Feed on Posts or Comments 31 July 2014

Christianity Thomas on 17 Dec 2012 12:14 am

The pope is now certifiably insane – Proof that God is imaginary.

The pope came out this week with an amazing proclamation:

Pope Says Gay Marriage Poses A Threat To ‘Justice And Peace’ In World Day Of Peace 2013 Address

Pope Benedict XVI said this week that gay marriage poses a threat to “justice and peace.”

Earlier this year, the Associated Press reported that the religious leader had denounced gay marriage as being “insidious and dangerous.” Previously, he had called same-sex unions “a threat to humanity.”

The pope’s idea is that if two people love each other and wish to be married, they are a “threat to humanity”, a threat to peace and justice, and they are “insidious and dangerous.” This, of course, is insane. Nuclear bombs are a threat to humanity – in fact, to all life on earth, if enough bombs are detonated at once and cause nuclear winter. Gay marriage is no threat at all – any intelligent, rational person can see that. The foundation of gay marriage is love. It causes no harm to anyone.

With these statements, we can say that the pope, and the people surrounding him, have lost their collective minds. And with this we can say that God is imaginary. For if God were real, and God were love, God would not allow such insanity to be uttered by the pope, who by definition is infallible. The Second Vatican Council states:

this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith. The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.”

Clearly the pope is insane, therefore he can not be infallible nor advised by an all-knowing “holy spirit”. See also:

182 Responses to “The pope is now certifiably insane – Proof that God is imaginary.”

  1. on 17 Dec 2012 at 10:37 am 1.Anonymous said …

    Marriage And Health: Married Gay Couples Are Psychologically Healthier, Study Finds

  2. on 17 Dec 2012 at 12:25 pm 2.ANGE said …

    I U PEOPLE WILL BE CASTED INTO A LAKE OF FIRE , HOW DARE U DOWNGRADE GOD ,,,SHAME ON EVRY ONE OF YOU

  3. on 17 Dec 2012 at 12:26 pm 3.ANGE said …

    YOUR ALL EVIL ,,, AND I REALLY DONT CARE WHAT U BELIEVE IN ,,, ALTHOUGH U MUST ALL HAVE HORNS ON YOUR HEADS

  4. on 17 Dec 2012 at 12:27 pm 4.ANGE said …

    MERRY CHRISTMAS TO WHOLE WORLD

  5. on 17 Dec 2012 at 1:24 pm 5.Anonymous said …

    LOL – no-one really believes that people with horns on their head exist, do they?

    Well, if they do, THANK YOU for proving that some Christians really are delusional, if not insane.

    Thank you ANGE, thank you so much! Please keep posting as you are doing a wonderful job of making our point.

  6. on 17 Dec 2012 at 9:51 pm 6.Lou(DFW) said …

    3.ANGE said …

    “YOUR ALL EVIL ,,, AND I REALLY DONT CARE WHAT U BELIEVE IN ,,, ALTHOUGH U MUST ALL HAVE HORNS ON YOUR HEADS”

    But even though you “REALLY DONT CARE,” here you are insulting those who don’t share your delusional belief.

    Deception and hate – the foundation of religion.

  7. on 17 Dec 2012 at 9:56 pm 7.Lou(DFW) said …

    Earlier this year, the Associated Press reported that the religious leader had denounced gay marriage as being “insidious and dangerous.” Previously, he had called same-sex unions “a threat to humanity.”

    By that same reasoning, those Catholic Priests who practice pedophilia are “a threat to humanity,” yet the Pope and the church attempted to protect them from prosecution.

  8. on 18 Dec 2012 at 12:07 am 8.The messenger said …

    5.Anonymous, Ange was calling you a devil you idiot.

    Just how stupid are you?

  9. on 18 Dec 2012 at 2:02 am 9.Counting said …

    Homosexuality is abnormal behavior. If it was normal, it could reproduce itself within it’s own social structure yet it cannot. Homosexuality is a dependent condition which only can survive off heterosexual unions. Homosexuality has always been proven to be destructive in society. It does prove if a political group gets a loud enough they can pressure society into accepting normal what is obviously not.

    Gay marriage is not a viable term since it has never met the definition of marriage. This proves if you have a loud enough and violent enough lobby you can get words redefined.

  10. on 18 Dec 2012 at 2:04 am 10.Anonymous said …

    Who are we to question Yahweh’s wisdom and morals?

    Just because we insignificant humans are morally repulsed and disgusted by child rape, that doesn’t meant that the Xtian god isn’t testing them or going to reward them for being fucked in the ass by a grown-up. Or some Xtian excuse-shit like that.

  11. on 18 Dec 2012 at 3:14 am 11.Slapnuts McGee said …

    ANGE is messenger in his or her alter ego, just in time for the holidays. Also worth noting is apparently ANGE’s delusion and ignorance has made its way to the caps lock button on the keyboard as well.

  12. on 18 Dec 2012 at 11:27 pm 12.The messenger said …

    Marriage was established so that a man and a woman can be happy together and reproduce.

    A man and a man cannot reproduce.

    A woman and a woman cannot reproduce,

    Therefore, homosexuality is not natural.

  13. on 19 Dec 2012 at 3:28 am 13.Anonymous said …

    Messenger, marriage isn’t “natural”. You really are a total tool. Well, you’re a troll and a theist imposter as well, but you’re a tool first.

  14. on 19 Dec 2012 at 11:25 am 14.freddies_dead said …

    Apologies for the multiple posts – when I try to do it as 1 or 2 it rejects it as spam for some reason.

    9.Counting said …

    Homosexuality is abnormal behavior.

    No it isn’t. You just come across as desperate when you’re willing to overlook the nearly 1500 species of animal that are known to exhibit homosexual behaviour.

    If it was normal, it could reproduce itself within it’s own social structure yet it cannot.

    Except of course that you’re here railing against it. Don’t you realise that this must mean that it is “reproduc[ing] itself within it’s own social structure”? By your logic then, the fact that it can, and does, reproduce itself means it’s entirely normal.

    cont’d…

  15. on 19 Dec 2012 at 11:27 am 15.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    Homosexuality is a dependent condition which only can survive off heterosexual unions.

    Of course you can now get an egg fertilised and grown in a surrogate, meaning that no union is actually necessary, heterosexual or otherwise.

    However, even if you ignore the science which fatally undermines your assertion, what you say here is only trivially true i.e. it’s true not just for homosexuality, but also for every other dependent condition you can name. In other words it’s a point that’s simply not worth making.

    cont’d…

  16. on 19 Dec 2012 at 11:27 am 16.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    Homosexuality has always been proven to be destructive in society.

    This is a flat out lie.

    It does prove if a political group gets a loud enough they can pressure society into accepting normal what is obviously not.

    You’re not accepting it. I can only assume then, that you consider yourself to not be a part of society. In which case why do you care what society accepts as normal?

    cont’d…

  17. on 19 Dec 2012 at 11:28 am 17.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    Gay marriage is not a viable term since it has never met the definition of marriage.

    Here you show complete ignorance of the history of marriage and how it incorporated same sex unions in places like ancient Greece, ancient Rome, ancient China etc… Marriage was perfectly acceptable as a definition of those unions until the Christians came along and set themselves up as arbiters of morality. They outlawed same sex marriage but, typical of religious hypocrites everywhere, they carried on collecting taxes on male prostitutes.

    This proves if you have a loud enough and violent enough lobby you can get words redefined.

    Like the early Christians who first forced the redefinition of marriage you mean? They forced it to be defined as only between a man and a woman and then forced that definition onto the public by executing people who didn’t abide by it. I can see why you’d be frightened of the gays using Christian methods to gain acceptance but I’m pretty sure they’re way more civilised than you so there’s really nothing to worry about.

  18. on 19 Dec 2012 at 12:27 pm 18.Lou(DFW) said …

    12.The messenger said …

    “Marriage was established so that a man and a woman can be happy together and reproduce.”

    Except that it wasn’t. Ignoring the facts, simply consider the divorce rate.

    “A man and a man cannot reproduce.
    A woman and a woman cannot reproduce,
    Therefore, homosexuality is not natural.”

    A brother and a sister, a mother and her son, a father and his daughter CAN reproduce. Therefore, heterosexual incest is natural, correct, messed-up?

  19. on 19 Dec 2012 at 12:57 pm 19.Cuilor said …

    freedie is dead.

    James B. De Young writes the main form of homosexuality among the ancient Greeks was pederasty, a custom that was practiced mostly among the upper classes, in which an older man would make a young free boy his sex partner, and become his mentor. This was regulated by the State as an institution. However, this slave-like practice where the young man had no choice was a supplement to marriage.

    Edward Gibbon, stated in his “History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” that marital faithfulness in the Roman Empire was virtually unknown, and that “The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians

  20. on 19 Dec 2012 at 1:27 pm 20.Lou(DFW) said …

    19.Cuilor said …

    “marital faithfulness in the Roman Empire was virtually unknown, and that ‘The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians.’”

    The dignity of marriage! LOL!

    All of this discussion about the history marriage is irrelevant.

    Please show how gay marriage poses a threat to “justice and peace” or that it’s “insidious and dangerous” or “a threat to humanity.” However, even that is only relevant to this blog’s purpose to the extent that it relates to the Pope’s “insanity.” But, do we really need anymore reasons to think that the Pope, the church, religion, and theism is anything other than “insanity?”

  21. on 19 Dec 2012 at 1:55 pm 21.Severin said …

    18 Lou (DFW)
    “Therefore, heterosexual incest is natural, correct, messed-up?”

    Of course it is, according to Bible!
    How did A&E’s children make the whole human race?
    The ONLY way they could have done it was through incestous relations (unless god created a few more people with different DNA, that he forgot to inform us about in “his word”).

    So, in short: gay relaions ares not OK, they are unnatural, incest IS OK, it is quite natural and acceptable, if we obey the Bible.

    P!@fhtgm*!# …

  22. on 19 Dec 2012 at 2:58 pm 22.freddies_dead said …

    19.Cuilor said …

    freedie is dead.

    James B. De Young writes the main form of homosexuality among the ancient Greeks was pederasty, a custom that was practiced mostly among the upper classes, in which an older man would make a young free boy his sex partner, and become his mentor. This was regulated by the State as an institution. However, this slave-like practice where the young man had no choice was a supplement to marriage.

    Do you have a point here? Are you perhaps trying to claim that there were no same sex marriages in Ancient Greece because the “main form of homosexuality” was pederasty? If so then you are simply wrong. If not then this is nothing more than a red herring.

    cont’d…

  23. on 19 Dec 2012 at 2:58 pm 23.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    Edward Gibbon, stated in his “History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” that marital faithfulness in the Roman Empire was virtually unknown, and that “The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians

    Oh look, another red herring. What does this have to do with the simple fact that the word “marriage” has, in the past (and contrary to Counting’s claim), referred to same sex unions?

    Do you have anything valid to add to the discussion? Some actual evidence that supports the statements made by Counting perhaps?

  24. on 19 Dec 2012 at 3:37 pm 24.Cuilor said …

    freddie is dead,

    Actually no, homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and was never in the definition of marriage outside of deviant and immoral behavior. Any word can be redefined to fit a deviant lifestyle or to excuse deviant behavior. Homosexuality is a disorder and violates natural affections. No nation has ever stood strong for a great period of time when the immorality drops to such levels. You might be homosexual and I empathize, but that is the reality.

  25. on 19 Dec 2012 at 3:48 pm 25.Lou(DFW) said …

    24.Cuilor said …

    “Homosexuality is a disorder and violates natural affections.”

    Is inter-racial sex or marriage a disorder? Incest?

  26. on 19 Dec 2012 at 3:56 pm 26.Lou(DFW) said …

    24.Cuilor said …

    “No nation has ever stood strong for a great period of time when the immorality drops to such levels.”

    Really? Show us your data and the claimed correlation.

  27. on 19 Dec 2012 at 3:59 pm 27.DPK said …

    “A man and a man cannot reproduce.
    A woman and a woman cannot reproduce,
    Therefore, homosexuality is not natural.”

    Um… kind of like celibacy? A celibate cannot reproduce. Is that then an unnatural state?

  28. on 19 Dec 2012 at 4:23 pm 28.Scourge said …

    Huxley said that “of all perversions, celibacy is the least natural.”

  29. on 19 Dec 2012 at 4:28 pm 29.Scourge said …

    24. Cuilor ???? Are we to now think Rome was “moral” as per Christian values? The 500 year run until its infection with Christianity was a flash in the pan? What about the MILLENNIA Egypt was supreme? Mind you, the ruling class there was bred via incest, and all sorts of funny acts were enjoyed there. Where do you come up with this nonsense?

  30. on 19 Dec 2012 at 5:15 pm 30.Cuilor said …

    Scourge I will stick to the topic rather than getting off track.

    It seems Huxley saw Homosexuality as not natural? That seems likely.

    Being the attack do for Darwin, he would be one who would judge homosexual behavior as the destruction of the weak.

  31. on 19 Dec 2012 at 5:25 pm 31.Lou(DFW) said …

    30.Cuilor, another ASS-puppet said …

    “Scourge I will stick to the topic rather than getting off track.”

    LOL! Right, now that you were called on your b.s.

    So, let’s get back on topic – where is your evidence that “gay marriage poses a threat to “justice and peace” or that it’s “insidious and dangerous” or “a threat to humanity?”

  32. on 19 Dec 2012 at 6:49 pm 32.Severin said …

    #24
    “Homosexuality is a disorder and violates natural affections.”

    Many activities of human beings, if not almost all of them, are in total disharmony with nature.
    Marriage is one of them.
    Religions are totally out of natural order.
    Eating from plates, using condoms, flying planes, investigating space, using bicycles, using clothings, shaving, …, …., …

    Homosexuality is in accordance with nature, because it can be found in many species of totally natural animals.

    It would be inetresting to hear from you how does sexual activity, or love, of other people harm you perosonally.
    How are you endangered if people love ech other, or just have sex?

  33. on 19 Dec 2012 at 6:52 pm 33.Severin said …

    # 24
    Is incest OK for you?

  34. on 19 Dec 2012 at 7:14 pm 34.Severin said …

    #24
    “Actually no, homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and was never in the definition of marriage outside of deviant and immoral behavior.”

    In which category of behavior would you put orgies of popes, abusing of children, burning of witches (and scientists), selling of indulgentia, …?

    In which category would you put the major part of Bible itself, the very (and the ONLY) base of Christianity, with its dirty, brutal, maniacal stories, most of which are said they origin from god himself?

    Including polygamy, of course.

  35. on 19 Dec 2012 at 7:24 pm 35.Severin said …

    24 Cuilor,

    Maybe this hate speech corresponds to YOUR sense of morality, order and natural affections:

    Luke 14:26
    “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple.”

    That is OK, isn’t it?

  36. on 19 Dec 2012 at 7:34 pm 36.Counting said …

    Cuilor,

    Homosexuals are one of the taboo subjects. Anytime discussions begin in turns into being called a hater and/or homophobic.

    I read Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire in college. It was a great read.

  37. on 19 Dec 2012 at 8:21 pm 37.Lou(DFW) said …

    36.Counting said in a comment to his other sock-puppet…

    “Anytime discussions begin in turns into being called a hater and/or homophobic.”

    Like this insult?

    24.Cuilor said …

    “You might be homosexual and I empathize, but that is the reality.”

    ASS, do you actually think that you’re not recognized?

  38. on 19 Dec 2012 at 8:22 pm 38.Lou(DFW) said …

    32.Severin said …

    “Many activities of human beings, if not almost all of them, are in total disharmony with nature.”

    You forgot to mention hair-cutting and shaving – BLASPHEMY!

    Oh, and then there’s circumcision.

    How many animals practice homosexuality, but not hair-cutting and shaving?

  39. on 19 Dec 2012 at 9:46 pm 39.DPK said …

    “Oh, and then there’s circumcision.”

    So curious that the all powerful creator of the universe objects strongly to two people of the same sex having a loving relationship because it goes against his carefully designed laws of nature, but he has no trouble with people snipping off the tips of men’s penises, which he also designed. And, at least a good portion of his followers believe he wants them to live as celibates, also contrary to nature.
    Why can’t you good christians see that part of the reason we reject belief in your god is because if he were real and they way you describe him, then he’s a totally fucked up asshole? Seriously, why can’t you see that?

  40. on 19 Dec 2012 at 10:11 pm 40.Lou(DFW) said …

    39.DPK said …

    “Why can’t you good christians see that part of the reason we reject belief in your god is because if he were real and they way you describe him, then he’s a totally fucked up asshole?”

    Because they too are “totally fucked up asshole[s].”

    Their imaginary god is, by definition, a product of their imagination.

    Seriously, why can’t you see that? LOL! ;>)

  41. on 20 Dec 2012 at 3:07 am 41.The messenger said …

    40.Lou(DFW), evil lives in all people.

    Jesus and his true followers, are good people.

    All people a evil in them, it is our choice of which side; bad or good will be dominant.

  42. on 20 Dec 2012 at 3:18 am 42.The messenger said …

    Mother Teresa
    Not to be confused with Maria Theresa (disambiguation).
    Mother Teresa

    Mother Teresa at a pro-life meeting in 1986 in Bonn, West Germany
    Religion Christian (Roman Catholic)
    Order Sisters of Loreto
    (1928–1950)
    Missionaries of Charity
    (1950 – 1997)
    Personal
    Nationality Albanian
    Born Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu
    26 August 1910
    Skopje, Ottoman Vardar Macedonia
    Died 5 September 1997 (aged 87)
    Kolkata, India
    Senior posting
    Title Superior general
    Period in office 1950 – 1997
    Successor Sister Nirmala
    Blessed Teresa of Calcutta,[1] born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (Albanian: [a???s ????d?a b?ja?d?iu]) and commonly known as Mother Teresa of Calcutta (26 August 1910 – 5 September 1997), was an ethnic Albanian, Indian Roman Catholic nun. “By blood, I am Albanian. By citizenship, an Indian. By faith, I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to the Heart of Jesus.”[2] In late 2003, she was beatified, the third step toward possible sainthood. A second miracle credited to Mother Teresa is required before she can be recognized as a saint by the Catholic church.[3][4]

    Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity, a Roman Catholic religious congregation, which in 2012 consisted of over 4,500 sisters and is active in 133 countries. Members of the order must adhere to the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, and the fourth vow, to give “Wholehearted and Free service to the poorest of the poor”. The Missionaries of Charity at the time of her death had 610 missions in 123 countries including hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis; soup kitchens; children’s and family counselling programmes; orphanages; and schools.

    For over 45 years, she ministered to the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying, while guiding the Missionaries of Charity’s expansion, first throughout India and then in other countries. Her beatification by Pope John Paul II following her death gave her the title “Blessed Teresa of Calcutta”.

    She was the recipient of numerous honours including the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize. She refused the conventional ceremonial banquet given to laureates, and asked that the $192,000 funds be given to the poor in India. Her awards include the first Pope John XXIII Peace Prize, the Philippines-based Ramon Magsaysay Award, the Pacem in Terris Award, an honorary Companion of the Order of Australia, the Order of Merit from both the United Kingdom and the United States, Albania’s Golden Honour of the Nation, honorary degrees, the Balzan Prize, and the Albert Schweitzer International Prize amongst many others.

    Mother Teresa stated that earthly rewards were important only if they helped her help the world’s needy. When Mother Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize, she was asked, “What can we do to promote world peace?” She answered “Go home and love your family.” In her Nobel Lecture, she said: “Around the world, not only in the poor countries, but I found the poverty of the West so much more difficult to remove. When I pick up a person from the street, hungry, I give him a plate of rice, a piece of bread, I have satisfied. I have removed that hunger. But a person that is shut out, that feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person that has been thrown out from society—that poverty is so hurtable [sic] and so much, and I find that very difficult.” She also singled out abortion as ‘the greatest destroyer of peace in the world’.

    During her lifetime, Mother Teresa was named 18 times in the yearly Gallup’s most admired man and woman poll as one of the ten women around the world that Americans admired most. In 1999, a poll of Americans ranked her first in Gallup’s List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century. In that survey, she out-polled all other volunteered answers by a wide margin, and was in first place in all major demographic categories except the very young.

    HideEarly life

    Memorial House of Mother Teresa, in her native Skopje.
    Part of a series on
    Christianity
    in India

    Background
    Saint Thomas Christians (Nasrani) Synod of Diamper Coonan Cross Oath Saint Thomas Christian churches Malankara (historical)
    People
    St. Thomas the Apostle St. Francis Xavier St. Gonsalo Garcia Devasahayam Pillai St. Alphonsa Muttathupadam Thomas of Cana Alexis de Menezes Mother Teresa Palackal Thoma Malpan Mar Augustine Kandathil Mar Sapor and Proth Marthoma Metrans St. Gregorios of Parumala St. Baselios Eldho Fr. Kuriakose Elias Chavara Fr. Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly Mgr. Joseph C. Panjikaran Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan Mathews Mar Athanasius of Palakunnathu St. Geevarghese Mar Dionysius William Carey
    Denominations
    Saint Thomas Christian churches: Chaldean Syrian Jacobite Syrian Malankara Orthodox Syrian Malabar Independent Syrian Mar Thoma Syrian St. Thomas Evangelical Syro-Malabar Catholic Syro-Malankara Catholic
    Latin Church: Catholic Church in India
    Protestant denominations: Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church of North India Church of South India Garo Baptist IPC CGI North Bank Baptist Christian Northern Evangelical Lutheran Presbyterian The Pentecostal Mission Seventh-day Adventist True Jesus United Evangelical Lutheran
    Indian Christianity portal
    v t e
    Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (gonxha meaning “rosebud” or “little flower” in Albanian) was born on 26 August 1910, but she considered 27 August, the day she was baptized, to be her “true birthday”.[5] She was born in Skopje, now capital of the Republic of Macedonia, but at the time part of the Ottoman Empire.[6][7]

    She was the youngest of the children of Nikollë and Dranafile Bojaxhiu (Bernai).[8] Her father, who was involved in Albanian politics, died in 1919 when she was eight years old.[9][10] After her father’s death, her mother raised her as a Roman Catholic. Her father, Nikollë Bojaxhiu was possibly from Prizren, Kosovo[a] while her mother was possibly from a village near ?akovica, Kosovo.[11]

    According to a biography by Joan Graff Clucas, in her early years Agnes was fascinated by stories of the lives of missionaries and their service in Bengal, and by age 12 was convinced that she should commit herself to a religious life.[12] Her final resolution was taken on 15 August 1928, while praying at the shrine of the Black Madonna of Letnice, where she often went on pilgrimage.[13]

    She left home at age 18 to join the Sisters of Loreto as a missionary. She never again saw her mother or sister.[14]

    Agnes initially went to the Loreto Abbey in Rathfarnham, Ireland, to learn English, the language the Sisters of Loreto used to teach school children in India.[15] She arrived in India in 1929, and began her novitiate in Darjeeling, near the Himalayan mountains,[16] where she learnt Bengali and taught at the St. Teresa’s School, a schoolhouse close to her convent.[17] She took her first religious vows as a nun on 24 May 1931. At that time she chose to be named after Thérèse de Lisieux, the patron saint of missionaries,[18][19] but because one nun in the convent had already chosen that name, Agnes opted for the Spanish spelling Teresa.[20]

    She took her solemn vows on 14 May 1937, while serving as a teacher at the Loreto convent school in Entally, eastern Calcutta.[9][21][22] Teresa served there for almost twenty years and in 1944 was appointed headmistress.[23]

    Although Teresa enjoyed teaching at the school, she was increasingly disturbed by the poverty surrounding her in Calcutta (Kolkata).[24] The Bengal famine of 1943 brought misery and death to the city; and the outbreak of Hindu/Muslim violence in August 1946 plunged the city into despair and horror.[25]

    Close this section
    HideMissionaries of Charity

    Main article: Missionaries of Charity

    Missionaries of charity with the traditional sari.
    On 10 September 1946, Teresa experienced what she later described as “the call within the call” while traveling by train to the Loreto convent in Darjeeling from Calcutta for her annual retreat. “I was to leave the convent and help the poor while living among them. It was an order. To fail would have been to break the faith.”[26] As one author later noted, “Though no one knew it at the time, Sister Teresa had just become Mother Teresa”.[27]

    She began her missionary work with the poor in 1948, replacing her traditional Loreto habit with a simple white cotton sari decorated with a blue border. Mother Teresa adopted Indian citizenship, spent a few months in Patna to receive a basic medical training in the Holy Family Hospital and then ventured out into the slums.[28][29] Initially she started a school in Motijhil (Calcutta); soon she started tending to the needs of the destitute and starving.[30] In the beginning of 1949 she was joined in her effort by a group of young women and laid the foundations to create a new religious community helping the “poorest among the poor”.

    Her efforts quickly caught the attention of Indian officials, including the prime minister, who expressed his appreciation.[31]

    Teresa wrote in her diary that her first year was fraught with difficulties. She had no income and had to resort to begging for food and supplies. Teresa experienced doubt, loneliness and the temptation to return to the comfort of convent life during these early months. She wrote in her diary:

    Our Lord wants me to be a free nun covered with the poverty of the cross. Today I learned a good lesson. The poverty of the poor must be so hard for them. While looking for a home I walked and walked till my arms and legs ached. I thought how much they must ache in body and soul, looking for a home, food and health. Then the comfort of Loreto [her former order] came to tempt me. ‘You have only to say the word and all that will be yours again,’ the Tempter kept on saying … Of free choice, my God, and out of love for you, I desire to remain and do whatever be your Holy will in my regard. I did not let a single tear come.[32]
    Teresa received Vatican permission on 7 October 1950 to start the diocesan congregation that would become the Missionaries of Charity.[33] Its mission was to care for, in her own words, “the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone.”

    It began as a small order with thirteen members in Calcutta; by 1997 it had grown to more than 4,000 sisters running orphanages, AIDS hospices and charity centers worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine.[34]

    In 1952 Mother Teresa opened the first Home for the Dying in space made available by the city of Calcutta (Kolkata). With the help of Indian officials she converted an abandoned Hindu temple into the Kalighat Home for the Dying, a free hospice for the poor. She renamed it Kalighat, the Home of the Pure Heart (Nirmal Hriday).[35] Those brought to the home received medical attention and were afforded the opportunity to die with dignity, according to the rituals of their faith; Muslims were read the Quran, Hindus received water from the Ganges, and Catholics received the Last Rites.[36] “A beautiful death,” she said, “is for people who lived like animals to die like angels—loved and wanted.”[36]

    Mother Teresa soon opened a home for those suffering from Hansen’s disease, commonly known as leprosy, and called the hospice Shanti Nagar (City of Peace).[37] The Missionaries of Charity also established several leprosy outreach clinics throughout Calcutta, providing medication, bandages and food.[38]

    As the Missionaries of Charity took in increasing numbers of lost children, Mother Teresa felt the need to create a home for them. In 1955 she opened the Nirmala Shishu Bhavan, the Children’s Home of the Immaculate Heart, as a haven for orphans and homeless youth.[39]

    The order soon began to attract both recruits and charitable donations, and by the 1960s had opened hospices, orphanages and leper houses all over India. Mother Teresa then expanded the order throughout the globe. Its first house outside India opened in Venezuela in 1965 with five sisters.[40] Others followed in Rome, Tanzania, and Austria in 1968; during the 1970s the order opened houses and foundations in dozens of countries in Asia, Africa, Europe and the United States.[41]

    The Missionaries of Charity Brothers was founded in 1963, and a contemplative branch of the Sisters followed in 1976. Lay Catholics and non-Catholics were enrolled in the Co-Workers of Mother Teresa, the Sick and Suffering Co-Workers, and the Lay Missionaries of Charity. In answer to the requests of many priests, in 1981 Mother Teresa also began the Corpus Christi Movement for Priests,[42] and in 1984 founded with Fr. Joseph Langford the Missionaries of Charity Fathers[43] to combine the vocational aims of the Missionaries of Charity with the resources of the ministerial priesthood. By 2007 the Missionaries of Charity numbered approximately 450 brothers and 5,000 sisters worldwide, operating 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries.[44]

    Close this section
    HideInternational charity

    In 1982, at the height of the Siege of Beirut, Mother Teresa rescued 37 children trapped in a front line hospital by brokering a temporary cease-fire between the Israeli army and Palestinian guerrillas.[45] Accompanied by Red Cross workers, she traveled through the war zone to the devastated hospital to evacuate the young patients.[46]

    When Eastern Europe experienced increased openness in the late 1980s, she expanded her efforts to Communist countries that had previously rejected the Missionaries of Charity, embarking on dozens of projects. She was undeterred by criticism about her firm stand against abortion and divorce stating, “No matter who says what, you should accept it with a smile and do your own work.” She visited the Soviet republic of Armenia following the 1988 Spitak earthquake,[47] and met with Nikolai Ryzhkov, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers.[48]

    Mother Teresa traveled to assist and minister to the hungry in Ethiopia, radiation victims at Chernobyl, and earthquake victims in Armenia.[49][50][51] In 1991, Mother Teresa returned for the first time to her homeland and opened a Missionaries of Charity Brothers home in Tirana, Albania.

    By 1996, she was operating 517 missions in more than 100 countries.[52] Over the years, Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity grew from twelve to thousands serving the “poorest of the poor” in 450 centers around the world. The first Missionaries of Charity home in the United States was established in the South Bronx, New York; by 1984 the order operated 19 establishments throughout the country.[53] Mother Teresa was fluent in five languages: Bengali,[54]Albanian, Serbo-Croatian, English, and Hindi.[55]

    Close this section
    ShowDeclining health and death

    ShowRecognition and reception

    HideSpiritual life

    Analyzing her deeds and achievements, John Paul II asked: “Where did Mother Teresa find the strength and perseverance to place herself completely at the service of others? She found it in prayer and in the silent contemplation of Jesus Christ, his Holy Face, his Sacred Heart.”[93] Privately, Mother Teresa experienced doubts and struggles over her religious beliefs which lasted nearly 50 years until the end of her life, during which “she felt no presence of God whatsoever”, “neither in her heart or in the eucharist” as put by her postulator Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk.[94] Mother Teresa expressed grave doubts about God’s existence and pain over her lack of faith:

    Where is my faith? Even deep down … there is nothing but emptiness and darkness … If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul … How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, … What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.[95]

    Plaque dedicated to Mother Teresa, Wenceslas Square, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
    With reference to the above words, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, her postulator (the official responsible for gathering the evidence for her sanctification) indicated there was a risk that some might misinterpret her meaning, but her faith that God was working through her remained undiminished, and that while she pined for the lost sentiment of closeness with God, she did not question his existence.[96] and that she may have experienced something similar to what is believed of Jesus Christ when crucified who was heard to say “Eli Eli lama sabachthani?” which is translated to “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Many other saints had similar experiences of spiritual dryness, or what Catholics believe to be spiritual tests (“passive purifications”), such as Mother Teresa’s namesake, St. Therese of Lisieux, who called it a “night of nothingness.”[96] Contrary to the mistaken belief by some that the doubts she expressed would be an impediment to canonization, just the opposite is true; it is very consistent with the experience of canonized mystics.[96]

    Mother Teresa described, after ten years of doubt, a short period of renewed faith. At the time of the death of Pope Pius XII in the fall of 1958, praying for him at a requiem mass, she said she had been relieved of “the long darkness: that strange suffering.” However, five weeks later, she described returning to her difficulties in believing.[97]

    Mother Teresa wrote many letters to her confessors and superiors over a 66-year period. She had asked that her letters be destroyed, concerned that “people will think more of me—less of Jesus.”[71][98] However, despite this request, the correspondences have been compiled in Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light (Doubleday).[71][99] In one publicly released letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, she wrote, “Jesus has a very special love for you. [But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see,—Listen and do not hear—the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak … I want you to pray for me—that I let Him have [a] free hand.”

    Many news outlets have referred to Mother Teresa’s writings as an indication of a “crisis of faith.”[100] Christopher Hitchens wrote: “So, which is the more striking: that the faithful should bravely confront the fact that one of their heroines all but lost her own faith, or that the Church should have gone on deploying, as an icon of favorable publicity, a confused old lady who it knew had for all practical purposes ceased to believe?”[97] However, others such as Brian Kolodiejchuk, Come Be My Light’s editor, draw comparisons to the 16th century mystic St. John of the Cross, who coined the term the “dark night of the soul” to describe a particular stage in the growth of some spiritual masters.[71] The Vatican has indicated that the letters would not affect her path to sainthood.[101] In fact, the book is edited by the Rev. Kolodiejchuk, her postulator.[71]

    In his first encyclical Deus Caritas Est, Benedict XVI mentioned Teresa of Calcutta three times and he also used her life to clarify one of his main points of the encyclical. “In the example of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta we have a clear illustration of the fact that time devoted to God in prayer not only does not detract from effective and loving service to our neighbour but is in fact the inexhaustible source of that service.”[102] Mother Teresa specified that “It is only by mental prayer and spiritual reading that we can cultivate the gift of prayer.”[103]

    Although there was no direct connection between Mother Teresa’s order and the Franciscan orders, she was known as a great admirer of St. Francis of Assisi.[104] Accordingly, her influence and life show influences of Franciscan spirituality. The Sisters of Charity recite the peace prayer of St. Francis every morning during thanksgiving after Communion and many of the vows and emphasis of her ministry are similar.[104] St. Francis emphasized poverty, chastity, obedience and submission to Christ. He also devoted much of his own life to service of the poor, especially lepers in the area where he lived.

    Close this section
    ShowMiracle and beatification

    ShowLegacy and depictions in popular culture

    ShowSee also

    ShowNotes

    ShowReferences

    ShowFurther reading

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Show

  43. on 20 Dec 2012 at 3:20 am 43.The messenger said …

    Here is another Christian.

    Abraham Lincoln
    This article is about the American president. For other uses, see Abraham Lincoln (disambiguation).
    Abraham Lincoln

    Daguerreotype of Abraham Lincoln at age 54, 1863
    16th President of the United States
    In office
    March 4, 1861 – April 15, 1865
    Vice President Hannibal Hamlin (1861-1865)
    Andrew Johnson (1865)
    Preceded by James Buchanan
    Succeeded by Andrew Johnson
    Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
    from Illinois’s 7th district
    In office
    March 4, 1847 – March 4, 1849
    Preceded by John Henry
    Succeeded by Thomas Harris
    Personal details
    Born February 12, 1809
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, U.S.
    Died April 15, 1865 (aged 56)
    Petersen House, Washington, D.C., U.S.
    Resting place Lincoln’s Tomb, Oak Ridge Cemetery
    Springfield, Illinois
    Citizenship United States
    San Marino[1][2][note 1]
    Political party Republican (1854–1865)
    National Union (1864–1865)
    Other political
    affiliations Whig (Before 1854)
    Spouse(s) Mary Todd
    Children Robert
    Edward
    William
    Tad
    Profession Lawyer
    Signature
    Military service
    Service/branch Illinois Militia
    Years of service 1832
    Rank Captain
    Battles/wars Black Hawk War
    Abraham Lincoln i/?e?br?hæm ?l??k?n/ (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865) was the 16th President of the United States, serving from March 1861 until his assassination in April 1865. Lincoln successfully led his country through its greatest constitutional, military, and moral crisis – the American Civil War – preserving the Union while ending slavery, and promoting economic and financial modernization. Reared in a poor family on the western frontier, Lincoln was mostly self-educated, and became a country lawyer, a Whig Party leader, Illinois state legislator during the 1830s, and a one-term member of the United States House of Representatives during the 1840s.

    After a series of debates in 1858 that gave national visibility to his opposition to the expansion of slavery, Lincoln lost a Senate race to his arch-rival, Stephen A. Douglas. Lincoln, a moderate from a swing state, secured the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1860. With almost no support in the South, Lincoln swept the North and was elected president in 1860. His election was the signal for seven southern slave states to declare their secession from the Union and form the Confederacy. The departure of the Southerners gave Lincoln’s party firm control of Congress, but no formula for compromise or reconciliation was found. Lincoln explained in his second inaugural address: “Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the Nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.”

    When the North enthusiastically rallied behind the national flag after the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861, Lincoln concentrated on the military and political dimensions of the war effort. His goal was now to reunite the nation. As the South was in a state of insurrection, Lincoln exercised his authority to suspend habeas corpus, arresting and temporarily detaining thousands of suspected secessionists without trial. Lincoln averted British recognition of the Confederacy by skillfully handling the Trent affair in late 1861. His efforts toward the abolition of slavery include issuing his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, encouraging the border states to outlaw slavery, and helping push through Congress the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which finally freed all the slaves nationwide in December 1865. Lincoln closely supervised the war effort, especially the selection of top generals, including commanding general Ulysses S. Grant. Lincoln brought leaders of the major factions of his party into his cabinet and pressured them to cooperate. Under Lincoln’s leadership, the Union set up a naval blockade that shut down the South’s normal trade, took control of the border slave states at the start of the war, gained control of communications with gunboats on the southern river systems, and tried repeatedly to capture the Confederate capital at Richmond, Virginia. Each time a general failed, Lincoln substituted another until finally Grant succeeded in 1865.

    An exceptionally astute politician deeply involved with power issues in each state, Lincoln reached out to War Democrats and managed his own re-election in the 1864 presidential election. As the leader of the moderate faction of the Republican party, Lincoln found his policies and personality were “blasted from all sides”: Radical Republicans demanded harsher treatment of the South, War Democrats desired more compromise, Copperheads despised him, and irreconcilable secessionists plotted his death.[3] Politically, Lincoln fought back with patronage, by pitting his opponents against each other, and by appealing to the American people with his powers of oratory.[4] His Gettysburg Address of 1863 became the most quoted speech in American history.[5] It was an iconic statement of America’s dedication to the principles of nationalism, republicanism, equal rights, liberty, and democracy. At the close of the war, Lincoln held a moderate view of Reconstruction, seeking to reunite the nation speedily through a policy of generous reconciliation in the face of lingering and bitter divisiveness. Six days after the surrender of Confederate commanding general Robert E. Lee, however, Lincoln was assassinated by actor and Confederate sympathizer John Wilkes Booth. Lincoln’s death was the first assassination of a U.S. president and sent the nation into mourning. Lincoln has been consistently ranked by scholars and the public as one of the three greatest U.S. presidents, the others being George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt.[6][7]

    ShowFamily and childhood

    ShowEarly career and militia service

    ShowCongressman Lincoln

    ShowPrairie lawyer

    ShowRepublican politics 1854–60

    ShowPresidency

    ShowAssassination

    HideReligious and philosophical beliefs

    Further information: Abraham Lincoln and religion

    Lincoln: painting by George Peter Alexander Healy in 1869
    As a young man, Lincoln was clearly a religious skeptic,[258] or, in the words of a biographer, even an iconoclast.[259] Later in life, Lincoln’s frequent use of religious imagery and language might have reflected his own personal beliefs or might have been a device to appeal to his audiences, who were mostly evangelical Protestants.[260] He never joined a church, although he frequently attended with his wife,[261] but he was deeply familiar with the Bible, quoted it and praised it.[262]

    In the 1840s Lincoln subscribed to the Doctrine of Necessity, a belief that asserted the human mind was controlled by some higher power.[263] In the 1850s, Lincoln acknowledged “providence” in a general way, and rarely used the language or imagery of the evangelicals; he regarded the republicanism of the Founding Fathers with an almost religious reverence.[264] When he suffered the death of his son Edward, Lincoln more frequently acknowledged his own need to depend on God.[265] The death of his son Willie in February 1862 may have caused Lincoln to look toward religion for answers and solace.[266] After Willie’s death, Lincoln considered why, from a divine standpoint, the severity of the war was necessary. He wrote at this time that God “could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds.”[267] On the day Lincoln was assassinated, he reportedly told his wife Mary at Ford’s Theatre he desired to visit the Holy Land.[268]

    Close this section
    ShowHistorical reputation

    ShowMemorials

    ShowSee also

    ShowNotes

    ShowReferences

    ShowBibliography

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Show

  44. on 20 Dec 2012 at 3:30 am 44.The messenger said …

    Pope John Paul II
    For other uses, see Pope John Paul II (disambiguation).
    Blessed John Paul II

    John Paul II in 1993
    Papacy began 16 October 1978
    Papacy ended 2 April 2005
    Predecessor John Paul I
    Successor Benedict XVI
    Orders
    Ordination 1 November 1946
    by Adam Stefan Sapieha
    Consecration 28 September 1958
    by Eugeniusz Baziak
    Created Cardinal 26 June 1967
    Personal details
    Birth name Karol Józef Wojty?a
    Born 18 May 1920
    Wadowice, Republic of Poland
    Died 2 April 2005 (aged 84)
    Apostolic Palace, Vatican City
    Nationality Polish
    Previous post
    Auxiliary Bishop of Kraków, Poland (1958–1964)
    Titular Bishop of Ombi (1958–1964)
    Archbishop of Kraków, Poland (1964–1978)
    Cardinal-Priest of San Cesareo in Palatio (1967–1978)
    Motto Totus Tuus meaning “totally yours”
    Signature
    Coat of arms
    Sainthood
    Feast day 22 October
    Beatified 1 May 2011
    Saint Peter’s Square, Vatican City
    by Pope Benedict XVI
    Patronage World Youth Day (Co- Patron)
    Other Popes named John Paul
    John Paul II (Latin: Ioannes Paulus PP. II, Italian: Giovanni Paolo II), sometimes called Blessed John Paul or John Paul the Great, born Karol Józef Wojty?a (Polish: [?kar?l ?juz?f v?j?t?wa]; 18 May 1920, Wadowice, Republic of Poland – 2 April 2005, Vatican City), reigned as Pope of the Catholic Church from 1978 until his death in 2005. He was the second-longest serving Pope in history and the first non-Italian since 1523.

    A very charismatic figure, John Paul II was acclaimed as one of the most influential leaders of the 20th century. He is credited by some for the end of communism in his native Poland and eventually all of Europe.[1] John Paul II significantly improved the Catholic Church’s relations with Judaism, Islam, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Communion. Though criticised by progressives for upholding the Church’s teachings against artificial contraception and the ordination of women, and by traditionalists for his support of the Church’s Second Vatican Council and its reform, he was also widely praised for his firm, orthodox Catholic stances.

    He was one of the most-travelled world leaders in history, visiting 129 countries during his pontificate. As part of his special emphasis on the universal call to holiness, he beatified 1,340 people and canonised 483 saints, more than the combined tally of his predecessors during the preceding five centuries. He named most of the present College of Cardinals, consecrated or co-consecrated a large number of the world’s past and current bishops, and ordained many priests.[2] A key goal of his papacy was to transform and reposition the Catholic Church. His wish was “to place his Church at the heart of a new religious alliance that would bring together Jews, Muslims and Christians in a great [religious] armada”.[3][4] On 19 December 2009, John Paul II was proclaimed venerable by his successor Pope Benedict XVI and was beatified on 1 May 2011.

    HideEarly life

    Main article: Early life of Pope John Paul II

    Emilia and Karol Wojty?a Sr. wedding portrait

    Courtyard within the family home of the Wojty?as
    Karol Józef Wojty?a was born in the Polish town of Wadowice[5][6] and was the youngest of three children of Karol Wojty?a, an ethnic Pole,[7] and Emilia Kaczorowska, who is described as being of Lithuanian[7] ancestry. His maternal grandmother’s maiden surname was Scholz therefore Wojty?a could have had distant German ancestry.[8] Emilia died in 1929,[9] when Wojty?a was eight years old.[10] His elder sister Olga had died before his birth, but he was close to his brother Edmund, nicknamed Mundek, who was 14 years his senior. Edmund’s work as a physician eventually led to his death from scarlet fever, which affected Wojty?a.[7][10]

    As a boy, Wojty?a was athletic, often playing football as goalkeeper.[11] During his childhood, Wojty?a had contact with Wadowice’s large Jewish community. School football games were often organised between teams of Jews and Catholics, and Wojty?a often played on the Jewish side.[7][11] “I remember that at least a third of my classmates at elementary school in Wadowice were Jews. At elementary school there were fewer. With some I was on very friendly terms. And what struck me about some of them was their Polish patriotism.” [12] Wojty?a’s first, and possibly only, love affair was with a Jewish girl, Ginka Beer, who was described as “slender”, “a superb actress” and “having stupendous dark eyes and jet black hair”.[4] On 13 April 1929, Wojtyla’s mother died in childbirth.[8]

    In mid-1938, Wojty?a and his father left Wadowice and moved to Kraków, where he enrolled at Jagiellonian University. While studying such topics as philology and various languages, he worked as a volunteer librarian and was required to participate in compulsory military training in the Academic Legion, but he refused to fire a weapon. He performed with various theatrical groups and worked as a playwright.[13] During this time, his talent for language blossomed, and he learned as many as 12 foreign languages, nine of which he used extensively as Pope.[5]

    In 1939, Nazi German occupation forces closed the university after invading Poland.[5] Able-bodied males were required to work, so from 1940 to 1944 Wojty?a variously worked as a messenger for a restaurant, a manual labourer in a limestone quarry and for the Solvay chemical factory, to avoid deportation to Germany.[6][13] His father, a non-commissioned officer in the Polish Army, died of a heart attack in 1941,[8] leaving Wojty?a as the immediate family’s only surviving member.[7][9][14] “I was not at my mother’s death, I was not at my brother’s death, I was not at my father’s death”, he said, reflecting on these times of his life, nearly forty years later, “At twenty, I had already lost all the people I loved.”[14]

    After his father’s death, he started thinking seriously about the priesthood.[15] In October 1942, while the war continued, he knocked on the door of the Bishop’s Palace in Kraków and asked to study for the priesthood.[15] Soon after, he began courses in the clandestine underground seminary run by the Archbishop of Kraków, Adam Stefan Cardinal Sapieha. On 29 February 1944, Wojty?a was hit by a German truck. German Wehrmacht officers tended to him and sent him to a hospital. He spent two weeks there recovering from a severe concussion and a shoulder injury. It seemed to him that this accident and his survival was a confirmation of his vocation. On 6 August 1944 known as ‘Black Sunday’,[16] the Gestapo rounded up young men in Kraków to curtail the uprising, [16] similar to the recent uprising in Warsaw.[17][18] Wojty?a escaped by hiding in the basement of his uncle’s house at 10 Tyniecka Street, while the German troops searched above.[15][17][18] More than eight thousand men and boys were taken that day, while Wojty?a escaped to the Archbishop’s Palace,[15][16][17] where he remained until after the Germans had left.[7][15][17]

    On the night of 17 January 1945, the Germans fled the city, and the students reclaimed the ruined seminary. Wojty?a and another seminarian volunteered for the task of clearing away piles of frozen excrement from the toilets.[19] Wojty?a also helped a 14-year-old Jewish refugee girl named Edith Zierer,[20] who had run away from a Nazi labour camp in Cz?stochowa.[20] Edith had collapsed on a railway platform, so Wojty?a carried her to a train and stayed with her throughout the journey to Kraków. Edith credits Wojty?a with saving her life that day.[21][22][23]B’nai B’rith and other authorities have said that Wojty?a helped protect many other Polish Jews from the Nazis. In Wojty?a’s last book Memory and Identity he described the 12 years of the Nazi régime as ‘bestiality’,[24] quoting from Polish theologian and philosopher Konstanty Michalski.[25]

    Close this section
    HidePriesthood

    On finishing his studies at the seminary in Kraków, Wojty?a was ordained as a priest on All Saints’ Day, 1 November 1946,[9] by the Archbishop of Kraków, Cardinal Sapieha.[6][26][27] He then studied theology in Rome, at the Pontifical International Athenaeum Angelicum, the future Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas Angelicum,[26][27] where he earned a licentiate and later a doctorate in sacred theology.[5] This doctorate, the first of two, was based on the Latin dissertation The Doctrine of Faith According to Saint John of the Cross.

    He returned to Poland in the summer of 1948 with his first pastoral assignment in the village of Niegowi?, fifteen miles from Kraków. He arrived at Niegowi? at harvest time, where his first action was to kneel and kiss the ground.[28] This gesture, which he adapted from French saint Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney,[28] would become a ‘trademark’ action during his Papacy.

    Pontifical International Athenaeum Angelicum in Rome
    In March 1949, Wojty?a was transferred to the parish of Saint Florian in Kraków. He taught ethics at Jagiellonian University and subsequently at the Catholic University of Lublin. While teaching, he gathered a group of about 20 young people, who began to call themselves Rodzinka, the “little family”. They met for prayer, philosophical discussion, and to help the blind and sick. The group eventually grew to approximately 200 participants, and their activities expanded to include annual skiing and kayaking trips.[29]

    In 1954, he earned a second doctorate, in philosophy,[30] evaluating the feasibility of a Catholic ethic based on the ethical system of phenomenologist Max Scheler, a German philosopher who founded a broad philosophical movement which emphasised the study of conscious experience. However, the Communist authorities intervened to prevent him from receiving the degree until 1957.[27] Wojty?a developed a theological approach which combined traditional Catholic Thomism with the ideas of personalism, a philosophical approach deriving from phenomenology, which was popular amongst Catholic intellectuals in Kraków during Wojty?a’s intellectual development. He translated Scheler’s Formalism and the Ethics of Substantive Values.[31]

    During this period, Wojty?a wrote a series of articles in Kraków’s Catholic newspaper Tygodnik Powszechny (“Universal Weekly”) dealing with contemporary church issues.[32] He focused on creating original literary work during his first dozen years as a priest. War, life under Communism, and his pastoral responsibilities all fed his poetry and plays. Wojty?a published his work under two pseudonyms – Andrzej Jawie? and Stanis?aw Andrzej Gruda[13][32] – to distinguish his literary from his religious writings, (under his own name) and also so that his literary works would be considered on their merits.[13][32] In 1960, Wojty?a published the influential theological book Love and Responsibility, a defence of traditional Church teachings on marriage from a new philosophical standpoint.[13][33]

    Close this section
    HideBishop and Cardinal

    John Paul I with cardinal Karol Wojtyla
    On 4 July 1958,[27] while Wojty?a was on a kayaking holiday in the lakes region of northern Poland, Pope Pius XII appointed him as the auxiliary bishop of Kraków. He was then summoned to Warsaw to meet the Primate of Poland, Stefan Cardinal Wyszy?ski, who informed him of his appointment.[34][35] He agreed to serve as Auxiliary Bishop to Kraków’s Archbishop Eugeniusz Baziak, and he was ordained to the Episcopate (as Titular Bishop of Ombi) on 28 September 1958. Baziak was the principal consecrator. Then-Auxiliary Bishop Boleslaw Kominek (Titular Bishop of Sophene and Vaga; of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Wroc?aw and future Cardinal Archbishop of Wroc?aw) and then-Auxiliary Bishop Franciszek Jop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sandomierz (Titular Bishop of Daulia; later Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Wroc?aw and then Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Opole) were the principal co-consecrators.[27] At the age of 38, Wojty?a became the youngest bishop in Poland. Baziak died in June 1962 and on 16 July Wojty?a was selected as Vicar Capitular (temporary administrator) of the Archdiocese until an Archbishop could be appointed.[5][6]

    In October 1962, Wojty?a took part in the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965),[5][27] where he made contributions to two of its most historic and influential products, the Decree on Religious Freedom (in Latin, Dignitatis Humanae) and the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes).[27] Wojty?a and the Polish bishops contributed a draft text to the Council for Gaudium et Spes. According to the historian John W. O’Malley, the draft text Gaudium et Spes which Wojty?a and the Polish delegation sent “had some influence on the version that was sent to the council fathers that summer but was not accepted as the base text”.[36] According to John F. Crosby, as Pope, John Paul II used the words of Gaudium et Spes later to introduce his own views on the nature of the human person in relation to God: man is “the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake”, but man “can fully discover his true self only in a sincere giving of himself”.[37]

    He also participated in the assemblies of the Synod of Bishops.[5][6] On 13 January 1964, Pope Paul VI appointed him Archbishop of Kraków.[38] On 26 June 1967, Paul VI announced Archbishop Karol Wojty?a’s promotion to the Sacred College of Cardinals.[27][38] Wojty?a was named Cardinal-Priest of the titulus of San Cesareo in Palatio.

    In 1967, he was instrumental in formulating the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which dealt with the same issues that forbid abortion and artificial birth control.[27][39][40]

    Close this section
    ShowElection to the papacy

    ShowPastoral trips

    ShowTeachings

    HideRole in the fall of Communism

    Russian President Vladimir Putin meeting Pope John Paul II
    Main article: Holy See–Soviet Union relations
    John Paul II has been credited with being instrumental in bringing down communism in Central and Eastern Europe,[39][45][49][63][64][100] by being the spiritual inspiration behind its downfall and catalyst for “a peaceful revolution” in Poland. Lech Wa??sa, the founder of ‘Solidarity’, credited John Paul II with giving Poles the courage to demand change.[39] According to Wa??sa, “Before his pontificate, the world was divided into blocs. Nobody knew how to get rid of communism. In Warsaw, in 1979, he simply said: ‘Do not be afraid’, and later prayed: ‘Let your Spirit descend and change the image of the land… this land’.”[100] It has also been widely alleged that the Vatican Bank covertly funded Solidarity.[101][102]

    President Ronald Reagan’s correspondence with the pope reveals “a continuous scurrying to shore up Vatican support for U.S. policies. Perhaps most surprisingly, the papers show that, as late as 1984, the pope did not believe the Communist Polish government could be changed.”[103]

    In December 1989, John Paul II met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at the Vatican and each expressed his respect and admiration for the other. Gorbachev once said “The collapse of the Iron Curtain would have been impossible without John Paul II”.[45][63] On John Paul’s death, Mikhail Gorbachev said: “Pope John Paul II’s devotion to his followers is a remarkable example to all of us.”[64][100]

    US President George W. Bush presents the Medal of Freedom to Pope John Paul II, in June 2004
    In February 2004, Pope John Paul II was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize honouring his life’s work in opposing Communist oppression and helping to reshape the world.[104]

    President George W. Bush presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom, America’s highest civilian honour, to Pope John Paul II during a ceremony at the Apostolic Palace 4 June 2004. The president read the citation that accompanied the medal, which recognised “this son of Poland” whose “principled stand for peace and freedom has inspired millions and helped to topple communism and tyranny.”[105] After receiving the award, John Paul II said, “May the desire for freedom, peace, a more humane world symbolised by this medal inspire men and women of goodwill in every time and place.”[106]

    Warsaw, Moscow, Budapest, Berlin, Prague, Sofia and Bucharest have become stages in a long pilgrimage toward liberty. It is admirable that in these events, entire peoples spoke out – women, young people, men, overcoming fears, their irrepressible thirst for liberty speeded up developments, made walls tumble down and opened gates.[76]

    Close this section
    ShowRelations with other faiths

    ShowAssassination attempts and plots

    ShowApologies

    ShowHealth

    ShowPosthumous recognition

    ShowCriticism and controversy

    ShowSee also

    ShowNotes

    ShowReferences

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Show

  45. on 20 Dec 2012 at 11:23 am 45.freddies_dead said …

    24.Cuilor said …

    freddie is dead,

    Actually no, homosexual marriage is an oxymoron and was never in the definition of marriage outside of deviant and immoral behavior.

    Lol, now you’re just flat out lying.

    Any word can be redefined to fit a deviant lifestyle or to excuse deviant behavior.

    Like changing “child rapist” to be “priest” you mean? Of course those of us who aren’t brainwashed by the Christian bullshit can see that the allowing of such deviant lifestyles and excusing of such deviant behaviour is totally wrong.

    Homosexuality is a disorder and violates natural affections.

    Lol, more lies. I’m pretty sure the God you imagine exists was supposed to have said a thing or two about how He isn’t too happy about people doing that.

    No nation has ever stood strong for a great period of time when the immorality drops to such levels.

    The Romans were OK until Christianity came along – it’s no surprise that it faded quickly once the immorality of Christianity took hold though.

    You might be homosexual and I empathize, but that is the reality.

    Lol, do you think being compared to (or called) gay is going to bother me? Your attempt to insult is laughable and does nothing more than display your bigotry for all to see.

  46. on 20 Dec 2012 at 12:02 pm 46.freddies_dead said …

    Does anyone have any idea why Messenger is posting Wiki biographies of prominent people who happened to be Christian? Hell, does Messaneger even know why he’s doing it?

  47. on 20 Dec 2012 at 12:49 pm 47.Lou(DFW) said …

    46.freddies_dead said …

    “Does anyone have any idea why Messenger is posting Wiki biographies of prominent people who happened to be Christian? Hell, does Messaneger even know why he’s doing it?”

    He’s obviously a person of diminished intellectual capacity, if not an out-right nut-case.

  48. on 20 Dec 2012 at 12:52 pm 48.Lou(DFW) said …

    41.The messenger said …

    “All people a evil in them, it is our choice of which side; bad or good will be dominant.”

    Except that you previously wrote that everything happens to your imaginary god’s plan. So, according to you, nobody has a choice.

  49. on 20 Dec 2012 at 1:20 pm 49.Cuilor said …

    “Lol, do you think being compared to (or called) gay is going to bother me? Your attempt to insult is laughable”

    Freddie I didn’t intend this as an insult. I do not participate in atheist sport but the fact you deemed it an affront demonstrates you are a closet homophobe? Would you have been insulted by a heterosexual conjecture? I think not but it does confirm your aversion toward homosexuals. I too find pedophilia by priests as deviant and sordid.

    I also find any cover up by any association as revolting but I go further and aver this position about all those who partake in such behavior. But in the end it is not the pedophilia that troubles you so much is it Freddie? LOLs and allegations of lying do not change facts about homosexuality.

  50. on 20 Dec 2012 at 2:46 pm 50.Lou(DFW) said …

    49.Cuilor-ASS said …

    “Freddie I didn’t intend this as an insult. I do not participate in atheist sport…”

    BY atheist sport you mean insulting people, correct? If yes, then that’s what you just did.

    “…but the fact you deemed it an affront demonstrates you are a closet homophobe?”

    Another insult.

    “Would you have been insulted by a heterosexual conjecture?”

    The nature of a sarcastic insult is determined by its context, one that you created. So, no he would not have been insulted by that.

    “I think not but it does confirm your aversion toward homosexuals.”

    As DPK writes, you can add that to a list of things that you think you know, but you don’t.

    “I too find pedophilia by priests as deviant and sordid.”

    And much more harmful to society, but we don’t see your similar attack on it and the churches and Boy Scout organizations who promoted and protected it.

    So, you might be a pedophile, and I empathize, but that is the reality.

  51. on 20 Dec 2012 at 4:10 pm 51.Scourge said …

    #36 Counting Interesting you think DFRE is a “good read”. Gibbon attributes Rome’s decline to the adoption of Christianity and its inherent decadence. That though was not an outlying thought for someone living in the enlightenment era versus our post-enlightenment times.

    As for queer marriage, why would anyone care? It’s not required. What difference does it make? This is the thing which is beyond me. Who cares what two consenting adults do with their bodies?

  52. on 20 Dec 2012 at 5:09 pm 52.DPK said …

    “As for queer marriage, why would anyone care? It’s not required. What difference does it make? This is the thing which is beyond me. Who cares what two consenting adults do with their bodies?”

    You’ve kind of missed the last 2 thousand years then… the peaceful, tolerant, and loving religion of Christianity has historically always been about forcing “their” version of morality and “their” standards of behavior on others. The pope’s latest comments bear this out. You are right in asking “why should anyone care?” Why should he make the point, as leader of the flock, that gay marriage is “a threat to justice and peace”, when that statement is, by any honest appraisal, a flat out lie? Because the desire is to try and assert his antiquated ideas about morality derived from a set of ancient legends and fairytails, on humanity. And, they have no compunction about telling outright lies and fabrications in order to achieve that goal, as has been demonstrated many, many times by the theists writing right here on this forum.

  53. on 20 Dec 2012 at 5:11 pm 53.Lou(DFW) said …

    51.Scourge said …

    “Who cares what two consenting adults do with their bodies?”

    Ted Haggard, Newt Gringrich, Robert Tilton, Jimmy Swaggart, Dinesh D’Souza, etc. etc. etc.

    How many xtians did I omit?

    But they don’t seem to be nearly as concerned about what an adult priest does with the body of non-consenting child.

  54. on 20 Dec 2012 at 7:14 pm 54.freddies_dead said …

    49.Cuilor said …

    “Lol, do you think being compared to (or called) gay is going to bother me? Your attempt to insult is laughable”

    Freddie I didn’t intend this as an insult.

    Of course you did, but we already know you’re a liar.

    I do not participate in atheist sport

    He says, participating in what he calls “atheist sport” – a hypocrite as well as a liar.

    cont’d…

  55. on 20 Dec 2012 at 7:15 pm 55.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    but the fact you deemed it an affront demonstrates you are a closet homophobe?

    Except that I asked you whether you meant it as an insult and indicated that you had failed if you did, so the exact opposite as deeming it an affront.

    cont’d…

  56. on 20 Dec 2012 at 7:17 pm 56.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    Would you have been insulted by a heterosexual conjecture?

    No. Unlike you I don’t find homosexuality, bisexuality or asexuality as anything other than normal.

    cont’d…

  57. on 20 Dec 2012 at 7:17 pm 57.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    I think not

    Liar, you’ve demonstrated that you don’t think at all.

    but it does confirm your aversion toward homosexuals.

    No, it confirms your projecting your aversion toward homosexuals onto other people.

    I too find pedophilia by priests as deviant and sordid. I also find any cover up by any association as revolting but I go further and aver this position about all those who partake in such behavior.

    I should hope so but here you are attacking homosexuals rather than paedophiles. I hope you realise that there is a distinction between the 2.

    cont’d…

  58. on 20 Dec 2012 at 7:18 pm 58.freddies_dead said …

    cont’d…

    But in the end it is not the pedophilia that troubles you so much is it Freddie?

    I assure you that it is.

    LOLs and allegations of lying do not change facts about homosexuality.

    Except you’re yet to actually present any facts about homosexuality, just your bigoted views and outright lies.

  59. on 20 Dec 2012 at 8:41 pm 59.Counting said …

    Scourge

    You might try reading Gibbons rather than reading a couple of quotes off some blog that declares what you want to hear. Gibbons list a number of foundations for Rome’s decline and moral failure was one huge reason.

    freddies_dead,

    Why would you be insulted by someone assuming you are gay? There was absolutely nothing insulting about the assumption. You seem rather shaken by the insinuation. If I have misrepresented homosexuality or the agenda of the adherent’s lobby please show me the errors.

  60. on 20 Dec 2012 at 8:43 pm 60.The messenger said …

    48.Lou(DFW), we all have a choice.

    God knows what will be our choice.

  61. on 20 Dec 2012 at 9:23 pm 61.Scourge said …

    59 Counting Actually, grew up with the six vol. version in the home library. My father was a fan of the work. The “moral failure” you refer to was specifically due to the laxity of Christian character, its lack of nobility, and the transference of responsibility to impotent deities. There is nothing quite so pernicious as Christianity.

    As for the little assault on freddies_dead,

    “Why would you be insulted by someone assuming you are gay? There was absolutely nothing insulting about the assumption. You seem rather shaken by the insinuation.”

    You argue like some pious passive-aggressive Baptist biddy. Are you a post-menopausal Southern woman wearing a hideous floral polyester wardrobe? I bet you are.

  62. on 20 Dec 2012 at 9:36 pm 62.DPK said …

    ” Are you a post-menopausal Southern woman wearing a hideous floral polyester wardrobe? I bet you are.”

    Well, thanks for THAT mental picture!… haha
    Actually, after reading through the back and forth, my suspicion is Counting is more likely a deeply closeted and depressed gay man himself. Otherwise, why the obsessive preoccupation?

    Anyway, back to the topic of the conversation: is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to back up his holiness’ contention that gay marriage is a “threat to justice and peace”. If you can demonstrate that it is, then by all means, show us… otherwise, no one in interested in your personal inner conflicts or your prejudices.

  63. on 20 Dec 2012 at 11:07 pm 63.Counting said …

    “The “moral failure” you refer to was specifically due to the laxity of Christian character”

    Actually this is completely erroneous and sadly deceitful to even the worst historian. Would Scourge be referencing the Christians being thrown to the lions in great fun by the Roman elite? Christianity brought hope of an afterlife to millions ruled by Rome where an early death was certain thus the murdering of Christians for centuries. The main causes of the fall were economic failure, political corruption, wars, unemployment, immorality (orgies, adultery, homosexuality, pedophilia) and out of control spending.

    Scourge represents a man who is homophobic, sexist and fully lacking in understanding of Roman history.

  64. on 20 Dec 2012 at 11:14 pm 64.The messenger said …

    40.Lou(DFW), within comment 41, I clearly explained why I was posting those Wikipedia pages. I posted them because in comment 40 you made the following statement about Christians (Because they too are “totally fucked up asshole[s].”).

    I posted those articles as an attempt to show you that Christians are good.

  65. on 21 Dec 2012 at 12:25 am 65.Lou(DFW) said …

    60.The messenger said …

    “48.Lou(DFW), we all have a choice.
    God knows what will be our choice.”

    Yes, because according to you, he planned it. Therefore, it’s not our choice, but his.

  66. on 21 Dec 2012 at 1:03 pm 66.Lou(DFW) said …

    64.The messenger said …

    “I posted them because in comment 40 you made the following statement about Christians (Because they too are “totally fucked up asshole[s].”).”

    (sigh) The concept of sarcasm is totally lost on you.

    “I posted those articles as an attempt to show you that Christians are good.”

    Then you are a fool. All you did is waste “space” on this blog. “Christians” aren’t “good.” I would dare say they that as a group, atheists are “better” people than xtians.

    Cue the resident sock-puppet trolls with their “murdering atheist regimes” shtick.

  67. on 21 Dec 2012 at 1:35 pm 67.Lou(DFW) said …

    63.Counting said …

    “Scourge represents a man who is homophobic, sexist and fully lacking in understanding of Roman history.”

    Let’s assume that he does. So what? How is that relevant to your claim that “Homosexuality has always been proven to be destructive in society” – a claim that you failed to substantiate?

    “…an early death was certain thus the murdering of Christians for centuries.”

    Non-sequitur

  68. on 21 Dec 2012 at 2:34 pm 68.Biff said …

    “I would dare say they that as a group, atheists are “better” people than xtians.”

    Define “better”?

  69. on 21 Dec 2012 at 2:38 pm 69.The messenger said …

    66.Lou(DFW), name one Atheist that has helped more people than Mother Teresa.

    She was one of the kindest humans in all of history and she was a Christian.

  70. on 21 Dec 2012 at 3:04 pm 70.Lou(DFW) said …

    68.Biff said …

    ‘Define “better”?’

    Define “good.”

  71. on 21 Dec 2012 at 3:34 pm 71.Biff said …

    You would need to ask the one who used the word good.

    How are you using the word “better”?

  72. on 21 Dec 2012 at 3:39 pm 72.Lou(DFW) said …

    70.Biff said …

    ‘You would need to ask the one who used the word good.
    How are you using the word “better”?’

    Preferable to or more desirable than “good.”

  73. on 21 Dec 2012 at 3:45 pm 73.Biff said …

    Oh, that explains it. You don’t know. I thought that might be the case.

    Thanks

  74. on 21 Dec 2012 at 3:53 pm 74.Lou(DFW) said …

    72.Biff biffed …

    “Oh, that explains it. You don’t know. I thought that might be the case.”

    Oh, that explains it. You don’t understand the concept of a rhetorical reply:

    66.Lou(DFW) said …

    “I would dare say they that as a group, atheists are “better” people than xtians.”

    Biff, now that you once again embarrassed yourself (biffed), perhaps you can save face by providing some evidence for your imaginary god?

    No? I KNEW that was the case.

  75. on 21 Dec 2012 at 4:04 pm 75.The messenger said …

    on 21 Dec 2012 at 2:38 pm 69.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    66.Lou(DFW), name one Atheist that has helped more people than Mother Teresa.
    She was one of the kindest humans in all of history and she was a Christian.

  76. on 21 Dec 2012 at 4:06 pm 76.The messenger said …

    74.Lou(DFW), Christians and Hebrews are the kindest people on Earth.

    If you cannot see the goodness in us I feel sorry for you.

  77. on 21 Dec 2012 at 4:18 pm 77.DPK said …

    62.DPK said …
    Anyway, back to the topic of the conversation: is anyone actually going to offer any evidence to back up his holiness’ contention that gay marriage is a “threat to justice and peace”.

    Soooo… I’m guess that’s a “No.”
    I thought as much. Case closed.

  78. on 21 Dec 2012 at 4:21 pm 78.Lou(DFW) said …

    74.DPK said …

    ‘Soooo… I’m guess that’s a “No.”’

    Define “No.”

    LOL!

  79. on 21 Dec 2012 at 6:00 pm 79.The messenger said …

    on 21 Dec 2012 at 4:06 pm 76.The messenger said … Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    74.Lou(DFW), Christians and Hebrews are the kindest people on Earth.
    If you cannot see the goodness in us I feel sorry for you.

  80. on 21 Dec 2012 at 6:07 pm 80.DPK said …

    hahaha

    define “biff”
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=biff

  81. on 21 Dec 2012 at 10:27 pm 81.40 Year Atheist said …

    In 1999, Psychologist Paul C. Vitz published his post mortem study on the lives of 32 famous Atheists and 21 famous Theists. His study was intended to determine statistically if any common psychological denominator existed which could differentiate a potential Atheist from a potential Theist. He found that with only the exceptions of Marx and Diderot, the common factor between Atheists was defective fathering: the father was dead, missing, abusive, or weak. Amongst Theists, fathering was strong and supportive.

    This study has been criticized based on the lack of in depth personal interviews done with these (dead) individuals. Yet the statistics are compelling. At least as compelling as IQ statistics, if not more.

  82. on 21 Dec 2012 at 11:01 pm 82.alex said …

    “32 famous Atheists and 21 famous Theists”

    so motherfucking what? the percentage of asshole theists I know, way outnumber the asshole atheists I know and ??

    for the umpteenth time, let’s say all atheists have defective fathering. is this your god proof?

  83. on 22 Dec 2012 at 1:34 am 83.DPK said …

    And 40 year has now sunk to plagiarizing, get this, the well know and academically respected website, date hookup.com!

    Hahahahahahaha…… What a fuckin’ imbecile.
    http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-949325.htm

  84. on 22 Dec 2012 at 1:45 am 84.alex said …

    “And 40 year has now sunk to plagiarizing”

    i started to search for the moron, but nah….. i’ll be a goot atheist.

  85. on 22 Dec 2012 at 3:10 am 85.DPK said …

    Can’t wait to tell my father that he must be “defective” because some guy wrote a book.

  86. on 22 Dec 2012 at 4:21 am 86.Right Once Again said …

    “And 40 year has now sunk to plagiarizing, get this, the well know and academically respected website, date hookup.com!”

    Well you would have had him if wasn’t for the fact 40YA posted his a month before datahookup.com!!

    ROTFL!!! ROTFL!!

    alex/dpk/Thelma thank you for another therapeutic bout of laughter. You guys really are so much fun to laugh at but at the same time I feel so badly for you. Your hatred of Christians and anyone who questions your belief system is not healthy at all. 40YA is class and scholarly while you guys are full of hate and and foolishness. Maybe when you guys mature you will lose the hatred and anger. Hate and anger only hurt the holders.

    Merry Christmas boys.

    40YA,

    Nice to see you back. Some nice information to be aware of when dealing with an atheist.

  87. on 22 Dec 2012 at 5:07 am 87.The messenger said …

    84.alex, it is spelled (good), not (goot).

  88. on 22 Dec 2012 at 5:13 am 88.The messenger said …

    Brother 86.Right Once Again, I can tell that you have a lot of wisdom.

    Keep up the good work.

    Merry Christmas, and happy birthday to our Father Jesus.

  89. on 22 Dec 2012 at 5:28 am 89.DPK said …

    Well, you are right about the dates. Apologies. Seems 40 was the victim of plagiarism, rather than the perpetrator.

    Now, as for your claim, that 40yr, who NEVER engages in discussion, answers questions or challenges, is “class an scholarly”, well that is TRULEY laughable.

    Now, even if this completely obscure, completely unscientific, andvridiculously biased “study”, and I use that word with younger firmly in cheek, were in fact true. So what?
    Even of it where true that having a “defective” father caused one to reject belief in magical gods, how does that have ANY bearing on the reality of supernatural gods?

    Again, Mr. Ass, for someone who claims a “background in science”, your ignorance is absolutely breathtaking.

  90. on 22 Dec 2012 at 7:02 am 90.The messenger said …

    89.DPK, kids who have defective fathers tend to have hard childhoods.

    The stress in their childhood caused them to doupt the goodness of people in the world, this leadind them to doupt the greatest example of goodness; God.

  91. on 22 Dec 2012 at 8:11 am 91.Severin said …

    #86
    “Your hatred of Christians …”
    “Hate and anger only hurt the holders.”

    Where do those people find hate all the time?
    In their own hearts and minds, I would say.

    Whenever they feel unable to find arguments that would support their opinion, they are looking for, and finding “hatred” in words of the opposite part.

    I don’t hate anyone.
    I am only sorry for you.

    P.S. It is interesting that, for about the 100th times within last few years, they accuse atheist to specifically hate Christians!!! I’ve never ever saw them accusing us to hate Muslims! Is it because THEY hate Muslims, and consider THEIR hate normal?

    Well, I don’t hate Muslims either.

  92. on 22 Dec 2012 at 10:54 am 92.The messenger said …

    91.Severin,any of my closest friends are musilims.

    We Christians do not hate anyone.

  93. on 22 Dec 2012 at 1:50 pm 93.Anonymous said …

    Severin, these posts by these so-called theists exist to put other people on the defensive. It’s just another diversion to avoid the subject of the lack of evidence for any gods.

    Saying that other people are haters is just a way to use loaded language to make people guilty until proven innocent. It’s a common tactic which translates to: “I can’t win this argument, So I’ll project my emotions onto you and then try to escape by playing the victim”.

    It is sad that so many Christians buy into playing the victim when they are asked to prove the existence of their god — “I was told people would hate me for being a Christian. I’m now going to claim that you hate me. Therefore god exists”

    Now, are they really theists? I find myself less and less convinced that they are.

    Messenger is clearly a troll who uses outrageous statements in order to bait others into nonsensical discussions.

    Ass and his many persona rarely produce anything other than bile and red-herrings. At this point it’s probably just a game and I doubt it’ll stop until others stop being sucked into these venomous exchanges.

    40YA has been asked to respond but never does. On his own blog he viciously attacks people who won’t get drawn into his fantasy world, calling them trolls and more, and he uses that excuse to avoid answering their points. He’s also been asked several times to enter into actual debates but he refuses to do anything other than post his lopsided comments from the safety of his censored and controlled blog. If he won’t enter into equal debate, then his points here deserve nothing other than contempt or simply being ignored. Calling him scholarly is just another clue that Ass and co are trying to antagonize people rather than debate them.

    Now the standard response from our sock-puppet trolls to this comment, would be to attack the messenger in order to keep the game going as long as possible. What they won’t do is provide the evidence that theists claim to have, but never produce, that gods exist.

  94. on 22 Dec 2012 at 2:36 pm 94.Curmudgeon said …

    “He’s also been asked several times to enter into actual debates but he refuses to do anything other than post his lopsided comments from the safety of his censored and controlled blog.”

    Sort of like this one where Thomas never backs up his own posts?

    I saw your posts on Stan’s blog. You were ridiculed by other posters. You didn’t even read the entire premise of his blog and your ridiculous comments were met with scorn. Let me post the purpose of his blog below:

    “A former 40 year Atheist analyzes Atheism, without resorting to theism, deism, or fantasy.”

    You got what you deserved. He doesn’t defend a god because he tramples on your worldview without using religion. You need to stay here in the safety of your own delusions.

  95. on 22 Dec 2012 at 2:42 pm 95.Curmudgeon said …

    Stan’s latest and funniest rule from his blog:

    Addendum: No comments from “anonymous” will be allowed. Choose a moniker; it’s easy.

  96. on 22 Dec 2012 at 2:47 pm 96.Lou(DFW) said …

    81.40 Year Asshole said …

    “In 1999, Psychologist Paul C. Vitz published his post mortem study on the lives of 32 famous Atheists and 21 famous Theists. His study was intended to determine statistically if any common psychological denominator existed which could differentiate a potential Atheist from a potential Theist.”

    What was their common denominator?

    Religious delusion:

    http://tinyurl.com/coc4ajz

  97. on 22 Dec 2012 at 3:02 pm 97.Lou(DFW) said …

    93.Crum said …

    “He (40 Year Asshole) doesn’t defend a god because he” can’t.

    Instead, he invents a “worldview” that doesn’t exist. He then lies about those whom he purports to have it. Then, he never, ever, responds to anyone who defends themselves against his lies about them because he is coward who relies upon sock-puppets who suddenly appear from hiding to defend and compliment him – it’s all so transparent.

    “You need to stay here in the safety of your own delusions.”

    Poor crum, he still tries in vain to use that tired, old claim that not believing in something is a delusion. Crum, by definition, a delusion is “a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary.”

    Crum, repeating for you – delusion is a BELIEF. Rejection of a belief cannot be a delusion. You and ASS and 40YAH and all the other sock-puppets can lie about atheists until you’re blue in the face, but it won’t change anything.

    You can’t hide, ignore, or lie-away that huge elephant in the room – you have no evidence for your imaginary god. That elephant ALWAYS “tramples on your worldview without using religion.” We don’t have to do it. All we must do is refute your lies contained in your attacks upon us – coward.

  98. on 22 Dec 2012 at 3:13 pm 98.Lou(DFW) said …

    95.Crum said …

    “Stan’s latest and funniest rule from his blog:
    Addendum: No comments from “anonymous” will be allowed. Choose a moniker; it’s easy.”

    As the theist sock-puppets here do so over and over. It’s part of their deception and cowardice.

  99. on 22 Dec 2012 at 6:20 pm 99.Anonymous said …

    Poor curmudgeon, is he that stupid that he thinks every comment made on any blog that doesn’t have a specific moniker is made by the same person? If so, he may be stupid enough to be a Christian.

    Oh, and thanks for proving the point that when we call you out, you respond with childish bravado and temper tantrums. Poor little troll got his feelings hurt? Poor baby.

    Now let’s see Crum man-up and publish his real name and email address? After all, you do hide behind different names here, as has been shown multiple times. Still, here’s your chance to prove that you are either honest (real name) or a coward and a fraud (Anything else).

    Cue rescue sock-puppet with diversionary attack.

  100. on 22 Dec 2012 at 8:01 pm 100.Curmudgeon said …

    “Poor curmudgeon, is he that stupid that he thinks every comment made on any blog that doesn’t have a specific moniker is made by the same person?”

    Poor AnonyLou, of course not AnonyLou. Only those who go on Stan’s blog with the name Anonymous whining about Stan posting on WWGHA. Steve was right, you are a coward.

    How is this for my name:

    George Gibbs geaorgeLou@yahoo.com

    Posting your name and email is not the way to man up. This proves how childish you are too. That is being a fool.

    Poor AnonyLou.

  101. on 22 Dec 2012 at 9:49 pm 101.DPK said …

    99.Anonymous said …

    “Poor curmudgeon, is he that stupid….”

    Do you need to ask? Actually, I don’t think he is stupid as much as dishonest and disingenuous.
    Once in a while we get an honest believer on here who admits that their beliefs make no sense and they have no reason to expect anyone else to believe them, but they choose to believe it anyway because it makes them feel better for one reason or another.

  102. on 22 Dec 2012 at 9:54 pm 102.DPK said …

    90.The messenger said …

    “89.DPK, kids who have defective fathers tend to have hard childhoods.
    The stress in their childhood caused them to doupt the goodness of people in the world, this leadind them to doupt the greatest example of goodness; God.”

    But before you said that everything happens for a reason. So, then god GAVE them a shitty father to make it so they don’t believe in him? Why would he do that? You really need to make up your freakin mind, William. You contradict yourself in almost every other post.

    BTW… I had a wonderful father, and I bet any of us here could name Probably many) theists we know who had crappy fathers… so that kind of puts 40yr’s “theory” down the old shit hole, eh?

    Man, you guys grasp at anything, don’t you?

  103. on 23 Dec 2012 at 12:24 am 103.The messenger said …

    102.DPK, God caused them to have a crappy father thus causing them to doubt God.

    God cause that to happen because he wants us to overcome those struggles and learn from them so that we may become better people.

    Life is a test of morality.

    The only way that we can pass this test is by learning from the struggles in our lives and overcoming them.

  104. on 23 Dec 2012 at 1:25 am 104.Lou(DFW) said …

    100.Curmudgeon said …

    “Posting your name and email is not the way to man up.”

    That’s right, but providing evidence for your imaginary god is. Unfortunately for you, it’s not possible.

    “This proves how childish you are too.”

    But, belief in an imaginary sky-daddy isn’t? That is the ultimate proof.

  105. on 23 Dec 2012 at 2:53 am 105.Anonymous said …

    “I saw your posts on Stan’s blog. You were ridiculed by other posters” – just a reminder; you’ve made this spurious claim under some of your other guises. Please try to keep your sock-puppets straight. Thank you!

  106. on 23 Dec 2012 at 2:00 pm 106.Curmudgeon said …

    Nice try George. I have never posted there but you have and your lie has been exposed.

    Don’t go back, you look so foolish. The material is way over your head.

  107. on 23 Dec 2012 at 3:15 pm 107.DPK said …

    102.DPK, God caused them to have a crappy father thus causing them to doubt God.

    Ok… So god intentionally gives people lousy fathers so that they will doubt god. But then this father doesn’t have free wii, does he? He HAS to be a bad father because god wants it that way? So, why do we blame him for being a lousy father, William? It’s all part of gods plan. Those 20 dead kids are dead because god wanted them to be massacred, right? Nice.

    William, you speak in circles. You call god the greatest example of goodness, and then say he intentionally makes people have miserable childhoods and suffer tradgadies to teach them lessons. What “lesson” was he teaching the 20 Sandy Hook kids, William? What have they learned? We’re they “sinners”?

    For example, my father taught wanted to teach me that fire was dangerous, and should not be played with. He didn’t do it by dousing me with gasoline and setting a match to my clothes. He wanted to teach me not to play in the street. He didn’t do it by putting me in traffic so I got hit by a car so I’d know what it felt like.

    Your comments and rationalization a are simple minded and ridiculous. An8 year old can see how silly and contradictory your circular reasoning is. Open your mind and think, and stop spewing back the nonsense you have been spoon fed. Your god is imaginary. He is not real. THAT is why younhavebto twist your brain into knots to make excuses for him.

  108. on 23 Dec 2012 at 4:51 pm 108.Lou(DFW) said …

    106.Crum said …

    “I have never posted there…”

    Let’s add that to the list of things that you never did:

    1. Posted evidence for your imaginary god.

    2. Responded with direct answers to direct questions about your imaginary god.

    3. Posted on the blog of another lying theist.

  109. on 23 Dec 2012 at 10:12 pm 109.Anonymous said …

    106.Crum said …

    “I have never posted there…” – and no-one said he did.

    I guess Crum is so flustered at how easily he gets caught out that he needs to try to hide his sock-puppet act with silly games of saying the same of anyone who challenges him. He then tries to escape by playing the victim about something no-one said of him. Of course, he is accused of lying about what others have said with alarming regularity, so maybe that’s just in character after all.

    Now, let’s you prove to us the existence of whatever god it is that you believe in. Should be simple… Unless, of course, it’s all make-believe.

  110. on 23 Dec 2012 at 10:19 pm 110.Curmudgeon said …

    No, it is just you inability to post clearly George. Try a space here and there to separate your thoughts (sic).

    Yawn! Evidence for God again? This is why you should not post over at Stan’s blog. Your rejection of evidence does not nullify the validity of the evidence. Try something interesting George.

    Lets look at this blog. Assume God does not heal amputees. How does that disprove God?

    But remember, anything you post will be under the assumption of a lie since you are a proven liar.

  111. on 23 Dec 2012 at 10:40 pm 111.Lou(DFW) said …

    110.Crum said …

    “No, it is just you inability to post clearly George. Try a space here and there to separate your thoughts (sic).”

    LOL! And you should learn how to properly punctuate a sentence by using commas.

  112. on 23 Dec 2012 at 10:41 pm 112.Lou(DFW) said …

    110.Crum said …

    “Lets look at this blog. Assume God does not heal amputees. How does that disprove God?”

    Why must we explain to you here what is clearly explained on the website?

    Of course! It’s all part of your juvenile game to divert attention from the fact that YOU can’t prove god.

  113. on 23 Dec 2012 at 10:48 pm 113.Lou(DFW) said …

    106.Crum said …

    “Nice try George. I have never posted there but you have and your lie has been exposed.”

    Show us where anyone here claimed that you did.

  114. on 24 Dec 2012 at 12:58 am 114.Anonymous said …

    Other than a diversion,and parroting what has been said about him, WTF is Crum whinging about now?

  115. on 24 Dec 2012 at 2:45 am 115.Sir Francis said …

    107.DPK, don’t blame anyone.

    God does doesnot want you to waste time blaming anyone.

    He wants us to overcome the struggles of life instead of complaining about it.

    We all have free will. God just knows what are actions will be but we don’t, we must chose to be kind and excepting.

  116. on 24 Dec 2012 at 2:48 am 116.The messenger said …

    115.Sir Francis, well said.

    Thank you for trying to help these people.

  117. on 24 Dec 2012 at 2:57 pm 117.Lou(DFW) said …

    110.Crum said …

    “Evidence for God again?”

    Yea, it’s always something with your god delusion, isn’t it?

    “This is why you should not post over at Stan’s blog.”

    Or here, because there isn’t any such evidence.

    “Your rejection of evidence does not nullify the validity of the evidence.”

    What evidence? Your claim does not validate the existence of your imaginary god. Present the evidence.

  118. on 24 Dec 2012 at 4:08 pm 118.DPK said …

    So now the messenger has joined the sock puppet brigade with his other self, sir francis. You aren’t fooling anyone William. And the hate filled name calling you let loose under your alternate identity only shows to illustrate the hate and misery that seethes just below the surface of your religion of love and peace.

    “We all have free will. God just knows what are actions will be but we don’t,”

    Are you not very bright, or do you just not think about the things you say?
    If god KNOWS what my actions will be, then I have no power to change it, or do anything different. Because if I DID, then that would mean god did not KNOW what I would do. If I KNOW the laws of mathematics say 1+1=2, then the laws cannot decide tomorrow that 1+1=5. If the laws of mathematics had “free will” then no one could “know” what they would be tomorrow.
    Now, you already admitted that god intentionally inflicts pain and suffering on people, often innocent children, in order to “teach” them something. You already said that EVERYTHING happens according to god’s plan, and god already KNOWS everything that is going to happen.
    So, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that god gave a child a lousy father, who neglected him and beat him… a real bastard. Now, god MADE this child have this lousy father (who could not decide, btw, to be a good father because it would fuck up god’s plan) in order to cause him to doubt god’s existence. He does this so the child will overcome that obstacle and accept god anyway, right?
    Now, let’s say that child DOESN’T overcome the obstacle, and ends up like me, an atheist. Exactly like the 30 some “famous atheists” cited in the study. They are lost… right? But… god KNEW this would happen, he KNEW what the outcome would be before he set the wheels in motion. So god CAUSED these people to become atheists. Indeed god PLANNED these people to become atheist, which, according to you, will result in their punishment for all eternity in the fires of hell. That’s kind of like not letting my dog out, and then beating him to death for going to the bathroom in the house? Kind of a prick thing to do, no William?
    Tell is why god made me an atheist, William. According to you, it is according to his plan.

  119. on 24 Dec 2012 at 5:59 pm 119.DPK said …

    So now the messenger has joined the sock puppet brigade with his other self, sir francis. You aren’t fooling anyone William. And the hate filled name calling you let loose under your alternate identity only shows to illustrate the hate and misery that seethes just below the surface of your religion of love and peace.
    “We all have free will. God just knows what are actions will be but we don’t,”
    Are you not very bright, or do you just not think about the things you say?
    If god KNOWS what my actions will be, then I have no power to change it, or do anything different. Because if I DID, then that would mean god did not KNOW what I would do. If I KNOW the laws of mathematics say 1+1=2, then the laws cannot decide tomorrow that 1+1=5. If the laws of mathematics had “free will” then no one could “know” what they would be tomorrow.
    Now, you already admitted that god intentionally inflicts pain and suffering on people, often innocent children, in order to “teach” them something. You already said that EVERYTHING happens according to god’s plan, and god already KNOWS everything that is going to happen.
    So, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that god gave a child a lousy father, who neglected him and beat him… a real bastard. Now, god MADE this child have this lousy father (who could not decide, btw, to be a good father because it would fuck up god’s plan) in order to cause him to doubt god’s existence. He does this so the child will overcome that obstacle and accept god anyway, right?
    Now, let’s say that child DOESN’T overcome the obstacle, and ends up like me, an atheist. Exactly like the 30 some “famous atheists” cited in the study. They are lost… right? But… god KNEW this would happen, he KNEW what the outcome would be before he set the wheels in motion. So god CAUSED these people to become atheists. Indeed god PLANNED these people to become atheist, which, according to you, will result in their punishment for all eternity in the fires of hell. That’s kind of like not letting my dog out, and then beating him to death for going to the bathroom in the house? Kind of a prick thing to do, no William?
    Tell is why god made me an atheist, William. According to you, it is according to his plan.

  120. on 24 Dec 2012 at 6:48 pm 120.Anonymous said …

    Why didn’t Messenger just say “thanks, other me” to save time? That would make more sense than this silly charade.

    DPK – This whole free-will / predestination thing simply doesn’t add up.

    When you add in the supposed-omniscience than it’s really fucked up. Add on to that this whole “god is outside of space and time yet interacts in our time and our space” and there’s some more incompatible attributes to add to the mix.

    Pour in some omnipresence and now we’re asked to doubly believe that this something can interact everywhere all at once whilst also not being physically there or detectable, even though it’s actions apparently are discernible. How the fuck does that even work?

    So, there really is no need to disprove this god thing at all. What is needed is for the theists to come up with a cogent explanation that ties all these attributes together. It needs to be an explanation that also accounts for, and of, the myriad of differing definitions of what is claimed to be the same thing.

    If the answer involves some kind of magic or special-understanding then that’s exactly what we’d expect from the simplest answer of “making shit up”.

  121. on 25 Dec 2012 at 2:25 am 121.The messenger said …

    I am not sir fransis.

    I do agree with the message that he was sending though

  122. on 25 Dec 2012 at 3:28 am 122.The messenger said …

    Brother 119.DPK, yes God did cause those people to become Atheists because he wanted others to see an example of what not to do in life.

    God will not send them to hell just for being an atheist, and he will not let anyone stay in hell forever.

    Eventually everyone will go to heaven, after they learn right from wrong.

    Atheists can go to heaven if they live kind, compassionate, forgiving lives.

    If they do not, they will go to either hell or purgatory, until they learn love, compassion, and forgiveness.

  123. on 25 Dec 2012 at 2:24 pm 123.Anonymous said …

    I think he means he is not sir fransis (sic) in the same way he wasn’t the messenger who first posted a convoluted story about a crib, a doctor, and dying of misspelled pneumonia.

    When that story was destroyed he then was born again but with an experience of heaven that absolutely wasn’t a dream. No sir, no way was it a dream. Except now that story is losing traction, it might have been a dream but, curiously, everything else is still true.

    Here we are now with messy getting ridiculed for his continued use of the absurd and his never-ending contradictions, and up pops a convenient new poster, a poster that shares his writing style, supports his inane comments, but isn’t him.

    Yeah, right. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.

  124. on 25 Dec 2012 at 2:36 pm 124.Anonymous said …

    Oh, and let’s not forget this messenger that doesn’t know some of the basic articles of faith for the religion he claims to follow. He’s also yet to explain why a god would choose to send such an inept fellow, but that’s just one of the minor plot holes in his tattered story.

    I don’t know what festival trolls celebrate at this time of year, but season’s greetings none-the-less.

  125. on 25 Dec 2012 at 2:38 pm 125.Lou(DFW) said …

    115.Sir Francis said …

    “[W]e must chose to be kind and excepting.”

    Why does your imaginary god want us to be “excepting,” and how do we do that?

  126. on 25 Dec 2012 at 2:53 pm 126.alex said …

    “..season’s greetings none-the-less.”

    thanks. idiot neighbor tries to bait me with “why do i celebrate the xtian xmas”. started to tell me he’s confusing tolerance with celebration, but i just let it go.

    merry xmas anyways.

  127. on 25 Dec 2012 at 4:38 pm 127.DPK said …

    Easy,
    When explaining the properties of your imaginary god, it is necessary to add:
    “Well, yes, except….
    Of course, except….
    He does, except…
    He is, except……”

    Get it? Belief in god requires you to be excepting.

  128. on 25 Dec 2012 at 7:11 pm 128.Anonymous said …

    Yeah, well, Alex, is it the Christian holiday of Christmas or did the Romans try to make Christianity more palatable to the masses by merging it with some preexisting pagan holidays – Saturnalia, Winter Solstice and so on? (Hint, it’s the later)

    If you don’t even want your neighbor to talk to you again you could ask him why he celebrates Christmas on December 25th – he doesn’t actually think that’s the documented date for the supposed-virgin birth, does he? Oh my, that would be silly.

    For bonus points, maybe your neighbor could explain why he doesn’t celebrate the occasion on January 6th, as does the Orthodox (read older) church?

    Then, of course, WTF does Santa Claus, Christmas Trees and gift giving have to with the “xtian xmas” and when did those events emerge?

    If he hasn’t walked off in a daze looking for some extra self-rationalization, perhaps he’d like to explain how Christmas even came to be formally celebrated in its own right. After all, it took until the 4th Century and the efforts of a Roman Emperor and a Pope to get the thing on the recurring calendar in the first place.

    So, maybe, next time some dickhead asks “why do you celebrate the xtian xmas?”, you could ask “what is it that you think you’re celebrating, why celebrate it in the manner that you do, and where are your biblical precedents?”

    tl;dr; if xtians understood the history of their religion as well as non-believers do, then many probably wouldn’t still be xtians.

  129. on 26 Dec 2012 at 12:39 am 129.The messenger said …

    119.DPK, are you mentally retarded?

    I am literally not sit Francis, or that person that posted about a crib you idiot.

    Just how stupid are you?

  130. on 26 Dec 2012 at 1:01 am 130.Sir Francis said …

    God wants us to be excepting of others because it is the key to peace.

    We can be excepting of others by showing respect other’s ideas and not discriminating against other people’s religious beliefs.

  131. on 26 Dec 2012 at 1:38 am 131.Sir Francis said …

    123.Anonymous, I know and understand all of the details of my faith.

    You obviously do not understand Catholicism.

    If you want to understand it, I suggest that you go to Church.

  132. on 26 Dec 2012 at 1:55 am 132.The messenger said …

    Ha ha DPK, I tricked you in comment 130.

    I used sir fransis’s name in comment 130 instead of my name.

    When will you understand this, I am the one and only messenger.

    The only time that I used a name besides the messenger or William is in comment 130.

    I am not sir fransis, I only used his name in comment 130 too confuse you as a joke.

  133. on 26 Dec 2012 at 4:07 am 133.Anonymous said …

    LOL – messenger just blew himself up. BTW, you never posted as William. You forget that you also posted as The Prophet in order to accuse yourself of being William the false prophet and garner some more of the attention you so desperately crave.

    No matter what – you’re done now. Even if you were telling the truth, which you are not, whatever credibility you thought you had you have now lost.

    What a great Christmas Present – the head of three trolls on a nice shiny plate!

  134. on 26 Dec 2012 at 4:09 am 134.Lou(DFW) said …

    132.The lying messenger said …

    “I am not sir fransis, I only used his name in comment 130 too confuse you as a joke.”

    It is you who are greatly confused – the joke is entirely on you. It’s a cruel and perhaps unfair one that nature played on you.

  135. on 26 Dec 2012 at 4:12 am 135.Anonymous said …

    134/Lou(DFW) – too funny!

  136. on 26 Dec 2012 at 5:05 am 136.The messenger said …

    133.Anonymous, I never said that I posted as William.

    What I said was that William was one of the two names that I am known as, on this site.

  137. on 26 Dec 2012 at 5:09 am 137.The messenger said …

    134.Lou(DFW), I am not sir fransis.

    In comment 132 I ment to type the number 131 instead of 130.

  138. on 26 Dec 2012 at 5:15 am 138.The messenger said …

    In comment 131, I was momentarily pretending to be Sir Fransis as a way of making fun of your dilision that I am somehow sir Fransis, which I am not.

    I now see that you are unable to comperihend the practical joke from a different person’s comment.

  139. on 26 Dec 2012 at 5:19 am 139.The messenger said …

    133.Anonymous, I am neither the prophet, nor sir fransis.

    I am the messenger you idiot.

    The only time that I used a different post name on this site was in comment 131 as a practical joke which apparently confused your weak, simple mind.

  140. on 26 Dec 2012 at 5:23 am 140.The messenger said …

    Christianity is good in every way.

    The teachings of Jesus Christ have inspired so many good people such as…

    Martin Luther King, Jr.

  141. on 26 Dec 2012 at 5:32 am 141.The messenger said …

    Christianity is good in every way.

    The teachings of Jesus Christ have inspired so many good people such as…

    Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Abraham lincoln

    Mother Teresa

    Harriet Tubman

    John Paul the 2nd

    All of these remarkable, amazing people have helped the world I’m so many ways.

    All of these people have brought so much good into the world, and they were all Christians.

    Tell me, how can Christianity be bad when so many of it’s followers are good?

  142. on 26 Dec 2012 at 5:33 am 142.The messenger said …

    Christianity is pure good.

    Why do you people fail to see that?

  143. on 26 Dec 2012 at 5:41 am 143.The messenger said …

    Here is an Article about Mother Teresa.

    This article includes some information about the good deeds she and other Christians have done.

    I suggest that you Athiests read it.

    Mother Teresa
    Not to be confused with Maria Theresa (disambiguation).
    Mother Teresa

    Mother Teresa at a pro-life meeting in 1986 in Bonn, West Germany
    Religion Christian (Roman Catholic)
    Order Sisters of Loreto
    (1928–1950)
    Missionaries of Charity
    (1950 – 1997)
    Personal
    Nationality Albanian
    Born Agnes Gonxhe Bojaxhiu
    26 August 1910
    Skopje, Ottoman Vardar Macedonia
    Died 5 September 1997 (aged 87)
    Kolkata, India
    Senior posting
    Title Superior general
    Period in office 1950 – 1997
    Successor Sister Nirmala
    Blessed Teresa of Calcutta,[1] born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (Albanian: [a???s ????d?a b?ja?d?iu]) and commonly known as Mother Teresa of Calcutta (26 August 1910 – 5 September 1997), was an ethnic Albanian, Indian Roman Catholic nun. “By blood, I am Albanian. By citizenship, an Indian. By faith, I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the world. As to my heart, I belong entirely to the Heart of Jesus.”[2] In late 2003, she was beatified, the third step toward possible sainthood. A second miracle credited to Mother Teresa is required before she can be recognized as a saint by the Catholic church.[3][4]

    Mother Teresa founded the Missionaries of Charity, a Roman Catholic religious congregation, which in 2012 consisted of over 4,500 sisters and is active in 133 countries. Members of the order must adhere to the vows of chastity, poverty and obedience, and the fourth vow, to give “Wholehearted and Free service to the poorest of the poor”. The Missionaries of Charity at the time of her death had 610 missions in 123 countries including hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis; soup kitchens; children’s and family counselling programmes; orphanages; and schools.

    For over 45 years, she ministered to the poor, sick, orphaned, and dying, while guiding the Missionaries of Charity’s expansion, first throughout India and then in other countries. Her beatification by Pope John Paul II following her death gave her the title “Blessed Teresa of Calcutta”.

    She was the recipient of numerous honours including the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize. She refused the conventional ceremonial banquet given to laureates, and asked that the $192,000 funds be given to the poor in India. Her awards include the first Pope John XXIII Peace Prize, the Philippines-based Ramon Magsaysay Award, the Pacem in Terris Award, an honorary Companion of the Order of Australia, the Order of Merit from both the United Kingdom and the United States, Albania’s Golden Honour of the Nation, honorary degrees, the Balzan Prize, and the Albert Schweitzer International Prize amongst many others.

    Mother Teresa stated that earthly rewards were important only if they helped her help the world’s needy. When Mother Teresa received the Nobel Peace Prize, she was asked, “What can we do to promote world peace?” She answered “Go home and love your family.” In her Nobel Lecture, she said: “Around the world, not only in the poor countries, but I found the poverty of the West so much more difficult to remove. When I pick up a person from the street, hungry, I give him a plate of rice, a piece of bread, I have satisfied. I have removed that hunger. But a person that is shut out, that feels unwanted, unloved, terrified, the person that has been thrown out from society—that poverty is so hurtable [sic] and so much, and I find that very difficult.” She also singled out abortion as ‘the greatest destroyer of peace in the world’.

    During her lifetime, Mother Teresa was named 18 times in the yearly Gallup’s most admired man and woman poll as one of the ten women around the world that Americans admired most. In 1999, a poll of Americans ranked her first in Gallup’s List of Most Widely Admired People of the 20th Century. In that survey, she out-polled all other volunteered answers by a wide margin, and was in first place in all major demographic categories except the very young.

    HideEarly life

    Memorial House of Mother Teresa, in her native Skopje.
    Part of a series on
    Christianity
    in India

    Background
    Saint Thomas Christians (Nasrani) Synod of Diamper Coonan Cross Oath Saint Thomas Christian churches Malankara (historical)
    People
    St. Thomas the Apostle St. Francis Xavier St. Gonsalo Garcia Devasahayam Pillai St. Alphonsa Muttathupadam Thomas of Cana Alexis de Menezes Mother Teresa Palackal Thoma Malpan Mar Augustine Kandathil Mar Sapor and Proth Marthoma Metrans St. Gregorios of Parumala St. Baselios Eldho Fr. Kuriakose Elias Chavara Fr. Varghese Payapilly Palakkappilly Mgr. Joseph C. Panjikaran Palakunnathu Abraham Malpan Mathews Mar Athanasius of Palakunnathu St. Geevarghese Mar Dionysius William Carey
    Denominations
    Saint Thomas Christian churches: Chaldean Syrian Jacobite Syrian Malankara Orthodox Syrian Malabar Independent Syrian Mar Thoma Syrian St. Thomas Evangelical Syro-Malabar Catholic Syro-Malankara Catholic
    Latin Church: Catholic Church in India
    Protestant denominations: Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church of North India Church of South India Garo Baptist IPC CGI North Bank Baptist Christian Northern Evangelical Lutheran Presbyterian The Pentecostal Mission Seventh-day Adventist True Jesus United Evangelical Lutheran
    Indian Christianity portal
    v t e
    Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (gonxha meaning “rosebud” or “little flower” in Albanian) was born on 26 August 1910, but she considered 27 August, the day she was baptized, to be her “true birthday”.[5] She was born in Skopje, now capital of the Republic of Macedonia, but at the time part of the Ottoman Empire.[6][7]

    She was the youngest of the children of Nikollë and Dranafile Bojaxhiu (Bernai).[8] Her father, who was involved in Albanian politics, died in 1919 when she was eight years old.[9][10] After her father’s death, her mother raised her as a Roman Catholic. Her father, Nikollë Bojaxhiu was possibly from Prizren, Kosovo[a] while her mother was possibly from a village near ?akovica, Kosovo.[11]

    According to a biography by Joan Graff Clucas, in her early years Agnes was fascinated by stories of the lives of missionaries and their service in Bengal, and by age 12 was convinced that she should commit herself to a religious life.[12] Her final resolution was taken on 15 August 1928, while praying at the shrine of the Black Madonna of Letnice, where she often went on pilgrimage.[13]

    She left home at age 18 to join the Sisters of Loreto as a missionary. She never again saw her mother or sister.[14]

    Agnes initially went to the Loreto Abbey in Rathfarnham, Ireland, to learn English, the language the Sisters of Loreto used to teach school children in India.[15] She arrived in India in 1929, and began her novitiate in Darjeeling, near the Himalayan mountains,[16] where she learnt Bengali and taught at the St. Teresa’s School, a schoolhouse close to her convent.[17] She took her first religious vows as a nun on 24 May 1931. At that time she chose to be named after Thérèse de Lisieux, the patron saint of missionaries,[18][19] but because one nun in the convent had already chosen that name, Agnes opted for the Spanish spelling Teresa.[20]

    She took her solemn vows on 14 May 1937, while serving as a teacher at the Loreto convent school in Entally, eastern Calcutta.[9][21][22] Teresa served there for almost twenty years and in 1944 was appointed headmistress.[23]

    Although Teresa enjoyed teaching at the school, she was increasingly disturbed by the poverty surrounding her in Calcutta (Kolkata).[24] The Bengal famine of 1943 brought misery and death to the city; and the outbreak of Hindu/Muslim violence in August 1946 plunged the city into despair and horror.[25]

    Close this section
    HideMissionaries of Charity

    Main article: Missionaries of Charity

    Missionaries of charity with the traditional sari.
    On 10 September 1946, Teresa experienced what she later described as “the call within the call” while traveling by train to the Loreto convent in Darjeeling from Calcutta for her annual retreat. “I was to leave the convent and help the poor while living among them. It was an order. To fail would have been to break the faith.”[26] As one author later noted, “Though no one knew it at the time, Sister Teresa had just become Mother Teresa”.[27]

    She began her missionary work with the poor in 1948, replacing her traditional Loreto habit with a simple white cotton sari decorated with a blue border. Mother Teresa adopted Indian citizenship, spent a few months in Patna to receive a basic medical training in the Holy Family Hospital and then ventured out into the slums.[28][29] Initially she started a school in Motijhil (Calcutta); soon she started tending to the needs of the destitute and starving.[30] In the beginning of 1949 she was joined in her effort by a group of young women and laid the foundations to create a new religious community helping the “poorest among the poor”.

    Her efforts quickly caught the attention of Indian officials, including the prime minister, who expressed his appreciation.[31]

    Teresa wrote in her diary that her first year was fraught with difficulties. She had no income and had to resort to begging for food and supplies. Teresa experienced doubt, loneliness and the temptation to return to the comfort of convent life during these early months. She wrote in her diary:

    Our Lord wants me to be a free nun covered with the poverty of the cross. Today I learned a good lesson. The poverty of the poor must be so hard for them. While looking for a home I walked and walked till my arms and legs ached. I thought how much they must ache in body and soul, looking for a home, food and health. Then the comfort of Loreto [her former order] came to tempt me. ‘You have only to say the word and all that will be yours again,’ the Tempter kept on saying … Of free choice, my God, and out of love for you, I desire to remain and do whatever be your Holy will in my regard. I did not let a single tear come.[32]
    Teresa received Vatican permission on 7 October 1950 to start the diocesan congregation that would become the Missionaries of Charity.[33] Its mission was to care for, in her own words, “the hungry, the naked, the homeless, the crippled, the blind, the lepers, all those people who feel unwanted, unloved, uncared for throughout society, people that have become a burden to the society and are shunned by everyone.”

    It began as a small order with thirteen members in Calcutta; by 1997 it had grown to more than 4,000 sisters running orphanages, AIDS hospices and charity centers worldwide, and caring for refugees, the blind, disabled, aged, alcoholics, the poor and homeless, and victims of floods, epidemics, and famine.[34]

    In 1952 Mother Teresa opened the first Home for the Dying in space made available by the city of Calcutta (Kolkata). With the help of Indian officials she converted an abandoned Hindu temple into the Kalighat Home for the Dying, a free hospice for the poor. She renamed it Kalighat, the Home of the Pure Heart (Nirmal Hriday).[35] Those brought to the home received medical attention and were afforded the opportunity to die with dignity, according to the rituals of their faith; Muslims were read the Quran, Hindus received water from the Ganges, and Catholics received the Last Rites.[36] “A beautiful death,” she said, “is for people who lived like animals to die like angels—loved and wanted.”[36]

    Mother Teresa soon opened a home for those suffering from Hansen’s disease, commonly known as leprosy, and called the hospice Shanti Nagar (City of Peace).[37] The Missionaries of Charity also established several leprosy outreach clinics throughout Calcutta, providing medication, bandages and food.[38]

    As the Missionaries of Charity took in increasing numbers of lost children, Mother Teresa felt the need to create a home for them. In 1955 she opened the Nirmala Shishu Bhavan, the Children’s Home of the Immaculate Heart, as a haven for orphans and homeless youth.[39]

    The order soon began to attract both recruits and charitable donations, and by the 1960s had opened hospices, orphanages and leper houses all over India. Mother Teresa then expanded the order throughout the globe. Its first house outside India opened in Venezuela in 1965 with five sisters.[40] Others followed in Rome, Tanzania, and Austria in 1968; during the 1970s the order opened houses and foundations in dozens of countries in Asia, Africa, Europe and the United States.[41]

    The Missionaries of Charity Brothers was founded in 1963, and a contemplative branch of the Sisters followed in 1976. Lay Catholics and non-Catholics were enrolled in the Co-Workers of Mother Teresa, the Sick and Suffering Co-Workers, and the Lay Missionaries of Charity. In answer to the requests of many priests, in 1981 Mother Teresa also began the Corpus Christi Movement for Priests,[42] and in 1984 founded with Fr. Joseph Langford the Missionaries of Charity Fathers[43] to combine the vocational aims of the Missionaries of Charity with the resources of the ministerial priesthood. By 2007 the Missionaries of Charity numbered approximately 450 brothers and 5,000 sisters worldwide, operating 600 missions, schools and shelters in 120 countries.[44]

    Close this section
    HideInternational charity

    In 1982, at the height of the Siege of Beirut, Mother Teresa rescued 37 children trapped in a front line hospital by brokering a temporary cease-fire between the Israeli army and Palestinian guerrillas.[45] Accompanied by Red Cross workers, she traveled through the war zone to the devastated hospital to evacuate the young patients.[46]

    When Eastern Europe experienced increased openness in the late 1980s, she expanded her efforts to Communist countries that had previously rejected the Missionaries of Charity, embarking on dozens of projects. She was undeterred by criticism about her firm stand against abortion and divorce stating, “No matter who says what, you should accept it with a smile and do your own work.” She visited the Soviet republic of Armenia following the 1988 Spitak earthquake,[47] and met with Nikolai Ryzhkov, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers.[48]

    Mother Teresa traveled to assist and minister to the hungry in Ethiopia, radiation victims at Chernobyl, and earthquake victims in Armenia.[49][50][51] In 1991, Mother Teresa returned for the first time to her homeland and opened a Missionaries of Charity Brothers home in Tirana, Albania.

    By 1996, she was operating 517 missions in more than 100 countries.[52] Over the years, Mother Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity grew from twelve to thousands serving the “poorest of the poor” in 450 centers around the world. The first Missionaries of Charity home in the United States was established in the South Bronx, New York; by 1984 the order operated 19 establishments throughout the country.[53] Mother Teresa was fluent in five languages: Bengali,[54]Albanian, Serbo-Croatian, English, and Hindi.[55]

    Close this section
    ShowDeclining health and death

    ShowRecognition and reception

    HideSpiritual life

    Analyzing her deeds and achievements, John Paul II asked: “Where did Mother Teresa find the strength and perseverance to place herself completely at the service of others? She found it in prayer and in the silent contemplation of Jesus Christ, his Holy Face, his Sacred Heart.”[93] Privately, Mother Teresa experienced doubts and struggles over her religious beliefs which lasted nearly 50 years until the end of her life, during which “she felt no presence of God whatsoever”, “neither in her heart or in the eucharist” as put by her postulator Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk.[94] Mother Teresa expressed grave doubts about God’s existence and pain over her lack of faith:

    Where is my faith? Even deep down … there is nothing but emptiness and darkness … If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul … How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, … What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true.[95]

    Plaque dedicated to Mother Teresa, Wenceslas Square, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
    With reference to the above words, the Rev. Brian Kolodiejchuk, her postulator (the official responsible for gathering the evidence for her sanctification) indicated there was a risk that some might misinterpret her meaning, but her faith that God was working through her remained undiminished, and that while she pined for the lost sentiment of closeness with God, she did not question his existence.[96] and that she may have experienced something similar to what is believed of Jesus Christ when crucified who was heard to say “Eli Eli lama sabachthani?” which is translated to “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” Many other saints had similar experiences of spiritual dryness, or what Catholics believe to be spiritual tests (“passive purifications”), such as Mother Teresa’s namesake, St. Therese of Lisieux, who called it a “night of nothingness.”[96] Contrary to the mistaken belief by some that the doubts she expressed would be an impediment to canonization, just the opposite is true; it is very consistent with the experience of canonized mystics.[96]

    Mother Teresa described, after ten years of doubt, a short period of renewed faith. At the time of the death of Pope Pius XII in the fall of 1958, praying for him at a requiem mass, she said she had been relieved of “the long darkness: that strange suffering.” However, five weeks later, she described returning to her difficulties in believing.[97]

    Mother Teresa wrote many letters to her confessors and superiors over a 66-year period. She had asked that her letters be destroyed, concerned that “people will think more of me—less of Jesus.”[71][98] However, despite this request, the correspondences have been compiled in Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light (Doubleday).[71][99] In one publicly released letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, she wrote, “Jesus has a very special love for you. [But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see,—Listen and do not hear—the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak … I want you to pray for me—that I let Him have [a] free hand.”

    Many news outlets have referred to Mother Teresa’s writings as an indication of a “crisis of faith.”[100] Christopher Hitchens wrote: “So, which is the more striking: that the faithful should bravely confront the fact that one of their heroines all but lost her own faith, or that the Church should have gone on deploying, as an icon of favorable publicity, a confused old lady who it knew had for all practical purposes ceased to believe?”[97] However, others such as Brian Kolodiejchuk, Come Be My Light’s editor, draw comparisons to the 16th century mystic St. John of the Cross, who coined the term the “dark night of the soul” to describe a particular stage in the growth of some spiritual masters.[71] The Vatican has indicated that the letters would not affect her path to sainthood.[101] In fact, the book is edited by the Rev. Kolodiejchuk, her postulator.[71]

    In his first encyclical Deus Caritas Est, Benedict XVI mentioned Teresa of Calcutta three times and he also used her life to clarify one of his main points of the encyclical. “In the example of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta we have a clear illustration of the fact that time devoted to God in prayer not only does not detract from effective and loving service to our neighbour but is in fact the inexhaustible source of that service.”[102] Mother Teresa specified that “It is only by mental prayer and spiritual reading that we can cultivate the gift of prayer.”[103]

    Although there was no direct connection between Mother Teresa’s order and the Franciscan orders, she was known as a great admirer of St. Francis of Assisi.[104] Accordingly, her influence and life show influences of Franciscan spirituality. The Sisters of Charity recite the peace prayer of St. Francis every morning during thanksgiving after Communion and many of the vows and emphasis of her ministry are similar.[104] St. Francis emphasized poverty, chastity, obedience and submission to Christ. He also devoted much of his own life to service of the poor, especially lepers in the area where he lived.

    Close this section
    ShowMiracle and beatification

    ShowLegacy and depictions in popular culture

    ShowSee also

    ShowNotes

    ShowReferences

    ShowFurther reading

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Show

  144. on 26 Dec 2012 at 5:49 am 144.The messenger said …

    Here is an article about Harriet Tubman, she was one of the Greatest freedom leaders of all time, and she was a Christian. Her faith in Jesus helped her free her people from slavery.

    Perhaps this article after you read this article you will reolize that Christian faith is a force of goodness and freedom.

    Harriet Tubman
    Harriet Tubman

    Harriet Tubman circa 1885
    Born Araminta Harriet Ross
    1820
    Dorchester County, Maryland, United States
    Died March 10, 1913 (aged 93)
    Auburn, New York, United States
    Cause of death Pneumonia
    Resting place Fort Hill Cemetery, Auburn, New York, U.S.A
    Residence Auburn, New York, U.S.A
    Nationality American
    Other names Minty, Moses
    Occupation Civil War Nurse, Suffragist, Civil Rights activist
    Employer Edward Brodess
    Religion Christian
    Spouse(s) John Tubman (md.1844–1851)
    Nelson Davies (1869–1888; his death)
    Children Gertie (adopted)
    Parents Harriet Greene
    Ben Ross
    Relatives Modesty (grandmother)
    Linah (sister)
    Mariah Ritty (sister)
    Soph (sister)
    Robert (brother)
    Ben (brother)
    Rachel (sister)
    Henry (brother)
    Moses (brother)
    Harriet Tubman (born Araminta Harriet Ross; 1820 – March 10, 1913) was an African-American abolitionist, humanitarian, and Union spy during the American Civil War. Born into slavery, Tubman escaped and subsequently made more than thirteen missions to rescue more than 70 slaves[1] using the network of antislavery activists and safe houses known as the Underground Railroad. She later helped John Brown recruit men for his raid on Harpers Ferry, and in the post-war era struggled for women’s suffrage.

    As a child in Dorchester County, Maryland, Tubman was beaten by masters to whom she was hired out. Early in her life, she suffered a severe head wound when hit by a heavy metal weight. The injury caused disabling seizures, narcoleptic attacks, headaches, and powerful visionary and dream experiences, which occurred throughout her life. A devout Christian, Tubman ascribed the visions and vivid dreams to revelations from God.

    In 1849, Tubman escaped to Philadelphia, then immediately returned to Maryland to rescue her family. Slowly, one group at a time, she brought relatives out of the state, and eventually guided dozens of other slaves to freedom. Traveling by night, Tubman (or “Moses”, as she was called) “never lost a passenger”.[2] Large rewards were offered for the return of many of the fugitive slaves, but no one then knew that Tubman was the one helping them. When the Southern-dominated Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, requiring law officials in free states to aid efforts to recapture slaves, she helped guide fugitives farther north into Canada, where slavery was prohibited.

    When the American Civil War began, Tubman worked for the Union Army, first as a cook and nurse, and then as an armed scout and spy. The first woman to lead an armed expedition in the war, she guided the Combahee River Raid, which liberated more than 700 slaves in South Carolina. After the war, she retired to the family home in Auburn, New York, where she cared for her aging parents. She became active in the women’s suffrage movement in New York until illness overtook her. Near the end of her life, she lived in a home for elderly African Americans that she had helped found years earlier.

    HideEarly life and education

    Harriet Tubman was born Araminta “Minty” Ross to slave parents, Harriet (“Rit”) Green and Ben Ross. Rit was owned by Mary Pattison Brodess (and later her son Edward). Ben was held by Anthony Thompson, who became Mary’s second husband, and who ran a large plantation near Blackwater River in Madison, Maryland. As with many slaves in the United States, neither the exact year nor place of Araminta’s birth was recorded, and historians differ as to the best estimate. Kate Larson records the year 1822, based on a midwife payment and several other historical documents, including her runaway advertisement[3] while Jean Humez says “the best current evidence suggests that Tubman was born in 1820, but it might have been a year or two later.”[4]Catherine Clinton notes that Tubman reported the year of her birth as 1825, while her death certificate lists 1815 and her gravestone lists 1820.[5] In her Civil War widow’s pension records, Tubman claimed she was born in 1820, 1822, and 1825, an indication, perhaps, that she had only a general idea of when she was born.

    A map showing key locations in Tubman’s life
    Modesty, Tubman’s maternal grandmother, arrived in the United States on a slave ship from Africa; no information is available about her other ancestors.[6] As a child, Tubman was told that she was of Ashanti lineage (from what is now Ghana), though no evidence exists to confirm or deny this assertion.[7] Her mother Rit (who may have had a white father)[7][8] was a cook for the Brodess family.[4] Her father Ben was a skilled woodsman who managed the timber work on Thompson’s plantation.[7] They married around 1808 and, according to court records, they had nine children together: Linah, born in 1808, Mariah Ritty in 1811, Soph in 1813, Robert in 1816, Minty (Harriet) in 1822, Ben in 1823, Rachel in 1825, Henry in 1830, and Moses in 1832.[9]

    Rit struggled to keep their family together as slavery threatened to tear it apart. Edward Brodess sold three of her daughters (Linah, Mariah Ritty, and Soph), separating them from the family forever.[10] When a trader from Georgia approached Brodess about buying Rit’s youngest son, Moses, she hid him for a month, aided by other slaves and free blacks in the community.[11] At one point she confronted her owner about the sale.[12] Finally, Brodess and “the Georgia man” came toward the slave quarters to seize the child, where Rit told them, “You are after my son; but the first man that comes into my house, I will split his head open.”[12] Brodess backed away and abandoned the sale.[13] Tubman’s biographers agree that stories told about this event within the family influenced her belief in the possibilities of resistance.[13][14]

    Close this section
    HideChildhood

    Because Tubman’s mother was assigned to “the big house” and had scarce time for her family, as a child Tubman took care of a younger brother and a baby, as was typical in large families.[15] At the age of five or six, Brodess hired her out to a woman named “Miss Susan” as a nursemaid. Tubman was ordered to keep watch on the baby as it slept; when it woke and cried, Tubman was whipped. She later recounted a particular day when she was lashed five times before breakfast. She carried the scars for the rest of her life.[16] She found ways to resist, running away for five days,[17] wearing layers of clothing as protection against beatings, and fighting back.[18]

    As a child, Tubman also worked at the home of a planter named James Cook. She had to check the muskrat traps in nearby marshes, even after contracting measles. She became so ill that Cook sent her back to Brodess, where her mother nursed her back to health. Brodess then hired her out again. Tubman spoke later of her acute childhood homesickness, comparing herself to “the boy on the Swanee River”, an allusion to Stephen Foster’s song “Old Folks at Home”.[19] As she grew older and stronger, she was assigned to field and forest work, driving oxen, plowing, and hauling logs.[20]

    Head injury

    One day, the adolescent Tubman was sent to a dry-goods store for supplies. There, she encountered a slave owned by another family, who had left the fields without permission. His overseer, furious, demanded that Tubman help restrain the young man. She refused, and as the slave ran away, the overseer threw a two-pound weight at him. He struck Tubman instead, which she said “broke my skull”. She later explained her belief that her hair – which “had never been combed and … stood out like a bushel basket” – might have saved her life. Bleeding and unconscious, Tubman was returned to her owner’s house and laid on the seat of a loom, where she remained without medical care for two days. She was sent back into the fields, “with blood and sweat rolling down my face until I couldn’t see.”[21] Her boss said she was “not worth a sixpence” and returned her to Brodess, who tried unsuccessfully to sell her.[22] She began having seizures and would seemingly fall unconscious, although she claimed to be aware of her surroundings while appearing to be asleep. These episodes were alarming to her family, who were unable to wake her when she fell asleep suddenly and without warning. This condition remained with Tubman for the rest of her life; Larson suggests she may have suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy as a result of the injury.[23]

    The severe head wound occurred when Tubman was becoming deeply religious. As an illiterate child, she had been told Bible stories by her mother.[24] The particular variety of her early Christian belief remains unclear, but Tubman acquired a passionate faith in God. She rejected white interpretations of scripture that urged slaves to be obedient and found guidance in the Old Testament tales of deliverance. After her head injury, Tubman began having visions and potent dreams, which she considered signs from the divine. This religious perspective instructed her throughout her life.[25]

    Close this section
    HideFamily and marriage

    By 1840, Tubman’s father, Ben, was manumitted, freed from slavery at the age of 45, as stipulated in a former owner’s will, though his real age was closer to 55. He continued working as a timber estimator and foreman for the Thompson family, who had held him as a slave.[26] Several years later, Tubman contacted a white attorney and paid him five dollars to investigate her mother’s legal status. The lawyer discovered that a former owner had issued instructions that Rit, like her husband, would be manumitted at the age of 45. The record showed that a similar provision would apply to Rit’s children, and that any children born after she reached 45 years of age were legally free, but the Pattison and Brodess families had ignored this stipulation when they inherited the slaves. Challenging it legally was an impossible task for Tubman.[27]

    Around 1844, she married a free black man named John Tubman.[28] Although little is known about him or their time together, the union was complicated because of her slave status. Since the mother’s status dictated that of children, any children born to Harriet and John would be enslaved. Such blended marriages – free people marrying enslaved people – were not uncommon on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where by this time, half the black population was free. Most African-American families had both free and enslaved members. Larson suggests that they might have planned to buy Tubman’s freedom.[29]

    Tubman changed her name from Araminta to Harriet soon after her marriage, though the exact timing is unclear. Larson suggests this happened right after the wedding,[28] and Clinton suggests that it coincided with Tubman’s plans to escape from slavery.[30] She adopted her mother’s name, possibly as part of a religious conversion, or to honor another relative.[28][30]

    Close this section
    HideEscape from slavery

    In 1849, Tubman became ill again, and her value as a slave was diminished as a result. Edward Brodess tried to sell her, but could not find a buyer.[31] Angry at his action and the unjust hold he kept on her relatives, Tubman began to pray for her owner, asking God to make him change his ways.[32]

    “I prayed all night long for my master,” she said later, “till the first of March; and all the time he was bringing people to look at me, and trying to sell me.” When it appeared as though a sale was being concluded, she switched tactics. “I changed my prayer,” she said. “First of March I began to pray, ‘Oh Lord, if you ain’t never going to change that man’s heart, kill him, Lord, and take him out of the way.”[33]

    A week later, Brodess died, and Tubman expressed regret for her earlier sentiments.[34]

    Brodess’s death increased the likelihood that Tubman would be sold and her family would be broken apart, as frequently happened in the settlement of an estate.[35] His widow, Eliza, began working to sell the family’s slaves.[36] Tubman refused to wait for the Brodess family to decide her fate, despite her husband’s efforts to dissuade her.[37] “[T]here was one of two things I had a right to,” she explained later, “liberty or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other.”[38]

    Notice published in the Cambridge Democrat, offering a three hundred dollar reward for Araminta (Minty) and her brothers Harry and Ben
    Tubman and her brothers, Ben and Henry, escaped from slavery on September 17, 1849. Tubman had been hired out to Dr. Anthony Thompson, who owned a large plantation in an area called Poplar Neck in neighboring Caroline County; it is likely her brothers labored for Thompson as well. Because the slaves were hired out to another household, Eliza Brodess probably did not recognize their absence as an escape attempt for some time. Two weeks later, she posted a runaway notice in the Cambridge Democrat, offering a reward of up to 100 dollars for each slave returned.[39] Once they had left, Tubman’s brothers had second thoughts. Ben may have just become a father. The two men went back, forcing Tubman to return with them.[40]

    Soon afterward, Tubman escaped again, this time without her brothers.[41] Beforehand, she tried to send word to her mother of her plans. She sang a coded song to Mary, a trusted fellow slave, that was a farewell. “I’ll meet you in the morning,” she intoned, “I’m bound for the promised land”.[42] While her exact route is unknown, Tubman made use of the network known as the Underground Railroad. This informal, but well-organized, system was composed of free and enslaved blacks, white abolitionists, and other activists. Most prominent among the latter in Maryland at the time were members of the Religious Society of Friends, often called Quakers.[41] The Preston area near Poplar Neck in Caroline County contained a substantial Quaker community, and was probably an important first stop during Tubman’s escape.[43] From there, she probably took a common route for fleeing slaves – northeast along the Choptank River, through Delaware and then north into Pennsylvania.[44] A journey of nearly 90 miles (145 kilometers), her traveling by foot would have taken between five days and three weeks.[45]

    Tubman had to travel by night, guided by the North Star, and trying to avoid slave catchers, eager to collect rewards for fugitive slaves.[46] The “conductors” in the Underground Railroad used a variety of deceptions for protection. At one of the earliest stops, the lady of the house ordered Tubman to sweep the yard to make it appear as though she worked for the family. When night fell, the family hid her in a cart and took her to the next friendly house.[47] Given her familiarity with the woods and marshes of the region, it is likely that Tubman hid in these locales during the day.[44] Because the routes she followed were used by other fugitive slaves, Tubman did not speak about them until later in her life.

    Particulars of her first journey remain shrouded in secrecy.[48] She crossed into Pennsylvania with a feeling of relief and awe, and recalled the experience years later:

    “When I found I had crossed that line, I looked at my hands to see if I was the same person. There was such a glory over everything; the sun came like gold through the trees, and over the fields, and I felt like I was in Heaven.”[42]

    Close this section
    Hide”Moses”

    After reaching Philadelphia, Tubman began thinking of her family. “I was a stranger in a strange land,” she said later. “[M]y father, my mother, my brothers, and sisters, and friends were [in Maryland]. But I was free, and they should be free.”[49] She began to work odd jobs and save money.[50] At the same time, the U.S. Congress passed the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which forced law enforcement officials (even in states that had outlawed slavery) to aid in the capture of fugitive slaves, and imposed heavy punishments on those who abetted escape. The law increased risks for escaped slaves, and more began to try to get to Canada, which had abolished slavery.[51] Racial tensions increased in Philadelphia, as waves of poor Irish immigrants competed with free blacks for work.[52]

    In December 1850, Tubman received a warning that her niece Kessiah was going to be sold (along with her two children, six-year-old James Alfred, and baby Araminta) in Cambridge. Tubman returned to the land of her enslavement. She went to Baltimore, where her brother-in-law Tom Tubman hid her until the time of the sale. Kessiah’s husband, a free black man named John Bowley, made the winning bid for his wife. Then, while he pretended to make arrangements to pay, Kessiah and their children escaped to a nearby safe house. When night fell, Bowley sailed the family on a log canoe 60 miles (100 kilometers) to Baltimore. They met up with Tubman, who brought the family safely to Philadelphia.[53]

    The following spring, she headed back into Maryland to help guide away other family members. On her second trip, she brought back her brother Moses, and two other unidentified men.[54] It is likely that Tubman was by this time working with abolitionist Thomas Garrett, a Quaker working in Wilmington, Delaware.[55] Word of her exploits had encouraged her family, and biographers agree that she became more confident with each trip to Maryland.[54][56] As she led more individuals out of slavery, she was named “Moses” by abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, an allusion to the prophet in the Book of Exodus who led the Hebrews to freedom from Egypt.[57]

    During an interview with author Wilbur Siebert in 1897, Tubman revealed some of the names of helpers and places she used along the Underground Railroad. She stayed with Sam Green, a free black minister living in East New Market, Maryland; she also hid near her parents’ home at Poplar Neck in Caroline County, Maryland. From there, she would travel northeast to Sandtown and Willow Grove, Delaware, and onto the Camden area where free black agents, William and Nat Brinkley and Abraham Gibbs, guided her north past Dover, Smyrna, and Blackbird, where other agents would take her across the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal to New Castle and Wilmington. In Wilmington, Quaker Thomas Garrett would secure transportation to William Still’s office or the homes of other Underground Railroad operators in the greater Philadelphia area. Still, a famous black agent, is credited with aiding hundreds of freedom seekers escape to safer places farther north in New York, New England, and Canada.[58]

    In the fall of 1851, Tubman returned to Dorchester County for the first time since her escape, this time to find her husband, John. She once again saved money from various jobs, purchased a suit for him, and made her way south. John, meanwhile, had married another woman named Caroline. Tubman sent word that he should join her, but he insisted that he was happy where he was. Tubman at first prepared to storm their house and make a scene, but then decided he was not worth the trouble. Suppressing her anger, she found some slaves who wanted to escape and led them to Philadelphia.[59] John and Caroline raised a family together, until he was killed 16 years later in a roadside argument with a white man named Robert Vincent.[60]

    Frederick Douglass, who worked for slavery’s abolition alongside Tubman and praised her in print
    Because the Fugitive Slave Law had made the northern United States more dangerous for escaped slaves, many began migrating further north to Canada. In December 1851, Tubman guided an unidentified group of 11 fugitives, possibly including the Bowleys and several others she had helped rescue earlier, northward. There is evidence to suggest that Tubman and her group stopped at the home of abolitionist and former slave Frederick Douglass.[61] In his third autobiography, Douglass wrote: “On one occasion I had eleven fugitives at the same time under my roof, and it was necessary for them to remain with me until I could collect sufficient money to get them on to Canada. It was the largest number I ever had at any one time, and I had some difficulty in providing so many with food and shelter….”[62] The number of travelers and the time of the visit make it likely that this was Tubman’s group.[61]

    Douglass and Tubman showed a great admiration for one another as they struggled together against slavery. When an early biography of Tubman was being prepared in 1868, Douglass wrote a letter to honor her. It read in part:

    You ask for what you do not need when you call upon me for a word of commendation. I need such words from you far more than you can need them from me, especially where your superior labors and devotion to the cause of the lately enslaved of our land are known as I know them. The difference between us is very marked. Most that I have done and suffered in the service of our cause has been in public, and I have received much encouragement at every step of the way. You, on the other hand, have labored in a private way. I have wrought in the day—you in the night. … The midnight sky and the silent stars have been the witnesses of your devotion to freedom and of your heroism. Excepting John Brown—of sacred memory—I know of no one who has willingly encountered more perils and hardships to serve our enslaved people than you have.[63]
    Journeys and methods

    For 11 years Tubman returned repeatedly to the Eastern Shore of Maryland, rescuing some 70 slaves in about 13 expeditions, including her three other brothers, Henry, Ben, and Robert, their wives and some of their children. She also provided specific instructions for about 50 to 60 other fugitives who escaped to the north.[1] Her dangerous work required tremendous ingenuity; she usually worked during winter months, to minimize the likelihood that the group would be seen. One admirer of Tubman said: “She always came in the winter, when the nights are long and dark, and people who have homes stay in them.”[64] Once she had made contact with escaping slaves, they left town on Saturday evenings, since newspapers would not print runaway notices until Monday morning.[65]

    Slavery
    Contemporary slavery
    Africa Bangladesh China Europe India Mali Mauritania North Korea Pakistan Sudan United States
    Types
    Bride-buying Child labour Debt bondage Human trafficking Peonage Penal labour Sexual slavery Sweatshop Wage slavery
    Historic
    History Antiquity Aztec Ancient Greece Rome Medieval Europe Thrall Kholop Serfdom Slave ship Slave raiding Blackbirding Galley slave Panyarring
    By country or region:

    Africa Atlantic Arab Barbary Pirates Spanish New World Angola Bhutan Brazil Britain and Ireland British Virgin Islands Canada China India Iran Japan Libya Ottoman empire Portugal Romania Seychelles Somalia South Africa
    Sweden United States
    Religion
    The Bible Judaism Christianity Islam
    Related topics
    Abolitionism Exploitation Indentured servant Unfree labour
    v t e
    Her journeys into the land of slavery put her at tremendous risk, and she used a variety of subterfuges to avoid detection. Tubman once disguised herself with a bonnet and carried two live chickens to give the appearance of running errands. Suddenly finding herself walking toward a former owner in Dorchester County, she yanked the strings holding the birds’ legs, and their agitation allowed her to avoid eye contact.[66] Later she recognized a fellow train passenger as another former master; she snatched a nearby newspaper and pretended to read. Since Tubman was known to be illiterate, the man ignored her.[67]

    Her religious faith was another important resource as she ventured repeatedly into Maryland. The visions from her childhood head injury continued, and she saw them as divine premonitions. She spoke of “consulting with God”, and trusted that He would keep her safe.[68] Thomas Garrett once said of her, “I never met with any person of any color who had more confidence in the voice of God, as spoken direct to her soul.”[69] Her faith in the divine also provided immediate assistance. She used spirituals as coded messages, warning fellow travelers of danger or to signal a clear path.[70]

    She carried a revolver, and was not afraid to use it. Once a slave agreed to join her expedition, there was no turning back; she threatened to shoot anyone who tried to return.[71] Tubman told the tale of one journey with a group of fugitive slaves, when morale sank and one man insisted he was going to go back to the plantation. She pointed the gun at his head and said, “You go on or die.”[72] Several days later, he was with the group as they entered Canada.[68] It is more than likely that Tubman carried the handgun as protection from ever-present slave catchers and their dogs.

    Slaveholders in the region, meanwhile, never knew that “Minty”, the petite, five-foot-tall, disabled slave who had run away years before and never come back, was behind so many slave escapes in their community. By the late 1850s, they began to suspect a northern white abolitionist was secretly enticing their slaves away. They considered that John Brown himself had come to the Eastern Shore to lure slaves away before his ill-fated raid on Harper’s Ferry in October 1859.

    While a popular legend persists about a reward of US$40,000 for Tubman’s capture, this is a manufactured figure. In 1868, in an effort to drum up support for Tubman’s claim for a Civil War military pension, a former abolitionist named Salley Holley wrote an article claiming US$40,000 “was not too great a reward for Maryland slaveholders to offer for her.”[73] Such a high reward would have garnered national attention, especially at a time when a small farm could be purchased for a mere US$400. No such reward has been found in period newspapers. (The federal government offered $25,000 for the capture of each of John Wilkes Booth’s co-conspirators in Lincoln’s assassination.) A reward offering of US$12,000 has also been claimed, though no documentation exists for that figure either. Catherine Clinton suggests that the US$40,000 figure may have been a combined total of the various bounties offered around the region.[74]

    Despite the best efforts of the slaveholders, Tubman was never captured, and neither were the fugitives she guided. Years later, she told an audience: “I was conductor of the Underground Railroad for eight years, and I can say what most conductors can’t say – I never ran my train off the track and I never lost a passenger.”[75] One of her last missions into Maryland was to retrieve her aging parents. Her father, Ben, had purchased Rit, her mother, in 1855 from Eliza Brodess for 20 dollars.[76] But even when they were both free, the area became hostile to their presence. Two years later, Tubman received word that her father had harbored a group of eight escaped slaves, and was at risk of arrest. She traveled to the Eastern Shore and led them north into the Canadian city of St. Catharines, Ontario, where a community of former slaves (including Tubman’s brothers, other relatives, and many friends) had gathered.[77]

    Close this section
    ShowJohn Brown and Harpers Ferry

    ShowAuburn and Margaret

    HideCivil War

    Union General David Hunter worked with Tubman during the Civil War and shared her abolitionist views.
    When the American Civil War broke out in 1861, Tubman saw a Union victory as a key step toward the abolition of slavery. General Benjamin Butler, for instance, aided escaped slaves flooding into Fort Monroe.[98] Butler had declared these fugitives to be “contraband” – property seized by northern forces – and put them to work without pay in the fort.[99] Tubman hoped to offer her own expertise and skills to the Union cause, too, and soon she joined a group of Boston and Philadelphia abolitionists heading to the Hilton Head District in South Carolina. She became a fixture in the camps, particularly in Port Royal, South Carolina, assisting fugitives.[100]

    Tubman soon met with General David Hunter, a strong supporter of abolition. He declared all of the “contrabands” in the Port Royal district free, and began gathering former slaves for a regiment of black soldiers.[101] U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, however, was not prepared to enforce emancipation on the southern states, and reprimanded Hunter for his actions.[101] Tubman condemned Lincoln’s response and his general unwillingness to consider ending slavery in the U.S., for both moral and practical reasons. “God won’t let master Lincoln beat the South till he does the right thing,” she said.

    Master Lincoln, he’s a great man, and I am a poor negro; but the negro can tell master Lincoln how to save the money and the young men. He can do it by setting the negro free. Suppose that was an awful big snake down there, on the floor. He bite you. Folks all scared, because you die. You send for a doctor to cut the bite; but the snake, he rolled up there, and while the doctor doing it, he bite you again. The doctor dug out that bite; but while the doctor doing it, the snake, he spring up and bite you again; so he keep doing it, till you kill him. That’s what master Lincoln ought to know.[102]
    Tubman served as a nurse in Port Royal, preparing remedies from local plants and aiding soldiers suffering from dysentery. She rendered assistance to men with smallpox; that she did not contract the disease herself started more rumors that she was blessed by God.[103] At first, she received government rations for her work, but newly freed blacks thought she was getting special treatment. To ease the tension, she gave up her right to these supplies and made money selling pies and root beer, which she made in the evenings.[104]

    Scouting and the Combahee River Raid

    When Lincoln finally issued the Emancipation Proclamation in January 1863, Tubman considered it an important step toward the goal of liberating all black men, women, and children from slavery.[105] She renewed her support for a defeat of the Confederacy, and before long she was leading a band of scouts through the land around Port Royal. The marshes and rivers in South Carolina were similar to those of the Eastern Shore of Maryland; thus her knowledge of covert travel and subterfuge among potential enemies were put to good use.[106] Her group, working under the orders of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, mapped the unfamiliar terrain and reconnoitered its inhabitants. She later worked alongside Colonel James Montgomery, and provided him with key intelligence that aided the capture of Jacksonville, Florida.[107]

    A woodcut of Tubman in her Civil War clothing
    Later that year, Tubman became the first woman to lead an armed assault during the Civil War.[108] When Montgomery and his troops conducted an assault on a collection of plantations along the Combahee River, Tubman served as a key adviser and accompanied the raid. On the morning of June 2, 1863, Tubman guided three steamboats around Confederate mines in the waters leading to the shore.[109] Once ashore, the Union troops set fire to the plantations, destroying infrastructure and seizing thousands of dollars worth of food and supplies.[110] When the steamboats sounded their whistles, slaves throughout the area understood that it was being liberated. Tubman watched as slaves stampeded toward the boats. “I never saw such a sight,” she said later,[111] describing a scene of chaos with women carrying still-steaming pots of rice, pigs squealing in bags slung over shoulders, and babies hanging around their parents’ necks. Although their owners, armed with handguns and whips, tried to stop the mass escape, their efforts were nearly useless in the tumult.[110] As Confederate troops raced to the scene, steamboats packed full of slaves took off toward Beaufort.[112]

    More than 700 slaves were rescued in the Combahee River Raid.[113][114] Newspapers heralded Tubman’s “patriotism, sagacity, energy, [and] ability”,[115] and she was praised for her recruiting efforts – most of the newly liberated men went on to join the Union army.[116] Tubman later worked with Colonel Robert Gould Shaw at the assault on Fort Wagner, reportedly serving him his last meal.[117] She described the battle by saying: “And then we saw the lightning, and that was the guns; and then we heard the thunder, and that was the big guns; and then we heard the rain falling, and that was the drops of blood falling; and when we came to get the crops, it was dead men that we reaped.”[118]

    For two more years, Tubman worked for the Union forces, tending to newly liberated slaves, scouting into Confederate territory, and eventually nursing wounded soldiers in Virginia.[119] She also made periodic trips back to Auburn, to visit her family and care for her parents.[120] The Confederacy surrendered in April 1865; after donating several more months of service, Tubman headed home.[121]

    Tubman returned to Auburn at the end of the war. During a train ride to New York, the conductor told her to move into the smoking car. She refused, explaining her government service. He cursed at her and grabbed her, but she resisted and he summoned two other passengers for help. While she clutched at the railing, they muscled her away, breaking her arm in the process. They threw her into the smoking car, causing more injuries. As these events transpired, other white passengers cursed Tubman and shouted for the conductor to kick her off the train.[122]

    Despite her years of service, she had never received a regular salary and was for years denied compensation.[123][124] Her unofficial status and the unequal payments offered to black soldiers caused great difficulty in documenting her service, and the U.S. government was slow in recognizing its debt to her.[125] Tubman did not receive a pension for her service in the Civil War until 1899.[126][127] Her constant humanitarian work for her family and former slaves, meanwhile, kept her in a state of constant poverty, and her difficulties in obtaining a government pension were especially taxing for her.[128]

    Close this section
    HideLater life

    Tubman (far left), with Davis (seated, with cane), their adopted daughter Gertie (beside Tubman), Lee Cheney, John “Pop” Alexander, Walter Green, Blind “Aunty” Sarah Parker, and great-niece, Dora Stewart at Tubman’s home in Auburn, New York circa 1887
    Tubman spent her remaining years in Auburn, tending to her family and other people in need. She worked various jobs to support her elderly parents, and took in boarders to help pay the bills.[60] One of the people Tubman took in was a Civil War veteran named Nelson Davis. He began working in Auburn as a bricklayer, and they soon fell in love. Though he was 22 years younger than she was, on March 18, 1869, they were married at the Central Presbyterian Church.[129] They spent the next 20 years together, and in 1874 they adopted a baby girl named Gertie.[130]

    Tubman’s friends and supporters from the days of abolition, meanwhile, raised funds to support her. One admirer, Sarah Hopkins Bradford, wrote an authorized biography entitled Scenes in the Life of Harriet Tubman. The 132-page volume was published in 1869, and brought Tubman some US$1,200 in revenue.[131] Criticized by modern biographers for its artistic license and highly subjective point of view,[132] the book nevertheless remains an important source of information and perspective on Tubman’s life. Bradford released another volume in 1886 called Harriet, the Moses of her People, which presented a less caustic view of slavery and the South. It, too, was published as a way to help alleviate Tubman’s poverty.[133]

    Because of the debt she had accumulated (including delayed payment for her property in Auburn), Tubman fell prey in 1873 to a swindle involving gold transfer. Two men, one named Stevenson and the other John Thomas, claimed to have in their possession a cache of gold smuggled out of South Carolina.[134][135] They offered this treasure – worth about US$5,000, they claimed – for US$2,000 in cash. They insisted that they knew a relative of Tubman’s, and she took them into her home, where they stayed for several days.[136] She knew that white people in the South had buried valuables when Union forces threatened the region, and also that black men were frequently assigned to digging duties. Thus the situation seemed plausible, and a combination of her financial woes and her good nature led her to go along with the plan.[134] She borrowed the money from a wealthy friend named Anthony Shimer, and arranged to receive the gold late one night. Once the men had lured her into the woods, however, they attacked her and knocked her out with chloroform, then stole her purse and bound and gagged her. When she was found by her family, she was dazed and injured, and the money was gone.[134][137] New York responded with outrage to the incident, and while some criticized Tubman for her naïveté, most sympathized with her economic hardship and lambasted the con men.[138] The incident refreshed the public’s memory of her past service and her economic woes. Wisconsin Representative Gerry W. Hazelton introduced a bill (H.R. 3786) providing that Tubman be paid “the sum of $2,000 for services rendered by her to the Union Army as scout, nurse, and spy….”[139] It was defeated.

    Susan B. Anthony worked with Tubman for women’s suffrage.
    Suffragist activism

    In her later years,Tubman worked to promote the cause of women’s suffrage. A white woman once asked Tubman whether she believed women ought to have the vote, and received the reply: “I suffered enough to believe it.”[140] Tubman began attending meetings of suffragist organizations, and was soon working alongside women such as Susan B. Anthony and Emily Howland.[141][142]

    Tubman traveled to New York, Boston, and Washington, D.C. to speak out in favor of women’s voting rights. She described her actions during and after the Civil War, and used the sacrifices of countless women throughout modern history as evidence of women’s equality to men.[143] When the National Federation of Afro-American Women was founded in 1896, Tubman was the keynote speaker at its first meeting.[144]

    This wave of activism kindled a new wave of admiration for Tubman among the press in the United States. A publication called The Woman’s Era launched a series of articles on “Eminent Women” with a profile of Tubman.[144] An 1897 suffragist newspaper reported a series of receptions in Boston honoring Tubman and her lifetime of service to the nation. However, her endless contributions to others had left her in poverty, and she had to sell a cow to buy a train ticket to these celebrations.[145]

    AME Zion Church, illness, and death

    Harriet Tubman, 1911
    At the turn of the 20th century, Tubman became heavily involved with the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church in Auburn. In 1903, she donated a parcel of real estate she owned to the church, under the instruction that it be made into a home for “aged and indigent colored people.”[146] The home did not open for another five years, and Tubman was dismayed when the church ordered residents to pay a $100 entrance fee. She said: “[T]hey make a rule that nobody should come in without they have a hundred dollars. Now I wanted to make a rule that nobody should come in unless they didn’t have no money at all.”[147] She was frustrated by the new rule but was the guest of honor nonetheless when the Harriet Tubman Home for the Aged celebrated its opening on June 23, 1908.[148]

    As Tubman aged, the sleeping spells and suffering from her childhood head trauma continued to plague her. At some point in the late 1890s, she underwent brain surgery at Boston’s Massachusetts General Hospital. Unable to sleep because of pains and “buzzing” in her head, she asked a doctor if he could operate. He agreed and, in her words, “sawed open my skull, and raised it up, and now it feels more comfortable.”[149] She had received no anesthesia for the procedure and reportedly chose instead to bite down on a bullet, as she had seen Civil War soldiers do when their limbs were amputated.[150]

    By 1911, her body was so frail that she had to be admitted into the rest home named in her honor. A New York newspaper described her as “ill and penniless,” prompting supporters to offer a new round of donations.[151] Surrounded by friends and family members, Harriet Tubman died of pneumonia in 1913.[151] Just before she died, she told those in the room: “I go to prepare a place for you.”[152]

    Close this section
    HideLegacy

    Statue by Jane DeDecker commemorating Harriet Tubman, Ypsilanti, Michigan
    Harriet Tubman, widely known and well-respected while she was alive, became an American icon in the years after she died. A survey at the end of the 20th century named her as one of the most famous civilians in American history before the Civil War, third only to Betsy Ross and Paul Revere.[153] She inspired generations of African Americans struggling for equality and civil rights; she was praised by leaders across the political spectrum.[154]

    When she died, Tubman was buried with military honors at Fort Hill Cemetery in Auburn. The city commemorated her life with a plaque on the courthouse. Although it showed pride for her many achievements, its use of dialect (“I nebber run my train off de track”), apparently chosen for its authenticity, has been criticized for undermining her stature as an American patriot and dedicated humanitarian.[155] Still, the dedication ceremony was a powerful tribute to her memory, and Booker T. Washington delivered the keynote address.[156] The Harriet Tubman home was abandoned after 1920, but was later renovated by the AME Zion Church. Today, it welcomes visitors as a museum and education center.[157]

    Bradford’s biographies were followed by Earl Conrad’s Harriet Tubman: Negro Soldier and Abolitionist. Conrad had experienced great difficulty in finding a publisher – the search took four years – and endured disdain and contempt for his efforts to construct a more objective, detailed account of Tubman’s life for adults.[158] Several highly dramatized versions of Tubman’s life had been written for children, and many more came later, but Conrad wrote in an academic style to document the historical importance of her work for scholars and the nation’s memory.[159] The book was finally published by Carter G. Woodson’s Associated Publishers in 1942.[158] Despite her popularity and significance, another Tubman biography for adults did not appear for 60 years, until Jean Humez published a close reading of Tubman’s life stories in 2003, and Larson and Clinton both published their biographies in 2004.

    Tubman was celebrated in many other ways throughout the nation in the 20th century. Dozens of schools were named in her honor,[160] and both the Harriet Tubman Home in Auburn and the Harriet Tubman Museum in Cambridge serve as monuments to her life.[160] In 1937 the gravestone for Harriet Tubman Davis was erected by the Empire State Federation of Women’s Clubs; it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1999.[161] In 1944, the United States Maritime Commission launched the SS Harriet Tubman, its first Liberty ship ever named for a black woman.[158] In 1978, the United States Postal Service issued a stamp in honor of Tubman as the first in a series honoring African Americans.[162] She is commemorated together with Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Bloomer, and Sojourner Truth in the calendar of saints of the Episcopal Church on July 20. In 1999, the Canadian government designated the Salem Chapel, British Methodist Episcopal Church in St. Catharines, as a National Historic Site of Canada because of its association with Tubman.[163][164] In 2002, scholar Molefi Kete Asante included Harriet Tubman on his list of the 100 Greatest African Americans.[165] In 2008, Towson University named a new residence hall after Tubman.[166] Tubman was parodied on a season 7 episode of 30 Rock, portrayed by Alec Baldwin in a wig and dress.

    Movies

    A Woman Called Moses (1978)
    The Quest for Freedom (1992)
    Close this section
    ShowSee also

    ShowReferences

    ShowBibliography

    ShowExternal links

    ShowRead in another language

    Show

  145. on 26 Dec 2012 at 6:29 am 145.Severin said …

    30 SF
    “We can be excepting of others by showing respect other’s ideas and not discriminating against other people’s religious beliefs.”

    I know how to be “excepting of others”, …, not discriminating, …, and I am. My parents taught me, their parents taught them, …
    I don’t need gods and religions to know how to be a good, tollerant and highly moral person.

    Some people are very bad although they were risen in religious families.
    No gods and religions ever helped them to become good.

    Is that a faact?
    Yes, it is!

    So, what is the purpose of believing in gods?

  146. on 26 Dec 2012 at 6:39 am 146.Severin said …

    131 SF
    “If you want to understand it, I suggest that you go to Church.”

    When I was about 9, I went to church because my grandparents liked me to go there. One day I saw the priest, in a private place within the church, directing another boy’s hand under his (priest’s) robe.

    Is that what you suggested us to understand?

    Or, maybe this: contribute some money, and we will pray for rain. In case of no rain, and ruined crop, we will not give you money back, neither will we give bread to you and your family.

  147. on 26 Dec 2012 at 2:06 pm 147.alex said …

    “So, what is the purpose of believing in gods?”

    afraid of death. the big plus is that xtians get to fuck with homosexuals, women, and other nationalities/religions as they righteously proclaim their belief. oh, and the do-over card.

    merry christmas asshole, you know who you are.

  148. on 26 Dec 2012 at 3:22 pm 148.Anonymous said …

    “and the do-over card”

    Ah, yes. Christianity, the religion of absolutely no enduring moral values whatsoever. Everything, but supposedly one thing, can be forgiven if you ask nicely.

    So, what is this thing that cannot be forgiven?

    Is it raping little children? No, priests do that and their leaders conspire to hide their crimes and aid and abet their fetish.

    Is this awful thing murder, after all there is an injunction against that in the old testament? No, of course not. The OT applies or not applies as Christians term fit. America, a nation where almost 75% of the population is Christian has more gun-related killings than any other developed nation.

    It can’t be crime in general as Christians are
    over-represented in American prisons.

    So, what is the sin, once committed, that even a Christian can’t be forgiven for?

    “Mark 3:29 – But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin. (NIV)” – That’s it. The baddest, worst thing a Christian could do is speak badly of a ghost.

    But, then, in true doublethink tradition, many Christians will argue that “no true Christian” would ever commit such a sin. Thus leaving Christians free to do whatever they wish with the knowledge that saying sorry to (sky) daddy is all they need to do to live happily in the ever-after.

    Now, this is not to say that people who happen to be Christians are bad. It’s that Christianity as a religion isn’t a panacea, it’s an excuse to behave badly whilst claiming exactly the opposite.

    So, cue sock puppets and trolls with barrels of red herrings. But as you do come, please do direct us to this trove of Christian Moral Values that you infer exists but never manage to describe in detail.

  149. on 26 Dec 2012 at 4:53 pm 149.The messenger said …

    146.Severin, just because that priest was bad does not mean that they are all bad.

  150. on 26 Dec 2012 at 5:02 pm 150.The messenger said …

    147.alex, I am not afraid of death.

    I am not afraid of anything.

  151. on 26 Dec 2012 at 5:52 pm 151.The messenger said …

    148.Anonymous, Mark 3:29 does not mean speaking against God.

    Within that verse when it says the word (blasphemes), it is referring to all sins, not just speaking against God.

    Sins are actions that violate Jesus’s laws (The Ten Commandments).

    http://www.rwf2000.com/gifs/10-God-Man.jpg

    All sins can be forgiven, if you truly feel sorry for what you did wrong and you wish to become a better person.

    But you have to ask to be forgiven first.

  152. on 27 Dec 2012 at 7:53 am 152.Severin said …

    “All sins can be forgiven, if you truly feel sorry for what you did wrong and you wish to become a better person.”

    That is the greatest hypocrisy in Christianity. God forgives “sins” that human beings can’t forgive. It is enough to “sincerely” say “I’m sorry” and your crimes are forgiven!
    I think, not so much the fear from death, but possibility to switch their responsibility to someone else (in this case a god) is something that keeps believers adhering to Christianity. The most destructive idea ever: whatever you do, you will be forgiven if you only “sincerely repent”.
    Disgusting!
    If I believed there was a god, that is something that would turn me against him.
    Only a maniac can forgive Hitler’s sins, for example.

  153. on 27 Dec 2012 at 7:54 am 153.Severin said …

    Corr.: Hitler’s “sins”.

  154. on 27 Dec 2012 at 11:05 am 154.freddies_dead said …

    59.Counting said …

    freddies_dead,

    Why would you be insulted by someone assuming you are gay?

    Why indeed. In fact I’ve already pointed out that I wouldn’t be insulted by such an assumption – so making the insinuation hasn’t worked for you.

    There was absolutely nothing insulting about the assumption.

    This, of course, is a lie. You make a point of saying how homosexuality is abnormal and is destructive (all lies) and then insinuate that someone is gay. It’s meant to be an insult and you know it. That I don’t view it as insulting just seems to piss you off.

    You seem rather shaken by the insinuation.

    Shaken? No. More amused by yet another Christian displaying their bigotry for all to see.

    If I have misrepresented homosexuality or the agenda of the adherent’s lobby please show me the errors.

    Already done. Although it’s not a surprise to see a Christian sticking their fingers in their ears, all the while shouting “La-la-la-la-la I can’t hear you destroying my invalid claims about homosexuality”.

  155. on 27 Dec 2012 at 11:28 am 155.Lou(DFW) said …

    154.freddies_dead said …

    “Although it’s not a surprise to see a Christian sticking their fingers in their ears, all the while shouting “La-la-la-la-la I can’t hear you destroying my invalid claims about homosexuality”.

    Destruction of such false claims is not necessary. Without evidence to support them, they are exactly like those who proclaim them, nothing but hot air.

  156. on 27 Dec 2012 at 1:34 pm 156.Lou(DFW) said …

    154.freddies_dead said …

    “59.Counting said …”

    ASS and all of his sock-puppets are in hiding.

  157. on 27 Dec 2012 at 4:32 pm 157.The messenger said …

    152.Severin, just because you have been forgiven, does not mean that you won’t be punished.

    Hitler is doing his punishment right now in hell.

  158. on 27 Dec 2012 at 5:48 pm 158.Lou(DFW) said …

    157.The messenger said …

    “Hitler is doing his punishment right now in hell.”

    Liar, you know no such thing.

  159. on 27 Dec 2012 at 6:57 pm 159.DPK said …

    Again, messenger demonstrates his complete lack of basic knowledge of his own catholic faith.
    No messenger, according to the catholic church, you cannot get out of hell. Once you are sent to hell, it is for eternity. This was a problem for the catholics, because they wanted a way for people to think they could get out of hell by using the services of the church… special blessings and masses, etc. (for a fee, of course $$$) So, the church invented the idea of purgatory… a kind of temporary hell that one could be released from on the way to heaven. Please note that there is absolutely NO biblical basis for this idea. The catholic church invented it 100% out of thin air. Same for the idea of “Limbo”, a special place that unbaptized babies who die get to go to. Not heaven, but a more palatable alternative than hell, where innocent unbaptized babies used to go. Also the same for the idea of annulment, the catholic workaround for the problem of divorce. You’re not allowed to divorce, but for a fee you can have a bishop declare that you were never married to begin with. Hold a couple bucks in front of a catholic cleric’s nose and they can invent a way around any problem.
    Seems messenger needs to return to his basic catechism class, and learn the actual doctrines of the faith that he professes to know all about.

  160. on 27 Dec 2012 at 8:35 pm 160.Nomore said …

    157.The messenger said

    I expect theists that make bold assertions to prove they are honest with themselves, before I let you pretend you are being so with me.

    You may start by giving out several reasons that Catholism could be false, along with how you managed to overcome those objections and determine that it is not.

  161. on 28 Dec 2012 at 5:06 am 161.The messenger said …

    160.Nomore, I never said that you idiot.

  162. on 28 Dec 2012 at 5:11 am 162.The messenger said …

    158.Lou(DFW), I am not lying.

    Hitler killed many innocent people. Because of those sins it is a logical to assume that he is in hell paying his punishment.

  163. on 28 Dec 2012 at 5:22 am 163.The messenger said …

    158.Lou(DFW), it is true that there was a time when the Church use to do that.

    But they have reolized the mistakes of their predecessors and have reformed the Church to it’s original glory.

    You are using past information that has not been used in the Church for at last 200 years now.

    The Church was corrupt in the past, but it has been reformed back into it’s former Glory and is now a group focused on the love and forgiveness of sins.

    The Church does not charge money for confessions you fool, because it is not the Church that is forgiving you, it is God who is forgiving you.

    You abbiously do not understand the Catholic faith at all.

    I have come to that conclusion based on your use of outdated information and false claims and most of all your constant failure to understand the Catholic faith.

    I pitty you.

    You sad, sad FOOL.

  164. on 28 Dec 2012 at 5:26 am 164.The messenger said …

    You can get out of hell.

    But only if you have paid you sentence and are truly sorry for what you have done wrong.

  165. on 28 Dec 2012 at 5:29 am 165.The messenger said …

    Lou (DPK), the Catholic Church has spoken about Limbo for at least 100 years now.

    All people who are truly innocent from sin, whether they are unborn or born, will go to heaven.

  166. on 28 Dec 2012 at 5:33 am 166.The messenger said …

    Lou(DPK), the Church stopped the limbo idea because they eventually realized that it was not true and that all people can go to heaven whether they are unborn or not.

  167. on 28 Dec 2012 at 8:34 am 167.Severin said …

    #166
    “… the Church stopped the limbo idea …”

    The CHURCH stopped it?
    (Well, why not, if the CHURCH established it?!)
    Since when is the church authorized to make crucial decisions about people’s souls? Who and when authorized the church to decide about (eternal!) future of billions of souls: That one to purgatory, this one to hell, another one to limb, …, oh, sorry, we forgot we canceld the limb a few years ago (a few years after we thought it up).

    How can anyone trust the church that rutinely changes ideas about SO important things, and changes them frequently and substantially: from now on, we have limb; then we have purgatory (or v.v.), then we have no limb. Then we have no more purgatory. Now we can’t get out the hell, but after a decade or so, we can, …
    Maybe they will tomorrow decide that a soul can transfer from hell to paradize, or from paradize to hell?

    What is the role of god in this mess?
    Does he makes any decisions at all, or leaves all decisions to church?
    How do we know anything about HIS decisions, if his “deputies” on earth are so confused and chaotic, and today say something, and after some time say something opposite?

  168. on 28 Dec 2012 at 9:07 am 168.Severin said …

    I mean, ether limbo exists or does not exist. Either there is purgatory, or no purgatory. Either a soul can leave the hell, or not.
    Aren’t those GOD’s responsibilities and decisions, rather than responsibilities and decisions of church (human bengs!)?

    How can CHURCH decide about divine things? For example to “introduce” or to “cancel” the limbo idea?
    Is the church playing god?

    SHIT!

  169. on 28 Dec 2012 at 12:39 pm 169.Lou(DFW) said …

    162.The messenger said …

    “158.Lou(DFW), I am not lying.
    Hitler killed many innocent people. Because of those sins it is a logical to assume that he is in hell paying his punishment.”

    So now you changed your lie, just as you did about the memory test lie.

    First you claimed that Hitler was in hell. Now, you “assume” that he is.

    You really have a problem getting caught-up in lies.

  170. on 28 Dec 2012 at 6:43 pm 170.The messenger said …

    Brother 167.Severin, I never said that the Church was authorized to decide where a person goes to in the afterlife.

    The Church’s job is to help people overcome thier sins and ask for forgiveness.

    The Church teaches about the afterlife.

    The church does not decide where a person’s spirit goes to in the afterlife.
    That is not for the Church to decide. It is God’s decision, not the Church’s.

  171. on 28 Dec 2012 at 6:46 pm 171.The messenger said …

    169.Lou(DFW), I did not change anything.

    I am simply providing the information that lead to my belief that hitler is burning in hell.

  172. on 28 Dec 2012 at 7:18 pm 172.The messenger said …

    I know that hitler is in hell because of the vast amount of sins that he commited.

  173. on 02 Jan 2013 at 10:18 pm 173.Noyoudont said …

    172.The messenger said

    I’ve studied other religions and most of them say you’re a liar, and that’s putting it midly.

    So here’s my breakdown of what your doing and why.

    Atheism SUGGESTS you could be wrong because the evidence doesn’t add up.

    Other religions directly challenge your claims, and are harder to refute because you both play the “gotta have faith” game with each other.

    So you’ve actively sought out the weakest link in the concept of faith (those without) in order to BOLSTER your own.

    I’ve got a word or two for someone that actively seek fights from the easiest opponents on the field.

  174. on 13 Jan 2013 at 5:02 am 174.Hate Me said …

    I have same sex attractions I can’t help it, I believe in the bible, can’t help it either, was raised with christianty, so I fight It, call it demons and embrace my misery,I’m very depressed, and lonely I use alot of drugs. Being abnormal sucks, Fuck life soon I will be dead, hoepfully God forgives me for feeling this way.

  175. on 14 Jan 2013 at 9:16 pm 175.Todd said …

    Hate Me. I’m sorry to hear that. I don’t believe the bible anymore. Why would a God of love allow people to suffer like you do? If God loved people he would take away there pain and suffering. Xian’s say God gives them grace to face things. So people continue to struggle and feel pain like you and others do because God loves them so much that he allows them to continue to feel pain and stuggle? I don’t believe in a God like that. I have pain and struggles and have cried for God to take them away. I still have them. Xian’s say God has a reason he doesn’t take them away. What kind of love is that?

  176. on 14 Jan 2013 at 9:25 pm 176.Todd said …

    The catholic church says that salvation is only possible with in the catholic church. If you leave the catholic church you cannot be saved. The catolic church protect pedophile priest. I heard they are sent to the vatican. Have any convicted priest served any time in an american prision for there crimes? Or are they sent to rome because of some legal ruling?

  177. on 14 Jan 2013 at 11:23 pm 177.alex said …

    “I have same sex attractions I can’t help it, I believe in the bible, can’t help it either…”

    fight the bible. you can’t fight who you are, young padawan.

    just go on with your gay self. you don’t need forgiveness so don’t listen to that shit. find you an atheist friend and chill.

  178. on 15 Jan 2013 at 5:58 am 178.Todd said …

    When my dad was in a nursing home owned by catholics they would post please pray for the soul of ****. It would give the name of a catholic person who died there. I was told they pray for the souls of dead catholics so the dead person would go to heaven. Or so that there time in purgatory would be sort and not as bad. I read an article by a non catholic that said some xians when they die go to a place to be punished for there unfogiven sins before they go to heaven. It is the first I heard such a thing from a non catholic. SO xians who die with unforgiven sins will be punished for them before they get in to heaven.

  179. on 21 Jan 2013 at 2:34 pm 179.Lesbian Carwasher said …

    How about we play the no copypaste from wikipedia game?
    I heard its fun ;D

  180. on 22 Jan 2013 at 4:34 am 180.s0l0m0n said …

    Hate Me,

    Make sure you repent before you are dead. That will take care of everything. God is most merciful.

  181. on 22 Jan 2013 at 4:38 am 181.s0l0m0n said …

    Todd,

    You’re asking from the wrong God. That’s why your prayer is not answered.

  182. on 14 Apr 2014 at 2:06 pm 182.Amour et voyance said …

    consulter astrologie gratuit toulouseConsulter mon superbe site web : voyance

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply