Mother Teresa to be made a saint
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2016, 10:21 AM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2016 10:25 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(16-03-2016 09:57 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Multiple people have cited multiple sources, many with internet links. The Wikipedia page alone contained no less than (31) linked references.

That is not imagination. That is information.

I'm familiar with a variety of articles writing demonizing her. Every revered public figures accumulates some degree of this inevitably.

The question relevant here is what are the facts, and what can be confidently inferred by them. What can say about these facts and her character. Can we look at them, and see picture of characters that's the scum of the earth, deserving a special place in hell, as other here have put it.

Clearly you see something in her, than those granting her the Nobel peace prize, by the numerous awards and accolades she's received from the Indian government, didn't.

So what facts about her life and history is that based on?

The Keating association? Not much there.

Her stance on abortion and contraception? Which is just traditional catholic beliefs, beliefs of everyone's catholic grandmother, which I doubt we'd want to paint as cunts as a result of this.

Her beliefs about the redemptive and transformative power of suffering?

Her charity primarily creating hospices, than hospitals?

If there are other historical facts about her here that you'd like to provide us, please tell me what those are? As opposed to a series of interpretations of them. If I'm suppose to look at this woman as if she's the scum of the earth, feel morally superior to her, that she deserves to rot in hell, then I want to know why? On what basis should the revered image of her, be entirely flipped on it's head, to envision a monster instead?

The portraits on display here are just cartoons, or a B-movie villain, entirely dehumanized, that you don't see an actual person behind them at all. They reveal less about her, and more about you dependency to see her a certain way. To envision her as a human being, appears to be a hard pill to swallow.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 10:35 AM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(16-03-2016 08:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 08:07 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Asking fools to define their terms, is not griping.

I'm using the common understanding of the terms, that you can look up in any dictionary. Apparently the meanings of the terms elude you to the point where you don't even know whether your claim as to what's ethical or not, is an objective or subjective statement. So what is it? Do you understand the meaning of the terms, but believe that neither of them apply to moral, or ethical statements? Do you prefer to dodge the question at every turn, as is typical with you?

Quote:I reject your simplistic categories, and will not get sucked into your infantile game. You were given MANY examples which proven there is no such thing as "objective" morality. You cannot define it. You have not done it.

Well it appears that not only do you reject the concept of objective morality, you also reject the concept of subjective morality. Your own ethical statements, are one's you find yourself unable to categorize one way or the other. Not only do you lack a belief whether your own ethical statements are objective claims, you also lack a belief that they're subjective ones.

You positions is entirely scatterbrained, and for some reason you want to pin that on me.

You're actually not using just "common" understanding. You keep going by what you presumably THINK common understanding is... again doesn't actually make your interpretation the accurate representation of billions of people and various fields. Morality and the pieces of the subject change in sociology, philosophy, religion, & common uses. It doesn't exist in just one manner.

WE've had dozens of threads on this and you just go back and return to point 1 acting like there is 1 topic and 1 point the word morality means, which is just blatantly false. Morality can be more than nominative universal concepts when talking about it's potential limits.

It goes back to you saying the point of, you can't even imagine you're talking about objective morality because of your subjectivity.. that's a wrong point there you started out from. The parts YOU consider the "illusion" and the parts you consider "wrong" aren't set in common usage. One way you could flip both ways you use the labels

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
16-03-2016, 10:40 AM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(16-03-2016 10:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 09:57 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Multiple people have cited multiple sources, many with internet links. The Wikipedia page alone contained no less than (31) linked references.

That is not imagination. That is information.

I'm familiar with a variety of articles writing demonizing her. Every revered public figures accumulates some degree of this inevitably.

The question relevant here is what are the facts, and what can be confidently inferred by them. What can say about these facts and her character. Can we look at them, and see picture of characters that's the scum of the earth, deserving a special place in hell, as other here have put it.

Clearly you see something in her, than those granting her the Nobel peace prize, by the numerous awards and accolades she's received from the Indian government, didn't.

So what facts about her life and history is that based on?

The Keating association? Not much there.

Her stance on abortion and contraception? Which is just traditional catholic beliefs, beliefs of everyone's catholic grandmother, which I doubt we'd want to paint as cunts as a result of this.

Her beliefs about the redemptive and transformative power of suffering?

Her charity primarily creating hospices, than hospitals?

If there are other historical facts about her here that you'd like to provide us, please tell me what those are? As opposed to a series of interpretations of them. If I'm suppose to look at this woman as if she's the scum of the earth, feel morally superior to her, that she deserves to rot in hell, then I want to know why? On what basis should the revered image of her, be entirely flipped on it's head, to envision a monster instead?

The portraits on display here are just cartoons, or a B-movie villain, entirely dehumanized, that you don't see an actual person behind them at all. They reveal less about her, and more about you dependency to see her a certain way. To envision her as a human being, appears to be a hard pill to swallow.

I recall now how a few weeks back you, although you didn't want to admit believe matters more than action, refused to say that, you were inclined to say belief with action is what matters.

To many others, her action is what is given a damn about. So ignorance of the horrors or potential troubles in the situations she may of accepted doesn't get a whipped cloth and glossy sheen of benefit of the doubt. Because it doesn't alter the actions. What she thought, doesn't matter to the actions. She thought her supplies and manners were healthy and clean & goodly doesn't effect if they actually were or not.

You seem more focused on her thoughts of the matter other than being ignorant and let people use you as a figure of greatness when merely you don't know you are such a thing is a silly action.. not one that ought to be revered anymore.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 10:50 AM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(16-03-2016 10:40 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You seem more focused on her thoughts of the matter other than being ignorant and let people use you as a figure of greatness when merely you don't know you are such a thing is a silly action.. not one that ought to be revered anymore.

The accusations I'm concerned about are about her character, the portrait of her as the scum of the earth, the demonizing.

The question that matters is what can be inferred about her character based on her actions, life, and history.

Which is not the same question as to if we arguing as to whether her contribution to society, to the poor was an overall net positive or not.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 11:01 AM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(16-03-2016 10:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 08:22 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm using the common understanding of the terms, that you can look up in any dictionary. Apparently the meanings of the terms elude you to the point where you don't even know whether your claim as to what's ethical or not, is an objective or subjective statement. So what is it? Do you understand the meaning of the terms, but believe that neither of them apply to moral, or ethical statements? Do you prefer to dodge the question at every turn, as is typical with you?


Well it appears that not only do you reject the concept of objective morality, you also reject the concept of subjective morality. Your own ethical statements, are one's you find yourself unable to categorize one way or the other. Not only do you lack a belief whether your own ethical statements are objective claims, you also lack a belief that they're subjective ones.

You positions is entirely scatterbrained, and for some reason you want to pin that on me.

You're actually not using just "common" understanding. You keep going by what you presumably THINK common understanding is... again doesn't actually make your interpretation the accurate representation of billions of people and various fields. Morality and the pieces of the subject change in sociology, philosophy, religion, & common uses. It doesn't exist in just one manner.

WE've had dozens of threads on this and you just go back and return to point 1 acting like there is 1 topic and 1 point the word morality means, which is just blatantly false. Morality can be more than nominative universal concepts when talking about it's potential limits.

It goes back to you saying the point of, you can't even imagine you're talking about objective morality because of your subjectivity.. that's a wrong point there you started out from. The parts YOU consider the "illusion" and the parts you consider "wrong" aren't set in common usage. One way you could flip both ways you use the labels

If people think I'm not using the common understanding of the terms objective and subjective that's fine. If you have some other understanding in mind of the terms, and believe that your understanding of the terms, suggest that it can't be applied to moral and ethical statements, then all I want is an expansion of this claim

It's not often that you hear individuals claim that morality is neither objective or subjective, usually folks suggest it's one way or the other. So when people like yourself, and Bucky, see these terms as inappropriate, than I'm curious.

I want to know what is an example of a non-moral objective statement to you, and what is an example of non-moral subjective statement. And what you believe the distinction is between the two. I have no desire to change your mind on the subject, I just want to hear you expand on your views in a clear and direct way.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 11:06 AM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(16-03-2016 11:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 10:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You're actually not using just "common" understanding. You keep going by what you presumably THINK common understanding is... again doesn't actually make your interpretation the accurate representation of billions of people and various fields. Morality and the pieces of the subject change in sociology, philosophy, religion, & common uses. It doesn't exist in just one manner.

WE've had dozens of threads on this and you just go back and return to point 1 acting like there is 1 topic and 1 point the word morality means, which is just blatantly false. Morality can be more than nominative universal concepts when talking about it's potential limits.

It goes back to you saying the point of, you can't even imagine you're talking about objective morality because of your subjectivity.. that's a wrong point there you started out from. The parts YOU consider the "illusion" and the parts you consider "wrong" aren't set in common usage. One way you could flip both ways you use the labels

If people think I'm not using the common understanding of the terms objective and subjective that's fine. If you have some other understanding in mind of the terms, and believe that your understanding of the terms, suggest that it can't be applied to moral and ethical statements, then all I want is an expansion of this claim

It's not often that you hear individuals claim that morality is neither objective or subjective, usually folks suggest it's one way or the other. So when people like yourself, and Bucky, see these terms as inappropriate, than I'm curious.

I want to know what is an example of a non-moral objective statement to you, and what is an example of non-moral subjective statement. And what you believe the distinction is between the two. I have no desire to change your mind on the subject, I just want to hear you expand on your views in a clear and direct way.

It Is/ I Am

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 11:11 AM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(16-03-2016 11:06 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 11:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If people think I'm not using the common understanding of the terms objective and subjective that's fine. If you have some other understanding in mind of the terms, and believe that your understanding of the terms, suggest that it can't be applied to moral and ethical statements, then all I want is an expansion of this claim

It's not often that you hear individuals claim that morality is neither objective or subjective, usually folks suggest it's one way or the other. So when people like yourself, and Bucky, see these terms as inappropriate, than I'm curious.

I want to know what is an example of a non-moral objective statement to you, and what is an example of non-moral subjective statement. And what you believe the distinction is between the two. I have no desire to change your mind on the subject, I just want to hear you expand on your views in a clear and direct way.

It Is/ I Am

???

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 12:48 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(16-03-2016 10:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 10:40 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You seem more focused on her thoughts of the matter other than being ignorant and let people use you as a figure of greatness when merely you don't know you are such a thing is a silly action.. not one that ought to be revered anymore.

The accusations I'm concerned about are about her character, the portrait of her as the scum of the earth, the demonizing.

The question that matters is what can be inferred about her character based on her actions, life, and history.

Which is not the same question as to if we arguing as to whether her contribution to society, to the poor was an overall net positive or not.

No. She's being singled out for SAINTHOOD. According to her letters, she lost her faith. She may have done a lot of good. She also acted irresponsibly and unethically, in herself writing the letter, saying she was washing her hands of the funds in question. At least one of the "miracles" was fabricated, and proven to be a hoax. Her character is not in question. The sainthood is. She is a normal flawed person. Many people spend their lives in the service of others. No one "canonizes" them. It's a PR stunt to get good PR for Rome.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
29-03-2016, 12:24 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4512

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
29-03-2016, 05:08 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(29-03-2016 12:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4512
You beat me to it Bucky! Big Grin I'll have to start getting up earlier?

I was just gonna paraphrase some stuff about her from the Skeptoid Newsletter...

The first thing to understand is that despite the well-known image, Mother Teresa's missions were never about relieving suffering... she believed strongly that suffering brought one closer to God... at its peak, before her death, Missionaries of Charity raked in an estimated US$75 million per year in donations... only about 7% of Missionaries of Charity's budget has gone to its programs—or a little less than $9,000 per location... follow that other 93% of the $75 million per year, and you'll almost certainly find that it leads to the Vatican Bank... a 1998 investigative report from Germany found that Missionaries of Charity was not even among the 200 largest charitable service providers in Calcutta... she was often criticized as a hypocrite for seeking treatment in advanced western hospitals when she got sick at the end of her own life, while patients withered and died in her missions.

—I've done this for some of the theists here who may be slow readers, and just wanna defend the indefensible. Can a saint be unsanctified? or would that be admitting that the supposedly infallible Catholic Church made a major fuckup with this reprehensible old crone. Can she be de-Nobel Laureated now that her nefarious activities have been uncovered with the faculty of 20/20 hindsight?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: