Mother Teresa to be made a saint
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2016, 04:13 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 01:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

Quote:We know nothing of how she felt about it in the aftermath of his conviction,

The letter she sent to Judge Ito was sent after Keating's conviction. The pleading for the money to be returned is also after he was convicted. Ailing health?? In 1992 she was healthy enough to get on planes and fly around the world, traveling from place to place, meeting with people, doing so even for the next 4 years until she died in 1997 but in 1992 she wasn't healthy enough to read and understand a damned letter? Bullshit.

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
15-03-2016, 04:17 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 02:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, there’s plenty of atheists here to correct any mischaracterizations of their views I might express here, but sadly hardly any muslims, mormons, etc… to do the same. Most people here at best have some marginal understanding of Christianity, and it’s likely significantly worse when it comes to other religions. It would all just be marginally better than hearing Donald Trump’s take on Islam.

And if you had a marginal understanding of argument, this conversation might be something more than an exercise in frustration.

Since you insist on beating this dead horse into a gelatinous mass of equine jelly, let's review.

I said:
Quote:What about the Jehovah Witnesses?
The Muslims?
The Mormons?
The Jews?

They all say god has different morals than you claim.

Until one of you proves it, your claims are worse than meaningless.

Do you deny that the above religions (JW, christianity, islam, mormons, judaism) all have different morals and ethical codes?

That is all that I said. How is that inaccurate?


(15-03-2016 02:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There’s no point in arguing what the truth here is, to individuals who believe it’s not a question of truth at all.

You argue truth based on a book of lies. The irony is staggering.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
15-03-2016, 04:36 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 02:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  But let's give it a look:
If an objective morality exists,
Then...

What?

How does that inform our behaviour? How does that agree with observation? What conclusions does it lead to? Why should anyone care?

Allow me to try one out:
If there exists an objective morality, then it must be discernable somehow, or else it is meaningless by definition.

Well, first all, humanity as whole, for whatever reason, biologically or otherwise takes objective morality as a given. While people disagree on what they believe is right, hardly anyone believes that morality is subjective. Perhaps you can say this is because mostly everyone is religious, but it’s seems to be more complicated than that.

Our entire moral language, our moral disputes, are framed by this belief. That right and wrong is something that can be discernible, though the how might not be understood. The how can seem just as difficult to answer as to how do I convince a man who believes the earth is flat that it’s not.

When we speak of a society that once condoned slavery, and the lynching tree, and the society we have today that recognizes the immorality of these things, we speak of it as a progression. That a man who recognizes the wrongness of the lynching tree has been enlightened. You can ask how did we discern this? Was it like getting folks who preferred Pepsi to prefer Coke instead, or was it more like society realizing a particular truth? More akin to the gradual acceptance that the earth revolves around the sun, than changes in fashion?

And it’s not like a shift in subjective preferences, and in lot of ways moral progression, entails a considerable to degree of uncovering lies, and deceptions, like scapegoating, and othering, dispelling myths, such as the black slave is not equally as human as you.

If right and wrong are not discernible things, how do we discern these things? How can we see it as moral progress, when in your view it can’t be progress at all? If our child one day grows up to believe what Hitler did was a good thing, we likely wouldn’t see it a shift in subjective preferences, but that something has gone wrong with him, that he’s been corrupted by forces outside of your control, you might even question yourself as a parent.

You might play lip service for subjective morality, but you’d likely devote a considerable amount of time showing him the error of his way, that he’s wrong, that it wasn’t a good thing. Correcting him with a great deal more passion and concern, than if he was wrong about a math question.

Quote:Allow me to try one out:
If there exists an objective morality, then it must be discernable somehow, or else it is meaningless by definition.

It does seem discernible somehow. A german population that goes from extolling Hitler, grows to be ashamed of him, recognizing the evil of the atrocities that proceeded them, suffer from collective guilt in it’s wake. What’s not entirely known is all the series of forces in play that leads to this discerning, the forces that uncover the lies and deceptions that justified it all.

As far as I’m concerned hardly anyone believes in subjective morality, and even among those who claim to, they only play lip service to it. They tend to be entirely inconsistent in their approach, particularly when expressing their own moral outrage. They often just talk out of both sides of their mouth. That objective morality, like a belief that a reality exist independently of our minds, for most folks is accepted as a given, and to attribute this to religious beliefs, appears to be giving too much credit to religion.

No one believes that the wrongness of torturing babes just for the fun, is matter of personal taste, that’s it subjective, those that claim they do are only lying to themselves. They’re just being phony.

"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, 04:50 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2016 04:57 PM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 04:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 02:55 PM)cjlr Wrote:  But let's give it a look:
If an objective morality exists,
Then...

What?

How does that inform our behaviour? How does that agree with observation? What conclusions does it lead to? Why should anyone care?

Allow me to try one out:
If there exists an objective morality, then it must be discernable somehow, or else it is meaningless by definition.

Well, first all, humanity as whole, for whatever reason, biologically or otherwise takes objective morality as a given. While people disagree on what they believe is right, hardly anyone believes that morality is subjective. Perhaps you can say this is because mostly everyone is religious, but it’s seems to be more complicated than that.

Our entire moral language, our moral disputes, are framed by this belief. That right and wrong is something that can be discernible, though the how might not be understood. The how can seem just as difficult to answer as to how do I convince a man who believes the earth is flat that it’s not.

When we speak of a society that once condoned slavery, and the lynching tree, and the society we have today that recognizes the immorality of these things, we speak of it as a progression. That a man who recognizes the wrongness of the lynching tree has been enlightened. You can ask how did we discern this? Was it like getting folks who preferred Pepsi to prefer Coke instead, or was it more like society realizing a particular truth? More akin to the gradual acceptance that the earth revolves around the sun, than changes in fashion?

And it’s not like a shift in subjective preferences, and in lot of ways moral progression, entails a considerable to degree of uncovering lies, and deceptions, like scapegoating, and othering, dispelling myths, such as the black slave is not equally as human as you.

If right and wrong are not discernible things, how do we discern these things? How can we see it as moral progress, when in your view it can’t be progress at all? If our child one day grows up to believe what Hitler did was a good thing, we likely wouldn’t see it a shift in subjective preferences, but that something has gone wrong with him, that he’s been corrupted by forces outside of your control, you might even question yourself as a parent.

You might play lip service for subjective morality, but you’d likely devote a considerable amount of time showing him the error of his way, that he’s wrong, that it wasn’t a good thing. Correcting him with a great deal more passion and concern, than if he was wrong about a math question.

Quote:Allow me to try one out:
If there exists an objective morality, then it must be discernable somehow, or else it is meaningless by definition.

It does seem discernible somehow. A german population that goes from extolling Hitler, grows to be ashamed of him, recognizing the evil of the atrocities that proceeded them, suffer from collective guilt in it’s wake. What’s not entirely known is all the series of forces in play that leads to this discerning, the forces that uncover the lies and deceptions that justified it all.

As far as I’m concerned hardly anyone believes in subjective morality, and even among those who claim to, they only play lip service to it. They tend to be entirely inconsistent in their approach, particularly when expressing their own moral outrage. They often just talk out of both sides of their mouth. That objective morality, like a belief that a reality exist independently of our minds, for most folks is accepted as a given, and to attribute this to religious beliefs, appears to be giving too much credit to religion.

No one believes that the wrongness of torturing babes just for the fun, is matter of personal taste, that’s it subjective, those that claim they do are only lying to themselves. They’re just being phony.
People like Stevil and Matt finny seem to

But I still don't get why you act like morality is a one meaning term. You've just gone on back to acting like descriptive morality isn't a concept of it. Despite all those threads and posts around the points of there being multiple meanings of morality.

"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
15-03-2016, 04:51 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 04:17 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Do you deny that the above religions (JW, christianity, islam, mormons, judaism) all have different morals and ethical codes?

That is all that I said. How is that inaccurate?

I’d claim that if you were to a take a random group of Muslims, a random group of Hindus, Mormons, Christians etc… and ask them what they believe is right and wrong, you’ll find far more agreements than disagreements.

