Just because they are idiots doesn't make them wrong.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:16 pm

I don't have to agree with what this conservative group may believe in for me to find that the attempt to mind meld them is just dead wrong.

I'm just fed up to my ears with everyone forcing PC down our throats. It's not real, do you folks not get it yet? You are asking everyone to line up and chant the mantra and then they will believe it... hasn't ever worked, never will.

College conservatives branded 'hate group' for refusing LGBT sensitivity training | Fox News

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:57 pm

True, though if they are known "idiots" then it might be best to throughly vet everything and anything that comes from them. Or, simply ignore them and save yourself the effort and wasted time. We are talking about Fox News, are we not.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:03 pm

Ahso!;1475699 wrote: True, though if they are known "idiots" then it might be best to throughly vet everything and anything that comes from them. Or, simply ignore them and save yourself the effort and wasted time. We are talking about Fox News, are we not.

Allied in Pride

If GW YAF refuses to participate in safe zone trainings that are aimed at increasing safety and understanding, then they should be considered a hate group, and thereby, be revoked of all funding from the Student Association at The George Washington University (SA). The Young America's Foundation is a political organization, not a religious one, so they cannot seek a religious exemption. And their refusal to use preferred gender pronouns should be considered an act of violence and a violation of the non-discrimination clause required in all GW student organizations' Constitutions.

Score another for FOX.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:44 am

flopstock;1475695 wrote: ..... I'm just fed up to my ears with everyone forcing PC down our throats. It's not real, do you folks not get it yet? ....

Agreed. I always thought that you stand for what you invest in but that not investing doesn't make you “anti whatever. Tolerance ought to be enough, but no ..... they want a pledge.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Mar 13, 2015 6:26 am

flopstock;1475695 wrote: I don't have to agree with what this conservative group may believe in for me to find that the attempt to mind meld them is just dead wrong.

I'm just fed up to my ears with everyone forcing PC down our throats. It's not real, do you folks not get it yet? You are asking everyone to line up and chant the mantra and then they will believe it... hasn't ever worked, never will.

College conservatives branded 'hate group' for refusing LGBT sensitivity training | Fox News

very true otherwise we would all still be devout catholics hating and despising those we are told to hate and despise.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:53 pm

gmc;1475834 wrote: very true otherwise we would all still be devout catholics hating and despising those we are told to hate and despise.Well, I don't want to change the focus of the thread, but I can't let you get away with that. I have been a Catholic for 74 years and was never taught nor told by my Church to hate or despise anyone but the devil.

Maybe you could attempt to give some examples to the contrary.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Mar 15, 2015 9:57 pm

Mark Aspam;1476004 wrote: Well, I don't want to change the focus of the thread, but I can't let you get away with that. I have been a Catholic for 74 years and was never taught nor told by my Church to hate or despise anyone but the devil.

Maybe you could attempt to give some examples to the contrary.

Well, I was a Catholic up until I was about 32, and the Catholic insinuation is that the Jews killed Jesus. I would say that is as much of an encouragement to hate or despise as you can get. Of course the Protestants aren't on the list of "good boys" either.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:00 am

High Threshold;1476005 wrote: 1. Well, I was a Catholic up until I was about 32, and the Catholic insinuation is that the Jews killed Jesus. I would say that is as much of an encouragement to hate or despise as you can get.

2. Of course the Protestants aren't on the list of "good boys" either.1. I attended Catholic schools for 11 years and cannot remember ever having heard what I would regard as an anti-Semitic remark by a teacher, nor from the Sunday pulpit. It's interesting that you use the term 'insinuation', that seems to leave open the possibility that your interpretation of what you might have heard was mistaken or ambiguous.

2. I would guess that the balance of anti-Semitism among Christians would lean to the Protestant side, especially the more fundamentalist, but I'm not sure. Nor do I deny that there are anti-Semitic Catholics, shame on them.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 6:47 am

Mark Aspam;1476009 wrote: I attended Catholic schools for 11 years ...
And I for 3 years.

