Mother Teresa was no saint

[Foster Zygote]

Criticism is subject to bias, motivated by prejudice, envy, hatred and other such irrelevant matters.

Criticism can just as well be motivated by indignation over the mistreatment of others and a desire for truth and justice. Why are you attempting to deflect criticism from someone who was given millions of dollars a year to help the poor, but did nothing of the sort because of her cultish infatuation with suffering?

Jesus was described as a devil by his enemies.

So was Pol Pot.

So yes the type of persons setting themselves up as a jury does matter and it definitely does serve as a legal basis for jury-duty disqualification. Should I support that with documentation and courtroom, historical examples?

Why would you even bother? That would be just stupid. This isn't a court of law, we're expressing opinions.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Those crazy ideas are yours not mine.

Which ideas are those? The only thing I attribute to you is your use of the narrative from John, plus a summary opinion of what it means to the argument.

BTW
Your commentary reveals ignorance of the case involved, the socio-historical context in which it occurred and of the Mosaic Law being violated by the accusers themselves in the process of their accusation.

Well I'd like very much to be educated regarding these matters. I'll go and start a thread right now (and here it is) so that you can edify us regarding the proper context for evaluating a story about authorities wishing to sentence a woman to death for having sex.

 

[Darat]

Hitchen's books is rather well known but there are a few that have been critical of her - one that you can read online is this one: http://www.meteorbooks.com/index.html Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict

 

[catsmate]

John 8:7 (KJV)

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

You could at least quote from a catholic bible.

That's another myth - that she provided medical care where there was nothing for the poor. When MT opened her clinic in Calcutta, there was already a large charity hospital there, providing quality medical care for the poor of the city. This was run by Indians, so of course Muggeridge, and other gullible Westerners who followed him to worship at the feet of this holy woman, didn't bother to find out about them.

Indeed. There were also foreign medics volunteering in Calcutta who were ignored by Muggeridge in favour of a catholic organisation.
Muggeridge himself was, frankly, an idiot after his xian phase began. Not to mention a hypocrite, not even bothering to watch Life of Brian fully before criticising it.

Criticism is subject to bias, motivated by prejudice, envy, hatred and other such irrelevant matters. Jesus was described as a devil by his enemies. So yes the type of persons setting themselves up as a jury does matter and it definitely does serve as a legal basis for jury-duty disqualification. Should I support that with documentation and courtroom, historical examples?

What his this puerile rant got to do with exposing a horrible, hypocritical god botherer?

Every one here is motivated by prejudice, envy, hatred and other such irrelevant matters?

If they disagree with him, yes.

 

[Brian-M]

I'm surprised that nobody's posted a link to the Pen & Teller takedown of her yet....

WARNING: NSFW (Lots of swearing)

Part 1: (Mother Teresa section starts at 4 minutes. Ghandi section starts at 8 minutes.)


Part 2: (Mother Teresa section resumes at 4:25)


Part 3: (Dali Llama at start, Mother Teresa section resumes at 5:40)

 

[Brainache]

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 in including persons of prominent religious reputations who might give deism more credence. Are you an atheist?

You think Mother Teresa was a credit to her religion?

I suppose if you subscribe to her idea that more suffering in the world is a good thing, then she did a good job.

 

[Brainiac2]

You could at least quote from a catholic bible.

Why?

What his this puerile rant got to do with exposing a horrible, hypocritical god botherer?

Are you a deist?

If they disagree with him, yes.

I don't mind being disagreed with that much.

 

[catsmate]

Those crazy ideas are yours not mine.

What "crazy ideas" are these? Accepting reality rather than fantasy?

Your commentary reveals ignorance of the case involved, the socio-historical context in which it occurred and of the Mosaic Law being violated by the accusers themselves in the process of their accusation.

What has "Mosaic Law" to do with criticising an xian for her hypocrisy and compounding suffering?

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?

You mean the propensity of atheists for not blindly accepting the lies religious leaders spout.

 

[Brainiac2]

Thou shalt have no other gods before me, indeed...

Brainiac, do you have any facts about Mother Theresa to add, here? Is there any reason you can give as to why a reasonable person should not believe the accusations?

What is the point of this thread?

 

[Pup]

If she were really on trial, Atheists would be deemed unsuitable jurors...

Only by the defense. The prosecution would think they're just fine, but would want to challenge the religious jurors. Are you representing her for the defense?

Trials are adversarial contests between two sides, not impartial attempts to find the truth.

 

[Brainache]

What is the point of this thread?

If it needs explaining to you that someone who tortured sick and dying people for her invisible friend's enjoyment is probably not the best example of "Christian Ideals", then I can't help you.

 

[angrysoba]

That's another myth - that she provided medical care where there was nothing for the poor. When MT opened her clinic in Calcutta, there was already a large charity hospital there, providing quality medical care for the poor of the city. This was run by Indians, so of course Muggeridge, and other gullible Westerners who followed him to worship at the feet of this holy woman, didn't bother to find out about them.

No, what she did was far worse than nothing. She withheld medicines that at the least could ease suffering. She isolated the sick, not even allowing family visits. Her facilities were little more than a series platforms for sick people to die on, alone.

Doing nothing would have been a vast improvement for her.

But the alternatives were not nothing, they were just very poorly funded and sparse. So if people hadn't decided to donate to her mission then that money may have been donated to a mission that would have done more.

Well then, I take back what I said.

However, I did notice that Aroup Chatterjee's "Final Verdict", while still pretty damning of Mother Teresa, does state that:

Many people tell me that Mother Teresa should be left alone because she did 'something' for the underprivileged. I do not deny that she did. However her reputation, which was to a good extent carefully built up by herself, was not on a 'something' scale. More importantly, that 'something', at least in Calcutta, was quite little, as my book will show. Even more importantly, she had turned away many many more than she had helped - although she had claimed throughout her life that she was doing everything for everybody. My brief against her is not that she did not address the root or causes of suffering and I am not for a moment suggesting that she ought to have done so, as I understand the particular religious tradition she came from - I am saying that there was a stupendous discrepancy between her image and her work, between her words and her deeds; that she, helped by others of course, engaged in a culture of deception.

Only the Introduction and first two chapters appear online it seems.

 

[I Am The Scum]

What is the point of this thread?

Well, if we look at the OP, we can see that an article was posted which shows that Mother Theresa was not the kind old woman that many believed her to be. Rather, the truth of the matter appears to be that that she was rather monstrous by most people's standards.

You seem to take issue with this. If you believe the conclusion offered in the article to be less than rational, then please illustrate your reasoning. I'm open-minded.

 

[Brainiac2]

Well, if we look at the OP, we can see that an article was posted which shows that Mother Theresa was not the kind old woman that many believed her to be. Rather, the truth of the matter appears to be that that she was rather monstrous by most people's standards.

You seem to take issue with this. If you believe the conclusion offered in the article to be less than rational, then please illustrate your reasoning. I'm open-minded.

Seems like it's just a peevish way for atheists to try to make all deists look silly while imaging themselves wise and noble.

 

[Brainiac2]

If it needs explaining to you that someone who tortured sick and dying people for her invisible friend's enjoyment is probably not the best example of "Christian Ideals", then I can't help you.

Are atheists and agnostics incapable of similar lunacy?


It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.[1]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

 

[I Am The Scum]

Seems like it's just a peevish way for atheists to try to make all deists look silly while imaging themselves wise and noble.

What on earth does deism have to do with Mother Theresa?

You've gone from spouting unsupported/vague opinions to making no sense.

 

[fuelair]

Of course, anyone who's read Christopher Hitchens's Missionary Position know this, but it's good that the news is getting out more widely now...

http://guardianlv.com/2013/10/mother-teresa-was-no-saint-says-study/

Very true- and pretty well known among those who have the courage to check it/her and her work out.

 

[Brainiac2]

What on earth does deism have to do with Mother Theresa?

She was an atheist?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Are atheists and agnostics incapable of similar lunacy?


It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.[1]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

I'm still not quite sure if you're being deliberately obtuse out of a puerile desire for conflict, or if you are genuinely incapable of presenting a cogent argument.

ETA: I guess it could be both.

No one has suggested that Mother Teresa's actions were wrong because she was a theist. They were wrong because she had the means to help people and chose not to.

 

[Brainache]

Are atheists and agnostics incapable of similar lunacy?

No, but we aren't in the habit of honouring people for it.

It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.[1]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

Conservapedia? Really? Anyway that is about Totalitarian Communist States, not Atheism. That is what happens when you turn Politics into religion.