by Preston 77 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Gyles:
Your argument is choc-a-bloc full of strawmen.
Theresa wasn't the cause of the suffering...
Btw, who here claimed that she (or the Pope) was God's spokesman???
Edited to add: Whilst I'm no supporter of the Pope, I fail to see how lack of contraception is the cause of the spread of lethal infection. I quite agree that it is a defense against it, but methinks we're mixing our fruits again...
Edited again, coz I can't spell today
When will belief cease to be an excuse to wash the hands of those who harm others or support policies that harm others?
Not in defense of Mother Theresa - I know little about her - but does the belief system of a person define him/her in terms of the effect of that belief? While it is true IMO that the RC Church's stand on contraception has perhaps not had a favorable result in some places - could it be truly stated that those policies have had much effect at all on the Indian Continent? Only a very few residents there practice the RC faith compared to the other non-christian faiths. Could it not be true that MT spent here life and energy there due to the oppresive conditions and a heart moved to try and use her life to aid others?
We could point to collective guilt on nearly any issue, and then try to lay it at the feet of an individual. Most of us could be said to be guilty of helping our neighbor get lung cancer - since we aided in the overall air pollution that is to blame for it, by driving a car. We might even drive that car in a helpful service to others, but it nonetheless makes us part of the collective belief system - a belief that we cannot get around without a car - and yet we would prob defend that belief and try and wash our hands of the blame for our neighbor's death.
I defend not the belief systems that cause harm directly to others at times - and that may be intensely subjective - but in this case can the belief system of MT be just what she believed - and not the source of great pain and suffering?
As LT put it - when we examine under a microscope we will always find hypocricy. The level of intention is at point I think.
Jeff
Jeff:
As LT put it - when we examine under a microscope we will always find hypocricy. The level of intention is at point I think.
I can't claim that one - it was James who made that point - I only agreed
Preston - that is why you should stick to TV - Desparate Housewives, Alias, King of the Hill...
Mother Teresa inspired an entire generation to good works. She made sure the poor were not forgotten on the public stage. When she ministered to the poor, she saw the face of Christ. This was her work of service to her Lord. We may not understand the philosophy that marked her walk, but, please, don't trample on what she did.
The level of intention is at point I think.
It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. In any case it seems clear that Mother Teresa's intention was never to alleviate the suffering of those in her care. She considered their pain to be a good thing - and likened their suffering to them being kissed by Jesus as they died in agony in her filthy disease-ridden hospices.
She once said: "The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering." To me that is a sickening and perverse idea of beauty. Under the pretense of providing medical care for some of the world's poorest people, this woman collected billions from well-meaning Westerners and let the people in her care die horrible undignified deaths - without painkillers, without proper medical attention, often without anything but a secret baptism with a damp rag.
If there is a hell, then Mother Teresa's intentions have surely paved the way for her.
"this woman collected billions from well-meaning Westerners and let the people in her care die horrible undignified deaths"
I don't know FD. I don't know all the facts. But about what you say here "She considered their pain to be a good thing." I don't know the context she said this in but I will say that I didn't grow up with much and it's not that I consider it a virtue but I do think that I learned much from it. I've learned a lot from pain. Could you tell me what context MT was taking about this? I'm curious...
Edited to add: Whilst I'm no supporter of the Pope, I fail to see how lack of contraception is the cause of the spread of lethal infection. I quite agree that it is a defense against it, but methinks we're mixing our fruits again...
Well, condoms = contraception. no condoms = AIDS. I believe that a year or 2 ago, religious leaders came out against using condoms IN AFRICA even between husbands and wives. Very irresponsible indeed.
Under74:
I don't know FD. I don't know all the facts.
Good point, and I concur.
It should be noted, neither does Derek
Jwbot:
Well, condoms = contraception. no condoms = AIDS.
I disagree.
AIDS = AIDS.
AIDS + unprotected sex = high chance of getting AIDS
AIDS + condoms = low chance of getting AIDS
Whether one owns a condom or not, it is not the lack of a condom that causes AIDS, but rather the act of sex with an infected person. One might just as easily say that abstaining from sex will protect you from AIDS - I suspect Theresa would concur...