Mark Aspam;1476009 wrote: I ..... cannot remember ever having heard what I would regard as an anti-Semitic remark by a teacher, nor from the Sunday pulpit.
I hope you remember that the next time your mates slander Muslims for hating/loathing/terrorising non-Muslims. You know, the sort of double standard we are getting used to hearing ....... "It's in the Qu'ran!"

Mark Aspam;1476009 wrote: ...... It's interesting that you use the term 'insinuation', that seems to leave open the possibility that your interpretation of what you might have heard was mistaken or ambiguous ........
So are you admiring me my honesty or are you hinting that I made a slip of the tongue? But it's good you brought that up because it saves me the trouble of pointing it out to you. GMC did use the term "devout catholics" but let's forgive him for the moment.

Did you see Tudey Dog's attached photo on the thread .........

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/curre ... ock-2.html

Post #20.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:13 am

High Threshold;1476012 wrote: I hope you remember that the next time your mates slander Muslims for hating/loathing/terrorising non-Muslims. Well, I have only one mate, and, as regular viewers of my posts know, she's Jewish!

Islam is a whole 'nother ball game (forgive the metaphor, it's getting to be that time of year - Go Dodgers!) and WAY off the original subject of the thread. As a rule, I ignore anything remotely associated with Fox News, I posted here only because of gmc's remark.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:26 am

Mark Aspam;1476014 wrote: Well, I have only one mate, and, as regular viewers of my posts know, she's Jewish!
:wah: I won't hold that against you. My best friend (here in Sweden) is an American, matter of fact.

Mark Aspam;1476014 wrote: Islam is a whole 'nother ball game (forgive the metaphor, it's getting to be that time of year - Go Dodgers!) and WAY off the original subject of the thread. As a rule, I ignore anything remotely associated with Fox News, I posted here only because of gmc's remark.
Aside from baseball (Go St. Louis Browns!) I would love to hear what you think is "a whole 'nother ball game" about Islam.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:42 am

High Threshold;1476015 wrote: Aside from baseball (Go St. Louis Browns!) I would love to hear what you think is "a whole 'nother ball game" about Islam.

I meant that it's off the topic of the thread.

Funny that you should mention the Browns, then I was a kid they were my favorite American league team, my primary allegiance being to the Brooklyn Dodgers in the National league.

At that time there were only 16 major league teams, eight in each league, nothing south of Washington, D.C. or west of St. Louis.

Of course, cities elsewhere had professional teams, but only in regional leagues, some of which still exist. Some of them are affiliated with MLB and others are independent.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:24 am

Mark Aspam;1476018 wrote: I meant that it's off the topic of the thread.
Oh, I see.

Mark Aspam;1476018 wrote: Funny that you should mention the Browns, then I was a kid they were my favorite American league team, my primary allegiance being to the Brooklyn Dodgers in the National league.

At that time there were only 16 major league teams, eight in each league, nothing south of Washington, D.C. or west of St. Louis.

Of course, cities elsewhere had professional teams, but only in regional leagues, some of which still exist. Some of them are affiliated with MLB and others are independent.
I really don't know much about baseball. We have what one might call a sort of pic-nique game called “brÃ¤nnboll that is similar. I used to like American football but after they discontinued the leather helmets, the “straight arm, the lateral pass, and started using astro turf, tennis shoes and professional “kickers I lost interest. But if you're a big baseball fan then you have to love this:

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Mar 16, 2015 12:38 pm

Mark Aspam;1476004 wrote: Well, I don't want to change the focus of the thread, but I can't let you get away with that. I have been a Catholic for 74 years and was never taught nor told by my Church to hate or despise anyone but the devil.

Maybe you could attempt to give some examples to the contrary.

You are asking everyone to line up and chant the mantra and then they will believe it... hasn't ever worked, never will.

If it worked there would not have been the age of enlightenment or the protestant reformation.

It was not until the 1960's that the catholic church reopThe notion of collective Jewish guilt, which bedevilled relations between the two faiths, was disowned by the Roman Catholic church at the second Vatican council in 1965. But this is thought to be the first time a pope has carried out such a detailed, theological demolition of the concept.

It is particularly significant coming from the pen of a German-born pontiff who has more than once been at the eye of a storm in Jewish-Catholic relations. Elan Steinberg, vice-president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, told Reuters: "This is a major step forward. This is a personal repudiation of the theological underpinning of centuries of antisemitism."

udiated the teaching that the jews had crucified Christ

Pope finds Jews not to blame for death of Jesus | World news | The Guardian

The notion of collective Jewish guilt, which bedevilled relations between the two faiths, was disowned by the Roman Catholic church at the second Vatican council in 1965. But this is thought to be the first time a pope has carried out such a detailed, theological demolition of the concept.

It is particularly significant coming from the pen of a German-born pontiff who has more than once been at the eye of a storm in Jewish-Catholic relations. Elan Steinberg, vice-president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, told Reuters: "This is a major step forward. This is a personal repudiation of the theological underpinning of centuries of antisemitism."

There is a theological site that in can't remember the address for if you want more detail. Incidentally the protestant churches were not mush better

Maybe you haven't heard any anti-Semitism but you live in more enlightened times. There is also the issue of the second class status of women in society and th little problem of eve's curse.

As to the original topic - and I apologise for the aside. These idiots claim the right to continue as bigots on religious grounds and refuse to even allow the possibility that a bit of thinking things through rather than just believing what they have ben told might be a good idea. They can't justify their intolerance except to claim their belief in an imaginary being makes them right and everybody wrong if you accept they are right god help us all. .

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 7:42 am

Mark Aspam;1476004 wrote: Well, I don't want to change the focus of the thread, but I can't let you get away with that. I have been a Catholic for 74 years and was never taught nor told by my Church to hate or despise anyone but the devil.

Maybe you could attempt to give some examples to the contrary.I was raised in the Catholic tradition by well meaning albeit racist, homophobic, intolerant of diversity parents and a very like-minded community.

To say that the adults in the community, including my parents, were not assured by their religious beliefs and spiritual leadership that the prejudices and intolerance they shared was not indeed that of the church is a bit disingenuous, or naive (it's got to be one or the other).

The Catholic church was the one religion that would admit that the stories in the bible were just that - stories - and metaphors for "good and evil". Any individual or organization that stood contrary to the morality of the catholic doctrine was "The Devil", in a manner of speaking. So when I hear a person tell me that their religion does not teach them to hate anyone other than Satan it sounds passive/aggressive and code for whomever or whatever is contrary to doctrine, or similar to "love the sinner but hate the sin".

Today Satan has a hold on gays (homo-sextuals) and the catholic church and religion has a long and ugly history on the subject. The other is of course "Abortionists" (those baby-murders), and the stand against contraception.

We haven't even gotten into some of the ugly representatives of the catholic religion such as Mother Theresa and a number of popes, bishops and other clergy.

I went the long way around in disassociating myself with the Catholic church; first through stepping out and becoming a Born-Again Christian, then through a very long and emotionally difficult journey into the realization that all religion and belief in any God/god is nothing more than myth.

After being fully outside religion and ceasing to rationalize them I began asking myself and others why they'd/I'd want to be associated with an organization that has a history of torture, organized murder, indifference to and accommodating of pedophilia, employing a myth to extract personal information from it's members in the form of confidential conversations known as "confession" in order to reinforce quilt so to extract money and maintain membership?

So, if I might ask: why are you Catholic?

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 8:24 am

Ahso!;1476079 wrote: ... Today Satin has a hold on gays (homo-sextuals) ....

I always thought gays were partial to velvet.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:45 am

Ahso!;1476079 wrote:

Today Satan has a hold on gays (homo-sextuals) and the catholic church and religion has a long and ugly history on the subject.Instead of going about the internet collecting the damning articles I'll present the evidence straight from the horses mouth.

Homosexuality

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:17 pm

:yh_shhhhHigh Threshold;1476084 wrote: I always thought gays were partial to velvet.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 12:53 pm

Ahso!;1476079 wrote:

Today Satan has a hold on gays (homo-sextuals) and the catholic church and religion has a long and ugly history on the subject.

It sounds like some sort of Mobile Phone Flirting amongst Gays.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:47 pm

FourPart;1476110 wrote: It sounds like some sort of Mobile Phone Flirting amongst Gays.That's how some christian (mostly southern, I think) fundamentalist say "homosexual", they throw the "t" in for emphasis I guess. They've been doing it for decades.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:08 pm

Ahso!;1476079 wrote: 1. I was raised in the Catholic tradition by well meaning albeit racist, homophobic, intolerant of diversity parents and a very like-minded community.

2. To say that the adults in the community, including my parents, were not assured by their religious beliefs and spiritual leadership that the prejudices and intolerance they shared was not indeed that of the church is a bit disingenuous, or naive (it's got to be one or the other).

3. The Catholic church was the one religion that would admit that the stories in the bible were just that - stories - and metaphors for "good and evil". Any individual or organization that stood contrary to the morality of the catholic doctrine was "The Devil", in a manner of speaking.

4. So when I hear a person tell me that their religion does not teach them to hate anyone other than Satan it sounds passive/aggressive and code for whomever or whatever is contrary to doctrine, or similar to "love the sinner but hate the sin".

5. Today Satan has a hold on gays (homo-sextuals) and the catholic church and religion has a long and ugly history on the subject.

6. The other is of course "Abortionists" (those baby-murders), and the stand against contraception.

7. We haven't even gotten into some of the ugly representatives of the catholic religion such as Mother Theresa and a number of popes, bishops and other clergy.

8. I went the long way around in disassociating myself with the Catholic church; first through stepping out and becoming a Born-Again Christian,

9. ...then through a very long and emotionally difficult journey into the realization that all religion and belief in any God/god is nothing more than myth.

10. After being fully outside religion and ceasing to rationalize them I began asking myself and others why they'd/I'd want to be associated with an organization that has a history of torture, organized murder, indifference to and accommodating of pedophilia, employing a myth to extract personal information from it's members in the form of confidential conversations known as "confession" in order to reinforce quilt so to extract money and maintain membership?

11. So, if I might ask: why are you Catholic?Well, OK, let's take them one at a time.

1. I was similarly raised and do not deny that some of my relatives, Catholic and non-Catholic, shared some of those traits, that is hardly the Church's fault.

2. See 1. Don't follow you here at all. Maybe you could be a bit more specific.

3. Here I agree with you, but "Catholic doctrine" is based on the commandments of Moses, and in terms of basic morality pretty much the same as Lutheran or Methodist or Baptist doctrine. So yes, those whose lifestyle is in opposition thereto would be considered "of the devil", that is, sinful. Seems like basic morality to me, I'm not sure I follow you here.

4. OK, I guess. Again, I'm not sure of your point.

5. The teaching of the Catholic Church, as well as that of various other faiths, is that God expects homosexuals, as well as unmarried heterosexuals, to be celibate. You may consider that unrealistic and I might agree with you, as a married heterosexual I am fortunate not to have to deal with that problem, and I feel sorry for those who do.

6. I'm opposed to abortion, period. I'm not opposed to its legality for practical reasons.

7. Haven't the slightest idea what you're saying here. Mother Teresa 'an ugly representative of the Church'?

8. If you were baptized a Catholic, you could not have later become a "Born Again Christian", it's a contradiction in terms. You can only be baptized once. You can go through the ceremony again, and you change your affiliation, that's up to you.

9. Actually, as an older person I share that feeling to some extent. But I continue to attempt to live according to the commandments for its own sake rather than the promise of eternal reward.

10. Firstly, it sounds more like you're referring to modern-day Islam. Modern-day Catholicism doesn't do any of those things. And confession is free, if your RC pastor charged for it, I can understand why you left! But I doubt that that happened!

11. Well, there are over a BILLION of us, so we must be doing something right!

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:22 pm

gmc;1476045 wrote: 1. It was not until the 1960's that the catholic church reopThe notion of collective Jewish guilt...

2. There is also... the little problem of eve's curse.1. That is true but misleading. That was an official pronouncement, I attended Catholic schools beginning in 1946 and was never taught any such thing.

2. If you're referring to pain in childbirth, that goes back to Genesis. Hardly a Catholic invention!

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:22 am

Mark Aspam;1476453 wrote:

8. If you were baptized a Catholic, you could not have later become a "Born Again Christian", it's a contradiction in terms. You can only be baptized once. You can go through the ceremony again, and you change your affiliation, that's up to you.

That's twaddle for a start. Most atheists (including myself) as well as theists were baptised at birth (although this number is rapidly diminishing), whether they wanted to or not, regardless of the denomination of their family. Does this mean that because I was baptised, I could not (should I ever have the slightest desire to) become a "Born Again Christian"?

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:44 am

Mark Aspam;1476453 wrote: ...... If you were baptized a Catholic, you could not have later become a "Born Again Christian", it's a contradiction in terms. You can only be baptized once. You can go through the ceremony again, and you change your affiliation, that's up to you.

Hmmmmm. The expression is "Born Again". Note the word "AGAIN". It means what it means, AGAIN. So of course you can be "born again" anything you like ...... as in "tomorow is the first day in the rest of your life".

What Catholics have to say about it is irrelevant. The Catholics might also not believe in divorce but well ...... that opinion means nothing.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:55 am

Mark Aspam;1476453 wrote:

7. Haven't the slightest idea what you're saying here. Mother Teresa 'an ugly representative of the Church'?

An uglier more cruel, hideous women you're unlikely to find

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:02 am

FourPart;1476462 wrote: That's twaddle for a start. Most atheists (including myself) as well as theists were baptised at birth (although this number is rapidly diminishing), whether they wanted to or not, regardless of the denomination of their family. Does this mean that because I was baptised, I could not (should I ever have the slightest desire to) become a "Born Again Christian"?It's not a matter of desire. You are BORN when you emerge from your mother's womb - obviously.

You are said to be BORN AGAIN, spiritually speaking, when you are baptized a Christian, regardless of denomination - or NO denomination. Anyone can, and in the event of an emergency should, baptize.

Various religious bodies differ on the form, the Catholic Church regards baptism as valid if done with flowing water and in the name of the Trinity. Some non-Catholic Christians baptize in the name of Christ only.

If you are an atheist and regard religion as twaddle, that as your prerogative, and you should thank your non-existent God that you live in a country where you can do so without being hunted down and killed as in much of the Islamic world!

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:18 am

Mark Aspam;1476472 wrote: It's not a matter of desire. You are BORN when you emerge from your mother's womb - obviously.

You are BORN AGAIN, spiritually speaking, when you are baptized a Christian, regardless of denomination - or NO denomination. Anyone can, and in the event of an emergency should, baptize.

Various religious bodies differ on the form, the Catholic Church regards baptism as valid if done with flowing water and in the name of the Trinity. Some non-Catholic Christians baptize in the name of Christ only.

If you are an atheist and regard religion as twaddle, that as your prerogative, and you should thank your non-existent God that you live in a country where you can do so without being hunted down and killed as in much of the Islamic world!

So I will be thanking the one and the same non-existent god, no ?

How odd a concept.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:19 am

Mark Aspam;1476473 wrote: This from the poster who on another thread praises murderer O. J. Simpson as a fine, upstanding hero!

Please post where I did such a thing, or apologize

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:28 am

Snowfire;1476475 wrote: Please post where I did such a thing, or apologizeIf it was a different poster with a similar icon, then I apologize profusely! I'll try to find the post and get back to you.

In the meantime, I'd be interested to know what you regard as your basis for the attack on Mother Teresa.

ADDED A FEW MINUTES LATER: Sincere apologies! The poster was spot and here is the post:

If Mr Simpson were carried the length of Las Vegas nailed to a wooden cross and with a crown of thorns jammed onto his head, the scene would only just manage to portray the appalling injustices visited on him by the American legal system. He's the nearest man alive to being a modern-day Son of God.

Uh...I guess he was kidding...maybe...

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:39 am

Mark Aspam;1476476 wrote: If it was a different poster with a similar icon, then I apologize profusely! I'll try to find the post and get back to you.

In the meantime, I'd be interested to know what you regard as your basis for the attack on Mother Teresa.

The Blessed Mother Teresa. The woman who trawled the world for funds for her orphanages only to gift the donations to the Catholic Church while the sick children were left suffering without treatment nor pain relief because apparently suffering brings one closer to God.

Dreadful woman. She chose the Vatican over the children, while all fawned over her supposed charitable work

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:42 am

Snowfire;1476477 wrote: The Blessed Mother Teresa. The woman who trawled the world for funds for her orphanages only to gift the donations to the Catholic Church while the sick children were left suffering without treatment nor pain relief because apparently suffering brings one closer to God.

Dreadful woman. She chose the Vatican over the children, while all fawned over her supposed charitable work

And your source for that is what?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:43 am

There are various reports on the orphanages and the treatment of those poor children.

The squalid truth behind the legacy of Mother Teresa

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:58 am

Mark Aspam;1476476 wrote:

In the meantime, I'd be interested to know what you regard as your basis for the attack on Mother Teresa.

Sometimes reading material is offered as citation when it's nothing more than "that's where I got of from". It's difficult these days to find accurate and unbiased citations evidence, though this one offers many of the citations within itself to where I feel confident in it so I'll link it.

Why, to many critics, Mother Teresa is still no saint - The Washington Post

This controversy about Mother Teresa, who died in 1997, is far from her first. Her saintly reputation (she is quite literally on the path to sainthood – she was beatified in 2003) was gained for aiding Calcutta's poorest of the poor, yet it was undercut by persistent allegations of misuse of funds, poor medical treatments and religious evangelicalism in the institutions she founded.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:05 am

Snowfire;1476479 wrote: There are various reports on the orphanages and the treatment of those poor children.

The squalid truth behind the legacy of Mother TeresaThe article is an obvious hatchet job from word one. Still, I have no doubt that some of the allegations are true.

Also, if some of the donations were sent to the Vatican, those funds were probably used for charitable work elsewhere.

There are many unbiased accounts online and elsewhere, you should check a few of them out, you could start with WikiPedia.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 7:56 am

Ahso!;1476481 wrote: Sometimes reading material is offered as citation when it's nothing more than "that's where I got of from". It's difficult these days to find accurate and unbiased citations evidence, though this one offers many of the citations within itself to where I feel confident in it so I'll link it.

Why, to many critics, Mother Teresa is still no saint - The Washington PostThanks for the link to a much more balanced account, which I had read previously.

It might also be noted that while care in Mother's facilities was primitive - to say the LEAST - by Western standards, without her and her staff there would in most cases have been NO CARE AT ALL.

Ever been to that part of the world? I haven't, friends of mine who have say that if they hadn't been there they never would have believed that human beings could live in such filth!

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 8:10 am

I think the important thing is, is that Mother Teresa raised millions of dollars from around the world but did little to alleviate the suffering of these poor sick orphans, preferring to deliberately and obviously direct the funds to the Vatican. Thats hardly a Christian value, regardless of whether those funds might have eventually found their way to Charitable usage.

It was more important to her to expound the virtues and support the Roman Catholic Church rather than to ease the pain of the suffering children. She had an agenda and it was far from a glorious one

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 9:24 am

I would ask the people who were the patients of Mother Teresa what they thought of her.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:02 am

LarsMac;1476490 wrote: I would ask the people who were the patients of Mother Teresa what they thought of her.
I recently saw an interview with a woman who worked with or in the vicinity of Mother Therese and who knew her methods very well. Apparently T thought the only way to pay for your sins was through suffering and pain and that rather than displaying a motherly bed-side manner merely suggested that those in need had to bear it out to the bitter end ¦.. slow and agonizing death. So T was a sadist I understand.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:25 am

Mother Terese. Interesting:

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:09 am

High Threshold;1476491 wrote: I recently saw an interview with a woman who worked with or in the vicinity of Mother Therese and who knew her methods very well. Apparently T thought the only way to pay for your sins was through suffering and pain and that rather than displaying a motherly bed-side manner merely suggested that those in need had to bear it out to the bitter end ¦.. slow and agonizing death. So T was a sadist I understand.

more hearsay.

I think it very interesting how nearly all of the criticism of Mother Teresa cropped up after her death.

I personally have no knowledge of what she did, or didn't do, that got her all the international attention.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:30 am

LarsMac;1476494 wrote: more hearsay. ....
Hmmmmm.

LarsMac;1476494 wrote: I personally have no knowledge of what she did, or didn't do, that got her all the international attention.
Then you ought to click on the video link I provided, unless you think it's just more hearsay.

,,,, and also this one:

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 11:32 am

High Threshold;1476491 wrote: I recently saw an interview with a woman who worked with or in the vicinity of Mother Therese and who knew her methods very well. Apparently T thought the only way to pay for your sins was through suffering and pain and that rather than displaying a motherly bed-side manner merely suggested that those in need had to bear it out to the bitter end ¦.. slow and agonizing death. So T was a sadist I understand.

Given the treatment of care - or lack of - offered to the orphans, what do you suppose was her preferred treatment in her later days (her supposed miracle cure for a cancerous tumour was false according to her Physician ) Calcutta or the comfort of a Californian clinic ?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:24 pm

Well, I dunno.

My first thought is that, were I destitute, and dying, I think I'd rather do so lying on a clean cot in a dry building that out on the street.

Whatever else she did, she gave that for many.

when someone says that someone else told them something, then that is hearsay.

And every one of these examples is from a source with an agenda of their own, and people looking at the whole thing from a perspective completely alien to the streets of Calcutta.

Frankly, the woman is dead and buried, I have have no emotional investment, one way or the other.

There are plenty of other people out there upon whom I would rather exercise my sense moral outrage.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:25 pm

Mark Aspam;1476453 wrote:

11. Well, there are over a BILLION of us, so we must be doing something right!Am I to understand that you're catholic because a lot of other people are and therefore it must be okay?

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:34 pm

LarsMac;1476494 wrote:

I think it very interesting how nearly all of the criticism of Mother Teresa cropped up after her death.

You could say the same about Jimmy Saville.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 12:38 pm

I can't help but wonder how often Mother Teresa and Jimmy Saville have been found in the same conversation.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 3:01 pm

Ahso!;1476499 wrote: Am I to understand that you're catholic because a lot of other people are and therefore it must be okay?I posted that because it seemed to me that a stupid question deserved a flippant answer.

Why do you think that I - and the other billion - shouldn't be Catholic and what do you think that I/we should be instead? This should be good.

AFTERTHOUGHT: If your question was sincere and I misinterpreted it, I'll give you a sincere answer. Then you can tell me why you are whatever you are and we can compare, it might even be material for a new thread.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 5:09 pm

I too would rather slip away upon a cot beneath a roof than lying in the streets, with hand carts and holy cows skirting round me and nudging my toes and elbows. I've seen death on the streets of India, mouth and eye sockets covered with egg-laying flies. It ain't pretty. But I'm wondering if she began to believe her own hype about her divine destiny and regarded the dying as commodities similar to the use of death camp inmates at IG Farben. “They're going to die anyway. And did she benefit highly in the material world?

G#Gill · Post by **G#Gill** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 6:04 pm

I believe that the only true answer to how Mother Theresa behaved or performed her tasks, would come from somebody who actually was involved as a rescued person or a helper at the time. The rest is just conjecture.

High Threshold · Post by **High Threshold** » Sun Mar 22, 2015 10:44 pm

G#Gill;1476510 wrote: I believe that the only true answer to how Mother Theresa behaved or performed her tasks, would come from somebody who actually was involved as a rescued person or a helper at the time. The rest is just conjecture.

Well, yes. There is a segment on the last link I provided that takes it on.