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.
You were aware, I assume, that presenting questions to questions is not an answer.
She championed the suffering of her charges. She raised millions and spent the bulk elsewhere. She raised millions and could have improved the medical care.
She didn't. She was a horrible fraud. The only thing worse I can think of than warehousing dying people (and causing some to die which didn't have to due to the unsanitary conditions, which has been documented), and thinking that their suffering is a good thing because Jesus suffered are those that enjoy torture and killing of fellow humans.
You also are in love with the image, not the reality. Some estimates go as high as $500 million dollars she raised from dictators and convicted crooks, yet there was no money for her death warehouses? REALLY?
My three questions are unanswered.
She was a poor, relatively uneducated woman willing to do what you would not. And you criticize her. Mean-spirited is the only way to describe your attitude.
Quote:
Teresa wrote in her diary that her first year (1946) 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 congregation] 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."
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.[61] Accompanied by Red Cross workers, she travelled through the war zone to the devastated hospital to evacuate the young patients.
She was honored before money began flowing into her charities.
She was hated by at least one Indian political party who claimed she favored Christians over followers of other religions.
Please note that some of your "sources" that criticize Mother Theresa also criticized the Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi. So not only do they criticize a white woman for trying to help dark skinned people, they criticize dark skinned people for trying to help them too.
What you've done is bought into racial hype.
But I challenge you to find any source whatsoever--any--anywhere--that states Mother Theresa herself participated in poor care or mistreatment. There are charges regarding some of her followers in the hospices and the homes for mentally challenged people. Again, accuse her of not being an administrator. That is probably a fair charge. But you have personally called her EVIL, and to charge that against someone who spent her entire life doing something that you haven't the guts to even try is evil itself.
And everyone on this thread knows where that kind of evil comes from. So you shouldn't be upset when you are called on the carpet for it---while you are yet alive. She's dead.
Finally, she is responsible for over 4000 clinics, hospices, shelters, and care centers. Would you close them all down in order to rid the world of evil?
The question you should be asking is why you are so fixated on her and what in you drives this obsessive focus on someone who is dead and from an area so far removed from yours. You would destroy a positive image and inspiration that promotes a focus on positive concern for the poor, abandoned, rejected and abused to what end??? What is your replacement for this image and force for good that you would desecrate and denigrate?? What do you seek to accomplish by your obsession?? Look within, cupper. What is motivating this vitriol and vituperation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3
Because the positive image is built on a lie. I don't believe ANY individual, or philosophy, that is built on a lie, should be revered.<snip self-aggrandizing rhetoric> I never will support the spreading of lies.
On that last statement I am confident I can call you a liar. I know of no human being in a society who can get through life without lying (by omission or commission). I doubt you are an exception. Clearly you are not willing to engage in any real introspection into your actual motivations in this matter. Have a nice day.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
She was a poor, relatively uneducated woman willing to do what you would not. And you criticize her. Mean-spirited is the only way to describe your attitude.
She was honored before money began flowing into her charities.
She was hated by at least one Indian political party who claimed she favored Christians over followers of other religions.
Please note that some of your "sources" that criticize Mother Theresa also criticized the Dalai Lama and Mahatma Gandhi. So not only do they criticize a white woman for trying to help dark skinned people, they criticize dark skinned people for trying to help them too.
What you've done is bought into racial hype.
Deflection and again avoiding answering any of my three questions. Why won't you, or others, do so?
Quote:
But I challenge you to find any source whatsoever--any--anywhere--that states Mother Theresa herself participated in poor care or mistreatment. There are charges regarding some of her followers in the hospices and the homes for mentally challenged people. Again, accuse her of not being an administrator. That is probably a fair charge. But you have personally called her EVIL, and to charge that against someone who spent her entire life doing something that you haven't the guts to even try is evil itself.
You were aware, I assume, that presenting questions to questions is not an answer.
She championed the suffering of her charges. She raised millions and spent the bulk elsewhere. She raised millions and could have improved the medical care.
She didn't. She was a horrible fraud. The only thing worse I can think of than warehousing dying people (and causing some to die which didn't have to due to the unsanitary conditions, which has been documented), and thinking that their suffering is a good thing because Jesus suffered are those that enjoy torture and killing of fellow humans.
You also are in love with the image, not the reality. Some estimates go as high as $500 million dollars she raised from dictators and convicted crooks, yet there was no money for her death warehouses? REALLY?
My three questions are unanswered.
British journalists investigated about money being spent elsewhere and didn't find anything, but of course, facts never dissuade a fundamentalist of any persuasion. I neither love nor hate MT's image. I have a strange thing that divisionists find troubling. It's called balance. You are the one making charges that you haven't proved.
I ask again, do you have a single source that states Mother Theresa herself was involved in mistreatment of individuals? You don't. You are simply being a fundamentalist.
Are organizations ever involved in less than respectable practices which their founder or leader would not approve of? Of course. That doesn't mean the head of 4000 worldwide hospices, care centers, and orphanages has personal responsibility in each individual facility. We have the same problem with everyone believing the President should know every detail of what his/(her) government is doing. It doesn't happen in large organizations.
And my question remains also. Since all these "evil" things are occurring in Mother Theresa's charities why aren't you demanding they all be shut down? No cohones? Or have they now all converted to loving, caring facilities since the "demon" is dead?
On the other hand,she may have been involved in giving baptism to ill people who were not Catholic. But she still allowed the reading of "holy" books other than the Bible. There may be a religious argument about both of those ideas, yet neither is "evil" nor demonic per se. Since there are both Christians and those of other faiths complaining over that practice---well there you go. You need to find some religious fundamentalists to side with your secular fundamentalism. Fundamentalists always see things in black and white. There is never any gray.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 04-13-2016 at 06:43 PM..
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
British journalists investigated about money being spent elsewhere and didn't find anything, but of course, facts never dissuade a fundamentalist of any persuasion. I neither love nor hate MT's image. I have a strange thing that divisionists find troubling. It's called balance. You are the one making charges that you haven't proved.
I ask again, do you have a single source that states Mother Theresa herself was involved in mistreatment of individuals? You don't. You are simply being a fundamentalist.
Are organizations ever involved in less than respectable practices which their founder or leader would not approve of? Of course. That doesn't mean the head of 4000 worldwide hospices, care centers, and orphanages has personal responsibility in each individual facility. We have the same problem with everyone believing the President should know every detail of what his/(her) government is doing. It doesn't happen in large organizations.
And my question remains also. Since all these "evil" things are occurring in Mother Theresa's charities why aren't you demanding they all be shut down? No cohones? Or have they now all converted to loving, caring facilities since the "demon" is dead?
On the other hand,she may have been involved in giving baptism to ill people who were not Catholic. But she still allowed the reading of "holy" books other than the Bible. There may be a religious argument about both of those ideas, yet neither is "evil" nor demonic per se. Since there are both Christians and those of other faiths complaining over that practice---well there you go. You need to find some religious fundamentalists to side with your secular fundamentalism. Fundamentalists always see things in black and white. There is never any gray.
Once again, deflection, and my three simple questions are not answered.
Will the truth destroy the image you and others have so much that it is not dared to be spoken?
On that last statement I am confident I can call you a liar. I know of no human being in a society who can get through life without lying (by omission or commission). I doubt you are an exception. Clearly you are not willing to engage in any real introspection into your actual motivations in this matter. Have a nice day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude
Poor, sad, hollow little man.
He is indeed. But it is worse than that. He doesn't even know why he is so obsessed with a dead Nun who has nothing to do with him or his life. He refuses the introspection necessary to understand his own motivations.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,919,895 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
He is indeed. But it is worse than that. He doesn't even know why he is so obsessed with a dead Nun who has nothing to do with him or his life. He refuses the introspection necessary to understand his own motivations.
And once again, you prefer to denigrate the messenger, rather than answering three simple questions. You've done a good job of avoiding that.
Deflection means you're losing the discussion. Denigrating the messenger speaks more about you are than the person you're attacking. Time to look in the mirror?
Being dead doesn't give anyone any exalted position that precludes criticism. When religion, which is what Teresa of Calcutta pushed, is used as a guile and pretense to do good, and then when it doesn't do what is purported, then it is deceitful, and potentially evil if people's lives are at stake. That wretched little person was not a saint, but helped perpetrate evil. What else do you call it when a 15 year old boy dies because he was refused the care that was available at a near by hospital, which could easily have saved his life?
But no, let the boy, who had his whole life ahead of him, die. Because it was good to suffer. That is evil. But you go ahead, and keep idolizing the image, I prefer to live with reality.
Yet, like our friends Vizio, Jeff and others, have you answered the three questions?
Why not? I've asked three simple questions which I am bashed for, yet no one will or perhaps can, answer them. That is not honest debate.
Are you unclear about the questions? Do I need to reference them again, or are you avoiding answering them?
Why are you asking others to do the work for you? There is plenty about her on youtube, even documentaries. Go there and do your own homework. For pete's sake, try to stay away from the haters' videos, you might learn something from a different point of view for a change
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.
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.