If you asked all these parties to write out their own version of the 10 most important moral obligations, and rules, than these list would look remarkably similar.

They likely agree that taking innocent life is wrong, that murder is wrong, that lying is wrong, that adultery is wrong, that they have an obligation to take care of the poor and destitute, to pursue justice, to do unto others as they would have done to themselves, to love their neighbor, to value kindness, love, charity, fairness, more so than hatred, greed, or cruelty.

"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, 05:06 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 04:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, first all, humanity as whole, for whatever reason, biologically or otherwise takes objective morality as a given.

Unsupported asinine assertion with NO evidence.
Perfect example of your utter level of ignorance.
Most cultures have DIFFERENT cultural/moral codes.

Ar you sure you're not a sock of COTW ?
Facepalm

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
15-03-2016, 05:10 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 05:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 04:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, first all, humanity as whole, for whatever reason, biologically or otherwise takes objective morality as a given.

Unsupported asinine assertion with NO evidence.
Perfect example of your utter level of ignorance.
Most cultures have DIFFERENT cultural/moral codes.

Ar you sure you're not a sock of COTW ?
Facepalm

Funny, I read that as improvement and opened from him based on the past.

At least he stated for whatever reason. As in the past he has arrogantly insisted it was just biological and the way it is. Ignoring how it's a mainly thing taught from social order norms to children for them to think in yes/no right/wrong terms until near teenage times. (For a lucky some)

"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
15-03-2016, 05:26 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 04:13 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 01:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Quote:We know nothing of how she felt about it in the aftermath of his conviction,

The letter she sent to Judge Ito was sent after Keating's conviction. The pleading for the money to be returned is also after he was convicted. Ailing health?? In 1992 she was healthy enough to get on planes and fly around the world, traveling from place to place, meeting with people, doing so even for the next 4 years until she died in 1997 but in 1992 she wasn't healthy enough to read and understand a damned letter? Bullshit.

By 91 she already suffered two heart attacks, battled pneumonia, and suffered further heart problems, offering to resign her post at the Missions of Charity as a result. If this doesn't constitute as ailing health than I don't know what would. If you think at this stage she's actively involved in the everyday running of her the charity she founded, rather than just the face of it, you'll likely be mistaken.

But still your entire accusation here is built on a lack of response, and the fact that her Charity didn't give back the 1million in donations received by Keating who defrauded several billion. You claimed this was so basic and simple. As if there's some precedence for such actions, as if most charitable organizations would be inclined to do this. How many of the charities that Keating donated to gave back the donations they received from him? How many of the charities that Bernice Madoff contributed to gave back the donations they received from him? Should the Boy and Girls club give back the million dollars they received through Madoff, should the Children's Aid society give back the 225k they received through him? None of them have of course. Are we're going to paint them as the scum of earth as a result?

You claim its a simple and basic gesture, yet the history of often venerated organizations placed in a similar situation, doesn't support this. And it's hardly been a cause to paint these organizations as nefarious entities.

"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, 05:31 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2016 05:34 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 05:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-03-2016 04:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, first all, humanity as whole, for whatever reason, biologically or otherwise takes objective morality as a given.

Unsupported asinine assertion with NO evidence.
Perfect example of your utter level of ignorance.
Most cultures have DIFFERENT cultural/moral codes.

Ar you sure you're not a sock of COTW ?
Facepalm

Most cultures also hold different views on whats true as well, but they likely all believe that truth is objective.

The muslim and the christians may share some difference in their own moral outlook, but they both believe that morality is objective. Subjective morality is belief that no one actually holds, besides a handful of atheists.

Even among professional philosophers who are predominantly atheists (72%), over half still believe in objective morality.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog...s-believe/

"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, 05:36 PM
RE: Mother Teresa to be made a saint
(15-03-2016 05:31 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The Muslim and the Christians may share some difference in their own moral outlook, but they both believe that morality is objective. Subjective morality is belief that no one actually holds, besides a handful of atheists.

Consider

Well.. they both believe in an objective reality.

The problem is they both believe in effectively different objective moralities.

So, there's a problem right there.

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: