Mother Teresa to be made a saint
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2016, 11:59 AM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 11:54 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Tom. None of Hitchen's work even suggested she lost her faith. In an interview, he said he was completely shocked these letters existed.

Yes, those letters were released by the church after her death. Hitchens's book was published some years before. He even mentioned in an interview about her reaction to it.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2016, 12:31 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 10:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 09:35 AM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Oh, Really?!!!

In the early 1990's Charles Keating was the Bernie Madoff of his day. He stole money from $252,000,000 from people who trusted their life savings to him. He donated $1.25 million dollars of that stolen money to Mother Teresa but when he was finally caught and tried in a courtroom the prosecutor tried to get M T to give it back. Here's the letter she wrote to the judge.

[Image: lettertoito.jpg]


The Prosecutor sent a letter to Mother Teresa pleading for the stolen money to be returned to it's rightful owners. Here's his letter.

We should perhaps consider what these interpretations of her actions are being based on
.
We are talking about woman in her 80s, a few years away from her own death, when the Keating trial occurred. And all we have is a single letter written from her stating an ignorance of Keating's work and business deals, but acknowledging his contributions to the charity. And a lack of response to a second letter reportedly addressed to her from a judge. By the time of trial, her letter etc.. her health was already ailing, offering to resign her position at the charity as a result.

Her view on Keating, how the money donated to the charity should be handled, whether she read the subsequent letter, how she thought it should be handled following the conviction etc.. are entirely unknown to us, she likely would have deferred to the Church on that question,

So forgive me for giving the benefit of the doubts here to an 80 year old lady, with ailing health, who wasn't particularly the brightest, or most informed on issues above her own immediate concerns.

If you want to vilify her as some moral monster based on aspects like her association with Charles Keating, you can go on right ahead, but it just says more about you than her.

And if anyone here wants to present themselves as morally superior to her, they're just kidding themselves.

Quote:This women was a scourge on humanity.....Too bad there isn't a hell because this woman would easily qualify for entrance.

I guess it most feel good for a person to imagine themselves as morally superior to a old lady who took a vow of poverty, and devoted her life to the poor, but statements like the one above reveal more about you, than her. The psychology here perhaps not much different that sort of republicans that demonize Obama to the the point of caricature, desperate to use whatever shreds they can find to paint that picture.

Even an 80 year old can understand the concept of stolen money. It's basic. It's just not that complicated. If you give me stolen money it's not mine to give away.

You're making excuses for this woman because she was old. There is no excuse for this behavior from someone who's supposed to be a "saint".

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
15-03-2016, 12:37 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
A fairly inevitable PR move.

I wonder what lame-ass excuse for a "miracle" they're attributing this time?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2016, 01:03 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 12:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A fairly inevitable PR move.

I wonder what lame-ass excuse for a "miracle" they're attributing this time?

Mother Fuckin Teresa is supposedly responsible for curing a cancerous tumor in an Indian woman, Ms Bersa........however.....

From a 2003 article in the New York Times:

Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, a doctor who said he had treated Ms. Besra, said in a telephone interview on Sunday that medicines he prescribed had eliminated the tumor. He also said it was a cyst caused by tuberculosis, not a cancerous tumor. The Vatican team that traveled to India and certified Ms. Besra's account, he added, never made contact with him.

''It was not a miracle,'' he said. ''She took medicines for nine months to one year."


What a pile of shit.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like dancefortwo's post
15-03-2016, 01:07 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 01:03 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 12:37 PM)cjlr Wrote:  A fairly inevitable PR move.

I wonder what lame-ass excuse for a "miracle" they're attributing this time?

Mother Fuckin Teresa is supposedly responsible for curing a cancerous tumor in an Indian woman, Ms Bersa........however.....

From a 2003 article in the New York Times:

Dr. Ranjan Mustafi, a doctor who said he had treated Ms. Besra, said in a telephone interview on Sunday that medicines he prescribed had eliminated the tumor. He also said it was a cyst caused by tuberculosis, not a cancerous tumor. The Vatican team that traveled to India and certified Ms. Besra's account, he added, never made contact with him.

''It was not a miracle,'' he said. ''She took medicines for nine months to one year."


What a pile of shit.

Splendid. Par for the course, I suppose...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
15-03-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 11:27 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Secular and subjective morality is all that exists. Until you prove your god, you have nothing but contradictions.

That just shows your ignorance. Subjective morality doesn't exist, except for the partly closeted beliefs of a handful of atheists. If objective morality doesn't exist, than when I make a claim than torturing babies just for fun is wrong, I'm not making a subjective statement, but a false one. Just like the claim that there's a teapot orbiting the sun, doesn't become a subjective claim, just because it's not true.

A more reflective and informed atheists unlike yourself will acknowledge this, it's why folks like like Micheal Ruse will speak of objective morality as a deep rooted illusion.

And I'm not entitled to prove to you that God exists, anymore so than you're entitled to prove to me that we're a product of a cosmic fluke. Anymore so than you or I are entitled to prove to a solpisist that a reality outside of his own mind exists. You may believe that morality is subjective and secular, but your under no obligation to prove that to me.

And I'm just pointing out that if you believe that, then arguments about whats right and wrong are entirely pointless. By your own presuppositions, it would amount to nothing more than two people arguing whether Justin Bieber is a better singer that Taylor Swift.

Quote:I'm not speaking for any religion. I am noting the differences in the ethical codes proclaimed by each. Do you deny that there are incompatible differences between the various religions? Are you going to be that dishonest?

No, I'm pointing out that you're unlikely to be a valid spokesperson as to what those beliefs are, that your take on Islamic and Mormon, etc.. views on morality are likely to cause these respective parties to face-palm themselves. Are those views in general primarily deontological, more akin to consequentialism, more represented by virtue ethics, etc.....? If I wanted to argue about a muslims take on morality as opposed to my own Christian views, then I'll prefer to argue with an actual muslim, and not an ignorant atheists. You can speak for yourself, and perhaps even speak for other atheists, but that's the extent of it.

Quote:You get your morality from god? From the bible? Let's take a peek, shall we?
How about Abraham and Isaac?

The voices in Abraham's head, "god" told him to take his son/nephew (since Sarah was his sister...) and sacrifice him. The reason? To prove his love/devotion to god. And just to be clear, he was rewarded because he was going to do it.

Do I need to quote the various news stories about the dead babies whose parents where acting on gods orders? Were they right or wrong?
If they were wrong then so was Abraham. So was god.

Well, if all these individuals thought that its the right thing to do, you clearly couldn't claim otherwise right? You have no basis, or grounding to claim that any of these individuals or their actions are immoral, because you don't believe in an objective foundation.

If I were to say that if God instructed them to kill their children and they followed suit, then there's nothing immoral about it. You're entirely unable to argue otherwise. All you'll be able to tell me is that it makes you uncomfortable, that it hurts your sensibilities, or makes you stomach hurts, but that's about it. I don't even have to defend any of this, because you don't have anything to fight with. You waved your white flag once you declared that you believe morality is subjective.

Quote:Is it moral to kill a child to prove your devotion to something/someone?

Your morality says "Yes." Mine says "No."

Your claim is that whatever the answer is, it's entirely subjective. So the question amounts to as much as asking me whether or not caramel is an appropriate topping for ice cream.

"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
15-03-2016, 01:25 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Subjective morality doesn't exist, except for the partly closeted beliefs of a handful of atheists. If objective morality doesn't exist, than when I make a claim than torturing babies just for fun is wrong, I'm not making a subjective statement, but a false one. Just like the claim that there's a teapot orbiting the sun, doesn't become a subjective claim, just because it's not true.

Your "objection", if it can be so dignified, is entirely incoherent.

(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  A more reflective and informed atheists unlike yourself will acknowledge this, it's why folks like like Micheal Ruse will speak of objective morality as a deep rooted illusion.

Illusion as in not real. You understand that, right?

(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I'm not entitled to prove to you that God exists, anymore so than you're entitled to prove to me that we're a product of a cosmic fluke. Anymore so than you or I are entitled to prove to a solpisist that a reality outside of his own mind exists.

I suspect you believe obliged rather than entitled. The latter is meaningless here.

(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You may believe that morality is subjective and secular, but your under no obligation to prove that to me.

And I'm just pointing out that if you believe that, then arguments about whats right and wrong are entirely pointless. By your own presuppositions, it would amount to nothing more than two people arguing whether Justin Bieber is a better singer that Taylor Swift.

"If it's subjective, then you're only subjectively telling me you disagree!"

Well, yes. That's literally the point. I'm not sure you understand what he's saying.

(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No, I'm pointing out that you're unlikely to be a valid spokesperson as to what those beliefs are, that your take on Islamic and Mormon, etc.. views on morality are likely to cause these respective parties to face-palm themselves.

"You're can't be a valid spokesperson for other groups. Now, let me continue to talk at length about what all atheists believe..."

(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, if all these individuals thought that its the right thing to do, you clearly couldn't claim otherwise right? You have no basis, or grounding to claim that any of these individuals or their actions are immoral, because you don't believe in an objective foundation.

You clearly don't understand the objection.

No; the objection is subjective. But if the truth were objective, where does the objection come from??

(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I were to say that if God instructed them to kill their children and they followed suit, then there's nothing immoral about it. You're entirely unable to argue otherwise.

Argue otherwise objectively. Which he hasn't claimed to do or want to do.

You do love your straw men, I'll give you that.

(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  All you'll be able to tell me is that it makes you uncomfortable, that it hurts your sensibilities, or makes you stomach hurts, but that's about it. I don't even have to defend any of this, because you don't have anything to fight with. You waved your white flag once you declared that you believe morality is subjective.

"By saying it's subjective you admit you can't objectively prove me wrong. Therefore I win!"

That's... an argument, I guess.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like cjlr's post
15-03-2016, 01:34 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 12:31 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Even an 80 year old can understand the concept of stolen money. It's basic. It's just not that complicated. If you give me stolen money it's not mine to give away.


You're making excuses for this woman because she was old. There is no excuse for this behavior from someone who's supposed to be a "saint".

An 80 year old with ailing health, who died a few years later, who at that point was mostly a symbol for the charity, whose was a part of the larger organization of the Catholic church. Who likely had almost next to nothing to do at that point with how donations are handled, how issues such as the donations from Keating should be resolved. We know nothing of how she felt about it in the aftermath of his conviction, but hasn't stopped some from inferring the nefarious, about a dying old lady. But your sanctimony is duly noted.

How charities should handle donations from individuals later discovered to have defrauded others, isn't it basic or simple. Bernie Madoff contributed to a variety of charities, and I doubt a single one of them decided to give those donations back. If it was a simple and basic as you put, it would be a simple legal dispute, between the Catholic church and those defrauded by Charles Keating, but I don't even think this transpired.

"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
15-03-2016, 01:48 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If objective morality doesn't exist, than when I make a claim than torturing babies just for fun is wrong, I'm not making a subjective statement, but a false one.

We have to define our morality. If your god exists, it has defined different ethical codes for every religion and culture in history.

If we want it to be wrong to torture babies, then it is up to us to make laws and enforce them. No god is going to stop it.

How many times do I have to say this: If an objective morality exists, your god has, according to your own texts, authorized a multitude of atrocities.

(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I'm not entitled to prove to you that God exists, anymore so than you're entitled to prove to me that we're a product of a cosmic fluke.


If you expect me to believe in your god, you are required to prove his existence.

No one is entitled to prove any science based teachings. You can watch/read/learn or you can squat in a pew with your head up your ass. Your choice.

(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You may believe that morality is subjective and secular, but your under no obligation to prove that to me.

Secular and subject is the default status. When your imaginary friend is proven to be real, then it may be relevant.

(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, if all these individuals thought that its the right thing to do, you clearly couldn't claim otherwise right? You have no basis, or grounding to claim that any of these individuals or their actions are immoral, because you don't believe in an objective foundation.


Actually, I do. In our country, we have decided that it is wrong to murder another person. We, as individuals, don't want to be murdered. That is all the moral justification we need.

(15-03-2016 01:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I were to say that if God instructed them to kill their children and they followed suit, then there's nothing immoral about it.

Finally. I was waiting for you to admit this. Guess what? That's not objective morality. That's god's morality, which is pretty fucked up, really.

Objective morality means that if something is wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it.

Do you understand that now, or do I need to use smaller words?

Now, do you have anything else, or are you just going to keep repeating the same thing?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
15-03-2016, 02:09 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 01:48 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  How many times do I have to say this: If an objective morality exists, your god has, according to your own texts, authorized a multitude of atrocities.

...

Objective morality means that if something is wrong, it's wrong no matter who does it.

Let's at least be fair: the theistic claim is and always has been that the morality of actions depends on the actor.

"God is always right" is certainly independent of human considerations, thought whether that counts as sufficient for objectivity depends on how one wishes to define objective.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: