"Almost Saint" Mother Teresa

arcticpenguin said:
Getting back to basics; whether Mother Teresa was a good or bad person, she certailny is not supernatural the case for a miracle attributed to her is highly suspect. The Catholic Church has prostituted itself in its eagerness to canonize her.
Click to expand...
what do you mean by "prostituted"?
 

what does a medal mean? nothing.
Click to expand...


LOL! Really? Uh huh.. OK.. Winning a Nobel Prize means nothing?

Whatever skippy.


is recognition the only means you use for deciding whether someone has done something good? that is hollow and pathetic.
Click to expand...


Well, she is recognized for her actions. That is what the medal represents.


why don't you use wealth, too? i'm poor, does that mean i'm bad?
Click to expand...


Strawman. Nice one.


the level between amateur and pro is much less than you think. most computer enthusiasts i know (including myself) are much more knowledgable about computers than the IT pros i know. i am a history student, but i know much more about certain topics than my professors.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's a great distraction, but we are talking about humanitarian work, something that Mother Teresa dedictated her entire adult life to.
 
T'ai Chi said:

LOL! Really? Uh huh.. OK.. Winning a Nobel Prize means nothing?

Whatever skippy.

considering who has been winning the Nobel Peace Prize, i would definitely say that they mean very little at this point. it should be renamed "The Nobel Prize for Political Expedience".

Well, she is recognized for her actions. That is what the medal represents.

they give out Nobel prizes for trickery, enforcing poverty, and encouraging low standards of living? nice.

Strawman. Nice one.

it wasn't really a strawman, since you did imply that recognition was the only way to measure someones intrinsic worth, whether you meant to or not. since wealth can often times be equivalent to recognition, it was a worthy analogy that i used.

Yeah, that's a great distraction, but we are talking about humanitarian work, something that Mother Teresa dedictated her entire adult life to.

no, she dedicated her life to forwarding catholocism. that some have mistaken that as selfless humanitarianism simply shows how ignorant, and often politically self-serving, a lot of people are.
Click to expand...
 
Hitler was Time magazine's Man of the Year in the 1930's. Using TaiChi's criteria he must have been a good man. Internationally aclaimed, feted by the Kennedys, adored by Lindberg and Henry Ford, who could argue his exalted position?

He too tried to have people die with some sort of dignity, preferring to trick them into thinking they were being resettled, trick them into thinking they were to be deloused. Seems like a good guy to me.
 
jimmygun said:
Hitler was Time magazine's Man of the Year in the 1930's. Using TaiChi's criteria he must have been a good man.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting that the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize hasn't been handled improperly from time to time, but that's not really an appropriate comparison.

The title of "TIME's Man of the Year" is ostensibly awarded to "the person or persons who most affected the news of our lives, for good or ill, this year".

The Nobel Peace Prize is ostensibly awarded to "the person (or body) who has worked the most or the best for the brotherhood of man and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and dissemination of peace congresses".
 
ceo_esq said:
I'm not suggesting that the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize hasn't been handled improperly from time to time, but that's not really an appropriate comparison.

The title of "TIME's Man of the Year" is ostensibly awarded to "the person or persons who most affected the news of our lives, for good or ill, this year".

The Nobel Peace Prize is ostensibly awarded to "the person (or body) who has worked the most or the best for the brotherhood of man and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and dissemination of peace congresses".
Click to expand...

you are missing the point, ceo-esq. t'ai chi implied that recognition was the only way to judge inherent good. therefore, since hitler got recognition on a worldwide scale, he was inherently good according to t'ai chi's system.
 
ceo_esq said:
The Nobel Peace Prize is ostensibly awarded to "the person (or body) who has worked the most or the best for the brotherhood of man and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and dissemination of peace congresses".
Click to expand...

Of course they will try to draw their candidates from the realm of the ' well known '..

This is pretty much going to rule out Ra'ul, who negotiated the settlement of a turf dispute in East L.A.
 
EdipisReks said:
you are missing the point, ceo-esq. t'ai chi implied that recognition was the only way to judge inherent good. therefore, since hitler got recognition on a worldwide scale, he was inherently good according to t'ai chi's system.
Click to expand...
Not so. T'ai Chi implied that recognition for doing good was a way to judge whether a person did good. The Nobel Peace Prize is, roughly speaking, a recognition for doing good. The "Man of the Year" title is not a recognition for doing good; it is a recognition for being newsworthy. Strictly speaking, wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider whether Hitler's worldwide recognition for being newsworthy is relevant evidence of his actually having been newsworthy?
 
T'ai Chi
Once again, it is relevant. You are claiming to have done things that are more meaningful than Mother Teresa, yet you are virtually unknown to the world while she is known to all.
Click to expand...
That's called marketing, guess who had the resources to engage in such?

LuxFerum
Besides that, the only real thing in that is that she was against, abortion. The rest is highly questionable.

Does that make she a bad person, I don't think so.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if she were bad or not, just that she wasn't as good as presented.

Ossai
 
ceo_esq said:
Not so. T'ai Chi implied that recognition for doing good was a way to judge whether a person did good. The Nobel Peace Prize is, roughly speaking, a recognition for doing good. The "Man of the Year" title is not a recognition for doing good; it is a recognition for being newsworthy. Strictly speaking, wouldn't it be more appropriate to consider whether Hitler's worldwide recognition for being newsworthy is relevant evidence of his actually having been newsworthy?
Click to expand...

T'ai Chi said, explicitly, that since i was an unknown that my accomplishments are not meaningful compared to someone who is well know. when he said this, he was not talking of the nobel prize, but of recognition in general. to this kind of system, man of the year (in the Time magazine sense) and a nobel prize are roughly equivalent. t'ai chi may not have meant to imply this, but he sure as hell said it.
 
It doesn't matter if she were bad or not, just that she wasn't as good as presented.

Ossai
Click to expand...

So because the presentation went over the top she shouldn't be reconised as a good person?
 
geni said:


So because the presentation went over the top she shouldn't be reconised as a good person?
Click to expand...

she should only be recognzied for what good she actually did. in this case, it was a hell of a lot less than the catholic church makes out.
 
Are you claiming that the world would have been a better place without her (you almost did earlyer in the thread)?
 
I think I could also be said that by making a her a nearly saint that the person they made her out to be was a good person regardless of what she atchaly was (ie they belive their own propergander).
 
geni said:
Are you claiming that the world would have been a better place without her (you almost did earlyer in the thread)?
Click to expand...

in many ways, yes. supporting poverty and encouraging people to have children when they didn't have the means to support them are two very unethical acts, in my opinion. there are other things, both good and bad, that she did (most of these are reported earlier in the thread), but those two acts of unethical behavior are what defines her the most, for me.
 
If MT had been a proponent of birth control and disease control and had worked her whole life to help people live in dignity instead of dying with dignity then maybe she should be held in high esteem.

She actually did the opposite. She only had regard for herself and her order. Millions of dollars of donations wasted to glorify her and the church. That money could have been used to save lives instead of souls. Of course the church has no regard for this life, only for the 'next'. Meanwhile the church gets to live in palaces that would make Saddam weep with envy.

You poor people take care of the church in this life and the church will take care of you in the next. Pretty sweet deal huh?

Edited to add...Yes, the world would be a better place without MT and her ilk.
 
jimmygun said:

That money could have been used to save lives instead of souls.
Click to expand...


Where is the JREF money going? Where is your savings going? etc. etc. Someone can always say "They aren't spending enough!"


Meanwhile the church gets to live in palaces that would make Saddam weep with envy.
Click to expand...


First, what do you mean by "the church"? Second, you seem to be personalizing "the church" by saying that it lives in palaces, etc. Could you clarify? Are you saying that all of Mother Teresas helpers lived in palaces? Can you support that with actual evidence? Let us know.

Edited to add...Yes, the world would be a better place without MT and her ilk.
Click to expand...

That is pure non-falsifiable conjecture on your part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom