U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-18-2016, 08:40 AM
 
1,506 posts, read 922,477 times
Reputation: 1994

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
Oh please, give us a break. She most certainly was front and center in fund raising.
Sources please- and they should be easy to find given the "front and center" verbage that you use. In actuality, Mother Theresa never solicited donations. She, did, however, accept them.

* I would recommend not using "Godless Mom" as a source as we have seen how she grossly distorted the Stern article.

Last edited by Cryptic; 04-18-2016 at 08:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-18-2016, 10:20 AM
 
1,506 posts, read 922,477 times
Reputation: 1994
Quote:
Originally Posted by 303Guy View Post
But id people were donating money for MT's work in India then surely they should expect they money to be used in India for that purpose?

It seems to me that there is no doubt she did not use the money for the intended purpose. That makes it violation of fiduciary trust.
As Mother Theresa never actively solicited the donations and never made the promise to donations solely for "X", I dont think she violated a trust. I can agree that Mother Theresa did have a poor administrative practice by not telling people that unsolicited donations were subject to being redistributed to other parts of the Catholic church at her discretion.

Such potential redistribution at the discretion of the charity, however, is common for both catholic and protestant religous groups (usually the notice is contained in the fine print). Subjectively, I dont think such an advisory notice would have had much of an impact on the rate of donations to Mother Theresa as people had confidence in her.

Speaking as an individual, I would still have donated, and still donate today with or with out the notice, though I would have preferred that M.T. did give one. Not giving one, however, does not make Mother Theresa a "fraud". It does indicate she could have done better administrative wise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
2,202 posts, read 1,321,337 times
Reputation: 1353
Anyone who believes in the son of man by faith and grace (the believing naturally extends to believing in the His word repentance and love albeit obedience etc) In Gods eye these are His saints. Mother Thresa did not need the well intended practice of beatification protocol levied by yes you
guessed it religion relying on mans opinion . It gets more disturbing when you grasp the desperate mandatory miracle hunt requiring two (there
is always that religousity drenched lady in Peru or whatever who claims her son was healed by their candidate)........really?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 11:00 AM
 
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,566 times
Reputation: 57
-
Teresa referred to Jesus as her husband; viz: her spouse. So her association
with Christ was on a very different level than that of John Q and Jane Doe
pew warmer.

. Gen 2:18 . .The Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I
will make a suitable partner for him.

The Hebrew word for "partner" indicates something much more than a
buddy. It indicates standing together shoulder to shoulder as a unified team
in a common cause.

Married women have a duty to look after their husband's best interests.

. Gen 3:16 . . he shall be your master.

In other words: wives are not supposed to be independent agents. What this
means is: Teresa had no God-given right to forge ahead in India by herself
sans Christ's oversight. As soon as she came to the realization that he and
she had parted ways; the smart thing would have been for her to stop what
she was doing and go back to where they left off.

. 1John 1:6 . . If we say we have fellowship with him while we continue to
walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth.

Well; Teresa knew in her own heart that she and Christ were out of
fellowship. In point of fact, her husband was nowhere to be found; and she
was very disturbed by his absence.

The conclusion to draw from Christ's absence is very straightforward:
according to 1John 1:6 Teresa continued to walk in darkness and did not act
in truth. For example:

Whenever Jesus sent out his missionaries, it was with the understanding
that they not only practice medicine, but that they also proselytize (Luke
9:2) which is something Teresa shunned in order to avoid being evicted from
India. As a result, she utterly failed to look after her husband's primary
interest.

. Matt 28:19-20 . . Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

Proselytizing is in that mandate not once, but twice.

Now get this; and don't block it out. There is cause and effect in that
passage: action and reaction. If Jesus' missionaries would obey him, and
teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever he commanded them, then
what would result?

. Matt 28:20 . . and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the
age.

Was Jesus with Teresa always? No; and his absence caused her five decades
of darkness and anguish. Had she complied with her avowed husband's
wishes, Teresa's association with him would have been greatly improved.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2016, 10:22 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,602 posts, read 5,122,268 times
Reputation: 3917
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyawehNyoh View Post
-
Teresa referred to Jesus as her husband; viz: her spouse. So her association
with Christ was on a very different level than that of John Q and Jane Doe
pew warmer.

†. Gen 2:18 . .The Lord God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I
will make a suitable partner for him.

The Hebrew word for "partner" indicates something much more than a
buddy. It indicates standing together shoulder to shoulder as a unified team
in a common cause.

Married women have a duty to look after their husband's best interests.

†. Gen 3:16 . . he shall be your master.

In other words: wives are not supposed to be independent agents. What this
means is: Teresa had no God-given right to forge ahead in India by herself
sans Christ's oversight. As soon as she came to the realization that he and
she had parted ways; the smart thing would have been for her to stop what
she was doing and go back to where they left off.

†. 1John 1:6 . . If we say we have fellowship with him while we continue to
walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth.

Well; Teresa knew in her own heart that she and Christ were out of
fellowship. In point of fact, her husband was nowhere to be found; and she
was very disturbed by his absence.

The conclusion to draw from Christ's absence is very straightforward:
according to 1John 1:6 Teresa continued to walk in darkness and did not act
in truth. For example:

Whenever Jesus sent out his missionaries, it was with the understanding
that they not only practice medicine, but that they also proselytize (Luke
9:2) which is something Teresa shunned in order to avoid being evicted from
India. As a result, she utterly failed to look after her husband's primary
interest.

†. Matt 28:19-20 . . Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

Proselytizing is in that mandate not once, but twice.

Now get this; and don't block it out. There is cause and effect in that
passage: action and reaction. If Jesus' missionaries would obey him, and
teach all nations to observe all things whatsoever he commanded them, then
what would result?

†. Matt 28:20 . . and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the
age.

Was Jesus with Teresa always? No; and his absence caused her five decades
of darkness and anguish. Had she complied with her avowed husband's
wishes, Teresa's association with him would have been greatly improved.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Yet one Hindu political party actually despised Teresa because they said she WAS proselytizing, and providing death bed baptisms.

Once again we have the tale of two Teresa's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 09:41 AM
 
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,566 times
Reputation: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
providing death bed baptisms.
Teresa and her sisters performed rather unorthodox baptisms. They weren't
done by immersion, nor pouring, nor sprinkling; but by placing wet cloths
upon the foreheads of recipients.

However, because of India's federal law prohibiting proselytizing in Teresa's
day; her baptisms were virtually blind because the recipient of the rite had
only to express a wish to be a Christian; vz: they were baptized without
being adequately evangelized first.

. Mark 16:15-16 . . He said to them: Go into the whole world and proclaim
the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be
saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

In other words; baptism is for believers; not for unbelievers; and it is
impossible for pagans to believe information about which they are ignorant.

Belief in the gospel is essential. In point of fact a baptism that lacks belief is
a baptism unto hell. An unbelieving baptism leaves its recipient abiding in a
state of death.

. John 5:24 . . I assure you, those who listen to my message, and believe
in God who sent me, have eternal life. They will never be condemned for
their sins, but they have already passed from death into life.

Without believing the gospel, it is impossible to be sealed unto redemption
by God's Spirit.

. Eph 1:13-14 . . In him you also trusted, after you heard the word of
truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were
sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our
inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise
of his glory.

Preaching and believing aren't optional; no, they're essential.

. 1Cor 1:2 . . It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe.

According to Christ's testimony, as an expert witness in all matters
pertaining to faith; unbelievers are already damned right now, even before
they cross over to the other side.

. John 3:18 . . He who believes in him is not condemned; but he who does
not believe is condemned already.

In other words; there's no middle ground: condemned is the default in the
absence of believing . Bottom line: unbelievers go to hell no matter how
many times they're baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost.

In reading Teresa's private letters, I discovered that her superiors' approval
of the operation in India was contingent upon her consent to do the work of
an evangelical. So then, she not only failed to comply with Christ's
directives, but she also failed to comply with her superiors' wishes. What it
all boils down to is: Teresa's operation in India was merely a charity little
different than those of World Vision, CARE, and Global Impact; rather than a
conscientious evangelistic outreach.

God, out of unsolicited and undeserved kindness and compassion, voluntarily
went through all the emotional grief, and to all the trouble, of subjecting His
own precious next of kin to indignities and painful death to ransom men's
souls from the wrath of God.

. John 3:14-17 . . And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so
must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may
have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave His only son, so
that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal
life. For God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world, but
that the world might be saved through him.

Hindu pagans desperately need to have that passage fully explained; and
the Sisters of Charity were not allowed to do so. Is it any wonder then why
Christ would abandon Ms. Bojaxhiu for all those five decades? Duh. She was
quite useless for his purposes.

FYI: An excellent New Testament example of preaching, believing, and baptizing
is located at Acts 8:26-38.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,566 times
Reputation: 57
-
†. Isa 52:14 . .There were many who were appalled at him-- his appearance
was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond
human likeness-- so will he sprinkle many peoples.

That passage is commonly interpreted to apply to the abuse that Christ
received at the hands of the Romans; but it's far more serious than that.

The Romans beat Jesus, crowned him with thorns, and nailed him to a cross.
Up to that point he was still recognizable. But when the darkness lifted, not
even his own mother would have known who he was because after the
Romans took their best shot, God took His.

†. Isa 53:6 . . All of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to
his own way; but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on him.

†. Isa 53:10 . . It pleased the Lord to bruise Him; he has put him to grief.

†. Isa 53:12 . . And he bore the sin of many

Rev 20:10-15 depicts not only a lake of brimstone, but also a reckoning.
Well; if God would mutilate His own son beyond recognition, what do you
suppose He has in store for those who think little of it?

The Great White Throne event is going to be a ghastly scene. Millions will be
horribly disfigured prior to being thrown while still alive into ignited brimstone.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Denver, CO
8,602 posts, read 5,122,268 times
Reputation: 3917
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyawehNyoh View Post
Teresa and her sisters performed rather unorthodox baptisms. They weren't done by immersion, nor pouring, nor sprinkling; but by placing wet cloths upon the foreheads of recipients.

However, because of India's federal law prohibiting proselytizing in Teresa's
day; her baptisms were virtually blind because the recipient of the rite had
only to express a wish to be a Christian; vz: they were baptized without
being adequately evangelized first.

In other words; there's no middle ground: condemned is the default in the
absence of believing .
Bottom line: unbelievers go to hell no matter how
many times they're baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost.


<snip>
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
You are partially correct. Modern christianity is far more about talking than walking, about doctrine over deeds, about worshiping rather than working. But then modern christianity insists on worship where Jesus insisted on deeds. The entire Sermon on the Mount never mentioned faith or sanctification once. It was how God perceived people who by their actions were recognized in a particular fashion.

Now, if you believe there is no middle ground, then of course you also believe (as did the RCC at one time) that babies go to hell because they haven't received Christ. I'm willing to let you dissuade me--but only with those Bible verses you are fond of filling up the page with. I don't want to hear your explanation, just tell me chapter and verse where it says, "When it comes to babies, they are exempt from original sin, because it doesn't originate with babies."

Of course, you cannot do that, which means you either MUST preach that babies are going to burn for eternity, or you have to abandon the stupid premise that there is no middle ground--at least in the way Scripture is understood.

And you cannot have faith without doubts, because blind faith is faith without sight. Faith WITH sight comes from the heart with the Holy Spirit who sometimes teaches us (as it did Jesus) that certain Scripture is plain bunk if you wish to follow Jesus. He outright rejected some of what was clearly written (although He claimed it was "heard" not written--as in an eye for an eye). That one rejection itself --an no don't quote me what Jesus said about not one jot nor tittle of the Law being passed away as He knew we would have fundamentalists re-imposing the law for centuries to come.

Jesus brought a NEW commandment. And that is the commandment by which we live today in order to be in obedience. Love your neighbor as yourself. That's it. Every one of the Ten Commandments can be done away with because all the "sin" they outlaw--every single one--is when we are selfish and thinking of ourselves first rather than our neighbor.

In that respect, you and I have a very, very long road to go to be half as far up heaven's ladder as Mother Teresa. All those "secular" organizations are just as holy as anything any church does anywhere and at anytime. You and Paul divided the world into us and them. Jesus came to point out how we are all together. And the only people Jesus ever spoke harshly to, or condemned to hell--was religious people who made up rules about who was going to be in God's kingdom and who wasn't. And that's all you've done here--come up with the current popular rules for keeping people out of heaven.

I personally plan to sit down with some atheists in heaven and discuss why your rules kept the scales over your eyes with no ability to see Jesus in the effort of those who obeyed Him by being a servant to others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Oregon
425 posts, read 180,566 times
Reputation: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden View Post
if you believe there is no middle ground
There's no middle ground in the passage below.

. John 3:3 . . Jesus declared: I tell you the truth, no one can see the
kingdom of God unless he is born again.

The words "no one" permit no exceptions; viz: they include Old Testament
people as well as New, and underage children and India's pagans too;
otherwise language and grammar serve no useful purpose.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-19-2016, 08:58 PM
 
8,825 posts, read 6,304,678 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by NyawehNyoh View Post
There's no middle ground in the passage below.

. John 3:3 . . Jesus declared: I tell you the truth, no one can see the
kingdom of God unless he is born again.

The words "no one" permit no exceptions; viz: they include Old Testament
people as well as New, and underage children and India's pagans too;
otherwise language and grammar serve no useful purpose.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Bible literalists are often stuck in illogical positions and they see nothing but rigidity with regards to God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top