy.

It was first published in something like 1995 and what it seems to be, thus far, is a very calm look at her, at her public image, at the reality etc. Nobody has ever really been able to refute Hitchens's assertions.

Only a week or so ago research was published in Canada which, in essence, supports the research done by Hitchens. [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/04/mother-teresa-myth_n_2805697.html?ref=topbarStory[/url

It's quite interesting. Part of her 'idea' was that these poor people who she picked up should die in a manner that reflected the pain suffered by Christ. So, for instance, although she raised millions and millions of pounds, she'd let cancer sufferers die in pain. Of course it was different when she was ill – then she'd be taken to some of the world's finest hospitals.

I do like Hitchens's description of her (not in the book) as "a thieving fanatical Albanian dwarf".

The new edition that I'm reading was published after access to her private letters was allowed – and after Hitchens's own death. Extraordinarily, the letters appear to reveal her own huge doubts about her faith – yet she continued that approach of, in effect, facilitating the suffering of the poor.

I didn't realise she was a real person, I always thought she was some sort of animatronic prune.

That would suggest you don't know how to read for context.


I have no idea where you have got the notion that there is any approval of the gang rape of children but the 'homosexuality is bad' line comes from the Old Testament. It was actually considered an abomination rather than bad. The word abomination is used to describe a feeling - of disgust, repulsion. Therefore, what is being described is not a moral judgement on homosexuality but an emotional reaction to it. Jesus said nothing on the subject.


Would it? I suppose that would depend upon what you consider to be a 'decent' person. Are you a decent person? Am I? Who is the arbiter? A lot of people who adopt the Christian faith find it somewhat releasing to realise that they don't actually have to conform to a specific notion of 'decent' in order to be accepted by God. What matters is that the person is always striving to put the aims of God first, regardless of what others may think.


There are two predominant schools of thought on the doctrine of choice within Christianity: Arminianism and Calvanism. Kirkstaller, for example, would be a Calvanist: everything is predetermined (God wills it all and human beings have no control over what occurs, although that is a very simplistic explanation). Whereas the more common position within the UK today anyway is the Arminian doctrine of free will, namely we have a choice in whether we do evil or good and we take the consequences accordingly.


You are confusing Christianity with Islam there.

This would suggest that you're continuing with your usual patronising attitude over religion.



Thank you. You have now revealed your own total ignorance of the [iBible[/i.

Lot. Bloke living in Sodom. Or Gomorrah. One or the other.

God thought him a good geezer. In fact, better than good – the only one from the two towns who was worth saving, since God had decided to kill off everyone else because they were doing what he'd designed and created them to do.

Two 'visitors' arrive in Lot's community. Might have been angels. Local blokes took one look and thought: 'Phworrrr!' Lot decides to protect visitors by offering his lusty neighbours his two virgin daughters instead.

Blah blah – Lot and his family are the only ones who get to escape these dreadful towns. Lot's wife dies because she dares to look back at the destruction. Bad, bad woman. Lot and his daughters escape. They get away. Remember – he's the one good man worth saving. In spite of offering his virgin daughters to be raped.

Funny thing is, a short while after, they rape him when he's drunk and get up the duff by their own dad.

But hey, it's being queer that's bad.



Actually, he's an Arminianist, on the basis that he both argues that God knows and has pre-decided everything – but that choice still exists.

You can't resist, can you, love? What was it last time – lecturing me on the nature of evangelicalism?



No. I've just described both Arminianism and, most particularly, Calvanism. In other words, it doesn't matter a flying you-know-what what you do – God has already decided what will happen to you, regardless. So you'd better hope he's not all menstrual.

It's a weakness of mine. A weakness of yours is to assume the worst about people.


I'm not perfect like you hon.

I do know the story you refer to but I didn't recognise it from your original description. Which doesn't surprise me really as the story is not about gang rape.


You will have read more of his/her posts than I have but based upon what I have read of his/her posts, I would place them under the Calvanist banner.


If you say so.

So, do we reckon we will have a revolution ?

Kirkstaller mentioned Godwin's Law recently, I reckon we need an extension of that law, whereby as soon as thread changes from its original topic to the same-old-same-old "God exists, no he doesn't" argument, the thread is over.
But with the caveat that you can't deliberately end a thread by tossing-in a religious bit.

