is the bible a universally binding contract?

[The Grand Nudger]

You aren't the only person wondering what she did with her stash (beyond the private jetsetting and mission building).

What she did:
-Opened 500 some odd franchise locations for the Catholic Church.
-Offered prayers and holy trinkets to refuges of natural disasters.
-Collected hundreds of millions of dollars from donors.
-Legitimized and praised dictators while accepting their awards and honors (and money, of course - I doubt she would have made the trip for medallions, she had plenty of trinkets, see above.)


What she didn't do:
-Provide adequate food or medical care for anyone at those franchise locations
-Offer any financial assistance to said survivors
-Disclose the exact whereabouts or use of those hundreds of millions
-Take the opportunity, while pumping said fists, to condemn the slaughter of around 30,000 haitians, and continued repression of the remainder (and lets not get into her dealings in Kosovo..).

There's no point in whitewashing the woman's achievements (or lack thereof).

[Lek]

You aren't the only person wondering what she did with her stash (beyond the private jetsetting and mission building).

What she did:
-Opened 500 some odd franchise locations for the Catholic Church.
-Offered prayers and holy trinkets to refuges of natural disasters.
-Collected hundreds of millions of dollars from donors.
-Legitimized and praised dictators while accepting their awards and honors (and money, of course - I doubt she would have made the trip for medallions, she had plenty of trinkets, see above.)


What she didn't do:
-Provide adequate food or medical care for anyone at those franchise locations
-Offer any financial assistance to said survivors
-Disclose the exact whereabouts or use of those hundreds of millions
-Take the opportunity, while pumping said fists, to condemn the slaughter of around 30,000 haitians, and continued repression of the remainder (and lets not get into her dealings in Kosovo..).

There's no point in whitewashing the woman's achievements (or lack thereof).

That's really great revisionism. 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. 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. She did believe that poverty was spiritually helpful, but dedicated her life to taking care of suffering people. 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.

[Ryantology]

She was right that India needed christianity.

Like a group of small children need a dose of hantavirus. With much the same result.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's really great revisionism.

Point out a single item that isn't 100% factual.

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.

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.

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.

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 actually think she was a politician, a money launderer, and a fucking ghoul..but hey, let's not split hairs

---

[Lek]

That's really great revisionism.

Point out a single item that isn't 100% factual.

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.

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.

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.

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 actually think she was a politician, a money launderer, and a fucking ghoul..but hey, let's not split hairs

---

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.

[Ryantology]

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.

She could have used those enormous stacks of cash she had to open medical facilities on par with the first world. She could have used her clout to ensure that her network of hospitals and hospices were run according to the strictest standards of health and hygiene and patient care.

She didn't do nearly as much as she could have with all of the resources she had at her disposal.

[Lek]

She could have used those enormous stacks of cash she had to open medical facilities on par with the first world. She could have used her clout to ensure that her network of hospitals and hospices were run according to the strictest standards of health and hygiene and patient care.

She didn't do nearly as much as she could have with all of the resources she had at her disposal.

She did a lot. Nobody else with wads of cash stepped up to the plate. For all she did, she only gets criticism that she didn't do all that she could do. That's really sad.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes Lek..people with even less cash did, and continue to "step up to the plate". The only plate that woman ever stepped up to was a donation tray.

[Mr Greene]

She was right that India needed christianity.

She was utterly wrong on that point, and so are you.
Christianity has been present in India since at least the establishment of the Portuguese colonies.
The East India Co. specifically forbid the entry of christian missionaries to the subcontinent as it was blatantly obvious the problems they cause and exacerbate from observing Portuguese and Spanish colonies. It is notable that the the major rebellions occurred shortly after the UK government forced the EIC to send missionaries and were ignited on specifically religious grounds.
Your own ignorance of the Hindu belief system merely compounds the original error.