NationStates Jolt Archive

Known for her devotion to the Christian God and to helping India's poor, excerpts from her diary reveal a 50-year-long crisis of faith.

"The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God.

"In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist."

She was also known for toeing the Papacy's line. If she had such doubt in God, then why was she such a vocal supporter of the Papacy and its views?

From the way she speaks about the loss of God, I believe it is because she feels that humans need an authority figure in their lives. For her, perhaps, it didn't matter whether this figure or from whence is derived its authority was illusory or not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/29/wteres29.xml

meh, as Hitchens rightly wrote, she was a fanatic and fraud.

meh, as Hitchens rightly wrote, she was a fanatic and fraud.

Which is fine, since you're a fraud as an intelligent person.

Known for her devotion to the Christian God and to helping India's poor, excerpts from her diary reveal a 50-year-long crisis of faith.

"The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God.

"In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist."

She was also known for toeing the Papacy's line. If she had such doubt in God, then why was she such a vocal supporter of the Papacy and its views?

From the way she speaks about the loss of God, I believe it is because she feels that humans need an authority figure in their lives. For her, perhaps, it didn't matter whether this figure or from whence is derived its authority was illusory or not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/29/wteres29.xml

I think most people of faith have this sort of crisis more than once in their life, and if not I would wonder why. To doubt is human, I personaly think that once these crises of faith have passed, if you still belive it makes your faith stronger.

To doubt is human, I personaly think that once these crises of faith have passed, if you still belive it makes your faith stronger.

Yes, but most human beings don't then go on to celebrate and encourage suffering in others as a way of bolstering their own flagging faith. That's the real difference.

Which is fine, since you're a fraud as an intelligent person.

Nice on the personal attacks, I suggest you read Hitchens book on her.

Nice on the personal attacks, I suggest you read Hitchens book on her.

Yes, we'll read a book you recommend that says Mother Teresa, probably the greatest human being to live in centuries, was a fraud. I'll get right on that.

I do appreciate the irony of a soon to be saint having a self documented crisis of faith.

Yes, but most human beings don't then go on to celebrate and encourage suffering in others as a way of bolstering their own flagging faith. That's the real difference.

Meh so you say, can you back that up though?

well i don't aggree that anyone "needs an authority figgure in their lives".

what everyone does need, is to understand, that if they create a world of suffering, for everyone else to have to live in, there is no way for it to be possible to entirely not have to live in that world themselves.

when people understand this, it becomes not THAT hard, to dicipline THEMSELVES accordingly. not perfectly, because none of us is, but at least in that generally diriction of causes the least possible harm. of taking the greatest possible measures, making the greatest possible effort, to avoid doing so.

and that would be the same whether there were one, zero, or an infinity of gods. now what i happen to believe exist, are little furry invisible spirit friends, along with something unimmaginably huge, mysterious, and at the very least, wishes us no particular harm.

i don't believe christianity as such, nor islam, nor even buddhism, really know entirely what the hell they are talking about. not that what anything with a dominant fallowing that has had one long enough to have been coerced in its very nature by the short sighted gullibility of collective human coerciveness, has. nor in the inhierent bennificence of hierarchy in any form, which they all, in some sense or another, seem to be pushing even more strongly then their putative claims of wanting people, of encouraging people, which to some degree, the honest religeous leaders among them do, to want to avoid causing suffering and harm.

one of the big problems there is that wanting to avoid causing suffering, espicially when the dominance of hierarchy is promoted ahead of it, but even if that issue were entirely aside and not there, that wanting to avoid causing suffering is NOT the same as actually not doing so!

people need to understand that it's not just to make themselves look good, or the possibly illusory hope of some eternal reward, but in their own personal and immediate, tangable, physical, in this world, best intrests, to avoid doing so.

when we forget, then tyrannies come along, and then, eventually, when people have worked their way our from under them and promise themselves and each other "never again", well we need to stop turning arround in a very few generations and forgetting all over again.

and the biggest self deception is to expect any kind of idiology, form of government, or even belief, or anything else to do it for us.

there could be a god. there could be anything. and are almost certain more and very different kinds of things then any of us have ever immagined.

if only because it is one very safe bet, that all we know, even all that is known by anything and everything with the capacity to know it, can never and will never, equal, all there is TO know.

=^^=
.../\...

Yes, we'll read a book you recommend that says Mother Teresa, probably the greatest human being to live in centuries, was a fraud. I'll get right on that.

I do appreciate the irony of a soon to be saint having a self documented crisis of faith.

We ARE talking about that woman who refused to give children available painkillers, cause "the suffering will bring them closer to god", are we?

Yes, we'll read a book you recommend that says Mother Teresa, probably the greatest human being to live in centuries, was a fraud. I'll get right on that.


You wouldn't read a book because it has a different viewpoint to you?

Meh so you say, can you back that up though?

"Only in heaven will we see how much we owe to the poor for helping us to love God better because of them."

"Only in heaven will we see how much we owe to the poor for helping us to love God better because of them."

So from that one line you infer what you said is true?

God exists, or at the very least enough people think God exists for it to matter to us. The effect is the same, whether God exists or not.

Would God exist if no one believed in it/him/her? No, but then most things won't. (trees, forests, sounds, etc.)

God exists, or at the very least enough people think God exists for it to matter to us. The effect is the same, whether God exists or not.

Would God exist if no one believed in it/him/her? No, but then most things won't. (trees, forests, sounds, etc.)

Heh I see where you are going with this, but really the world would still exist if we did not exist.

The advocated idea that because of impoverished conditions and inequality, that one will be better off if they are 'spiritually' rich rather then economically rich, was an idea propagated by fascists and theocrat preachers to justify 'class collaboration'.

The advocated idea that because of impoverished conditions and inequality, that one will be better off if they are 'spiritually' rich rather then economically rich, was an idea propagated by fascists and theocrat preachers to justify 'class collaboration'.

Yeah them bloody Bhuddists!

Would God exist if no one believed in it/him/her? No, but then most things won't. (trees, forests, sounds, etc.)
Ah but you see, the concept of a god is an abstract concept, where as trees, forests and sounds aren't. We can see trees and forests (no comment about the blind, since most blind do have still have some vision), and we can measure sound.

So from that one line you infer what you said is true?

Nope. I can't find the exact quotation I was looking for, but armed with the knowledge that the poor and the suffering were given minimal palliative care or direct aid by her order and were instead used as spectacles of suffering in order to trigger empty feelings of empathy in the nuns it makes the whole thing pretty darn clear.

Mother Teresa was not primarily interested in aiding the poor and the suffering for the sake of alleviating their woes, instead because it was seen by her as an allegory of Christ's suffering. It was perceived as a second-hand experience of the will of God.

Answer me this: what tangible improvements in the lot of the downtrodden did Mother Teresa actually achieve?

We can see trees and forests (no comment about the blind, since most blind do have still have some vision), and we can measure sound.

We measure the light bouncing off trees, and its crashing sound by the movement of air.

Can we not measure God by its effect on human beings?

(Land of the tea-time philosophers :p)

Answer me this: what tangible improvements in the lot of the downtrodden did Mother Teresa actually achieve?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Missionaries_of_Charity

Nope. I can't find the exact quotation I was looking for, but armed with the knowledge that the poor and the suffering were given minimal palliative care or direct aid by her order and were instead used as spectacles of suffering in order to trigger empty feelings of empathy in the nuns it makes the whole thing pretty darn clear.

Mother Teresa was not primarily interested in aiding the poor and the suffering for the sake of alleviating their woes, instead because it was seen by her as an allegory of Christ's suffering. It was perceived as a second-hand experience of the will of God.

Answer me this: what tangible improvements in the lot of the downtrodden did Mother Teresa actually achieve?

You may be right, you know I really have not studied her, so I shall bow to your seemingly better knowledge.

meh, as Hitchens rightly wrote, she was a fanatic and fraud.

And according to some neo-nazi's, there was never any industrial murder machines run by the 3rd Reich. According to some conspiracy theorists, there never was any moon landing. According to some fundamentalists, the world is flat. According to some ignorant people, the Soviet Union was a land of fluffy bunnies and equality.

Doesn't make them right. Neither does it make Hitchens right.

Am I supposed to be surprised that a woman as dishonest and manipulative as Mother Teresa was also misrepresenting her much-vaunted faith?

The advocated idea that because of impoverished conditions and inequality, that one will be better off if they are 'spiritually' rich rather then economically rich, was an idea propagated by fascists and theocrat preachers to justify 'class collaboration'.

Claims the self professed "communist advocate" where "solidarity with the party" trumps economic gain.

Hypocrite.

The advocated idea that because of impoverished conditions and inequality, that one will be better off if they are 'spiritually' rich rather then economically rich, was an idea propagated by fascists and theocrat preachers to justify 'class collaboration'.

this may be partially or even mostly true, but the problem, the question, goes back many MILLINEA before the context in which you mention it. Looooooooong before the was such a concept as fascism or anything resembling the monothiesm of the past few millinium were even tought of.

and while the concept of spiritual wealth may be somewhat illusory, what about REAL GRATIFICTION?

riddle me this mr wizzard: is the accumulation of SYMBOLIC value, or trying to impress anyone, REALLY MORE GRATIFYING then the REAL gratifictions of creating and exploring?

so you see there IS a bit more to this, then mere immediate questions of idiology, whatever the role organized belief in it.

i'm not talking about the illusory pie in the sky religeons are offering, i'm talking about real versus illusory gratifications in the here and now.

and the error of SYMBOLIC wealth as end rather then merely one useful means, which realisticly it is neither more nor less then.

=^^=
.../\...

Dunno if this link will work, but it's an old thread that talked a bit about her.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12472256&highlight=mother+teresa#post12472256

Here's one of my posts from that thread:

Then if true that really is disgusting.

You may be right, you know I really have not studied her, so I shall bow to your seemingly better knowledge.
Dunno if this link will work, but it's an old thread that talked a bit about her.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12472256&highlight=mother+teresa#post12472256

Here's one of my posts from that thread:

[Mother Teresa] misappropriated funds that were donated to help the poor, using them instead to build recruiting centers and nunneries that did nothing to actually help the people that the money was supposed to be helping.

She fetishized suffering, and believed that suffering brought people closer to Christ, so her "Home For The Dying" and other such centers did NOTHING to help the people that came there. They had raw pallets to lie on, and were not permitted visits from family or friends, and were provided with essentially no medical care at all. They just lay there and suffered. Mother Teresa and her nuns were primarily just concerned about converting the dying to Catholicism, not with alleviating their suffering. They also failed to distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so they actually allowed people to die needlessly.

She received honors from the Duvalier family of Haiti, and insisted that they loved the poor and were beloved by the poor as well. Read up on those assholes, and explain to me exactly what their "love for the poor" is worth.

Her "missionaries of Charity" refuse to allow public access to their financial records, and they're the only major charity in India to have such secrecy about their finances.

Mother Teresa also was fanatically opposed to fundamental human rights for women. She described abortion as the single greatest threat to world peace, and actively campaigned against safe, legal reproductive health care for women, even though such health care is single handedly the best way to improve the health, safety, and status of women around the world.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Then if true that really is disgusting.
All of the above are from a book by Christopher Hitchens, a self-described anti-theist, and has been highly criticized.

Take it with a very large grain of salt.

:sniper:Nice on the personal attacks, I suggest you read Hitchens book on her.

Hitchens is one of the biggest phonies in the media. Anything he say's has to be taken with a grain (or two) of salt.

maybe she was having a bad day.

I have felt like that before, doesn't make me a fraud (or at least I hope it doesn't).

Yes, we'll read a book you recommend that says Mother Teresa, probably the greatest human being to live in centuries, was a fraud. I'll get right on that.

I do appreciate the irony of a soon to be saint having a self documented crisis of faith.

Well, she supported Indhira Gandhi's famous state of emergency. My mom was in college there at the time. A few of her journalism profs were arrested. Mother Teresa: "Everyone is happy." But having a crisis of faith doesn't make you a fraud.

Well, she supported Indhira Gandhi's famous state of emergency. My mom was in college there at the time. A few of her journalism profs were arrested. Mother Teresa: "Everyone is happy." But having a crisis of faith doesn't make you a fraud.

Gandhi said that people shouldn't resist the Nazis. People are kooky, doesn't mean they don't do good work.

Please, I would encourage NSGers to read Hitchens book, you will be amazed.

In fact, I would encourage people to read up on the history of 'you'll get pie in the sky when you die' right-wing preachers and their campaign to stop unions getting workers basic human rights, etc etc...

Gandhi said that people shouldn't resist the Nazis. People are kooky, doesn't mean they don't do good work.

Mmm, true. I just think it was bad idea, and a bad statement to make. But take note, that Gandhi is more revered over here than in India itself.

meh, as Hitchens rightly wrote, she was a fanatic and fraud.

Hitchens is a giant blubbering vagina.

What kind of man waits until after an elderly woman, who dedicated her life to serving others dies, and then writes a book defaming her in order to make a quick buck?

Of course she doubted her faith in God, everyone does at some point.

This article and his book are merely pornography for athiests.

Hitchens is a giant blubbering vagina.

What kind of man waits until after an elderly woman, who dedicated her life to serving others dies, and then writes a book defaming her in order to make a quick buck?

The fact that the book was published in 1995 and that Mother Teresa only died in 1997 appears to have escaped your attention. But, hey, why let mere facts get in the way of your own stream of invective?

I actually have difficulty believing that Hitchens actually comes close to what can be called a a reliable source, or even just a source. I am troubled by the fact that people would actually give his writings even an ounce of credibility. Do people on NSG actually understand the idea that you "shouldn't believe everything you read?", one of the most fundamental approaches to acquiring knowledge.

I actually have difficulty believing that Hitchens actually comes close to what can be called a a reliable source, or even just a source. I am troubled by the fact that people would actually give his writings even an ounce of credibility. Do people on NSG actually understand the idea that you "shouldn't believe everything you read?", one of the most fundamental approaches to acquiring knowledge.

Now you say that and expect people to belive you!?:eek:

Do people on NSG actually understand the idea that you "shouldn't believe everything you read?", one of the most fundamental approaches to acquiring knowledge.

The other fundamental approach is to actually rebut potentially false claims through argument, rather than just rejecting them out of hand through essentially ad hominem assertions.

Hitchens is a giant blubbering vagina.

What a stunning intellect you have. Such cogent arguments...

The other fundamental approach is to actually rebut potentially false claims through argument, rather than just rejecting them out of hand through essentially ad hominem assertions.

Ad hominem, attack the person not the argument. Can you not see any example where this would be a good thing?

What kind of man waits until after an elderly woman, who dedicated her life to serving others dies, and then writes a book defaming her in order to make a quick buck?



Plenty (http://search.ebay.com/mother-teresa_W0QQ_trksidZm37), apparently.

What a stunning intellect you have. Such cogent arguments...
Indeed.

The other fundamental approach is to actually rebut potentially false claims through argument, rather than just rejecting them out of hand through essentially ad hominem assertions.

I'm too lazy ;) (hung over)

Please, I would encourage NSGers to read Hitchens book, you will be amazed.


Why am I not surprised to find you read a book written by someone who confesses that he does most of his writing drunk?

maybe she was having a bad day.

I have felt like that before, doesn't make me a fraud (or at least I hope it doesn't).I don't think it was a just a bad day. It seems to me that it was more like a bad couple of decades.

I don't think it was a just a bad day. It seems to me that it was more like a bad couple of decades.

when you see horrible things, sometimes faith doesn't come easy.

I get told over and over that the "non-religious" don't like the religious because we refuse to question our faith, and then as soon as someone does, they get called a fraud.

Seems like hypocrisy.

Why am I not surprised to find you read a book written by someone who confesses that he does most of his writing drunk?

Why don't you stop whining about the author and rebut some of his arguments? It's been known for years that Teresa was more interested in winning souls than she was in helping people or easing poverty; there was even a book written by one of her former nuns IIRC which levels pretty much the same accusations at her.

Guess what, if you have half a brain, at some point you will question your beliefs. Its human nature to question things, especially if its a down period for us. For almost 10 years of my life, I was in church, and seemed to be a happy little christian, but inside I despised God, and didn't want to believe in him. Of course, now we have reconciled. But hey, that stuff happens.

when you see horrible things, sometimes faith doesn't come easy.

I get told over and over that the "non-religious" don't like the religious because we refuse to question our faith, and then as soon as someone does, they get called a fraud.

Seems like hypocrisy.

I might be getting the wrong end of the stick entirely here, but all of the accusations of fraudulence' seem to be directed at her pretence to be working for the poor rather than her professions of faith. That was certainly the sense in which my post was meant, as there is good evidence that she denied people medical treatment on the grounds that suffering brought them closer to God (although she got state of the art medical care when she was ill IIRC).

For almost 10 years of my life, I was in church, and seemed to be a happy little christian, but inside I despised God, and didn't want to believe in him. Of course, now we have reconciled. But hey, that stuff happens.

Was there alimony? Do you still get together for dinner occasionally?

And as for Mother Teresa...I have not done enough research to create a solid opinion at this time. And I will not turn to any "books" on the subject, particularly those written by either:

A: Staunch Catholics

B: Self-Styled Anti-Theists

OBJECTIVITY GENTLEMEN!

Do not see just what you want to see.

Guess what, if you have half a brain, at some point you will question your beliefs. Its human nature to question things, especially if its a down period for us. For almost 10 years of my life, I was in church, and seemed to be a happy little christian, but inside I despised God, and didn't want to believe in him. Of course, now we have reconciled. But hey, that stuff happens.

Yeah, but you're a kid. And if god could only forgive one thing, I'm sure it would be teen angst. ;)

when you see horrible things, sometimes faith doesn't come easy.

I get told over and over that the "non-religious" don't like the religious because we refuse to question our faith, and then as soon as someone does, they get called a fraud.

Seems like hypocrisy.Normally, I don't get offended on these forums. But, your implication that I'm a hypocrite seems to have struck a chord. This is probably being down to my respect for you and that I don't think it's true in any way.

I haven't ever called you a fraud. I might not think you are right, but I respect your faith and the strength that you draw from it. And I wouldn't dream of trying to take that away from you. Over the past few years I have tried to treat people regardless of their faith or political ideology, and instead with regards to their deeds.

Mother Teresa was worked in Calcutta from 1949 until her death, corresponding with that same period there are many letters in which she describes the emptiness she feels, about not being in touch with God, and calls herself a hypocrite.

I don't think this was any small crisis of faith.

Given the fact that no one can prove/disprove the existence of a god or The God and any number of gods, you would have to be a mindless drone to never doubt your belief in a god or lack there of. Ultimately it turns into a question of what does one wish to believe. When it comes to Mother Teresa, who cares what her motives were. She did as good of a job as she could and her "denials" of treatments were typically for practical resaons but she tried to give words of hope and inspiration to those people. If someone wishes to criticize her work because of her limitations, so be it. People can say what they wish.

Good opinion Bolol. Objectivity is definitely where people need to reside. I hate people who pick battles on the theism question because they are easy targets.

As I recall, it's in the Bible that Jesus had a crisis of faith in the garden...

"Hey, if it's all the same to you, I'd appreciate it if I didn't have to get whipped and nailed up..."

Or the more sulky 'Why me Dad? Waaaaa.'

Yes, we'll read a book you recommend that says Mother Teresa, probably the greatest human being to live in centuries, was a fraud. I'll get right on that.

I do appreciate the irony of a soon to be saint having a self documented crisis of faith.

As I recall, it's in the Bible that Jesus had a crisis of faith in the garden...

"Hey, if it's all the same to you, I'd appreciate it if I didn't have to get whipped and nailed up..."

I might be getting the wrong end of the stick entirely here, but all of the accusations of fraudulence' seem to be directed at her pretence to be working for the poor rather than her professions of faith. That was certainly the sense in which my post was meant, as there is good evidence that she denied people medical treatment on the grounds that suffering brought them closer to God (although she got state of the art medical care when she was ill IIRC).

I can't really defend Mother Theresa because I disagreed with her on a lot of stuff. My mention of hypocrisy was a "general you" type of thing and wasn't meant to anyone specific. I don't think it was a minor crisis of faith but just because someone often has an overwhelming feeling that things suck, doesn't mean they lie about everything either.

Ah but you see, the concept of a god is an abstract concept, where as trees, forests and sounds aren't. We can see trees and forests (no comment about the blind, since most blind do have still have some vision), and we can measure sound.

Spend some time studying the way humans interact with their environment on a fundamental level. Focus in particular on the nature of sense and perception and you may find that this view is not only misguided but flies in the face of anything we might call "reliable evidence." The whole of our existence is illusury.

EDIT: not to mention that the assertion that God is an abstract concept while trees are sounds aren't is a bold but unsupportable claim by it's nature. This is not to say it isn't true, but it's not meaningful because it's based entirely on your own perception.

Dunno if this link will work, but it's an old thread that talked a bit about her.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12472256&highlight=mother+teresa#post12472256

Here's one of my posts from that thread:

She misappropriated funds that were donated to help the poor, using them instead to build recruiting centers and nunneries that did nothing to actually help the people that the money was supposed to be helping.

She fetishized suffering, and believed that suffering brought people closer to Christ, so her "Home For The Dying" and other such centers did NOTHING to help the people that came there. They had raw pallets to lie on, and were not permitted visits from family or friends, and were provided with essentially no medical care at all. They just lay there and suffered. Mother Teresa and her nuns were primarily just concerned about converting the dying to Catholicism, not with alleviating their suffering. They also failed to distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so they actually allowed people to die needlessly.

She received honors from the Duvalier family of Haiti, and insisted that they loved the poor and were beloved by the poor as well. Read up on those assholes, and explain to me exactly what their "love for the poor" is worth.

Her "missionaries of Charity" refuse to allow public access to their financial records, and they're the only major charity in India to have such secrecy about their finances.

Mother Teresa also was fanatically opposed to fundamental human rights for women. She described abortion as the single greatest threat to world peace, and actively campaigned against safe, legal reproductive health care for women, even though such health care is single handedly the best way to improve the health, safety, and status of women around the world.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
I see that no one bothered to challenge you on what you have written about Mother Theresa.......I guess I will be the exception.

The fact that the book was published in 1995 and that Mother Teresa only died in 1997 appears to have escaped your attention. But, hey, why let mere facts get in the way of your own stream of invective?

Yup. My bad. I did a quick search on his book title and could have sworn it said published in 2002.

Apparently this blubbering, drunk vagina just waited until she was old, feeble and sick to attack her in order to make a quick buck.

I see that no one bothered to challenge you on what you written about Mother Theresa.......I guess I will be the exception.

I think no one bothered challenging Bottle because it was just a bunch of unsupported claims.

Nice on the personal attacks, I suggest you read Hitchens book on her.
He's right, you shouldn't attack people personally. Instead, you should write the attacks and sell them as books.

She had a crisis of faith. There is a difference between having a crisis of faith and being an atheist. If you never have any doubts in your faith, there is something wrong there.

She is even more admiral to me because of her doubt. She did all these good works without being sure she would be rewarded for them. She 100% deserves Sainthood. She is perhaps the greatest human being of her century.

meh, as Hitchens rightly wrote, she was a fanatic and fraud.

This is probably the only thing you'd ever cite Hitchens for.

As far as I'm concerned, Christopher Hitchens is just a noisy, angry attention whore.

He's right, you shouldn't attack people personally. Instead, you should write the attacks and sell them as books.

Fantastic!

If I was a lamer I'd quote you in my sig.

:)

Fantastic!

If I was a lamer I'd quote you in my sig.

:)Right. Because when it comes to personality cults, it's really not legitimate to debate the character of them....

But thanks for playing.

I think no one bothered challenging Bottle because it was just a bunch of unsupported claims.

If it's unsupported claims then surely it's easy to dispute.

If it's unsupported claims then surely it's easy to dispute.

I would dispute it but I don't want to grave dig. Also, she is spinning these assertions to make them sound worse then they actually are.

If Mother Theresa were so awful, why would we all know about her?
She probably did bad things, everyone does. But how do you explain the sheer amount of press coverage if she really was just an evil nun?

If Mother Theresa were so awful, why would we all know about her?
She probably did bad things, everyone does. But how do you explain the sheer amount of press coverage if she really was just an evil nun?

Evil Catholic propaganda.

You never see anyone actually attack the truth or logic of Hitchen's arguments. Hitchens makes specific factual criticisms against Mother Theresa and many well thought out and well presented philosophical objections to her. It seems the only way Mother Theresa defenders can possibly respond is with profane insults. Nice job.

You never see anyone actually attack the truth or logic of Hitchen's arguments.


Has one been presented?

Why don't you stop whining about the author and rebut some of his arguments? It's been known for years that Teresa was more interested in winning souls than she was in helping people or easing poverty; there was even a book written by one of her former nuns IIRC which levels pretty much the same accusations at her.

In debates and courts, it is the onus of the prosecutor/claimant to prove their claims. I see accusations, but no proof or attempt to do so far.

Right. Because when it comes to personality cults, it's really not legitimate to debate the character of them....

What you call a legitimate debate on personality cults, I call character assassination.


But thanks for playing.

Funny. Did you just make this up? Can I sig it?

Has one been presented?

Bottle presented 5 criticisms made by Hitchens. All are open for debate.

Bottle presented 5 criticisms made by Hitchens. All are open for debate.

And those criticisms were backed up by what proof?

Anyone can say Mother Teresa made dying people sleep on pallets. Where's the proof?

Oh wait, there is none. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/HomeForTheDying-Calcutta.jpg)

And how can she be accused of not opening her books and misappropiating funds at the same time?

Meh, I'd do her anyway.

Meh, I'd do her anyway.

You win the thread.

But...:eek:

You never see anyone actually attack the truth or logic of Hitchen's arguments. Hitchens makes specific factual criticisms against Mother Theresa and many well thought out and well presented philosophical objections to her. It seems the only way Mother Theresa defenders can possibly respond is with profane insults. Nice job.
Only with profane insults? Not really. Debate should always be about searching for the truth.

Now you claim that "Hitchens makes specific factual criticisms against Mother Theresa" What "specific facts" can you present to this debate that will undeniably support your/his criticisms of Mother Theresa?

Mother T. was a thief, a liar, and a sadist. Have you ever seen that home for the dying? That's all it is. You can't see your family, there's just one big toilet everyone has to use, all you get is a cot, there are no doctors. Going there is a death sentence, you don't get better, you just suffer and die according to catholic doctrine. Mother T. did nothing but hobnob with rich folks who usually had no idea their money, more often than not, ended up building nunneries and churches rather than help poor people. How anyone can still look at her and think she was good is difficult to understand.

Anyone can say Mother Teresa made dying people sleep on pallets. Where's the proof?

Oh wait, there is none. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/HomeForTheDying-Calcutta.jpg)

I see about twenty pallets in that picture: what do you see?

Mother T. was a thief, a liar, and a sadist. Have you ever seen that home for the dying? That's all it is. You can't see your family, there's just one big toilet everyone has to use, all you get is a cot, there are no doctors. Going there is a death sentence, you don't get better, you just suffer and die according to catholic doctrine. Mother T. did nothing but hobnob with rich folks who usually had no idea their money, more often than not, ended up building nunneries and churches rather than help poor people. How anyone can still look at her and think she was good is difficult to understand.
Now that you have made a great deal of claims, can you support them?