:b7wvj6l3

No. It's not "about" gang rape. But that does not mean that the offer of two young women, to be used sexually, without their consent, is not a major part of the story. And that their being offered to strangers to be used sexually does not stop God regarding their father as the only person (man) in the two towns who is worth saving.

Ergo, God does not regard offering young women to be gang raped as a bad thing.

In other words, the story provides an illustration of the nature of the Judeo-Christian god.

Similarly with the story of Job, the story is 'about' faith. But in the process of being 'about' faith, it also reveals another illustration of the nature of the Judeo-Christian god – in that case, as a god who is prepared to see people killed or allow them to suffer in order to satisfy a bet. Job's family and slaves become the 'collateral damage' in God's gamble with Lucifer (who was, of course, created by God).

And there are many more such illustrations of the nature of the God of the [i:b7wvj6l3Bible[/i:b7wvj6l3.

:b7wvj6l3

Collin Burrow (a senior research fellow at All Souls College, Oxford) recently wrote, in an [url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n05/colin-burrow/shall-i-go-on:b7wvj6l3article about Milton for the [i:b7wvj6l3LRB[/i:b7wvj6l3[/url:b7wvj6l3 views on salvation were more or less Arminian. Where Calvin believed that God predestined the damned and the saved to hell or to heaven from the beginning of time through no merit of their own, Arminius held that God offered the opportunity of faith in him to all, and foreknew who would accept and who would reject that offer ..."

Kirkstaller's approach fits with the latter.

I wouldn't argue with that as a philosophy ...



... but therein lies the problem.

Hmm.

What about a person who adopts the Christian faith, but finds that they are one of those people who God has already predetermined for rejection and eternal hellfire, whatever they do? How 'releasing' would they find that?

Or is there no way of an individual actually finding out in advance? (Audiences with Jesus and a rabbit excepted, of course - I imagine those are not the norm)

I've long been a fan of [url=http://monologues.co.uk/Mike_Harding/Sodom_and_Gomorrah.htmMike Harding's take on Sodom & Gomorrah[/url

Yeah I know.
How about if it's only considered to be thread-drift if someone replies in kind to the off-topic religion bit?

Better

I don't know. What would Jesus say?

'Get these bloody nails out of my hands'?

That's so 33 AD, technology has moved on

Well, finished it.

It's very short; it's exceptionally well written.

It's not a diatribe, but much more an investigation, couched largely in quiet and considered tones. There are barbs, but they are subtle and elegant.

I think it's excellent. And the subject isn't actually as limited as it might seem: Hitchens saw Mother Teresa as being someone who very much reflected and preached the Vatican's core ideology. Indeed, as he points out, it was extraordinary that she did preach, given Catholic teaching on women doing that.

There are some fascinating things. And, without him specifically saying so, it does raise the great question of why, when faced with – let's call it religion in general – there is so much uncritical acceptance; more, that there's an attitude of respect, approval ... however you want to describe it.

No, I'd recommend it – and particularly this new edition, as the new forward takes on board things Hitchens never knew because at that time he had no access to her private letters, which have been released now and reveal a great deal.

Cheers for the heads up, duly down loaded.

Sorry for the derailment, any good challenging journalism that anyone would like to recommend I'd be grateful for. On the book thread of course.

Two things there. Firstly, the Bible like any other book is set within its cultural context and like any other person you are interpreting the story within your own cultural context. Secondly, that God sees something worth saving in the man who allows this could be interpreted in two ways: the way that you have interpreted it or as an indication that nobody is beyond hope (the way a Christian would interpret it). The latter point would be adopted while still acknowledging that today the notion of offering women to others is abhorent, as quite possibly it was back then also but we don't have a contemporary commentary on the story, just the story.


Nah, it really doesn't. To have any idea of the character of the Judeo-Christian god you would need to read the whole Bible. You would then be in a position to assess accurately what the story is about and whether God would condone the action of the man or condemn it.


As I said earlier, I am basing my assessment on those posts I have read. You will no doubt have read more of them. But from what I have read, I would put him in the Calvanist camp.

To be honest, thats the standard get-out clause for all christians together with "he moves in mysterious ways, etc", the undisputed fact of the matter is that the bible that you read from today is a mish-mash of opinion and camp fire tales and was not hand written by a God as a sort of Haynes Manual for you to follow implicitly.

Its an interesting book in parts though.

I have no issue with anyone who follows a religion of any description and in a way I actually admire them for their faith-without-question attitude, its not something I could do, but I do seriously question anyone who tries to endorse their blind faith with random examples picked deliberately to suit their agenda whilst ignoring the other tales which completely contradict what they are trying to sell - "Let the buyer beware" is never truer than when discussing religion, you get what the seller wants to sell you.

Ah. So God was alright with the idea of a pair of girls handed over for gang rape by their father in [ithose[/i days, but it's okay, the old boy's changed now.

Which leaves us with a few tiny matters.

If God is so brilliant and perfect, what made him decide he was wrong about gang rape in the past so that he's changed his opinion now – in a whole different context? After all, you'd kind of expect an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being to get it right to start with, wouldn't you – after all, he's god, so by the very nature of god, what he creates is as it should be, yes? And anyway, if the times have been a changin', that's because the same god had created them to change in the first place, and with that, his own attitude.

Or is it us that, in changing our attitudes of what is acceptable for the context of our times, we have moved away from god, who still believes that, just as in those times, gang rape is actually okay, and God is just really annoyed that we don't understand this any more, but he can't be d to do anything about it?



Actually, there's masses in the [iBible[/i that indicates that women can be treated in such a way or worse, including quite a few nasty little 'laws'. After all, the victim of rape can be murdered simply for being the victim of rape (well, assuming people who weren't there judge that she didn't protest enough).

And anyway, God decided to get Mary up the duff without telling her until after the deed was done – which in the civilised world is rape. That she didn't complain? Perhaps because, contexturally, she might have been killed for not having squealed a bit at least.

With the exception of one or two examples in the gospels, the attitude of the [iBible[/i toward women is absolutely of its time and of its geographic location; you can find something very similar in fundamentalist Islamic societies/communities today.

Paul was not as violent in his attitudes, but he was still a misogynist fanatic (typical convert).

Simple piece of logic: if God has changed his tune about something that he created (and he created everything), then God cannot be perfect.

And that still takes us back to the earlier point: wtf do you think the rest of S&G were doing that Lot – even after trying to hand over his own daughters to be raped – was better than them? Why were the rest of them 'beyond hope'? What had they done that was so, so much worse than offering their daughters to be gang raped?

It keeps coming back to this question – can you actually answer it?

Under what circumstances can you imagine that offering your daughters to be gang raped made you better than anyone else in a whole two towns – or at least stopped you being as bad as anyone else?



Oh my, oh my! Teacher's told me off! Because Miss knows exactly what percentage of the [iBible[/i I've read and because Miss herself has read it all, cover to cover, every single word, every single translation!



If he's a Calvinist, there's no point in his calling on people to give themselves to Jesus, is there?

If he believes, by some contortion, that people still have some sort of a choice, then there's a point to calling on people to give themselves to Jesus, isn't there?

You would think it was rocket science.

I didn't mention God in my reply at all. I mentioned cultural context. I also referred to there being no commentary upon the story, just the story. There are commentaries upon other stories.


There are also many examples of women being treated very well. If you want to look only for examples of women being treated poorly then that is all you will find, and you do seem determined to point only to those instances. However, even by raising such instances without the counterbalance of the good, does not automatically mean that God approved of those instances, just as there will be much in today's world (including our little 'corner' of it) that God does not approve of yet it still goes on (assuming God exists, of course, for the sake of discussion).


Well yes. That is what I was saying in the bit of my previous post you quoted earlier.


I agree. There has always been debate about Paul within church circles. He divides opinion.


How does that logic work? Since when is changing your mind a sign of imperfection?


You aren't actually asking a question though. You are having a rant.


And here your defensiveness makes you look extremely silly.


I thought you knew about Calvanism?

But the context of this particular part of this thread is the nature of god.



I don't think we need to assume God exists or doesn't in the context of this discussion – it doesn't affect the 'nature' of God any more than if we were discussing any other incarnation of god, from Zeus to Odin.

The [iBible[/i is obviously a mix of things – but there are a number of things, from laws in, say, [iLeviticus[/i (which as religious laws one might expect to reflect God's will) to stories such as those mentioned, where God is directly involved and his approval or otherwise is central to the 'moral' of the tale. And these include a great deal of cruelty and treatment that we would consider to be barbaric.

A process of basic literary analysis shows us that the god of the [iBible[/i is actually an uncivilised, cruel, murderous, jealous, vindictive figure. Now one could make the argument that, in terms of the whole of the [iBible[/i, there is some progress ('growth') by that character. But if we see God as human (and we are made in his image), then he cannot be God.



And in which case, that is how God created it.



Because if one were perfect then one would not need to change one's mind. One would have reached the correct decision to start with – perfection allows no room for fallibility, and changing one's mind is, in the context of godhood, an indicator of fallibility.



Nothing to do with "defensiveness" – just irritation at the patronising tone of someone who suggested something that they cannot know in order to pretend that they are better qualified to comment. Very few people have read the [iBible[/i[ cover to cover (apart from you, obviously). It would, for instance, involve all the endless 'begats'.



I thought you were a teacher.

If so, you'd know that there is no such thing. I was referring to Calvinism.

Calvinists believe in salvation by faith alone – something that is generally widespread among more evangelical denominations and groups and was directly inherited from Luther.

However, one of the five key tenets of Calvinism is predestination or 'unconditional election,' which asserts that God has chosen, from the beginning of time, those that he intends to save, and this is not based on virtue, merit or faith in those people.

So within the logic of Calvinism, there is no point in calling on people to give themselves to Christ.

Further, in Calvinism, human will is characterised as 'total depravity' (pure Kirkstaller) but [uwithout free will[/u, due to divine power. On the other hand, in Arminianism, that 'depravity' does [unot[/u prevent free will.

Kirkstaller routinely asserts that we have free will. Now I suspect that Kirkstaller is a mish mash of assorted theologies. But he isn't a Calvinist.

I didn't get that impression but if you want it to be then so be it.


You are mixing things up here. You quote from Leviticus, which is an Old Testament writing, but then speak of God as human, which is a New Testament theme in the person of Jesus. God is always removed from the ordinary people in the Old Testament, with particular individuals given the role of mediator between YAHWEH and the people. That changes entirely in the New Testament once Jesus is up and about preaching as Jesus claims to be God himself, rather than simply to be mediator between God and the people. Of course Christians believe that the Old Testament was leading towards the New, and so your comment about progress is relevant but not the whole story. The people's perception of God grew as Old Testament time passed and/or God revealed more of himself during that period but if a person is a Christian then they believe they have seen the fulfilment of God's nature in Jesus himself, including the willingness to accept the ultimate sacrifice in hanging from the cross (a tough call by God there I would think).

Oh, and I completely agree that there is a lot in the Old Testament that is barbaric. There is a lot in today's world that is barbaric. Humanity doesn't change en masse, alas.


Who said anything about need?


I'm not patronising anyone. That you feel patronised maybe something to do with how you view yourself, or me, or the subject, or a million other things. I'm just typing on a keyboard.

And I have actually read the Bible from cover to cover but it was a fairly meaningless exercise really, done when I was young as part of a competition. What it did do though was show me what an amazing book it is, even just from a literary and linguistic standpoint. Incidentally, I read the NIV Inclusive version as I wanted to know which bits were referring to just men and which to everyone. Quite an illuminating exercise in itself that was. (There are no begats in that translation either, which is a mercy in itself) However, it is now a long time since I have read the Bible at all really and so this conversation has prompted me to dig out my dusty NIV Inclusive and dip into it again, which has been an interesting excercise (interesting for me, I mean).







Calvin shared Luther's belief in faith alone as the means to salvation - in that neither believed works had any influence upon whether a person was saved (salvation by works was of course a popular theology with the dominant Roman Catholic church of the time) - but Luther's theology was more subjective than Calvin's. Calvin took matters to another level entirely by proposing, as you stated, the existence of predestination (in fact double predestination).


I agree, and the theology falls down in this regard IMO. However, Calvin does allow for the subjective by suggesting that the individual believer has to continually resubmit his or her will to the promptings of the Holy Spirit as they follow their predestined journey.