This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
EaglesEaglesEagles 20 Dec 15 12.34pm | |
---|---|
I don't know why people are really bothered if Mother Teresa's going to be made a Saint. The only people who will care are Catholics because that's the only church (apart from in some cases the Orthodox) who care about canonization. So if people think she was a dreadful person who did more harm to the poor than good, this won't affect that or the reach of the movement promoting this idea (Christopher Hitchens' videos for example). The same goes for people who think she was great. This thread is just a moaning session which has been activated by Mother Teresa's canonization consideration in the news. The fact that she's going to be made a Saint is secondary. Point being that her becoming a Saint won't really bring about anything new, she's been a 'blessed' for years after all. For non-Catholics it's just a reminder of the Church's absurd, pseudo-religious and nonsensical practices. Big deal.
I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hoof Hearted 20 Dec 15 12.41pm | |
---|---|
Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Dec 2015 12.34pm
I don't know why people are really bothered if Mother Teresa's going to be made a Saint. The only people who will care are Catholics because that's the only church (apart from in some cases the Orthodox) who care about canonization. So if people think she was a dreadful person who did more harm to the poor than good, this won't affect that or the reach of the movement promoting this idea (Christopher Hitchens' videos for example). The same goes for people who think she was great. This thread is just a moaning session which has been activated by Mother Teresa's canonization consideration in the news. The fact that she's going to be made a Saint is secondary. Point being that her becoming a Saint won't really bring about anything new, she's been a 'blessed' for years after all. For non-Catholics it's just a reminder of the Church's absurd, pseudo-religious and nonsensical practices. Big deal.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Mad4palace 20 Dec 15 1.20pm | |
---|---|
Quote NickRobinson at 20 Dec 2015 11.28am
Quote Mad4palace at 19 Dec 2015 9.51pm
Quote NickRobinson at 19 Dec 2015 8.19pm
She did a lot of good. She deserves recognition. What harm does it do calling her a saint? She pretended to do a lot of good. So she 'pretended' to found the Missionaries of Charity, active in 133 countries. They run hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis; soup kitchens; dispensaries and mobile clinics; children's and family counselling programmes; orphanages; and schools. All a sham then? The motive behind her work was devotional, it wasn't to alleviate suffering it was to wallow in it and perversely see it as a gift. The poor standards of medical care, allegations of misusing of funds and her opposition to concraception sort of gives one the indication that she was more obsessed with working for 'god' and the politics of her religion, rather than the poor or sick.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
NickRobinson 20 Dec 15 1.41pm | |
---|---|
Quote Mad4palace at 20 Dec 2015 1.20pm
Quote NickRobinson at 20 Dec 2015 11.28am
Quote Mad4palace at 19 Dec 2015 9.51pm
Quote NickRobinson at 19 Dec 2015 8.19pm
She did a lot of good. She deserves recognition. What harm does it do calling her a saint? She pretended to do a lot of good. So she 'pretended' to found the Missionaries of Charity, active in 133 countries. They run hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis; soup kitchens; dispensaries and mobile clinics; children's and family counselling programmes; orphanages; and schools. All a sham then? The motive behind her work was devotional, it wasn't to alleviate suffering it was to wallow in it and perversely see it as a gift. The poor standards of medical care, allegations of misusing of funds and her opposition to concraception sort of gives one the indication that she was more obsessed with working for 'god' and the politics of her religion, rather than the poor or sick. So the 'untouchables' in India would have been better off without her then? "Poor standards" - at least she took practical steps to help people whatever her motives. I'm not religious, but recognise people doing good when I see it. A lot of the people that criticise her for helping people, do so because of her religious convictions. If, say Nelson Mandella, had set up similar help-organisations, the same critics would be hailing him as a 'saint', albeit a secular one.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 20 Dec 15 3.19pm | |
---|---|
Quote NickRobinson at 20 Dec 2015 1.41pm
Quote Mad4palace at 20 Dec 2015 1.20pm
Quote NickRobinson at 20 Dec 2015 11.28am
Quote Mad4palace at 19 Dec 2015 9.51pm
Quote NickRobinson at 19 Dec 2015 8.19pm
She did a lot of good. She deserves recognition. What harm does it do calling her a saint? She pretended to do a lot of good. So she 'pretended' to found the Missionaries of Charity, active in 133 countries. They run hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis; soup kitchens; dispensaries and mobile clinics; children's and family counselling programmes; orphanages; and schools. All a sham then? The motive behind her work was devotional, it wasn't to alleviate suffering it was to wallow in it and perversely see it as a gift. The poor standards of medical care, allegations of misusing of funds and her opposition to concraception sort of gives one the indication that she was more obsessed with working for 'god' and the politics of her religion, rather than the poor or sick. So the 'untouchables' in India would have been better off without her then? "Poor standards" - at least she took practical steps to help people whatever her motives. I'm not religious, but recognise people doing good when I see it. A lot of the people that criticise her for helping people, do so because of her religious convictions. If, say Nelson Mandella, had set up similar help-organisations, the same critics would be hailing him as a 'saint', albeit a secular one.
Besides that, all talk of saints is just medieval religious mumbo jumbo, and it is shameful that the Catholic church, or any other, perpetuates such superstitious garbage.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
EaglesEaglesEagles 20 Dec 15 6.57pm | |
---|---|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 20 Dec 2015 12.41pm
Quote EaglesEaglesEagles at 20 Dec 2015 12.34pm
I don't know why people are really bothered if Mother Teresa's going to be made a Saint. The only people who will care are Catholics because that's the only church (apart from in some cases the Orthodox) who care about canonization. So if people think she was a dreadful person who did more harm to the poor than good, this won't affect that or the reach of the movement promoting this idea (Christopher Hitchens' videos for example). The same goes for people who think she was great. This thread is just a moaning session which has been activated by Mother Teresa's canonization consideration in the news. The fact that she's going to be made a Saint is secondary. Point being that her becoming a Saint won't really bring about anything new, she's been a 'blessed' for years after all. For non-Catholics it's just a reminder of the Church's absurd, pseudo-religious and nonsensical practices. Big deal.
Fair. I was reiterating what others had ignored for the sake of enjoying their own annoyance. I may have perhaps even enjoyed my own self-righteousness of effectively expanding upon what you said!
I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.