I think I hate Mother Teresa now... (page 5)

JamesThomas

Frenchbabyface,

Yes, what is needed is integrity.

Integrity, arises naturally and effortlessly from being true to oneself. Being true to oneself naturally requires awareness of our true Self.

Our true Being is pure. Only what flows directly from this well, is untainted.

j

frenchbabyface

JT you have a very specific way express things (it kind of esoteric, and well pleasant), I guess that I agree with you from what I can understand (from that, the major value could be : being honest with ourself and fair with others) but as we can't rate ourself and others only logical processes can ... and of course they shouldn't be based on appeareances) ...

fleaman uk

Princess Diana? Poor thing, having her life ruined by the Windsors. Wouldn't rate her with Mandela, Ghandi, King et.al.

We all could pull apart any number of these famous "saintlike" People.I would suggest Diana for instance was a Manipulative ,slightly crazy and Very Rich Airhead.

I also have a problem with Mandela.let us never forget he went down for the Murder of a Policeman and only had to renounce violence to achieve his Freedom.

King?Agreed.His non-violent principles were wonderful.But no doubt some Skeletons in the Cupboard?I for one dont know.Ditto Ghandi.

As for Mother theresa....i suppose she did raise awareness of suffering...but then so did Di with the Land mines and Aids!I suppose therein lies the conundrum.Do the good works and charities outweigh the Personal traits and bad actions?

Regards

Fleaman.

BrendaCloutier

I ranked Prs. Di right up there because once she got out of the castle, and began to get her act together, she was very philanthopic because she had the power, presence, and money. Unfortunatly with Fayed, she got sidetracked again. So you're probably right.

Peace,

Brenda

Abaddon

JT

I love your posts but I can't get around what I feel is a presumption;

Integrity, arises naturally and effortlessly from being true to oneself.

Sounds great. But what about Harold Shipman (Doctor who was serial killer of old ladies in UK) or Pol Pot? Were they being true to themselves or are they explainable as disordered personalities that don't fit your model.

And if being oneself requires effort (and I would say it does as it normally requires one stands up against enculturation and expectation). If this is the case then saying integrity arises effortlessly is like saying gold medals come easy. One ignores the effort behind getting to where one has what is being 'measured' (gold medals or integrity).

Being true to oneself naturally requires awareness of our true Self.

Our true Being is pure. Only what flows directly from this well, is untainted

Again, are 'bad people' disordered personalities? Did Hitler have a pure untainted well? I can understand your experiential model based on an assumption of innate goodness. But it doesn't seem to fit those that wear the 'black hat' largely because of choice.

Pol Pot, SHipman, Hitler; they were not street punks in dispair. They chose to do bad. What does their well tate like, or is their an explanation for them too?

avishai

Ditto Ghandi.

Yep. Real dick to his own family. Became celibate, yet would "tempt" himself by sleeping next to gorgeous teenage girls in front of his wife. Tried to enforce this celibacy on his kids.

funkyderek

LittleToe:

When did you last raise money for hospices, far less work in one?
Most people I know don't have the stomach to visit one, far less maintain meaningful conversation with the terminally ill...

My problem is that many of the people Mother Teresa and her order treated weren't terminally ill - at least until the "Sisters of Charity" got hold of them. But you're right, I ceratinly couldn't stomach talking to the terminally ill if I was withholding painkillers from them.

She did that far from hearth and home.
So whilst we might pontificate, sat here in the comparatively cosy West, I don't believe we have much scope to point fingers...

This sounds a little too close to Mother Teresa's own philosophy for my liking - as if sacrifice in itself is a virtue. Just because she moved far from home and lived in less than pleasant conditions does not mean she is an example that should be followed. The work she did was harmful, not beneficial. I never questioned that it was difficult.

AK-Jeff:

Well, if she said that - and I don't know the context, I would have to on first blush agree with the assessment that it is perverse. But I wonder how, if this was indeed her overriding philosophical viewpoint, how did she gain such a popularity. I would rather think that the context here is missing something - albeit far be from me to identify it on the little info I have - just my opinion.

She gained popularity largely because of the work of Malcolm Muggeridge. Once she began to be presented in tehe media as a saintlike figure, she quickly became a metaphor for generosity, self-sacrifice and holiness. It is very difficult to change peoples minds once they have someone labelled as an archetype. People like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King and Princess Diana are also considered beyond criticism in some circles, despite their obvious failings.

BrendaCloutier:

I ranked Prs. Di right up there because once she got out of the castle, and began to get her act together, she was very philanthopic because she had the power, presence, and money.

And she used two of those three things to make a difference. Unfortunately, although she left £21.5 million in her will, she neglected to donate any of it to charity. But inasmuch as having photos taken with landmine victims helps raise awareness of the problem, she probably did more good than harm.

LittleToe

Stuff it, I feel like stirring it today, for a change:

~rant mode on~

What a shower of bitter and twisted people we appear to be here today.
Can't we applaud the good actions of some of our fellowbeings towards humanitarian aid, without denigrating their characters? Almost without exception we're talking of dead people !!!

Do I believe that;

folks should be sainted: No.
the Pope is infallible: No.
people should be encouraged away from contraception? No.
emergency and/or life saving blood transfusions can be compared to refraining from high-risk sexual behaviour (with or without barrier contraception)? No!
humanitarian aid makes one spotless? No.
the defenseless dead should be defamed (excepting maybe for warcrimes and equivalent)? No.

But ya know what, you've brought up a hugely interesting theological dilemma. If someone can spend decades involved in humanitarian work and STILL be denigrated because of a few negative actions or opinions in their lives, can we really trust that "being generally good people" is going to buy our way into heaven?

If there is a God and there is a heaven, we had better hope he has a different method of judging than that...

~rant mode off~
~reverts back to mild-mannered reporter type~

Gyles: Appreciate the consideration, pal
I can also see what you're saying about "integrity", though in the case of Pol Pot would it be true to say that he showed integrity towards a warped character?

Narkissos

Making and breaking idols/symbols is our endless game.

Becoming one (any kind) is perhaps what we most long for and should most dread. Or perhaps along the famous line in Godard's Pierrot le fou: (What do I want?) "To become immortal, and then to die."

LittleToe

Derek:

This sounds a little too close to Mother Teresa's own philosophy for my liking - as if sacrifice in itself is a virtue.

That would be because I was previously reporting on her philosophy. My actual point was that she did something that we did not, and yet we roundly condemn her.

I would agree with the statement "sacrifice in itself is a virtue", though I wouldn't apply that to the circumstances that you profer. It's one thing for people to suffer, but I agree that it's entirely another to withhold the means to assist or to tell them in their faces that their suffering is good for them. My heart broke when I read (earlier on the thread) of the person who asked to stop being kissed... I honestly don't think that particular philosophy would have been the attitude of the biblical Christ that Therasa claimed to follow.

The work she did was harmful, not beneficial. I never questioned that it was difficult.

So the world would have been a better place had she never lived? The net sum of her efforts were negative? You'll excuse me if I question that...

I think I hate Mother Teresa now...

Share this