Evangelicals & Jesus

[ToadBrother]

If I understand you correctly, Christians are hypocrites who on the one had accept Jesus as the son of god and his innerrent word while on the other are selective about his teachings and have been this way throughout history.

Everyone is a hypocrite. As much as we all would like to believe that we stick to our philosophical and ethical positions, I'm afraid save perhaps for a very few individuals throughout history, everyone demonstrates some degree of hypocrisy.

[ToadBrother]

I defy ANYBODY to show me a "true" Christian. There is no such animal.

Since the entry requirements can be rather minimal, I'd say that's wrong on the face of it.

[betsy]

Great...

You do know that Mother Theresa was one of the biggest sacks of crap to ever walk the earth, don't you?

She collected millions upon millions of dollars in order to "help the sick", but her "hospitals" were nothing more than rooms with cots in them where people died. (Instead, most of the money she collected went into the general revenue of the Catholic church. If you gave to her thinking you'd be helping save people, your money was probably just as likely used to cover up sexual abuse by Catholic priests as it was to actually save lives.

And she actually liked people to suffer. She felt it make them "closer to god".

Of course you know that this kind of statement needs something to back it up. Link please.

[segnosaur]

You do know that Mother Theresa was one of the biggest sacks of crap to ever walk the earth, don't you?

She collected millions upon millions of dollars in order to "help the sick", but her "hospitals" were nothing more than rooms with cots in them where people died. (Instead, most of the money she collected went into the general revenue of the Catholic church. If you gave to her thinking you'd be helping save people, your money was probably just as likely used to cover up sexual abuse by Catholic priests as it was to actually save lives.

And she actually liked people to suffer. She felt it make them "closer to god".

Of course you know that this kind of statement needs something to back it up. Link please.

Most of my information comes from the book The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in theory and Practice, by Christopher Hitchens. Unfortunately he does not have the text of his book on line.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position

However, there are a few other sources out there available on-line.

Regarding Mother Teresa's financial contributions:

The German magazine Stern (10 September 1998) published a devastating critique of Mother Teresa's work on the first anniversary of her death. The article, entitled 'Mother Teresa, Where Are Your Millions?', which took a year's research in three continents, concluded that her organisation is essentially a religious order that does not deserve to be called a charitable foundation. No protest has been forthcoming from her order.

The book "The Final Verdict" (By Aroup Chatterjee). Partial text available here: http://www.meteorbooks.com/introduction.html

...she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit

From: http://www.slate.com/id/2090083

Her order is only one among more than 200 charitable organizations, which try to help the slum-dwellers of Calcutta to build a better future. It is locally not very visible or active. But tall claims like the absolutely baseless story of her slum school for 5000 children have brought enormous international publicity to her institutions. And enormous donations! Mother Teresa has collected many, many millions (some say: billions) of Dollars in the name of India's paupers (and many, many more in the name of paupers in the other "gutters" of the world). Where did all this money go? It is surely not used to improve the lot of those, for whom it was meant.

From: http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm

Regarding medical treatment at her "hospitals"

The patients are treated with good words and insufficient (sometimes outdated) medicines, applied with old needles, washed in lukewarm water. One can hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa's bizarre philosophy, it is "the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ".

From: http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm

There is also the documentary "Hell's Angel", broadcast on the BBC, which interviews some of the people who witnessed what actually goes on at her hospitals. (Normally I like to avoid publishing youtube videos as 'proof'; however, information in the video is supported by other references I have supplied, so its optional. However, the video does have interviews by people who have actually witnessed what goes on at her clinics.

Edited to add:

Now let me make a prediction... somewhere along the line someone will claim that I'm wrong, that Mother Teresa was a wonderful person. But here's the thing... nobody will be able to point to exactly what she did. They won't be able to point to how much money she collected, how many starving people were fed, etc. Instead, they simply assume that her reputation is enough proof of her good works, without considering the possibility that her reputation is based on nothing more than well-managed publicity.

Edited March 17, 2011 by segnosaur

[segnosaur]

Of course you know that this kind of statement needs something to back it up. Link please.

Oh, here's one more quote, from a former member of Mother Teresa's order...

From: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html

Some years after I became a Catholic, I joined Mother Teresa's congregation, the Missionaries of Charity. I was one of her sisters for nine and a half years, living in the Bronx, Rome, and San Francisco, until I became disillusioned and left in May 1989.

...

When Mother spoke publicly, she never asked for money, but she did encourage people to make sacrifices for the poor, to "give until it hurts." Many people did - and they gave it to her....The donations rolled in and were deposited in the bank, but they had no effect on our ascetic lives and very little effect on the lives of the poor we were trying to help.

...

She seemed obsessed with using only the simplest of means for our work. ...In Haiti, to keep the spirit of poverty, the sisters reused needles until they became blunt. Seeing the pain caused by the blunt needles, some of the volunteers offered to procure more needles, but the sisters refused.

[betsy]

Segnasaur, I haven't read any of those so I cannot comment. Even if I did read, I shouldn't comment.

Anyway this only supports my statement to Scouterjim regarding the enormous - almost impossible - task of his demands. Someone will most probably say something negative at some point in his life. After all, there's only one who's perfect: Jesus Christ.

A person may've been the vilest person on earth and in the last few years of his life may've found Christ and followed His teachings - who's to say he is not a true Christian, when Christ has repeatedly emphasized forgiveness? Saul of Tarsus is a good example.

Mother Theresa's been criticised. So what? How accurate are the reports? Even if a rebuttal in defense of Mother Therea come forth - I 'll ask the same: how accurate will it be?

It's one thing to criticise a belief, a society, or the system, the attitude, the behaviour - and say they are wrong or they're evil. It's another when it comes to judging an individual as a person.

Besides, who will judge that an individual is not a true Christian? People like Hichen - who don't believe in Christ? Atheists? People who abhor religion?

As I've said, at the end of the day - it's only God who truly knows everything. He's the only One that matters anyway - since He'll be the only One who'll be judging.

Edited March 17, 2011 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

A person may've been the vilest person on earth and in the last few years of his life may've found Christ and followed His teachings - who's to say he is not a true Christian, when Christ has repeatedly emphasized forgiveness? Saul of Tarsus is a good example.

What if the remain vile human beings? Were all those Southern Baptists that for decades promoted a racist view of white superiority bad Christians?

[bush_cheney2004]

What if the remain vile human beings? Were all those Southern Baptists that for decades promoted a racist view of white superiority bad Christians?

No...if anything, "vile human beings" are the best Christian target market. Southern Baptists certainly are not unique in regard to "racist views".

[segnosaur]

Segnasaur, I haven't read any of those so I cannot comment. Even if I did read, I shouldn't comment.

If you weren't going to read, then why exactly did you comment?

Anyway this only supports my statement to Scouterjim regarding the enormous - almost impossible - task of his demands. Someone will most probably say something negative at some point in his life. After all, there's only one who's perfect: Jesus Christ.

A person may've been the vilest person on earth and in the last few years of his life may've found Christ and followed His teachings - who's to say he is not a true Christian, when Christ has repeatedly emphasized forgiveness? Saul of Tarsus is a good example.

Keep in mind that this is not just "something negative at some point". This is a long, on-going set of actions and attitudes on Mother Teresa's part.

Mother Theresa's been criticised. So what? How accurate are the reports?

Well, lets see:

- Christopher Hitchens (one of the sources) is a pretty well-known journalist (so, its not like he's some random guy with a web site). In fact, he was even asked by the vatican to act as "devil's advocate" during Mother Teresa's beatification

- The "Hell's Angel" documentary I referred to was on the BBC, a major media organization (so its not like I'm asking you to judge things based on a home-made youTube video)

- Stern is apparently a major magazine in Germany (print run of 1 million). Not being german myself, I can't really say how well its written, but from the wikipedia entry they seem to publish a wide range of political views (so its not like some radical magazine)

- In the references I've provided were interviews/statements from people who actually worked for the organization (so its not like all the information is 3rd hand, coming from someone who heard something that a friend told them that they heard from a stranger)

So, I'd have to say the reports are probably pretty accurate.

Even if a rebuttal in defense of Mother Therea come forth - I 'll ask the same: how accurate will it be?

I think the more important question would be... what exactly would they base the rebuttal on?

Like I said before, those defending Mother Teresa seem to be quite happy pointing to her legend, without ever giving any sort of concrete information about what she actually did with all of the resources at her disposal. It becomes almost a case of circular reasoning: She's well respected because people think she's done "good works". What proof do you have that she's done "good works"? Well, she must have, because she's well respected.

It's one thing to criticise a belief, a society, or the system, the attitude, the behaviour - and say they are wrong or they're evil. It's another when it comes to judging an individual as a person.

Mother Teresa had a pretty firm grip on her organization, and the quotes regarding "suffering" came directly from her.

Besides, who will judge that an individual is not a true Christian? People like Hichen - who don't believe in Christ? Atheists? People who abhor religion?

Ummm... nobody was saying she "wasn't christian". Its already been pointed out that the only "requirement" to be a christian is that you believe that jebus was a real, godlike, and your "savior". The worst mass murderer of all could have been a "christian".

What we are pointing out that she was a bad person. Evil. A real sack of crap. Bernie Maddoff in a nun's outfit. And that is the real issue... being "christian" (be it evangelical or moderate) does not automatically mean you are a "good person".

Do me a favor... you christians supposedly believe in "honesty". Next time you're trying to convince people of how wonderful god and your beliefs are, try mentioning how "saintly" mother Teresa made comments praising suffering. See how many people actually agree with you.

As I've said, at the end of the day - it's only God who truly knows everything. He's the only One that matters anyway - since He'll be the only One who'll be judging.

Which god would that be? Odin? Amon-Ra? Zeus? Oh, please let it be Zeus... that would be awesome cool.

[ToadBrother]

No...if anything, "vile human beings" are the best Christian target market. Southern Baptists certainly are not unique in regard to "racist views".

The problem comes when the "vile human beings" consider themselves good Christians. I'm thinking of all those Lutherans and Catholics in Nazi Germany who were Hitler's willing executioners.

[betsy]

If you weren't going to read, then why exactly did you comment?

You've made quite a claim and in a forum discussion, such claims should be backed up. Personal opinions do not count. Hence I asked for a link.

[betsy]

Keep in mind that this is not just "something negative at some point". This is a long, on-going set of actions and attitudes on Mother Teresa's part.

Well, lets see:

- Christopher Hitchens (one of the sources) is a pretty well-known journalist (so, its not like he's some random guy with a web site). In fact, he was even asked by the vatican to act as "devil's advocate" during Mother Teresa's beatification

- The "Hell's Angel" documentary I referred to was on the BBC, a major media organization (so its not like I'm asking you to judge things based on a home-made youTube video)

- Stern is apparently a major magazine in Germany (print run of 1 million). Not being german myself, I can't really say how well its written, but from the wikipedia entry they seem to publish a wide range of political views (so its not like some radical magazine)

- In the references I've provided were interviews/statements from people who actually worked for the organization (so its not like all the information is 3rd hand, coming from someone who heard something that a friend told them that they heard from a stranger)

So, I'd have to say the reports are probably pretty accurate.

I think the more important question would be... what exactly would they base the rebuttal on?

Like I said before, those defending Mother Teresa seem to be quite happy pointing to her legend, without ever giving any sort of concrete information about what she actually did with all of the resources at her disposal. It becomes almost a case of circular reasoning: She's well respected because people think she's done "good works". What proof do you have that she's done "good works"? Well, she must have, because she's well respected.

Mother Teresa had a pretty firm grip on her organization, and the quotes regarding "suffering" came directly from her.

But that's not my point. My point is who's to say what's accurate or not? Whether it's the critique or the defense....how do we know we're getting the accurate report.

One of your link is from the President of Rationalist (which is very pro-choice I bet) because he fumed at Mother Theresa's fundamentalist stance. Who's to say he doesn't have an agenda?

Mother Theresa is a Nobel Prize winner....I assume they did their homework before giving her the award?

I assume these activists-critics would've made a loud protest when she was nominated for the award.

See? We don't know for sure what's true, lies, edited, taken out of context, embellished, or twisted or spinned.

Besides, that's just one part of her life you're talking about. That's why I say, it's only God who knows....and that's the only thing that matters anyway since He's the only one who'll judge when the time comes.

Ummm... nobody was saying she "wasn't christian". Its already been pointed out that the only "requirement" to be a christian is that you believe that jebus was a real, godlike, and your "savior". The worst mass murderer of all could have been a "christian".

It depends on what denomination or interpretation you're referring. My belief (same as Living Truth Ministry) is that believing Jesus is your Saviour is not enough to be a true Christian. There wouldn't be any need for the Laws of God if that's the case.

Acceptance of Jesus comes with repentance....and with repentance comes a change in lifestyle. It doesn't mean that just because you say you're sorry it's okay to go on, "business as usual." No.

When one repents, it means you don't do that sinful act anymore. You change your sinful ways. But it's hard....as Jesus said, the road is narrow.

What we are pointing out that she was a bad person. Evil. A real sack of crap. Bernie Maddoff in a nun's outfit. And that is the real issue... being "christian" (be it evangelical or moderate) does not automatically mean you are a "good person".

Nobody is saying that. Imho, being a true Christian is accepting Christ as your Saviour and God, and following His teachings.

Do me a favor... you christians supposedly believe in "honesty". Next time you're trying to convince people of how wonderful god and your beliefs are, try mentioning how "saintly" mother Teresa made comments praising suffering. See how many people actually agree with you.

The good that I saw in Mother Theresa was how she tried her best to feed the hungry. I dn't know what she said about suffering, if her words were taken out of context or not.

But as Christians know, suffering can make one closer to God, since usually we remember and cling to God in times of suffering.

Which god would that be? Odin? Amon-Ra? Zeus? Oh, please let it be Zeus... that would be awesome cool.

I don't know what post you're reading. perhaps you're lost? Check the other threads for Odin or Zeus. Must be an old thread. This post refers to Christian Evangelicals...so it's clearly referring to Christ.

Edited March 18, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

The problem comes when the "vile human beings" consider themselves good Christians. I'm thinking of all those Lutherans and Catholics in Nazi Germany who were Hitler's willing executioners.

So they imagine themelves good Christians. That's their problem, isn't it?

What they think and consider does not matter - because vile acts were still committed.

It's like someone who thinks he's important - someone full of hot air as they say - when actually he's not.

If those Lutherans and Catholic minions of Hitler insists they're good Christians even though they've been told what they do is opposed to the teachings of Christ...well, it's up to God to deal with them.

A goat keeps saying I'm a cow....does not make him a cow.

Edited March 18, 2011 by betsy

[segnosaur]

But that's not my point. My point is who's to say what's accurate or not? Whether it's the critique or the defense....how do we know we're getting the accurate report.

You look at the quality of the sources.

As I pointed out, much of the criticism of Mother Teresa is coming from main stream sources (like the BBC). Many of the people who are actually doing the criticizing are former volunteers, people that would have had first hand knowledge. We're not talking about some anonymous nobody sitting in his basement posting stuff on his Facebook page. Sources like broadcast networks and news magazines have a certain reputation to uphold. They may not be perfect, but they usually try to 'get things right', and in this case multiple sources have all confirmed the same thing.

One of your link is from the President of Rationalist (which is very pro-choice I bet) because he fumed at Mother Theresa's fundamentalist stance. Who's to say he doesn't have an agenda?

Rationalist may be an organization which has an anti-religious agenda, but the individual writing the article is actually from India and is more that capable enough to judge what 'effect' Mother Teresa has on the people of India.

And even if you discount his statements, the same information is still confirmed by sources associated with Stern magazine, the BBC and Slate.

Mother Theresa is a Nobel Prize winner....I assume they did their homework before giving her the award?

Why exactly do you make that assumption?

Remember, Obama was awarded the prize, probably for no other reason than "He's not Bush". Or the year they gave the prize to Wangari Maathai, who had been making bizarre "AIDS is a western conspiracy" type statements.

So yes, sometimes they do give the award for people for political or other reasons, and/or may not properly vet the recipients.

I assume these activists-critics would've made a loud protest when she was nominated for the award.

And they probably did. But as I mentioned before, when you're fighting a "legend" you are often fighting a loosing battle regardless of how much proof you have. Why? Because of the whole circular reasoning thing people are unwilling to break: She's famous because she did good work. How do you know she did good work? She must have because she's famous.

See? We don't know for sure what's true, lies, edited, taken out of context, embellished, or twisted or spinned.

Ummmm... the statements from her former workers are not edited or taken out of context. If you actually watched the Hell's Angel documentary I published, it contains an interview with very direct statements. How exactly can you take comments like "They reused needles at her clinics without sterilizing them" out of context?

Besides, that's just one part of her life you're talking about.

Ummm... no, its not.

This isn't just one single isolated incident staining decades of good work. As I pointed out before, these "abuses" carried on for decades, and covered her actions over multiple parts of the globe. You can point to her failings in India, Haiti, Ireland, the U.S., etc.

Ummm... nobody was saying she "wasn't christian". Its already been pointed out that the only "requirement" to be a christian is that you believe that jebus was a real, godlike, and your "savior". The worst mass murderer of all could have been a "christian".

It depends on what denomination or interpretation you're referring. My belief (same as Living Truth Ministry) is that believing Jesus is your Saviour is not enough to be a true Christian.

In that case what you're doing is your modifying the term "Christian" to be something that it is not.

Nobody is saying that. Imho, being a true Christian is accepting Christ as your Saviour and God, and following His teachings.

But the problem, as I mentioned before, is that "his teachings" are not as clear as you seem to be believing.

The bible is really a horrible miss mash of junk crammed together, with many contradictions and segments that condone some pretty evil behavior. The fact that you seem to be interpreting the bible "in some way" does not mean that there are other, just as valid interpretations that exist that mean the exact opposite. (For example, in post 10 and 13 I quoted some bible verses that suggest Jesus was against forgiveness and condoned slavery and/or social inequality, something that I'm sure most christians would be horrified by.)

The good that I saw in Mother Theresa was how she tried her best to feed the hungry.

Aaaaaannnndddd.... back to that. Just as I predicted.

What exactly are you basing your claim "tried her best to feed the hungry" on? Do you have the balance sheets showing how much money she collected? Do you have the figures showing how many got fed on a daily basis? How can you make the claim she "did her best" without knowing that? Which of course is the problem. Her religious order did nothing to release those figures. Instead, what we do have are interviews with former workers who point out they collected millions of dollars (exactly how much is unknown, we just know what individual workers dealt with), and people familiar with her clinics/charity work who said "none of this money got used by us".

You're suggestion that she "tried her best to feed the hungry" is based on nothing but her legend. Its a little ironic that you would demand "proof" that Mother Teresa was a big sack of crap, yet when it comes to defending her, all you need is her legend. Facts? Who needs them, when you're dealing with the "legend" of Mother Teresa.

I dn't know what she said about suffering, if her words were taken out of context or not.

But as Christians know, suffering can make one closer to God, since usually we remember and cling to God in times of suffering.

So, does that mean you think suffering is a 'good thing', and if someone is in extreme pain they should never ever be given drugs to control the pain because "suffering is good"? If you saw someone that was in extreme agony, you'd say "Yipee! You're closer to god!"

[segnosaur]

The problem comes when the "vile human beings" consider themselves good Christians. I'm thinking of all those Lutherans and Catholics in Nazi Germany who were Hitler's willing executioners.

So they imagine themelves good Christians. That's their problem, isn't it?

What they think and consider does not matter - because vile acts were still committed.

You only consider the acts committed by christians in Nazi germany vile because you have had instructions given to you during your upbringing that said so.

The bible is not as clear as you seem to think, and can be interpreted in many ways. The only difference between a christian doing "good works" and a christian doing "evil deeds that they think are good" is the set of moral principles administered outside of the bible.

[bush_cheney2004]

The problem comes when the "vile human beings" consider themselves good Christians. I'm thinking of all those Lutherans and Catholics in Nazi Germany who were Hitler's willing executioners.

...and I'm thinking of all those Protestants, Lutherans, and Catholics who interned citizens of Japanese descent in the US and Canada. All good Christians!

[ToadBrother]

So they imagine themelves good Christians. That's their problem, isn't it?

What they think and consider does not matter - because vile acts were still committed.

It's like someone who thinks he's important - someone full of hot air as they say - when actually he's not.

If those Lutherans and Catholic minions of Hitler insists they're good Christians even though they've been told what they do is opposed to the teachings of Christ...well, it's up to God to deal with them.

The problem here is that these people had been raised in a culture rife with anti-Semitism. They didn't just arrive at this one day in 1933, from father to son back for generations and through centuries, the peoples of Europe had believed every manner of vile thing about Jews. For me the question always becomes when does a Christian become a bad Christian? Is a Christian still good if they merely think bad poorly of Jews? Is a Christian still good if they believe awful things like blood libel about Jews? Is a Christian still good if they teach their children and others these beliefs about Jews? Is a Christian still good if they demand something be done about Jews? According to you, a Christian who helps directly in the murder of Jews is not a good Christian, but there's a whole continuum of action here, and the further down the line you move the "bad" marker the larger number of Christians who suddenly become bad.

[Oleg Bach]

SHOW ME WHERE CHRIST SAID THAT HE MUST BE WORSHIPPED AS AN IDOL? It does not exist...evangelists - use the image and idea of Christ as an idol so they can use this figure piece to generate idolship for themselves....

[ToadBrother]

SHOW ME WHERE CHRIST SAID THAT HE MUST BE WORSHIPPED AS AN IDOL? It does not exist...evangelists - use the image and idea of Christ as an idol so they can use this figure piece to generate idolship for themselves....

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

Generally people worship gods.

[Jonsa]

Everyone is a hypocrite. As much as we all would like to believe that we stick to our philosophical and ethical positions, I'm afraid save perhaps for a very few individuals throughout history, everyone demonstrates some degree of hypocrisy.

When your philosophical and ethical positions are presented as given from God and you wage cultural war to enforce your positions on the unbelievers, then it can't just be excused as "everyone is a hypocrite".

The Christian right in all their god given righteousness expounds upon the teachings of Jesus and what the bible says to justify their political and social positions, yet they think it perfectly acceptable to be selective about which teachings they adhere too.

It just makes me puke when I hear people like Huckabee righteously spew shit.

[segnosaur]

The Christian right in all their god given righteousness expounds upon the teachings of Jesus and what the bible says to justify their political and social positions, yet they think it perfectly acceptable to be selective about which teachings they adhere too.

But you're missing the point that has been made in this thread:

Everyone who is a christian is selective about which teachings they adhere to. They have to. Why? Because the bible is a mass of contradictions. Even those who are nice, generous, etc. (i.e. what some people might say is a "good christian following the teachings") is simply doing a selective interpretation which ignores anything in the bible that might be interpreted as 'bad'.

I'm reminded of a Simpson's episode, where the Flander's character is questioning his faith, and says "I follow every part of the Bible, even the parts that contradict the other parts!" (paraphrasing).

It just makes me puke when I hear people like Huckabee righteously spew shit.

Makes me want to puke too... not because I think he's misusing the bible, but because is statements are so ridiculous.

[betsy]

You look at the quality of the sources.

As I pointed out, much of the criticism of Mother Teresa is coming from main stream sources (like the BBC). Many of the people who are actually doing the criticizing are former volunteers, people that would have had first hand knowledge. We're not talking about some anonymous nobody sitting in his basement posting stuff on his Facebook page. Sources like broadcast networks and news magazines have a certain reputation to uphold. They may not be perfect, but they usually try to 'get things right', and in this case multiple sources have all confirmed the same thing.

Rationalist may be an organization which has an anti-religious agenda, but the individual writing the article is actually from India and is more that capable enough to judge what 'effect' Mother Teresa has on the people of India.

And even if you discount his statements, the same information is still confirmed by sources associated with Stern magazine, the BBC and Slate.

Why exactly do you make that assumption?

Remember, Obama was awarded the prize, probably for no other reason than "He's not Bush". Or the year they gave the prize to Wangari Maathai, who had been making bizarre "AIDS is a western conspiracy" type statements.

So yes, sometimes they do give the award for people for political or other reasons, and/or may not properly vet the recipients.

And they probably did. But as I mentioned before, when you're fighting a "legend" you are often fighting a loosing battle regardless of how much proof you have. Why? Because of the whole circular reasoning thing people are unwilling to break: She's famous because she did good work. How do you know she did good work? She must have because she's famous.

Ummmm... the statements from her former workers are not edited or taken out of context. If you actually watched the Hell's Angel documentary I published, it contains an interview with very direct statements. How exactly can you take comments like "They reused needles at her clinics without sterilizing them" out of context?

Ummm... no, its not.

This isn't just one single isolated incident staining decades of good work. As I pointed out before, these "abuses" carried on for decades, and covered her actions over multiple parts of the globe. You can point to her failings in India, Haiti, Ireland, the U.S., etc.

In that case what you're doing is your modifying the term "Christian" to be something that it is not.

But the problem, as I mentioned before, is that "his teachings" are not as clear as you seem to be believing.

The bible is really a horrible miss mash of junk crammed together, with many contradictions and segments that condone some pretty evil behavior. The fact that you seem to be interpreting the bible "in some way" does not mean that there are other, just as valid interpretations that exist that mean the exact opposite. (For example, in post 10 and 13 I quoted some bible verses that suggest Jesus was against forgiveness and condoned slavery and/or social inequality, something that I'm sure most christians would be horrified by.)

Aaaaaannnndddd.... back to that. Just as I predicted.

What exactly are you basing your claim "tried her best to feed the hungry" on? Do you have the balance sheets showing how much money she collected? Do you have the figures showing how many got fed on a daily basis? How can you make the claim she "did her best" without knowing that? Which of course is the problem. Her religious order did nothing to release those figures. Instead, what we do have are interviews with former workers who point out they collected millions of dollars (exactly how much is unknown, we just know what individual workers dealt with), and people familiar with her clinics/charity work who said "none of this money got used by us".

You're suggestion that she "tried her best to feed the hungry" is based on nothing but her legend. Its a little ironic that you would demand "proof" that Mother Teresa was a big sack of crap, yet when it comes to defending her, all you need is her legend. Facts? Who needs them, when you're dealing with the "legend" of Mother Teresa.

So, does that mean you think suffering is a 'good thing', and if someone is in extreme pain they should never ever be given drugs to control the pain because "suffering is good"? If you saw someone that was in extreme agony, you'd say "Yipee! You're closer to god!"

Moot argument. It's not addressing the point. My reply to this is the same as my previous reply to you.

[betsy]

But you're missing the point that has been made in this thread:

Everyone who is a christian is selective about which teachings they adhere to.

And you think atheists are not selective?

Identified as a champion of the "New Atheism" movement, Hitchens describes himself as an antitheist and a believer in the philosophical values of the Enlightenment. Hitchens says that a person "could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct," but that "an antitheist, a term Im trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that theres no evidence for such an assertion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

Like Christian religion, you've got your denominations too.

but that "an antitheist, a term Im trying to get into circulation

Best part is....you don't have a Bible as reference. You can come up and make up your own....custom-made to suit yourself. Relativists' utopia!

Edited March 19, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Because the bible is a mass of contradictions. Even those who are nice, generous, etc. (i.e. what some people might say is a "good christian following the teachings") is simply doing a selective interpretation which ignores anything in the bible that might be interpreted as 'bad'.

Furthermore, this whole monkey-business evolution has given me a headache.

Talk about contradictions!

On this debate between Dawkins and Wright, Dawkins clearly stated that we're related to the monkeys, whether we like it or not.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+VS+wendy+wright&aq=f

But at the thread CREATION, there was quite an exchange involving 3 atheists! Jaw-dropping!

The talking snake was YOUR uncle. Mine was a Chimpanzee and Im OK with that.

Dre agrees with Dawkins. But....and this is a big BUT.

Tadaaaaaa.....

Anyone who ridicules the theory of evolution by asserting that humans are descendant from monkeys or apes simply demonstrates their utter lack of knowledge and understanding.

And Bloodyminded supported the claim of Jonsa!

Dre was just being humorous. He knows we aren't descended from chimps.

Ayayayayaya....

Edited March 20, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

I come across statement like this:

I'm reminded of a Simpson's episode, where the Flander's character is questioning his faith, and says "I follow every part of the Bible, even the parts that contradict the other parts!" (paraphrasing).

And this, written by the same poster involved in the evolution monkey-business above:

If I understand you correctly, Christians are hypocrites who on the one had accept Jesus as the son of god and his innerrent word while on the other are selective about his teachings and have been this way throughout history.

Okay. can't really argue with that.

What I found interesting is the attitudes of those that identify themselves as evangelicals. Seems irony is lost on themselves.

Oh, lost irony indeed.