RE: is the bible a universally binding contract?
July 17, 2014 at 7:33 pm
(This post was last modified: July 17, 2014 at 7:36 pm by Lek.)
(July 17, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(July 17, 2014 at 1:45 pm)Lek Wrote: That's really great revisionism.Point out a single item that isn't 100% factual.
Quote: I don't see any evil in Mother Teresa's efforts to help those who had no help from anybody. Mother Teresa's aim was to provide for the immediate needs of the people on the street and to spread christianity.Her aims were to spread christianity, yes. She failed to provide for any immediate needs, despite having the funds (and then some) to do so. What she gave people, in the most generous reading, was a place to die amongst the dying.
Quote: She was right that India needed christianity. One huge reason that the street people were not getting any help was the hindu religion. It was believed that they were paying for bad karma and thus shouldn't be helped. They would never get ahead under the hindu caste system and were just left there to suffer and die.
So along she comes, with christianity......... and they suffer and die under her roof. The only thing that changed was the landlord.
Quote:She did believe that poverty was spiritually helpful, but dedicated her life to taking care of suffering people.No....again, she didn't take care of them...and that's what's so mystifying about it. She actually never made any qualms about this when asked so I don't understand why you're doing so now in her stead.
Quote:Why doesn't some person go over there and build modern, clean hospitals and nice places for these people? Maybe they can create job opportunities for them so they can rise out of poverty. While we're waiting for that to happen, Mother Teresa's organization is continuing to feed, clothe and treat them.People have gone over there and done so, with a fraction of the money she collected under the guise of...you know..doing so.
Look, lek. I'm sure she was full of good intentions...but what is it that you christains say about roads and intentions?
I don't know if any of the assertions you made were not factual, but most of them were not bad things. I'll give you some facts. She took people off the streets who were dying there by themselves and gave them shelter and comfort until they died - like hospice care. I know that was a terrible thing she did. It would have been better for them to die alone out on the street. Of course she took in people who weren't dying, but were sick and alone and gave them love and care. A huge majority of the people she brought in eventually left (alive!). One reason so many of the people she brought in died there was because they were approaching death when she found them. The Missionaries of Charity also runs an orphanage for sick kids and well kids and arranges adoptions. Then there's the home for lepers. In India lepers are "untouchables" and live lives rejected by society and lives of abandonment and loneliness as their bodies rot away. This home provides food, shelter and daily care, as well as love. Yeah, she was controversial, but all people who really do great things are controversial. You may disagree with her views on birth control, abortion, the benefits of simplicity and poverty, etc, but to say she was detrimental to the people she gave her life to serve is absurd.
