(March 15, 2013 at 11:37 am)ronedee Wrote: That is about the most asinine thing I've heard here!

Then I could tell you pretty much anything...concerning bad press and you'd believe that wholeheartedly?

But, all the volumes written about her helping the poor, sick and dying over 60 years would just fly out the window as a result....am I right?

Sheeesh...talk about condeming oneself! Good luck on Judgement Day there bub!

Then it should be easy for you to prove it false. Go ahead and prove which parts are lies and how they actually have as many centers and feed as many people as she claimed.

(March 15, 2013 at 12:02 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(March 15, 2013 at 11:37 am)ronedee Wrote: That is about the most asinine thing I've heard here!

Then I could tell you pretty much anything...concerning bad press and you'd believe that wholeheartedly?

But, all the volumes written about her helping the poor, sick and dying over 60 years would just fly out the window as a result....am I right?

Sheeesh...talk about condeming oneself! Good luck on Judgement Day there bub!

Then it should be easy for you to prove it false. Go ahead and prove which parts are lies and how they actually have as many centers and feed as many people as she claimed.

How would that be easy to prove which parts of lies? You could post another set of statistics and then the other person would just say those statistics are tainted by Catholic church apologetics.

---

MOTHER THERESA FUCKING SUCKS. PWNED

(March 15, 2013 at 12:08 pm)jstrodel Wrote: How would that be easy to prove which parts of lies? You could post another set of statistics and then the other person would just say those statistics are tainted by Catholic church apologetics.

---

MOTHER THERESA FUCKING SUCKS. PWNED

The author of the article isn't simply providing statistics - he is giving references as well. He has provided instances where she claimed what she claimed - which is independently verifiable and refuted it by saying that what she says is untrue. That all those fertility and leprosy clinics are not there. That is easily disproved by giving the names and addresses of those clinics.

Quote: At the time of her death, Mother Teresa had opened 517 missions welcoming the poor and sick in more than 100 countries.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...cious.html

From a critical site. That is 517 missions in more than 100 countries. How many missions have you opened? How many has Christopher Hitchens, a Marxist, who popularized atheist demonization of Mother Theresa.

This is what I think happened. Mother Theresa was a flawed individual. Figures like Christopher Hitchens, who are themselves very spiritually immature and like to play on peoples sense of breaking away from tradition, of hearing a sort of rebellious, iconoclastic message which sells books and who do not want to have anyone put a moral authority over them set out to discredit Mother Theresa in any way possible.

What happens after this is that atheists on the internet, who sometimes are immature, emotionally and also spiritually, picked up on the anti-Mother Theresa wave. They did not feel any special responsibility to get a clear perception of what Mother Theresa did, they just gratified their youthful, rebellious lusts by indulging in anti-Theresa propaganda:

"Are you that fucking stupid? Mother T built a profitable reputation; too bad her 'patients' weren't recipients of the generosity. "
"Mother theresa - servant of the devil "

I would encourage anyone reading this thread who wants to grow in understanding the world and truth that they should learn to control their appetites for controversy and hunger for the sort of truth that is not easily palatable to rebellious tastes.

Whatever you think of Mother Theresa, maybe she was a mediocre humanitarian, the spirit in which you judge her should reflect a hunger for understanding, not a love of controversy.

...here's some facts for y'all:

No anti here is interested in any GOOD MT has done!

That wouldn't support their agenda of continual crucifixion and chaos!

(March 15, 2013 at 1:45 pm)ronedee Wrote: No anti here is interested in any GOOD MT has done!

I can't actually see what "good" she has done.

---

(March 15, 2013 at 1:10 pm)jstrodel Wrote: How many has Christopher Hitchens, a Marxist, who popularized atheist demonization of Mother Theresa.

You keep calling Hitchens a Marxist when he self identidfied as a socialist.

Quote:Hitchens became a socialist "largely [as] the outcome of a study of history, taking sides ... in the battles over industrialism and war and empire." In 2001, he told Rhys Southan of Reason magazine that he could no longer say "I am a socialist". Socialists, he claimed, had ceased to offer a positive alternative to the capitalist system. Capitalism had become the more revolutionary economic system, and he welcomed globalisation as "innovative and internationalist", but added, "I don't think that the contradictions, as we used to say, of the system, are by any means all resolved." He stated that he had a renewed interest in the freedom of the individual from the state, but that he still considered libertarianism "ahistorical" both on the world stage and in the work of creating a stable and functional society, adding that libertarians are "more worried about the over-mighty state than the unaccountable corporation" whereas "the present state of affairs ... combines the worst of bureaucracy with the worst of the insurance companies."[66]

(March 15, 2013 at 1:55 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: [quote='ronedee' pid='415198' dateline='1363369538']


No anti here is interested in any GOOD MT has done!



I can't actually see what "good" she has done.

Well then! You must be right!

"You can't actually see.......what good she has done."

I guess Calcutta is a long way from your pool patio?

Quote:Hitchens, as recently as 2009, again referred to himself as "a Marxist". Hitchens continued to affirm his respect for Marxist theory, including his 2009 article for The Atlantic entitled "The Revenge of Karl Marx". There he explains how Marx's economic analysis in Das Kapital has predicted many of the failures of the U. S. economy, including the late-2000s recession. In a June 2010 interview with The New York Times, he stated that "I still think like a Marxist in many ways. I think the materialist conception of history is valid. I consider myself a very conservative Marxist". He continued to regard both Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky as great men, and the Bolsheviks' October Revolution as a necessary event in the modernization of Russia.[6]

From the same article. He is a Communist, he supported the Russian revolution.

(March 15, 2013 at 1:10 pm)jstrodel Wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...cious.html

From a critical site. That is 517 missions in more than 100 countries. How many missions have you opened? How many has Christopher Hitchens, a Marxist, who popularized atheist demonization of Mother Theresa.

Why would he open missions? Why would I? That's a religious organization and it would be extremely odd for atheists to open one.

(March 15, 2013 at 1:10 pm)jstrodel Wrote: This is what I think happened. Mother Theresa was a flawed individual. Figures like Christopher Hitchens, who are themselves very spiritually immature and like to play on peoples sense of breaking away from tradition, of hearing a sort of rebellious, iconoclastic message which sells books and who do not want to have anyone put a moral authority over them set out to discredit Mother Theresa in any way possible.

What happens after this is that atheists on the internet, who sometimes are immature, emotionally and also spiritually, picked up on the anti-Mother Theresa wave. They did not feel any special responsibility to get a clear perception of what Mother Theresa did, they just gratified their youthful, rebellious lusts by indulging in anti-Theresa propaganda:

"Are you that fucking stupid? Mother T built a profitable reputation; too bad her 'patients' weren't recipients of the generosity. "
"Mother theresa - servant of the devil "

I would encourage anyone reading this thread who wants to grow in understanding the world and truth that they should learn to control their appetites for controversy and hunger for the sort of truth that is not easily palatable to rebellious tastes.

Whatever you think of Mother Theresa, maybe she was a mediocre humanitarian, the spirit in which you judge her should reflect a hunger for understanding, not a love of controversy.

Really? Is that what you think happened? Here's what I think happened.

Mother Teresa was a deeply flawed individual with twisted idea of what being charitable meant and her religion fostered that view. Others, especially the Catholic Church, saw in her a way to salvage their declining reputation and gave her more recognition and publicity than she actually deserved. Some others, who are rebelling by actually caring for the truth decided not to swallow the media propaganda and found out if there was any proof in the pudding.

Now that it is turning out there is little of that, her defenders are resorting to tactics like "well, you haven't done any charity either" (a classic tu qoque) or that she should be judged on her spirit not any actual work. Well, guess what, spirit does not put feed the hungry. I'd encourage people reading this thread to actually care about the truth, even if it is not palatable.

(March 15, 2013 at 2:05 pm)jstrodel Wrote:

Quote:Hitchens, as recently as 2009, again referred to himself as "a Marxist". Hitchens continued to affirm his respect for Marxist theory, including his 2009 article for The Atlantic entitled "The Revenge of Karl Marx". There he explains how Marx's economic analysis in Das Kapital has predicted many of the failures of the U. S. economy, including the late-2000s recession. In a June 2010 interview with The New York Times, he stated that "I still think like a Marxist in many ways. I think the materialist conception of history is valid. I consider myself a very conservative Marxist". He continued to regard both Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky as great men, and the Bolsheviks' October Revolution as a necessary event in the modernization of Russia.[6]

From the same article. He is a Communist, he supported the Russian revolution.

Well I didn't know he self identified as Marxist.

I should have read on further

It's a surprise because he was a supporter of some right wing causes, he was very vocal in his support of the Iraq war for example.

Anyhoo I have been swayed by the evidence.

See how that works.