Originally posted by 667joehow many poor people have you fed? and why didn't the christopher bash on her before she died?
Mother Teresa could have relieved a lot more suffering if she had done more to fight poverty and less to perpetuate it.
fight poverty? how? how are people today fighting poverty? when indian workers make 5 dollars a week, what should mother teresa have done? the fighting of poverty involves governments, policies that forbids western corporations of paying less than a minimum wage, realistically set. creating new jobs. creating stable economies and environments to encourage investments to create more jobs. to prevent droughts and other natural disasters. remove genocidal regimes. offer drugs that cure diseases at reasonable prices or free of charge. educate the population. what exactly should she have done?
she was close to the poor people, and she felt pleasure in helping them. are you such a jerk to think she would have been pissed if world poverty would have been eradicated because she wouldn't have anyone to help? we all pick our battles. she felt she would do more good if she directly helped the poor people instead of never seeing them and just travel in expensive jets around the world to ask governments to change, to do something.
you, like the christopher do not fully think an issue, and take situations and events and twist them for your own ends. nobody is perfect but for a fat bastard to bash someone like mother teresa is kind of hypocritical.
Mother Teresa took donations from all over the world, but used it to open up more orders of her particular sect. Her hospital, despite all the donations, was so poor that when she herself was in need of medical care, she went elsewhere for treatment. The single best way to get people out of poverty, is to teach and promote birth control, but Mother Teresa was against it. She did not love the poor, she loved poverty and helped in it's perpetuation.
Originally posted by 667joeA nice balanced view, free of stereotypes. Refreshing.
Religion is inherently silly. and some believers do really dangerous things, like deny their children medical care or refuse life saving blood transfusions, or exorcise their children (sometimes leading to death), or drink out of the same cup at communion, thus spreading herpes, or mutilating genitals., or flying jets into buildings etc.......
edit: "i am sure hitler doesn't repeat "kill the jews" over and over again."
Serious blunder to be sure about things you ignore; however If you ever try "Mein Campf" you 'll find out that Hitler's approaching is quite churchy due to his fanatism. To cut a long story short, Hitler describes in detail all the problems that devastated the Germans, which after the 1st WW lost everything although the German soldier was never defeated at war. His description is quite accurate, but the main problem is that the solutions he promotes are all terrible. And surely he never stops provoking his followers to annihilate all the Jews. "Mein Campf" was considered from the Nazis -and nowdays from the NeoNazis- the Ultimate Truth, and is by far the most sickening book ever.
You know that Fascism for the Nazis is Religion I reckon; and Religion is a concept one has to accept in full or to decline;
edit: "you should have asked who is to blame if someone is hit by a car when crossing at a red light, the driver or the person who walked when there is a red light?"
Wrong. The Law in most countries is crystal clear: always the one to be primarly blamed is the driver, and this is correct, because that "somebody" may be a child or a disabled person which must be protected in full by the driver (which must be sane and really capable to drive with safety). In any case the driver must be ever ready to stop his vehicle in full avoiding the slightest casualty, and that 's why the speed is extremely limited in the cities and the populated areas of any kind.
On the other hand, in case the driver commited not any fault yet he hit a person, he will be declared innocent or the court will judge him with charity;
Originally posted by black beetleif you would read more than one post you would see i was talking about people responsible for their actions. not disabled people, not children.
edit: "you should have asked who is to blame if someone is hit by a car when crossing at a red light, the driver or the person who walked when there is a red light?"
Wrong. The Law in most countries is crystal clear: always the one to be primarly blamed is the driver, and this is correct, because that "somebody" may be a child or a disabled person wh ...[text shortened]... yet he hit a person, he will be declared innocent or the court will judge him with charity;
a driver is required to slow down at crossings. but if a suicider jumps in front of his car how is it the driver responsible?
Originally posted by black beetleactually i provoke you to demonstrate the falsity of my statement. i said i am sure hitler doesn't repeat kill the jews over and over again. so if in mein kampf there are other words than "kill", "the" and "jews" i am correct.
edit: "i am sure hitler doesn't repeat "kill the jews" over and over again."
Serious blunder to be sure about things you ignore; however If you ever try "Mein Campf" you 'll find out that Hitler's approaching is quite churchy due to his fanatism. To cut a long story short, Hitler describes in detail all the problems that devastated the Germans, which ...[text shortened]... Religion I reckon; and Religion is a concept one has to accept in full or to decline;
sarcasm aside and to explain what i meant i must repeat myself. even hitler could say soomething right, even if after that he let's loose an atrocity. get my point now ?
Originally posted by 667joe"The single best way to get people out of poverty, is to teach and promote birth control"
Mother Teresa took donations from all over the world, but used it to open up more orders of her particular sect. Her hospital, despite all the donations, was so poor that when she herself was in need of medical care, she went elsewhere for treatment. The single best way to get people out of poverty, is to teach and promote birth control, but Mother Teresa was against it. She did not love the poor, she loved poverty and helped in it's perpetuation.
this statement cries ignorance if not stupidity. birth control is just one of the measures. and certainly not the best. and without other measures it is actually dangerous. the child mortality is sky high in third world countries. diseases, hunger, wars are killing individuals(with children suffering more). try and suggest child control without changing the other aspects of poverty and you will wipe out nations in a couple of generations.
all these aspects must be tackled at once or at least as many of them as possible. but even so, you could in theory not institute birth control but provide jobs, health care and food. china has birth control and still has poverty.
Originally posted by 667joeyou are welcome to bash mother teresa, but if you claim to be fair, mention all the good she did as well. neither of us are perfect, but to claim nelson mandela was let's say a pot smoker without mentioning his work for ending apartheid, or that ghandi liked to visit hookers in his youth or that churchil was a drunk(this last one is actually true) is plain bigotry and malice.
Mother Teresa took donations from all over the world, but used it to open up more orders of her particular sect. Her hospital, despite all the donations, was so poor that when she herself was in need of medical care, she went elsewhere for treatment. The single best way to get people out of poverty, is to teach and promote birth control, but Mother Teresa was against it. She did not love the poor, she loved poverty and helped in it's perpetuation.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by 667joeThat is what Mother Teresa was supposed to do. No one gave donations in the expectation that this uneducated nun would establish a hospital. She collected donations to promote her religious order.
Mother Teresa took donations from all over the world, but used it to open up more orders of her particular sect. Her hospital,
Birth control is also not a particularly effective remedy of poverty.
Originally posted by Rajk999mention you didn't mean to generalize to all catholic clergy.
LOL .... yeah right.
And disgusting Catholic priests sticking their dicks up the butts of little boys is no big deal.
You people need to know when to STFU.
also i don't see how this is a logic reply to him claiming birth control is not an effective measure to combat poverty. i don't agree with conrau but still i don't know how cases of pedophilia in catholic clergy is related.