• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Mother Teresa was no saint

Are you a theist? Catholic perhaps?
Theist or xian, probably. A catholic should know better than to use the KJV though.

I like to take any opportunity to quote Hitchens' description of her as a "thieving, fanatical Albanian dwarf", as it may provoke some to find out what it's based on.
I like the "simpering Bambi" description.

I don't often say this, but I think the dwarf is superfluous.
Technically I don't think she was.

It does help to distinguish her from any other thieving, fanatical Albanians that Hitchens may have known.
Was he aquainted with the Ceaușescu's perhaps?

Have a nice day.
Ah, the flounce.
 
Her guilt or innocence doesn't concern me enough to spend time researching it meticulously in order to debate it effectively.
 
Last edited:
If she were really on trial, Atheists would be deemed unsuitable jurors because of the well-known notorious propensity which atheists have for downgrading all that’s religious including persons of prominent religious reputations who might give deism more credence. Are you an atheist?

Ad hom much? Or just while you're trying to poison the well?
 
Her guilt doesn't concern me enough to debate it.
Then what is your point? You protested that she was being unfairly dealt with, now you don't care what she did?

And what happened to that long cut & paste? Did you realize that neither protestation actually countered the claims against her?
 
Her guilt or innocence doesn't concern me enough to spend time researching it meticulously in order to debate it effectively.

But you just did. You presented two apologetics that you obviously found on the internet, then you deleted them in an edit. Obviously it was enough of a concern for you to spend time on.
 
<snip>
What leads you to believe that principles of fairness cease to apply away from a courtroom?

What puerile fantasy has led you to believe that the purpose of courts is "fairness"? The jurisprudential system is about law: not ethics, not morality, not "right and wrong"...and not "fairness".

Where did you get your JD? In what jurisdiction did you practice?
 
Her guilt or innocence doesn't concern me enough to spend time researching it meticulously in order to debate it effectively.

My reluctance to debate on the defending side of MTs behavior is because her guilt or innocence isn't what primarily concerns me.
But that's the topic of the thread. Do you admit, then, that you are not participating in this thread in order to discuss the topic? One must then wonder why you are participating.
 
Ah, so even you recognized that those letters to the editor you copied and then edited out didn't address the issue at all, and now you just wish it goes away on its own.

Weak. Really weak.



Let me explain it again to you for the second and final time.


Under the heading I post two subcategories.

1. articles
2. reader opinions

Both are examples of how some react to criticism's against MT.

Your effort is to focus entirely on reader opinion as if it were logically flawed.
You are wrong.
In a court of law evidence about plaintive prejudices is legally permissible if the case involves character defamation of a defendant.
 
Let me explain it again to you for the second and final time.


Under the heading I post two subcategories.

1. articles
2. reader opinions

Both are examples of how some react to criticism's against MT.

Your effort is to focus entirely on reader opinion as if it were logically flawed.
You are wrong.
In a court of law evidence about plaintive prejudices is legally permissible if the case involves character defamation of a defendant.

Well, I would have checked, if you hadn't deleted your post and decided that you won't bother with something you so obviously do bother with. Both were examples of how some reacted to criticisms against MT without disputing the evidence in any way.

And what is it with your obsession with legal issues?
 
How's this for a stone?

Anjezë Bojaxhiu, aka Mother Teresa, took in millions of dollars in donations based on a myth founded on the sensationalistic "journalism" of a self-righteous blowhard employed by the BBC. The people who donated this money had the expectation that she was going to use it to provide medical help to desperately sick and destitute people. But she never did any of that. She didn't use her millions to treat those who could be helped, and she didn't provide palliative care to those who could not be helped. With the money that she received, she could have established a real hospital for the poor. She didn't do this because she thought that their suffering was necessary to her god's plan. She thought that their pain was "purifying" them. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, an organization that purports to be greatly concerned with the well being of the world's poorest people while living in one of the most obscene displays of material wealth on Earth, is looking to profit from her undeserved reputation despite certainly having investigated her life in great detail and knowing the truth.

The interpolated story of the woman taken in adultery is a nice narrative. But you'll notice that the woman whom the scribes and Pharisees had condemned had done nothing more than exercise control over her own choice of sexual partner. For this, they wanted to have her put to death. You are turning that story into a simple-minded platitude about not criticizing anyone, even if they are hypocrites who caused harm to many while pretending to be righteous.

I salute you, sir. Great post.
 
Let me explain it again to you for the second and final time.


Under the heading I post two subcategories.

1. articles
2. reader opinions

Both are examples of how some react to criticism's against MT.

Your effort is to focus entirely on reader opinion as if it were logically flawed.
You are wrong.
In a court of law evidence about plaintive prejudices is legally permissible if the case involves character defamation of a defendant.


First, this is not a "court of law".

Second, what is a "plaintive prejudice"? Whining about the law?

Third, did you mean "admissible"?

Fourth, perhaps you ought to brush up on the exclusionary rule...
 
If she were really on trial, Atheists would be deemed unsuitable jurors because of the well-known notorious propensity which atheists have for downgrading all that’s religious including persons of prominent religious reputations who might give deism more credence.

That's a lie.

We're also not in court. Truth is not a democracy.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom