mother teresa and most religious groups are frauds

read here

www.mukto-mona.com...

quoting

The legend of her Homes for the Dying has moved the world to tears. Reality, however, is scandalous: In the overcrowded and primitive little homes, many patients have to share a bed with others. Though there are many suffering from tuberculosis, AIDS and other highly infectious illnesses, hygiene is no concern. The patients are treated with good words and insufficient (sometimes outdated) medicines, applied with old needles, washed in lukewarm water.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". Once she tried to comfort a screaming sufferer: "You are suffering, that means Jesus is kissing you!" The man got furious and screamed back: "Then tell your Jesus to stop kissing."

end of quote

seems to me the way it works is that a religious group sets itself up and starts seeking donations. They do some charitable works and hope that this will influence people to donate lots of money to this religious group. most of the work is done by volunteers and the people who are helped are usually charged for the services offered

these people living in the religious groups - particularly at the higher levels of the organisations are living well.

take the average nun - they dotn need to worry about day to day making ends meet. They do take a vow of personal poverty but they dont live in poverty - they have a nice roof over their head and the repairs and bills are paid out of donations and all mod cons and healthcare is free - the religious order pays that from donations it gets. nuns take an annual holiday - often overseas all paid for. they dont need to worry about superannuation because the religious order will provide till they die.. You name it - it is a cushy life, nothing like the people who are not in a convent and have to make ends meet and have electricity cut off because they cannot pay the bill or get evicted because they cannot pay the rent or have children who are ill and they cannot afford the best treatment so they make do with less adequate treatment

I heard of priests who own aeroplanes - so they are deffinitely not poor.

the nuns in the convent did not need to do menial work - they hired people to do that for them or they got volunteers to do the menial work.

I cannot see poverty here - this is not a lifestyle of poverty

we should all seriously consider what we do with our donated time or money because we are being suckered seriously


I feel that people who are at the higher levels of religious groups are on purpose not disclosing just how well off they are and how they are suckering the people

look at the average collection plate in church - I checked, and an Anglican minister can earn between $60000-00 and $120000-00 a year and have free home and a new car every 2 years

how is it just that someone on unemployment here in Australia of about $12000-00 a year is expected to give generously to the collection plate every sunday? and most of the work in the parish is done by volunteers

I dont claim I know everything about how religious groups arrange their finances but it is my opinion that we should think long and hard what we donate and to whom

reply to post by megabyte


This thread is steeped in ignorance, and quite offensive.

Ignorance is the source of your fear. I think you need to do some actual research before you start trying to denigrate nuns as "living the life".

I wonder what these people with maggots in their wounds were doing BEFORE Mother Theresa's home was there for them. Ever even stop to consider that? They probably would have just died alone, on the street.

I'm not even sure where to start with you... get your head out of your butt.

Originally posted by RedBird
reply to post by megabyte

 

This thread is steeped in ignorance, and quite offensive.

Ignorance is the source of your fear. I think you need to do some actual research before you start trying to denigrate nuns as "living the life".

I wonder what these people with maggots in their wounds were doing BEFORE Mother Theresa's home was there for them. Ever even stop to consider that? They probably would have just died alone, on the street.

I'm not even sure where to start with you... get your head out of your butt.

i lived in a convent for several years

Keep in poverty that we can have more!

Imagine all Indian people all suddenly wanting to become rich bastards! Imagine that all the religous people suddenly wanted wealth. There is a limit of wealth in every system, so if there are many that are content with poverty, rest can have fun and spend the resources others don't want.

Of course the question is what do you need. Why do you want wealth. Wealth brings in many kind of troubles, jealous people and hoaxers who want part of your fortune.

Then again, there's nothing wrong with poverty if one is content with it.

I live in relative poverty compared to my fellow citizens. I am not exactly religious person, nor I don't want to be poor but I don't want to be rich either. I just look those who live in their illusions and pity them.

-v

this is interesting because it illustrates how the religious groups have fostered a certain image for themselves so that the rest of us believe them to be benevolent and self sacrificing and working to improve the lives of those who are disadvantaged

just dont look too hard beneath the surface

look what you get if you google it

www.google.com.au...

so many articles to read

did the people who criticise me read all the information or have the religious groups managed to set themselves up as being somehow beyond criticism

I tell you people - dont donate money to groups who promise to be using it to help because it is not always so and we really need to be looking at evidence and how much in the donated dollar actually gets to the needy

I still say that religious groups have set us up through telling us only part of the truth and only revealing those parts of the truth that suit their ends. in the case of charity dollar, it is money of course.

this from

en.wikipedia.org...


Additionally, the sources of some donations accepted have been criticized. Mother Teresa accepted donations from the autocratic and corrupt Duvalier family in Haiti and openly praised them. She also accepted 1.4 million dollars from Charles Keating, involved in the fraud and corruption scheme known as the Keating Five scandal and supported him before and after his arrest. The Deputy District Attorney for Los Angeles, Paul Turley, wrote to Mother Teresa asking her to return the donated money to the people Keating had stolen from, one of whom was "a poor carpenter". The donated money was not accounted for, and Turley did not receive a reply.[54]

Colette Livermore, a former Missionary of Charity, describes her reasons for leaving the order in her book Hope Endures: Leaving Mother Teresa, Losing Faith, and Searching for Meaning. Livermore found what she called Mother Teresa's "theology of suffering" to be flawed, despite being a good and courageous person. Though Mother Teresa instructed her followers on the importance of spreading the Gospel through actions rather than theological lessons, Livermore could not reconcile this with some of the practices of the organization. Examples she gives include unnecessarily refusing to help the needy when they approached the nuns at the wrong time according to the prescribed schedule, discouraging nuns from seeking medical training to deal with the illnesses they encountered (with the justification that God empowers the weak and ignorant), and imposition of "unjust" punishments, such as being transferred away from friends. Livermore says that the Missionaries of Charity "infantilized" its nuns by prohibiting the reading of secular books and newspapers, and emphasizing obedience over independent thinking and problem-solving.[55]

and while mother teresa had a theology of suffering for everyone else

for herself she believed in the best medical treatments

Mother Teresa suffered a heart attack in Rome in 1983, while visiting Pope John Paul II. After a second attack in 1989, she received an artificial pacemaker. In 1991, after a battle with pneumonia while in Mexico, she suffered further heart problems. She offered to resign her position as head of the Missionaries of Charity. But the nuns of the order, in a secret ballot, voted for her to stay. Mother Teresa agreed to continue her work as head of the order.

In April 1996, Mother Teresa fell and broke her collar bone. In August she suffered from malaria and failure of the left heart ventricle. She had heart surgery but it was clear that her health was declining. She was treated at a California hospital, too, and this has led to some criticism.[56] The Archbishop of Calcutta, Henry Sebastian D'Souza, said he ordered a priest to perform an exorcism on Mother Teresa with her permission when she was first hospitalized with cardiac problems because he thought she may be under attack by the devil.[57]


end of quote

so everyone else should suffer the worst illnesses with just aspirin for relief while mother teresa got the best treatments at the best hospitals

reply to post by megabyte


If you haven't already done so, I would recommend reading "The Missionary Position" by Christopher Hitchens. It reiterates a lot of what you have already said about Mother Teresa, but with Hitch's classic whit strewn throughout, of course. It is not only a great read, but it is informative, eye opening, and beautifully provocative.

Also, I would suggest viewing his 30 minute BBC Documentary on Mother Teresa, "Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa."

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by megabyte

 

If you haven't already done so, I would recommend reading "The Missionary Position" by Christopher Hitchens. It reiterates a lot of what you have already said about Mother Teresa, but with Hitch's classic whit strewn throughout, of course. It is not only a great read, but it is informative, eye opening, and beautifully provocative.

Also, I would suggest viewing his 30 minute BBC Documentary on Mother Teresa, "Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa."

thank you

will do

sorry if it seems I am solely against mother teresa because I am not

the point I am making is that those at the leadership of religious groups milk us for donations to fund a lifestyle that may be at odds of what we believe, or what they tell us they believe

Hell's Angel by Christopher Hitchens:-

Part 1

www.youtube.com...

Part 2

www.youtube.com...

Part 3

www.youtube.com...

Enjoy.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Hell's Angel by Christopher Hitchens:-

Part 1

www.youtube.com...

Part 2

www.youtube.com...

Part 3

www.youtube.com...

Enjoy.

thanks

i will

of course the tele evangelists are even worse arent they?

reply to post by megabyte


Too true.

Ken Hovind - truely awful man.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Don't forget Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell... You can also throw in Ted Haggard and Eddie Long, although they may qualify more as "hypocritical morons."

Originally posted by Judge_Holden
reply to post by awake_and_aware

 

Don't forget Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell... You can also throw in Ted Haggard and Eddie Long, although they may qualify more as "hypocritical morons."

en.wikipedia.org...


anything to suck those donation dollars and make us all feel guilty for not donating more

I can't comment on the use/not-use of modern medical methods/facilities in the context of christian based 'charity', for the simple reason that supplies sometimes can be smaller than the needs (this happens in other charity contexts also),

....but I CAN comment on the motives of christian 'charity'.

Digressing shortly from topic, I can add to 'v01i0's description of his life-situation. I also live in somewhat voluntary simplicity, kind of halfway amish-style (without the religion though) and have done since 1974.

So when I twenty years ago got a really nice pile (equalent to 15 average year-incomes where I live) I gave half away to charity, as I didn't feel I needed the money.

I mainly chose a christian organisation, because they advertised in real capital letters about 'CHARITY'. To my later surprise and chagrin, when soon after sending the money I discovered, that 'mission' apparantly was the real motive, only this wasn't mentioned anywhere in the organisation's public campaigns.

Though being younger and more naive then, I still had a written contract made with the organisation about my money being for charity, but all for nothing. In an interview with me in their national holy newspaper I was somewhat ridiculed, because I "wasn't aware of the nature of mission" (as being above charity in holiness).

And when I started making small 'noises' about this, referring to my contract, I was conveniently ignored or 'forgotten' and nothing more came of it, as I didn't want to sue the organisation.

It was all a big, faked case of hypocritical lies to make me, a non-christian, pay for christian missionary activities. So don't pay a dime to christian charity, unless you are a christian. There are several better options.

Originally posted by RedBird
reply to post by megabyte

 

This thread is steeped in ignorance, and quite offensive.

Actually, it is not. You not being aware of the real world while living in a Christian lala-land is however steeped in ignorance and is more than quite offensive to those who have had their culture, history, knowledge and wealth ripped from them in the name of Christian "charity".

Ignorance is the source of your fear. I think you need to do some actual research before you start trying to denigrate nuns as "living the life".

Ignorance is the source of why you are so gullible as to hold one person holier than another. You want to defend nuns? Defend the psycho-nuns who abuse kids.

I wonder what these people with maggots in their wounds were doing BEFORE Mother Theresa's home was there for them. Ever even stop to consider that? They probably would have just died alone, on the street.

What a horrible statement. One - if they would die it was because of the imperialists destroying their homelands, creating the wretched state in which diseases run rampant. Two- as if Mother Theresa fixed ANYTHING...or did you not read? The man most likely would be pulling the maggots out himself, but hey, why not assume something so that the church gets more donations!

I'm not even sure where to start with you... get your head out of your butt.

Is this another example of speaking in the mirror? I'll let your silly, moneylaundering Theresa be the judge of that

Originally posted by bogomil
I can't comment on the use/not-use of modern medical methods/facilities in the context of christian based 'charity', for the simple reason that supplies sometimes can be smaller than the needs (this happens in other charity contexts also),

....but I CAN comment on the motives of christian 'charity'.

Digressing shortly from topic, I can add to 'v01i0's description of his life-situation. I also live in somewhat voluntary simplicity, kind of halfway amish-style (without the religion though) and have done since 1974.

So when I twenty years ago got a really nice pile (equalent to 15 average year-incomes where I live) I gave half away to charity, as I didn't feel I needed the money.

I mainly chose a christian organisation, because they advertised in real capital letters about 'CHARITY'. To my later surprise and chagrin, when soon after sending the money I discovered, that 'mission' apparantly was the real motive, only this wasn't mentioned anywhere in the organisation's public campaigns.

Though being younger and more naive then, I still had a written contract made with the organisation about my money being for charity, but all for nothing. In an interview with me in their national holy newspaper I was somewhat ridiculed, because I "wasn't aware of the nature of mission" (as being above charity in holiness).

And when I started making small 'noises' about this, referring to my contract, I was conveniently ignored or 'forgotten' and nothing more came of it, as I didn't want to sue the organisation.

It was all a big, faked case of hypocritical lies to make me, a non-christian, pay for christian missionary activities. So don't pay a dime to christian charity, unless you are a christian. There are several better options.

edit on 28-11-2010 by bogomil because: spelling

i hear you

this is my point - that charity money does not go to where you think it will go to and that we are duped into believing certaint things about religious groups, for example nuns

as i said - i lived in a convent for several years and know that even though they take a vow of poverty they do not LIVE in poverty. Every one of their needs is paid for in full - they get 3 meals a day and 3 snack meals and they get a roof over their head and repairs arepaid for and they get clothing when needed and they have bills paid for and the use of whatever is needed - cars or computers - everything else. they get all their toiletries given to them and they get holidays overseas and they get a fully paid up old age retirement for as long as they live, without having to worry if they paid in enough into their superannuation. All appliances as needed are paid for and they have servants - cooks and cleaners - so they are freed from the menial tasks

does that sound like they lived in poverty? certainly they worked - they were teachers or hospital administrators and did not get paid a wage - only a nominal sum of spending money. But if everything I needed was covered in full I would not mind just getting a little pocket money. its the constant juggling of bills and worrying if I can pay the next electricity bill that is so hard for the rest of us who are not earnign a lot of money.

so if nuns dont live in poverty then makign a big deal that they take a vow of poverty is misleading the rest of us to think they are living in poverty

it is a way to make the rest of us fees we need to make donations

reply to post by Zamini


Well said, I'm sick and tired of Teresa being used as a poster girl in the history of Christian "charity".

Anyway, you don't have to be religious or even spiritual to perform acts of charity or kindness, you don't need dogma as the motive either.

Thank you OP for bringing this way of thinking up. I fear you and I are the only few that "get it". The mass populations are so blinded that the mere suggestion that religion and religious groups might be a sham is the biggest sin you can commit...

More people have been killed in the name of religion, stolen from in the name of religion and lied to in the name of religion than anyone that has been saved or helped by religion. Prove me wrong.

I met Mother Teresa back in the mid 1980s.

She did a lot of good work for a lot of poor people. She did the best she could with what she had - having to work in poor conditions with poor quality supplies. She accepted donations from people because the poor needed the help. She publically thanked them for the donations ... and left the judgements of those people giving the donations to God. All the while she was helping people, she was having a spiritual 'Dark Night of the Soul' .. doubting God's love .. but she kept on going and kept on helping as best as she knew how.

Ya'll are critical of her for seeking medical attention for her illness'.
She got medical help. So what?
She couldn't fly every sick poor person to a fantastic overseas clinic.
That would be impossible.

People donated airline tickets and medical care to her so that she could get better to continue her work to help others. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's admirable. By them helping this one person, they really helped all those that she went out and helped in turn.

If you want to say most religious groups and preachers are frauds ... that's fine. I'd agree with that. But I don't see any evidence to support that charge against Mother Teresa.