Collarchat.com

Join Our Community
Collarchat.com

Home  Login  Search 

RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul Page: <<   < prev  21 22 23 24 [25]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul - 8/30/2007 2:37:46 PM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
Susan, I don't think debating other human beings, regardless of orientation makes someone a "true" sub or not. It simply means you have strong feelings about things and want to make sure you express them. Regardless of what others think. Wether I, or anyone else agrees or likes the way you debate is irrelevant in the big picture. Perhaps Rule is on to something with his suggestion of debate STYLE being different with a submissive than a dominant.....I don't know and I don't know what his credentials are for determining such.

Personally, all I ever fight for in a debate is for the person that disagrees with me to at least acknowledge my opinion exists and is okay for ME. I don't think anyone likes to be made to feel they are worthless simply because their opinion is, to the person that disagrees with them.

I enjoy these debates. Sometimes it tweaks my perspective and sometimes I learn.


_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 481
RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul - 8/30/2007 2:39:35 PM   
LaTigresse


Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

At the moment.

I will keep checking back to see if I become swayed towards one side of the fence or other..... 



Oh ma Tigresse... que faudrait-il pour que tu viennes nous rejoindre dans notre camp... celui de la raison, tu sais? Oh, Tigrrrrressssssse.


Naughty naughty kittin, trying to use my weakness to lure me in?


_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 482
RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul - 8/30/2007 2:39:41 PM   
SusanofO


Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
kitttensol: Sure. Wow, I am kinda embarrassed now (even if a bit flattered). I am actually kinda shy, it's just that some folks never seem to want to believe that.

LaTigresse: I definitely agree with what you just said, and appreciate that you said it (and - this is not directed at LaT, just a comment: Maybe I didn't and was just debating, but for anyone's record, I apologize if I hurt SMC's feelings in this debate, or if my last post to SMC was construed as pointed (maybe it was, a little). I do think Rule was maybe just trying to deflect personal attacks on me (and if so, I do appreciate that).


- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 8/30/2007 2:52:53 PM >


_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 483
RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul - 8/30/2007 4:45:20 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
Care to answer how this really relates to my only real question on this thread: Insinuating this negates the value of her entire life, and the good she managed to do

I already answered that. The evil one does, does not negate the good that one does - and vice versa. I suppose that at some time she may have fed some ducks. In the end she has already been weighed and judged by the God of the Dead. I wonder what happened to her mind. Were parts or all of it sent to eternal oblivion? How does one hold a vulture accountable for doing what she was born to do?
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
and would you care to venture guessing placing a monetary value on the lives she enriched and-or helped?

In this I agree with kittinSol. It is Satan that puts a value on human life - and that is his prerogative. I do not. I consider all human life valuable.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
Yes, I can definitely be stubborn, but don't see that as a bad thing, necessarily.

Nor do I, necessarily. In specific circumstances being stubborn is an admirable ability.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
Rule, I know you disagree with Susan.

That is not relevant.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
But I think you're taking your 'analysis of a submissive' too far.

Perchance. However, it is my nature to explore far beyond the boundaries that bar the way of other people. Analysis to the last decimal, to infinity, is what I do. It is the only way to achieve enlightenment.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
She has been fiery and she has fought for her opinion;

I admire that ability. However, it is indeed an opinion; it does not make her right. Indeed, she was wrong.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
I see that you are arguing against her from a Dominant/submissive point of view, which of course, is an interesting way to approach it.

I was not trying to dominate her. Indeed, considering my model of subs, I am convinced that a sub cannot be dominated if she is absolutely opposed to being dominated. My purpose was to make her self-aware, both of her strong abilities as a sub and of her limitations as a sub; this not in a dominant-submissive context, but in the context of knowing oneself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
My only worry is that it's very personal, and it's completely off-topic.

In that you are correct, both times. But then, she is presenting and I am observing her presenting. So by definition the interaction is personal. It might as well have been another sub and I would have studied him or her in the same manner.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
I wonder whether you fancy Susan and if that's not why you're going to those lengths.

I am going to such lengths because that is my nature whenever I am investigating a phenomenon. I want to know. I see and this is the reason that I do not stumble around in the eternal darkness of blind people.
 
As to fancying Susan. Her presenting as a sub and me recognizing this and taking an interest into this phenomenon and looking into her mind does draw me, yes. Presumably it will pass.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
Actually I don't think he disagrees w/me that much re: My main questions on this thrread - and I'm not particularly insulted (really). And I don't really care much if he disagrees with me, either (and hope he's not insulted by that). But I see your point - if I disagree, and that makes me a super-sub, though, I am quite happy to disagree.

I suspect that this 'he' refers to me, considering the use of the word super sub.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
Rule named you a sub a few pages up, and kept on doing so...

It got thick, yes. As you noted, I do go to extreme lengths, and that may be misinterpreted. It was for that reason, because I did not want to push a dominant-submissive interaction, that in my post 467 I decided to address her not by her nature, but by her personal name.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
I'm not on Rule's side (I have clashed with him on a few occasions, because of his whacky ideas about us, Jews), but still...

Is someone carrying a grudge?
 
I know that I am whacky. I know that other people consider me whacky. They are quite right most of the time. I suspect that very few people do not consider me whacky.
 
And of course I am also the man with the ability to see where ordinary humans cannot. When I say "I see!", the blind people will say to each other "What is that whacky guy talking about now again?"
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
I am trying to dig deep into your psyche).

Ah, see? We have something in common.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
also since he is entitled to his own POV

This sub talk is driving me to despair. I would elaborate on this, but I have forgotten my arguments.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
But kittensol, IMO, makes a good point in that maybe some would think I am not a "twue" sub, because I debate (relative strangers, I might add).

That argument is not relevant to me.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
And me saying this is Not a slam at Rule

Nor do I perceive it as such.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
(who thinks this makes me a super-sub, which is not an insult). At all.

;-)
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
I think I know Rule, a little anyway

You do? I am shocked. (I would use a shocked smiley, but I do not know which one that is.)
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
I was really trying to touch upon the fact that Rule, instead of using your name, kept on calling you 'the sub'.

Merely drawing attention to her nature, perhaps a bit too often. Subs are different from other humans, though there is some overlap with other types of humans.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
I realise you are a switch: I have read your profile. More than once: you are an interesting woman.
 

That a sub may switch is immaterial.
 
I have read her profile also. Last year, and perhaps a month ago. I frankly do not remember. I do not recall what is in it, nor do I know if she has a picture up or what she looks like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
You know by calling you 'the sub' (and he alluded to me, 'the other sub, kittinsol' - I was touched), he was trying to put you back in your place.

Hm. Yes and no. As I said, I wanted her to be aware both of her strengths and of her limitations. It is all right to be stubborn and to want to go logically by the shortest route from A to B, but if that results in blindly running into an intervening crocodile invested swamp or over the edge of a ravine because of those limitations, then stubbornness and logic does not serve one well.
 
quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol
He is attempting to argue that submissives conduct discussions alongside a particular pattern.

Quite, though there may be minor variations between subs. In fact, I had formulated my model already before I registered at CM, and I was quite shocked to discover that females could present as subs (I did not even know what that was) and dommes and that males could present as slaves. Observing people at CM has taught me a lot.

(in reply to kittinSol)
Profile   Post #: 484
RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul - 8/30/2007 5:03:40 PM   
SusanofO


Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
So we are not that far apart after all. I think maybe you were trying to say that Mother Theresa was submissive to a mission?
I can see what you are saying Rule, but I diagree that I was "always wrong, all along".

I can agree that the only person really able to judge her value is God. But I always said that it seemed to me she did much good in the world, and that SMC simply chose to view her motives through (IMO) a cynical lens. It is one POV I really am willing to fight for - and SMC failed to address my main questions, ever.

It would be interesting to find out how many people agree that having doubts make someone a complete hypocrite, in the worst connotation of the word. I agree there is a nasty connotation associated (for me, at least) to that word. But having doubts?

Why would havig doubts this necessarily reduce the level of faith overall, in the span of their entire life-time, a person has for a mission, or an idea, instead of strengthening it?

Poeple of strong faith also many times have strong doubts about it, and its value. IMO, someone reading that TIME magazine article very closely would have realized that it was also definitely mentioned that having a "crisis of faith" is also common to people of extreme faith - especially (it seems, to me) people who keep working at their mission anyway, regardless of a lack of it.

They are apparently submissive to an idea that acting as if one had faith, when one does not, can often result in doing some good in the world.

Well, if that makes her a hypocrite, then so be it. It certainly did not seem to negate the value (to me) of good that she apparently attemtpted (and managed) to do in the world for many - which was always my main point, no matter how you chose to interpret it.

Also, the fact the SMC hasn't bothered himself to educate himself on a topic he claims to want to debate (like apparently reading the entire OP's TIME magazine article), isn't exactly my fault.

- Susan



< Message edited by SusanofO -- 8/30/2007 5:07:17 PM >


_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 485
RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul - 8/30/2007 7:02:46 PM   
SusanofO


Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
general comments:  How facile a "reasoner" (SMC) does one have to really be, (for one delving into that TIME article on her letters which the OP provided) in order to to see this:

That the woman was submissive to her God, whom she personified as a man (Jesus' bride, for herself, being a nun) much as a submissive would be to her Master?

Despite the fact she may have doubted or even disagreed with Him, or that he temporarily removed himself from her presence, that she seemed to obey, to the best of her ability, that which she believed He commanded her to do anyway?

*How unfamiliar can this idea really be to anyone here - being as we are on a BDSM website?

*If it is that unfamiliar an idea, perhaps all of us here are hypocrites as well?

P.S. to Rule - I can agree there are people on this thread who believe they've been right all along (but that is as far as I'd go with that idea). 

- Susan

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 8/30/2007 7:30:49 PM >


_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 486
RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul - 8/30/2007 7:55:46 PM   
SugarMyChurro


Posts: 1912
Joined: 4/26/2007
Status: offline
In terms of the OP and the original article, I still have at least one significant problem with the offered explanation in favor of Teresa's "goodness" or prospects for canonization. Rhetorically, I think it's way too convenient to refer to these major issues of doubt as a simple "dark night of the soul." One night anyone can forgive. But we are talking fifty fucking years here! That's a lifetime for many. That's fifty fucking years of doubting what one preaches. Not only is that an untenable philosophical outlook on life, but it absolutely gives rise to more than adequate evidence of actual hypocrisy - it is the very definition of hypocrisy to teach what one does not hold true for oneself. I do not think it enough to doubt a faith to consider oneself worthy to teach that same faith.

Let me put it this way, in the simplest terms possible: faith is not doubt.

(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 487
RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul - 8/30/2007 8:02:04 PM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
That the woman was submissive to her God, whom she personified as a man (Jesus' bride, for herself, being a nun) much as a submissive would be to her Master?

She was a dominant. She may have viewed herself as christian, but she most certainly projected her own warped identity onto christianity. On the other hand - and this is far more likely - she was merely mimicking the behaviour of true christians, perhaps deluding herself that she was the real thing. In fact she was the anti-christ. According to her own testimony for at least fifty years and presumably for a long time before that - all her life, from birth, or perhaps from puberty onwards - she never felt the presence of God, and as far as I am aware never showed any sign of spiritual awareness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
Despite the fact she may have doubted or even disagreed with Him, or that he temporarily removed himself from her presence, that she seemed to obey, to the best of her ability, that which she believed He commanded her to do anyway?

She did not doubt at all. She felt nothing. Emptiness. She was constitutionally atheistic. A mimic. The only question is whether she was knowingly or unknowingly used by the successive popes - all also anti-christs. In any case she stole at least eighteen million dollars per year up to possibly two billion dollars per year and did not care what the popes did with that money. My guess is that she must have known what the purpose of that money was - an evil purpose at any rate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
*How unfamiliar can this idea really be to anyone here - being as we are on a BDSM website?

You are merely looking at the universe through the eyes of a sub, projecting your own nature on all and sundry. I recall the amazement that I felt when I realized that ordinary humans do not have the innate sense to distinguish right from wrong that I have. The Vulture was nothing like you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SusanofO
*If it is that unfamiliar an idea, perhaps all of us here are hypocrites as well?

Perhaps a few people are not hypocrites. Even I, righteous though I am, have infrequently and regrettably been a hypocrite. (I do not recall a specific instance, but that may be because unpleasant memories do not linger.)

< Message edited by Rule -- 8/30/2007 8:05:37 PM >

(in reply to SusanofO)
Profile   Post #: 488
RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul - 8/30/2007 8:49:45 PM   
SusanofO


Posts: 5672
Joined: 12/19/2005
Status: offline
Rule: Define the term "Ordinary human", please. How do you know her motives? Were you there? Did you see inside her heart or soul, or her mind? Also, please describe your credentials for judging whether anyone's actions are evil - but most especially their intent.

Btw - *another key hall-mark of mental illlness generally, is the readiness to not give people some benefit of the doubt - vs. being constantly suspicious of their motives. Did you also not realize this? (I am pretty sure you did, but maybe not)

Especially: How do you know she helped nobody?

Furthermore, and most importantly - please give your definition of the nature of evil.

SMC: I am not discussing Canonization, though (maybe you are, but I'm not). To someone who seemed (to me) to want to be that devoted to God (she didn't want anyone to see these letters, and they were all about her upset about not being able to "talk to God" and-or that she feared he wasn't listening) that indeed might be viewed as a "dark night of the soul". Some of them were about her joy in being able to devote her entire life to his work, too. You never mentioned those - at all. But I am not convinced you read the entire article (although maybe you did), and you appear to have a selective memory, as you also deliberately take parts of my posts out of context and neglect the rest, so I attribute that you neglected to mention them to  your apparent habits.

IMO, If she didn't care, and did not want anyone to see them, and they obviously were not meant for public viewing, they reveal her ups and downs re: Her feelings about her relative closeness to God. No more, and no less. Several were in reference to her high level of joy in feeling she was able to talk to God, and do His work. I noticed you neglected to mention those -at all.

To Re-cap:
Her letters were meant t be private, and that (to me) points to their veracity (although I admit to not being in the room when she wrote them).That they were meant to be private, (for me) means she most likely meant what she wrote. She was upset about not feeling close to Him at some points in Her life. That indeed could be viewed as a "dark night of the soul" to someone who appears (to me) to want to be able to feel His closeness (on top of that, it is a headline written by a human journalist,and meant to capture the attention of readers). It doesn't necessarily follow this means she was evil, or "fake" unless one is already prone to jump to that conclusion, IMO. And she also wrote letters that exhibited her high level of joy ad being able to serve God and do what she felt He wanted of her.You did not apparently see them, or chose not to focus on them at all, in any way.  

Plus:
As was mentioned at the beginning of  this thread - maybe she was physically exhausted and depressed, after working in those living conditions for over 62 years. If this seems to you like only a remote possibility, and you cannot fathom that possibility as even possibly existing - then I have to say I think your standards for judging human's behavior are way too high, IMO and your compassion seems to not be very high at all (to me).

**I do  find the idea that any particular human could know the spirtual time-table of another, or God's intentions for that human life, or that their spiritual development necessarily adheres to a particular, generalized time-table at all  - is one I personally find unlikely. And I am not discussing Catholicism. I am discussing a person. 

I do believe that split-second judgmentalism of other humans' spiritual development is not a wise. Suspiscion is one thing. I do believe also that -

Being prepared to not acknowledge any other possible reason for occurrences except a belief they were based on evil intent, when there is strong evidence, judging from her life's work, that her intent was good, is more likely the case, and that judging someone's entire life based on circumstances not proven as enduring, much less pervasive (like a few internet articles bashing her, from people in no position to judge her intent either, and articles selectively chosen for that reason, and anyone absolutely refusing to accept any other POV or possibility) is tending strongly toward, IMO, narrow-mindedness. 

I've already admitted several times that she might have screwed up and why I think so. But you haven't really ever acknowledged that my POV, in 25 pages, could be seen as having some validity. That's why I have nothing left to say (to you) about all of this. 

But I wouldn't necessarily conclude evil intent" - unless you're God himself. I just think that conclusion is incorrect - because it has never seemed to consider a possible "bigger picture" (to me), and never focussed on any good she may have done in the world, as well. Not once. Not in 25 pages.

Thta is not a balanced POV,IMO. 

< Message edited by SusanofO -- 8/30/2007 9:49:08 PM >


_____________________________

"Hope is the thing with feathers,
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all". - Emily Dickinson

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 489
Page:   <<   < prev  21 22 23 24 [25]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Mother Teresa's dark night of the soul Page: <<   < prev  21 22 23 24 [25]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094