Nice on the personal attacks, I suggest you read Hitchens book on her.

Funnier even since "Teresa" wasn't in her name at all. :p

Now that you have made a great deal of claims, can you support them?
If you're not going to read the book then at least watch the condensed version in Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Or better yet, look at some photos of the place. Those people aren't getting better, they aren't even getting help. And no one is stopping you from going to that little hell hole to see for yourself the unmitigated suffering of the people there.

And since I'm on a roll, Ghandi was a racist who slept with underage girls and liked giving enemas. But then racism was normal at that time and Ghandi did a lot of good for the world, he was very wise and set India free from the Brits with non-violent protest. He hated Africans and even wrote "The kaffirs (niggers) sole ambition in life is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness." Now while writing some nasty things about Africans is something to be frowned on not much can compare with the Supreme Court backing segregation laws and the rash of lynchings in the US. He did a lot of good in his life, he just wasn't a saint and never claimed to be.

The Dalai Lama is really terrible. Before the Chinese took over Tibet the priests reigned supreme over the serfs. The priests got to live in a palace of luxury while the pile of slaves toiled away in misery. Then the rotten commies came in and kicked out his holiness and introduced running water, secular education, electricity, and a seriously fucked up socio-economic philosophy...and started throwing people in labor camps and stamped out whatever free speech existed before. So it wasn't all good. That doesn't change the fact that the Dalai Lama is a dictator that just wants his slaves back.

The topic title is very misleading. Mother Theresa believed in God, even if she couldn't feel the presence of God and was very disturbed by her inability to do.

Here's a longer article on the subject:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html

:sniper:

Hitchens is one of the biggest phonies in the media. Anything he say's has to be taken with a grain (or two) of salt.

this explains why i've never heard of him nor his book.

i take corporate media itself with a very large grain of salt, when i take it at all, which is seldom.

=^^=
.../\...

Now that you have made a great deal of claims, can you support them?

If you're not going to read the book then at least watch the condensed version in Penn & Teller: Bullshit! Or better yet, look at some photos of the place. Those people aren't getting better, they aren't even getting help. And no one is stopping you from going to that little hell hole to see for yourself the unmitigated suffering of the people there.

And since I'm on a roll, Ghandi was a racist who slept with underage girls and liked giving enemas. But then racism was normal at that time and Ghandi did a lot of good for the world, he was very wise and set India free from the Brits with non-violent protest. He hated Africans and even wrote "The kaffirs (niggers) sole ambition in life is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness." Now while writing some nasty things about Africans is something to be frowned on not much can compare with the Supreme Court backing segregation laws and the rash of lynchings in the US. He did a lot of good in his life, he just wasn't a saint and never claimed to be.

The Dalai Lama is really terrible. Before the Chinese took over Tibet the priests reigned supreme over the serfs. The priests got to live in a palace of luxury while the pile of slaves toiled away in misery. Then the rotten commies came in and kicked out his holiness and introduced running water, secular education, electricity, and a seriously fucked up socio-economic philosophy...and started throwing people in labor camps and stamped out whatever free speech existed before. So it wasn't all good. That doesn't change the fact that the Dalai Lama is a dictator that just wants his slaves back.
Yeah, I guess you are on a roll? I asked you to support your claims and you just added more unsupported claims. However, it was kinda nice of you to concede that "Ghandi did a lot of good for the world". He was a good guy but....huh?

Funnier even since "Teresa" wasn't in her name at all. :p
Yes well I know it is long and hard to pronounce.

Yeah, I guess you are on a roll? I asked you to support your claims and you just added more unsupported claims. However, it was kinda nice of you to concede that "Ghandi did a lot of good for the world". He was a good guy but....huh?
First off, I told you to look at any photo of the interior of that place. I'm not stopping you from doing just that. Each and every one will reveal human misery that is not even being treated in the slightest. Photos, videos, books, papers, the internet, and reality can't all be wrong just because you want something to believe in. When something sounds to good to be true it is and Mother T. is no exception. Don't like Hitchens? Try Dr. Aroup Chatterjee's Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict. In west Calcutta, born and raised, in school is where he spent most of his days...seems he's been around to actually see what's what and has video of what he described one of the grimmest places imaginable. He even said "she was not a significant entity in Calcutta in her lifetime".

During her world travels she raised, by some accounts, $50 million but where did it go? Into about a hundred facilities around the world with her name and the name of her sadistic cult. Turn's out about half of that is nunneries and brothers homes, not shelters and soup kitchens. I'm not saying she never spent a dime on the poor, she just spent more than half of every dollar on Bibles and monks than bread and medicine. Kind of a bad habit. *dorky laugh*

The fact is that she thought that suffering brought people closer to God so rather than treat their misery any way possible, she would read to them from the Bible and tell them that when they die a horrible death God would reward them with a trip to a happy place in the clouds. She at least projected the idea that people should live in poor conditions so that both she and they could identify with one another and God; she thought to enlighten people they'd need to suffer. That makes her sadistic. This is not some wild accusation, there is video proof to back up the cruelty practiced at at least on of those homes for the dying, the flagship one in Calcutta.

And if you don't think that Ghandi hated Africans just read his own writings. Ghandi started a newspaper called the Indian Opinion where he wrote about the "Kaffir's" in four languages while in South Africa (Kaffir is considered a racial slur in South Africa). So yes, he was a racist, but that was a different time, a time during which racism was normal. So Ghandi was normal and not a saint. And he never claimed to be. It was only his followers that gave him that title. As I said, he was a wise guy and showed that there are other ways of dealing with a problem than with balls and bayonets. But none of that changes the fact that he said what he said and wrote what he wrote.

As for the Dalai Lama, Penn G. rips him new one on Showtime (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXRmPwWGwBA). Seems cruel and heartless but so is serfdom, torture, and lying.

Known for her devotion to the Christian God and to helping India's poor, excerpts from her diary reveal a 50-year-long crisis of faith.

"The damned of Hell suffer eternal punishment because they experiment with the loss of God.

"In my own soul, I feel the terrible pain of this loss. I feel that God does not want me, that God is not God and that he does not really exist."

She was also known for toeing the Papacy's line. If she had such doubt in God, then why was she such a vocal supporter of the Papacy and its views?

From the way she speaks about the loss of God, I believe it is because she feels that humans need an authority figure in their lives. For her, perhaps, it didn't matter whether this figure or from whence is derived its authority was illusory or not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/11/29/wteres29.xml


Even Jesus had a moment of doubt.

Even Jesus had a moment of doubt.
And I can understand why. Who'd want to worship a god who tells a guy to murder his son just to see if he'll really do it? Or a god that condones stoning disobediant children to death?

Yeah, that's actually in the Bible.

And I can understand why. Who'd want to worship a god who tells a guy to murder his son just to see if he'll really do it? Or a god that condones stoning disobediant children to death?

Yeah, that's actually in the Bible.

Speaking as a christian;

Fuck the Bible.

Speaking as a christian;

Fuck the Bible.
Wouldn't that give you a bad case of paper cuts in a very sensitive area though? ;)

Wouldn't that give you a bad case of paper cuts in a very sensitive area though? ;)

Some of those leatherbound bibles are pretty soft and supple. :)

And I can understand why. Who'd want to worship a god who tells a guy to murder his son just to see if he'll really do it? Or a god that condones stoning disobediant children to death?

Yeah, that's actually in the Bible.I'm guessing God's just a practical joker. Because it's not like anyone actually dies in Christianity. There's this lovely concept of life after death, which presumably means you didn't actually die and it was just some magician's illusion. For example, Jesus, only someone spotted him as he was making his getaway.

And when LG says Jesus had a moment of doubt, I'm just presume that was performance nerves before the final act. I mean, imagine being a magician's assistant. Must still scare you a little bit when ever he slides that razor sharp sheet of metal into the box - what it something breaks this time! :eek:


But anyway, Jesus may well have had a moment of doubt, but it seems Teresa had a lifetime of it.

Maybe I phrased the title of the thread badly, but I just wanted to share this interesting piece of information with NSG.

Wouldn't that give you a bad case of paper cuts in a very sensitive area though? ;)Have you ever seen or touched bible paper? Bible paper is to normal paper as communion wafers are to normal wafers.

Perhaps it has something to do with your physical material possessions weighing less, so therefore you kinda have less material possessions and therefore bringing you closer to God.

I'm guessing God's just a practical joker. Because it's not like anyone actually dies in Christianity. There's this lovely concept of life after death, which presumably means you didn't actually die and it was just some magician's illusion. For example, Jesus, only someone spotted him as he was making his getaway.

And when LG says Jesus had a moment of doubt, I'm just presume that was performance nerves before the final act. I mean, imagine being a magician's assistant. Must still scare you a little bit when ever he slides that razor sharp sheet of metal into the box - what it something breaks this time! :eek:


But anyway, Jesus may well have had a moment of doubt, but it seems Teresa had a lifetime of it.

Maybe I phrased the title of the thread badly, but I just wanted to share this interesting piece of information with NSG.

It does make me wonder if I find her doubts make her more heroic or less. Afterall, for someone 'going through the motions', she sure didn't take an easy path, did she? The commitment she showed in the face of her doubt is pretty extraordinary really. On the other hand, was her seemingly pious exterior a bit duplicitous? I think so. I suspect however that most people will overlook that flaw in her character. Afterall, she was human and not God.

Nope. I can't find the exact quotation I was looking for, but armed with the knowledge that the poor and the suffering were given minimal palliative care or direct aid by her order and were instead used as spectacles of suffering in order to trigger empty feelings of empathy in the nuns it makes the whole thing pretty darn clear.

Mother Teresa was not primarily interested in aiding the poor and the suffering for the sake of alleviating their woes, instead because it was seen by her as an allegory of Christ's suffering. It was perceived as a second-hand experience of the will of God.

Answer me this: what tangible improvements in the lot of the downtrodden did Mother Teresa actually achieve?

True. I am pleasantly surprised that you can see past the public image that she has.

Btw, her institution did lot of evangelical work...they would refuse taking in those who do not wish to convert.

Teresa was also against use of contraceptives.....like India needed more children..:rolleyes:

Have you ever seen or touched bible paper? Bible paper is to normal paper as communion wafers are to normal wafers.
Yup, and I have actually gotten paper cuts from it as well.

Perhaps it has something to do with your physical material possessions weighing less, so therefore you kinda have less material possessions and therefore bringing you closer to God.
I thought it was more about making a book that some thousand or so pages long not too heavy or unwieldy, but I honestly have no idea.

True. I am pleasantly surprised that you can see past the public image that she has.

Btw, her institution did lot of evangelical work...they would refuse taking in those who do not wish to convert.

Teresa was also against use of contraceptives.....like India needed more children..:rolleyes:

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

Btw, her institution did lot of evangelical work...they would refuse taking in those who do not wish to convert.
How odd then that, "Those brought to the home received medical attention and were afforded the opportunity to die with dignity, according to the rituals of their faith; Muslims were read the Quran, Hindus received water from the Ganges, and Catholics received the Last Rites."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Missionaries_of_Charity

Sounds like she was taking in everyone.

How odd then that, "Those brought to the home received medical attention and were afforded the opportunity to die with dignity, according to the rituals of their faith; Muslims were read the Quran, Hindus received water from the Ganges, and Catholics received the Last Rites."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Missionaries_of_Charity

Sounds like she was taking in everyone.

She definitely had her critics, but I don't see anybody else trying half as hard to help as she did. It's pretty easy to criticize from a warm house with a full belly.

How odd then that, "Those brought to the home received medical attention and were afforded the opportunity to die with dignity, according to the rituals of their faith; Muslims were read the Quran, Hindus received water from the Ganges, and Catholics received the Last Rites."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Missionaries_of_Charity

Sounds like she was taking in everyone.

Well, I have been to Calcutta. I have seen the place myself. I believe me than Wikipedia.

Well, I have been to Calcutta. I have seen the place myself. I believe me than Wikipedia.
:rolleyes: And you questioned everyone in there, took samples, and researched... AND this particular note is sourced in Wiki so... do you have a source for that?

It does make me wonder if I find her doubts make her more heroic or less. Afterall, for someone 'going through the motions', she sure didn't take an easy path, did she? The commitment she showed in the face of her doubt is pretty extraordinary really. On the other hand, was her seemingly pious exterior a bit duplicitous? I think so. I suspect however that most people will overlook that flaw in her character. Afterall, she was human and not God.Articulate as always. I don't think I'm so willing to overlook this flaw, as you put it. Her commitment to her the vulnerable poor in Calcutta is incredible. But to be such a staunch supporter of the Roman Catholic Church when such doubt exists is duplicitous to say the least. I just find it repulsive as I believe holding back from people is a very bad quality and can lead to all sorts of problems and misunderstandings. And on one level I find myself thinking of this quote 'A lie told often enough becomes the truth' of Lenin's.

:rolleyes: And you questioned everyone in there, took samples, and researched... AND this particular note is sourced in Wiki so... do you have a source for that?

You can roll your eyes for all I care.

I have been there. I have seen people getting baptised without even knowing what it is.

I do not have to believe what her PR people put in newspapers. Just because something is in media, it is not true. And just because wiki can point to that it does not become a "source".

I thought it was more about making a book that some thousand or so pages long not too heavy or unwieldy, but I honestly have no idea.I was being facetious. As far as I really know I believe the reason is to reduce production and distribution costs. Isn't the Bible the book that has sold the most copies worldwide? Therefore any reduction in weight is sure to save a lot of money, especially as it is often distributed for free.

I have to say it is strange that the pictures don't provide any support for the claims made to support her. Her beliefs seem to go against her actions as well.

So many people claim she did so much good though.

Hmm, I'll look into this further...

You can roll your eyes for all I care.

I have been there. I have seen people getting baptised without even knowing what it is.

I do not have to believe what her PR people put in newspapers. Just because something is in media, it is not true. And just because wiki can point to that it does not become a "source".
Yes, instead we must take the word of someone on the Internet whom, whenever ANYTHING about India comes up, has been there, done that, see it, knows it, and by God has the bloody t-shirt.

So unless you actually have a source, I'll take Wiki's word over you.

I was being facetious. As far as I really know I believe the reason is to reduce production and distribution costs. Isn't the Bible the book that has sold the most copies worldwide? Therefore any reduction in weight is sure to save a lot of money, especially as it is often distributed for free.
I know, I too was having my tongue planted firmly in my cheek. ;)

Yes, instead we must take the word of someone on the Internet whom, whenever ANYTHING about India comes up, has been there, done that, see it, knows it, and by God has the bloody t-shirt.

So unless you actually have a source, I'll take Wiki's word over you.

lol. It is not my fault that I actually have been there and know what I am talking about and you are naive and ignorant and have to rely on "sources".

You can visit that place and see for yourself. Short of that I cannot convince you of what I have personally seen.

Just because something has a URL it is not a fact. Especially when it comes to things about India where the English media is bogus and out of touch with ground reality.

She definitely had her critics, but I don't see anybody else trying half as hard to help as she did. It's pretty easy to criticize from a warm house with a full belly.
Yeah, I don't think that too many, perhaps none of her critics here would be able to do as much for the human race as she has done. Perhaps these critics need to re-examine their motives?

Yeah, I don't think that too many, perhaps none of her critics here would be able to do as much for the human race as she has done. Perhaps these critics need to re-examine their motives?
I think you'd be wrong about that.

Personally, I think Mother Teresa had an overwhelmingly negative net impact on the world. She did good sometimes, but she did a shitload of bad as well, and I think the bad outweighed the good by a significant margin.

I think my personal impact, thus far, has probably been rather neutral, with perhaps a slight edging into good due to my periodical fits of community spirit. By managing to not actively ruin the lives of other people, I'm automatically ahead of Mother Teresa. If you have managed to avoid spreading misinformation and lining your pockets at the expense of those in need, then you're ahead of her, too.

lol. It is not my fault that I actually have been there and know what I am talking about and you are naive and ignorant and have to rely on "sources".
Nope, it's called you are claiming that while visiting Calcutta you went into a death house and saw nuns both turning people away due to their religion and baptizing the dying (Something no one else has apparently seen) against their will.

AND add in the fact that you regularly go ape every time missionaries are mentioned on this board and I'd say you're full of it. You're about as reliable as DK on Muslim threads.

You can visit that place and see for yourself. Short of that I cannot convince you of what I have personally seen.
It's called finding a source.

Just because something has a URL it is not a fact. Especially when it comes to things about India where the English media is bogus and out of touch with ground reality.
Oh, of course. So since you speak English I MUST assume that you are out of touch. Thanks for confirming that for me.

Bah religious types are impossible to get to...might as well quit while you're ahead

I know, I too was having my tongue planted firmly in my cheek. ;)Argh. I curse the internet and its lack of non-verbal communication on forums.

I think you'd be wrong about that.

Personally, I think Mother Teresa had an overwhelmingly negative net impact on the world. She did good sometimes, but she did a shitload of bad as well, and I think the bad outweighed the good by a significant margin.

I think my personal impact, thus far, has probably been rather neutral, with perhaps a slight edging into good due to my periodical fits of community spirit. By managing to not actively ruin the lives of other people, I'm automatically ahead of Mother Teresa. If you have managed to avoid spreading misinformation and lining your pockets at the expense of those in need, then you're ahead of her, too.
What is this 'shitload' of bad you talk about? And how exactly does it outweigh the thousands of people she cared for over the years?

I think you'd be wrong about that.

Personally, I think Mother Teresa had an overwhelmingly negative net impact on the world. She did good sometimes, but she did a shitload of bad as well, and I think the bad outweighed the good by a significant margin.

I think my personal impact, thus far, has probably been rather neutral, with perhaps a slight edging into good due to my periodical fits of community spirit. By managing to not actively ruin the lives of other people, I'm automatically ahead of Mother Teresa. If you have managed to avoid spreading misinformation and lining your pockets at the expense of those in need, then you're ahead of her, too.
I am speechless. It is difficult to comprehend that someone superior to Mother Teresa has been hanging out with us lesser beings here at NSG!! We are truly blessed. :rolleyes:

I am speechless. It is difficult to comprehend that someone superior to Mother Teresa has been hanging out with us lesser beings here at NSG!! We are truly blessed. :rolleyes:
I see you missed my point.

I think Mother Teresa was an opportunist. I think she exploited people. I think that she did more harm than good.

The only reason I think I'm a "better" person than her is because I've managed to not harm as many people as she did. That's not really something I view as an accomplishment. I don't think anybody should feel "superior" simply because they manage to avoid fucking over the poor and the sick. That's like expecting a medal for not punching a crippled toddler.

As I said clearly in my previous post, if you have managed to avoid actively fucking over your fellow humans then you are also "superior" to Mother Teresa, as far as I'm concerned. I made it very clear that I don't consider myself a particularly glorious person, so your attempt at wit falls rather flat.

What is this 'shitload' of bad you talk about? And how exactly does it outweigh the thousands of people she cared for over the years?

1) She didn't care for thousands of people.
2) I've already listed some of the lousy activities she was involved with.

Like I have said, I do think she did some good things in her life. I simply think she did more bad than good. I think the good she did was done because it was in her best interests, and when it wasn't in her best interests she didn't do good. That doesn't take away that she did good, it just means that she wasn't the saint she is portrayed as, and it means that you don't get to earn the right to be an asshole by doing good deeds. If you do a good thing on Monday but then you go out and act like a jerk on Tuesday, you don't get to claim that you weren't being a jerk because you did something nice earlier on. The bad doesn't wipe out the good, but the good doesn't wipe out the bad. A person's life is the SUM of their actions.

A person's life is the SUM of their actions.
And God will be the final judge as to who will be awarded the gold stars. My money is on Mother Teresa being one of them. :)

Nope, it's called you are claiming that while visiting Calcutta you went into a death house and saw nuns both turning people away due to their religion and baptizing the dying (Something no one else has apparently seen) against their will.

Well, I have been there more than a few times, Einstein.

I worked in Jamshedpur for over a year and I used to take Ispat express to Calcutta atleast once a month. Had a lot of co-workers from there and I used to go back with them. One person was involved in a charity work affiliated with MoC. That's how I know the workings of that place.



AND add in the fact that you regularly go ape every time missionaries are mentioned on this board and I'd say you're full of it. You're about as reliable as DK on Muslim threads.

err...I guess I am not bothered.


Oh, of course. So since you speak English I MUST assume that you are out of touch. Thanks for confirming that for me.

Now you are being stupid.

English media = newspapers etc in English != me speaking or writing in English.

Again, I can't help that you are taken in with what you read online and think that anything online must be true.

I know next to nothing about Japanese society and although I can read about Japan, I would still consider what a native who has a lot of experience there has to say about it. I won't decide one way or the other, but I would certainly keep both in mind.

baptizing the dying (Something no one else has apparently seen) against their will.

No, not against their will...I did not say that. I said that they do not know that they were being baptised. Like, I said, short of seeing it for yourselves, I cannot convince you of what's going on in these sort of places.

I must say that this is not the only place...or even the only religious place that does these sorts of things which are not in the open..but known only to insiders. The Kanchi math of hindus is a very revered place. The leader of that place Jayendra is a womaniser. This will never get out in the media....but every women in Kanchi knows and keeps out of that place.

Wow. Mother Teresa questioned her faith. That's terrible.

Especially when you consider that Peter, who (according to the Bible) was divinely inspired to recognize Jesus as the Son of God, publicly denied Him three times. Of course, the Catholics really took him to task about that rather small incident and thus don't really honor him. ;)

1) She didn't care for thousands of people.
How many people did she care for over her life then? What about the thousands, possibily millions, that were fed, because of her? Not disputing the criticism, but I would say that she still a helluva lot more good than bad.

Of course, the Catholics really took him to task about that rather small incident and thus don't really honor him. ;)

By golly, better not piss off the catholics, or we might start carrying 'round blankies with diseases or bombing places in Europe or polishing up Torquemada's "persuasion" tools. Don't want to have them not honor me, no sir. I might even feel strangely outshined by their shimmering ceremonial garb. Or their choice in pontiff.

I am a Catholic and i beleive i always will be. Even so i disagree with some of the things the church has to do with. But i beleive that people beleive in The God or a god because it makes them feel like part of a group, a good person, and if you are a Christian Jew or Muslim that you will be awarded in heavan. I beleive that there is one God and Jesus is his son and Moses, Abraham, Noah are all men who have had a spiritual contact with The God. I can't make other people beleive in what i beleive with out making them feel uncomfortable. Its called Faith for a reason. Faith means to beleive in something.

Atheists all waysmade me confused because they doubt God but they will beleive in ghosts, which unless im wrong is a person who has dies and passed onto the other world isnt that also called a spirit which is the main part of Spiritual. They will also say they wont beleive in something they dont see,hear or has any proof this even gets me more confused because some of them beleive in aliens which there isnt much proof in the fact. You cant physically see or hear God, but there is more prood in God than there is in other things like ancient china, Timbuktu, Alexandras library, or even the recent founded city of Troy. Look in every town in america at least 90% of towns have a church or temple, there is a book written by people in quotes from ancient text. I know this brings up the idea that you shouldent beleive everything you read but its just as real as storys of ancient china. The evidence is there people just look closer.

In the idea of Mother Theresa being a fraud, or "bad person". do you stop when you see a homeless person sleeping on the streets and give them food, do you stop and give people hope. if you had the ability to give a random person you have never met in your life medicine which is very hard to get would you. So think of what Mother Theresa did and what you didnt do that is a Act of Random Kindness which is the basis of most lawful relegions.

I know that someone is thinking this guy is close minded and that hes only protecting himself and his own group. so comment me all you want but i know what i beleive in and if you dont beleive at all what does that show....

Atheists all waysmade me confused because they doubt God but they will beleive in ghosts, which unless im wrong is a person who has dies and passed onto the other world isnt that also called a spirit which is the main part of Spiritual.

You know what's funnier, people that believe in "god"/"the son"/"the holy ghost" while simultaneously *NOT* believing in UFOs or even, paradoxically, ghosts. :confused:

Yes, they exist. They've even posted on NS before.

I know next to nothing about Japanese society and although I can read about Japan, I would still consider what a native who has a lot of experience there has to say about it. I won't decide one way or the other, but I would certainly keep both in mind.
Relying too heavily on the experience of "natives" can leave you feeling short changed. For example, there have been many Canadians posting here and after reading their posts, I have wondered if they truly live here, seeing that their "reality" of Canada is quite a bit different from my reality.

Well, I have been there more than a few times, Einstein.

I worked in Jamshedpur for over a year and I used to take Ispat express to Calcutta atleast once a month. Had a lot of co-workers from there and I used to go back with them. One person was involved in a charity work affiliated with MoC. That's how I know the workings of that place.
Oh, so now you DIDN'T actually see it, you just rode on a train with someone who claimed to be a part of it.

What's next, you got told by your cousin who heard it from a close personal friend, who got it from a guy at a bar?

Now you are being stupid.

English media = newspapers etc in English != me speaking or writing in English.
Given that one of the working languages in India IS English...

Again, I can't help that you are taken in with what you read online and think that anything online must be true.
You didn't even bother to check. Fine. That particular quote comes from:
Spink, Kathryn (1997). Mother Teresa: A Complete Authorized Biography. New York. HarperCollins, pp.55. ISBN 0-06-250825-3.

So, good, reputable, publishing company vs. Some guy on the Internet.

I know next to nothing about Japanese society and although I can read about Japan, I would still consider what a native who has a lot of experience there has to say about it. I won't decide one way or the other, but I would certainly keep both in mind.
The problem is that so far in every thread that has popped up about India, you have claimed first hand knowledge even in the face of other sources without ever backing up your claims with something beyond "I say so".

No, not against their will...I did not say that. I said that they do not know that they were being baptised. Like, I said, short of seeing it for yourselves, I cannot convince you of what's going on in these sort of places.
So the people didn't know, but somehow YOU did? Wow!

I must say that this is not the only place...or even the only religious place that does these sorts of things which are not in the open..but known only to insiders. The Kanchi math of hindus is a very revered place. The leader of that place Jayendra is a womaniser. This will never get out in the media....but every women in Kanchi knows and keeps out of that place.
Ah, this is an "Everybody knows" thing. Well, if everybody knows then you should have no problem finding something that backs you up.

You know what's funnier, people that believe in "god"/"the son"/"the holy ghost" while simultaneously *NOT* believing in UFOs or even, paradoxically, ghosts. :confused:

Yes, they exist. They've even posted on NS before.

Wow, your right, it does seem like a big contradiction that people who claim to be monotheistic simultaneously worship 3 gods.

You know what's funnier, people that believe in "god"/"the son"/"the holy ghost" while simultaneously *NOT* believing in UFOs or even, paradoxically, ghosts. :confused:

Yes, they exist. They've even posted on NS before.

We have UFO's posting on NS? :eek:

We have UFO's posting on NS? :eek:

I suppose there's an appropriate fitting to the acronym, yes.
Any takers? :p

Wow, your right, it does seem like a big contradiction that people who claim to be monotheistic simultaneously worship 3 gods.

I hope they don't take it personally if logic doesn't wanna hang out with them much.
:(

Wow, your right, it does seem like a big contradiction that people who claim to be monotheistic simultaneously worship 3 gods.

Don't forget all the dead saints who are revered also and capable of doing miracles.

Don't forget all the dead saints who are revered also and capable of doing miracles.

Not a lot of miracles happen from dead people, actually.

FIELD TRIP!
So ... who's volunteering for the control group?


...



....?

Not a lot of miracles happen from dead people, actually.

Except from Zombie Jesus.

Except from Zombie Jesus.

And Zombie Reagan! :eek:
http://www.zombiereagan.com/street/portrait.jpg

And Zombie Reagan! :eek:
http://www.zombiereagan.com/street/portrait.jpg

I can see the public address now.

"My fellow Ameri-BRAAAAIIINNSSS"

I can see the public address now.

"My fellow Ameri-BRAAAAIIINNSSS":D

You know how much i would've preferred that to MOST of his public addresses?
*grrr*

Reflects my opinions on the issue. Growing up in south India and reading about Calcutta..sorry Kolkota...I was surprised by the diversity of things there when I first visited.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/opinion/05banerji.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Poor Calcutta
By CHITRITA BANERJI

Cambridge, Mass.

ONE morning in January 1997, I walked into my office at a nonprofit group here after a visit to my hometown, Calcutta. A very senior colleague, whom I would have, until then, characterized as being the “sensitive” sort, greeted me: “Welcome back. And how is everyone in Calcutta — still starving and being looked after by Mother Teresa?”

At first I thought this might be a bad attempt at humor, but I soon realized that my colleague was seriously inquiring about my city’s suffering humanity and its ministering angel — the only images Calcutta evoked for him and countless others in the West. When Mother Teresa died eight months later, 10 years ago today, foreign dignitaries and the Western news media descended on the city. The reports on the funeral portrayed a city filled with starving orphans, wretched slums and dying people abandoned on the streets, except for the fortunate ones rescued by Mother Teresa.

They described a city I didn’t recognize as the place where I had spent the first 20 years of my life. There was no mention of Calcutta’s beautiful buildings and educated middle class, or its history of religious tolerance and its vibrant literary and cultural life. Besides, other Indian cities also have their share of poverty, slums and destitution, as would be expected in a country where a third of the population lives on $1 a day — for example, more than half of Mumbai residents live in slums, far more than in Calcutta. Why were they not equally damned in the eyes of the world?

The answer was that none of them served for seven decades as the adopted home base for a saintly European crusader whose work could succeed only if it was disproportionately magnified. It was an instance of spin in which the news media colluded — voluntarily or not — with a religious figure who was as shrewd as any fund-raising politician, as is evident from the global expansion of her organization. For Calcutta natives like me, however, Mother Teresa’s charity also evoked the colonial past — she felt she knew what was best for the third world masses, whether it was condemning abortion or offering to convert those who were on the verge of death.

After the funeral, I comforted myself with the possibility that Mother Teresa’s death might redress the balance of perception. Calcutta, once called the second city of the British Empire, would again be seen as a pulsing metropolis of 14 million that has survived despite being twice slammed by huge influxes of refugees, once after the partition of 1947 and again during the Bangladesh war of independence in 1971. In the absence of a missionary who had never allowed her compassion to be de-linked from Catholic dogma, I hoped the world would recognize that Calcutta has not merely survived, it has battled tremendous odds without losing its soul.

Ten years and one beatification later, however, the relentless hagiography of the Catholic Church and the peculiar tunnel vision of the news media continue to equate Calcutta with the twinned entities of destitution and succor publicized by Mother Teresa. With cultish fervor, her organization, the Missionaries of Charity, promotes her as an icon of mercy. Meanwhile, countless unheralded local organizations work for the needy without the glamour of a Nobel Prize or of impending sainthood.

Charity need not be inconsistent with clarity. Calcutta is a modern Indian city where poverty and inequality coexist with measurably increasing prosperity, expanding opportunities, cautious optimism and, above all, pride in its unique character. Mother Teresa might have meant well, but she furthered her mission by robbing Calcutta of its richly nuanced identity while pretending to love it.

Chitrita Banerji is the author, most recently, of “Eating India: An Odyssey Into the Food and Culture of the Land of Spices.”

I knew I liked that lady.

You know what's funnier, people that believe in "god"/"the son"/"the holy ghost" while simultaneously *NOT* believing in UFOs or even, paradoxically, ghosts. :confused:

Yes, they exist. They've even posted on NS before.

the holy ghost isn't a ghost, it's God's spirit, hence why sometimes it's also called the holy spirit.

Wow, your right, it does seem like a big contradiction that people who claim to be monotheistic simultaneously worship 3 gods.
No. As someone who appears to support communism, I am surprised you don't see the importance of fully understanding dogma.

1) She didn't care for thousands of people.

I don't care for thousands of people. Billions, in fact. Can you claim otherwise?

Mother T. was a thief, a liar, and a sadist. Have you ever seen that home for the dying?
No, and unless you are an Untouchable who made it big, I doubt you have either.
That's all it is. You can't see your family, there's just one big toilet everyone has to use, all you get is a cot, there are no doctors.
Do you honestly expect me to believe that the overpopulated, incredibly poor, third-world country has poor hospitals? That's ridiculous.

the holy ghost isn't a ghost, it's God's spirit, hence why sometimes it's also called the holy spirit.
Spirits also have not yet been proven to exist yet I somehow am able to enjoy them, especially when mixed with non-alcoholic drinks to improve them.

the holy ghost isn't a ghost, it's God's spirit, hence why sometimes it's also called the holy spirit.

This is kinda potayto/potahto, you know.

How would that differ from the will of god, anyway? And what is the difference between that and "the father"? Is "the father" the law and judgment? ...

Further, if god needed advocates, as Satan was, then how many more parts were "hovering over the water", as it were?
The father/the son/the uncle/the third cousin twice removed/the mother-in-law/the interloper/the ex-college roommate .... ;)

Spirits also have not yet been proven to exist yet I somehow am able to enjoy them, especially when mixed with non-alcoholic drinks to improve them.

Mmmm .... Bailey's and sake .... mmmm.

Invisible cola. :p

I was thinking more along the lines of a screwdriver...or anything with vodka in it.

I was thinking more along the lines of a screwdriver...or anything with vodka in it.

Ah, if only ..... my tum-tum no like-a rum/vodka/tequila.
Just about anything else is hunky-dory.
Firewater chased with white zin ... mmmm.

Ah, if only ..... my tum-tum no like-a rum/vodka/tequila.
Just about anything else is hunky-dory.
Firewater chased with white zin ... mmmm.

Ugh. White whine :rolleyes:

I much prefer vodka and rum. Sometimes vodka AND rum, with other things.

This doesn't prove or disprove anything, but Hitchens' attack on Mother Teresa is hardly rendered more credible by his self proclaimed position on religions and the religious.
He thinks that “all religious belief is sinister and infantile”, he has written a book called "God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything", which was described by that reasonably secular organ 'The Financial Times' as "intellectual and moral shabbiness,"and "riding a wave of ignorance and illiteracy."
This makes it difficult to accept him as in any way an impartial or authoritative source.
I don't know the truth about Mother Teresa and I doubt anyone really does, but I am not inclined to accept Hitchens view as more persuasive than that of the Nobel Peace Prize committee.
It would be astonishing if anyone with Mother Teresa's background and beliefs, did not worry more about the condition of a sufferers soul than the condition of their body. To someone who believes in an afterlife it would be insane not to. Now if you don't share those beliefs and in fact find them "sinister and infantile" you would be bound to be very critical of her priorities.
I don't think that Mother Teresa was ever anything but upfront about the fact that her priorities were the spiritual welfare of the poor rather than their physical well being. If people donated to her causes believing anything else, I think they were deluding themselves rather than being deeliberately misled by her.

the holy ghost isn't a ghost, it's God's spirit, hence why sometimes it's also called the holy spirit.

So, does God have a soul?

I don't know the truth about Mother Teresa and I doubt anyone really does, but I am not inclined to accept Hitchens view as more persuasive than that of the Nobel Peace Prize committee.

Two words: Henry Frickin' Kissinger.

So, does God have a soul?

theologically or in reality?

because one of those answers is in murky territory and the other is impossible.

Two words: Henry Frickin' Kissinger.

To suggest that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee get it VERY wrong at times is something I am in complete agreement with. But if that implies that the author of "10 reasons why Americans should be proud of the Iraq war " is somehow more credible than them - we'll agree to disagree

He doesn't and there is no longer any reason for him too.

To suggest that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee get it VERY wrong at times is something I am in complete agreement with. But if that implies that the author of "10 reasons why Americans should be proud of the Iraq war " is somehow more credible than them - we'll agree to disagree
Did Hitchens really write this? If so, was it in earnest?

Did Hitchens really write this? If so, was it in earnest?

Yes and Yes. If you want to miss out most of the inane rhetoric, skip to the end of the second page where he bullet points them.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/995phqjw.asp?pg=2

I made a post with a link to the article in question, but it does not seem to be showing up here. The article appeared in Newsweek and a quick search should find it easily enough. I actually find Hitchens incredibly entertaining and thought provoking, but I doubt that even his best friends would see him as a balanced presenter of 'facts'. He tends to adopt resonably extreme positions and use every rhetorical trick in the book to advance them. A sort of Ann Coulter with brains.

I made a post with a link to the article in question, but it does not seem to be showing up here. The article appeared in Newsweek and a quick search should find it easily enough. I actually find Hitchens incredibly entertaining and thought provoking, but I doubt that even his best friends would see him as a balanced presenter of 'facts'. He tends to adopt resonably extreme positions and use every rhetorical trick in the book to advance them. A sort of Ann Coulter with brains.
Just imagine, the brains of Christopher Hitchens in the body of Ann Coulter.
Actually stop imagining it, I started to and am in incredible pain.

Hitchens isn't the only big name critic of Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (Try saying that three times fast). Another is Aroup Chatterjee who went so far as to write his own book on her and how she misled the world.

So, does God have a soul?

theologically or in reality?

because one of those answers is in murky territory and the other is impossible.

Pack it in you two, this is far too intellectual and civil for NS. Please follow the 'Generic Script for Religion threads":

Person 1: God is teh roxxor/suxxor!!!
Person 2: O rly?
Person 1: Ya Rly
Person 2: No wai!!!
Person 1: Ya wai!!!
United Beleriand: J00s!!!

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

What she said could actually be taken in another way...

That she felt that after such a long life of devotion, she felt as if it would all be for nothing. You are reaching an old age, and you feel that you have used up so much of your life that you begin to question and doubt your cause.

As well, I think she felt that God did not try to show her any signs as she would hope. Also, because there are so many Christians who are just down right diddle dumb it may have discouraged her from trying.

Ultimately, I read that as "God could be God, but what does it matter to me any more? To me, he may as well just never have existed."

PS - I'm not Religious, I just use strong words? :-P

Hitchens isn't the only big name critic of Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu (Try saying that three times fast). Another is Aroup Chatterjee who went so far as to write his own book on her and how she misled the world.

http://www.meteorbooks.com/introduction.html
INTRODUCTION

Mother Teresa once made me cry. The year was 1988 - I was on one of my frequent holidays or visits to Calcutta from Britain, where I had moved to in 1985. I was standing by the kerb-side in Gariahat Morr, munching on a famous 'mutton roll'. I was looking at scenes I had grown up with - pavements almost obliterated by shops, people having to weave their way through hawkers peddling their fares; buses tilted to one side by the sheer weight of passengers and belching out black diesel smoke, trams waiting for a manual change of tracks before they could turn, the familiar neon sign of an astrologer.

In the midst of all this I remembered the 'Calcutta' of the West - Calcutta the metaphor, not the city. In my three years in the West I had come to realise that the city had become synonymous with the worst of human suffering and degradation in the eyes of the world. I read and heard again and again that Calcutta contained an endless number of 'sewers and gutters' where an endless number of dead and dying people lay - but not for long - as 'roving angels' in the shape of the followers of a certain nun would come along looking for them. Then they would whisk them away in their smart ambulances. As in my twenty-seven years in Calcutta I had never seen such a scene, (and neither have I met a Calcuttan who has), it hurt me deeply that such a wrong stereotype had become permanently ingrained in world psyche. I felt suddenly overwhelmingly sad that a city, indeed an entire culture should be continuously insulted in this way.

I am Calcuttan born and bred, and our family has lived in the city for as long as can be traced. I know Calcutta well, and many people who matter there, and many more who do not. I do not have Calcutta 'in my blood', but the place has definitely made me what I am, warts and all. My mother tongue is Bengali, the language of Calcutta, but I speak Hindi passably, which is spoken by a large number of the destitutes of Calcutta.

I had no interest whatsoever in Mother Teresa before I came to England. Difficult it may seem to a Westerner to comprehend, but she was not a significant entity in Calcutta in her lifetime; paradoxically posthumously her image has risen significantly there - primarily because of the Indian need to emulate the West in many unimportant matters.

I had had some interest in the destitutes of Calcutta during my college days, when I dabbled in leftist politics for a while. I also took a keen interest in human rights issues. Never in the course of my (modest) interaction with the very poor of Calcutta, did I cross paths with Mother Teresa's organisation - indeed, I cannot ever recall her name being uttered.

After living for some time in the West, I (slowly) realised what Mother Teresa and Calcutta meant to the world. It shocked and saddened me. In India itself, to say you come from Calcutta is considered trendy, as Calcuttans are considered, wrongly, 'brainy and dangerous'. The Bombayite Gokhle is still widely quoted, 'What Bengal [Calcutta's state] thinks today, that India thinks tomorrow.' In India, Calcutta is - not entirely wrongly - stereotyped as a seat of effete culture and anarchic politics. There is an Indian saying that goes thus: 'If you have one Calcuttan you have a poet; with two you have a political party, and with three you have two political parties.'

The Calcutta stereotype in the West did not irk me as much as did the firmly held notion that Mother Teresa had chosen to live there as its saviour. I was astonished that she had become a figure of speech, and that her name was invoked to qualify the extreme superlative of a positive kind; you can criticise God, but you cannot criticise Mother Teresa - in common parlance, doing the unthinkable is qualified as 'like criticising Mother Teresa'. The number of times I have heard expressions such as 'So and so would try the patience of Mother Teresa', I have lost count. Such expressions would cause amazement and curiosity in Calcutta, even amongst Mother Teresa's most ardent admirers. [This happened to me while I was taking a train ride from Chennai to my hometown. I had two big bags and there was not enough space to put them under my berth. I asked the neighbor, if he can adjust and he said he is not Mother Teresa:headbang:]

Why I decided to do 'something about it' I cannot easily tell. As a person I am flawed enough to understand lies and deceit. Why certain people, themselves no pillars of rectitude, decide to make a stand against untruth and injustice is a very complex issue. Also, my wife, brought up (a Roman Catholic) in Ireland on Teresa mythology, felt angry and cheated when she went to Calcutta and saw how the reality compared with the fairy tale; she has encouraged me in my endeavours.

In February 1994, I rang, without any introduction, Vanya Del Borgo at the television production company Bandung Productions in London. She listened to my anguished outpourings and, to cut a long story short, eventually Channel 4 decided to undertake Hell's Angel (shown on Britain's Channel 4 television on 8 November 1994), the very first attempt to challenge the Teresa myth on television. Ms Del Borgo chose Christopher Hitchens as the presenter, knowing him as she did from their days together at The Nation in the United States. I am not happy with how Hell's Angel turned out, especially its sensationalist approach, such as Mr Hitchens's calling Mother Teresa 'a presumed virgin'. The film however caused some ripple, in Britain and also internationally.

Mother Teresa, one could argue in her favour, is dead and therefore would be unable to defend herself against my charges. Criticisms of her however peaked during her lifetime; apart from the November 1994 documentary, there was a stringent (and quite detailed) attack on conditions in her orphanages in India that was published in The Guardian of London (14 October 1996) - charges of gross neglect and physical and emotional abuse were made. The article alleged her own complicity and knowledge in the unacceptable practices that went (go) on in her homes. During January 1997, a documentary - entitled Mother Teresa: Time for Change? - critical of her working methods and accusing her of neglect, was shown on various European television channels.

It was up to Mother Teresa to have defended herself against such criticisms during her lifetime. She did not. Her supporters (and others) would of course say that she was like Jesus; that she would not demean herself by protesting against muck raking - she would merely turn the other cheek. Notwithstanding her image, she was a robust protester whenever she had a case. Shortly before she died she got involved in legal wrangles with a Tennessee bakery over the marketing of a bun; and more seriously, with her one time close friend and ally, the author Dominique Lapierre, over the script of a film on her life.

On both occasions her Miami based solicitor got properly involved. And then, there is that well-known letter of protest she wrote to Judge Lance Ito protesting at the prosecution (she perceived it as persecution) of her friend Charles Keating, the biggest fraudster in US history.

After her death, her order continues with the litigious tradition - less than a year after her death it was involved in a court case with the Mother Teresa Memorial Committee, a Calcutta based organisation.

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.

To the charges of neglect of residents, indifference to suffering, massaging of figures, manipulation of the media and knowingly handling millions of dollars of stolen cash, Mother Teresa never protested. Her responses were 'Why did they do it?', 'It was all for publicity.' She was perturbed by the criticisms - so much so that after the 1994 documentary she cancelled a religious mission to the Far East.

During her lifetime I wrote to Mother Teresa numerous times asking for a formal interview with either her or one of her senior deputies. I had agreed to meet her in Calcutta, or at the Vatican - mindful her frequent trips there - or indeed, at any other place in the world. Despite her image - carefully nurtured by her own self - of one who shunned the media and publicity, she had always bent over backwards to give interviews to sympathetic world media (in other words, all the world's media). In 1994 she spent a whole day talking to Hello! magazine; the same magazine ran a lengthy interview with her successor in 1998. She however never even acknowledged any of my many requests for an interview. I had met her briefly on occasions in the company of a roomful of worshipful admirers, but I did not feel that was the time or the place to ask uncomfortable questions.

After two years of trying, when I failed to elicit any response from her or her order, I contacted her official biographers to ask whether they would answer some of the serious question marks hanging over her operations. All of them, bar one, replied, but only to turn me down. All of this happened while Mother Teresa was alive.

Many people tell me that Mother Teresa should be left alone because she did 'something' for the underprivileged. I do not deny that she did. However her reputation, which was to a good extent carefully built up by herself, was not on a 'something' scale. More importantly, that 'something', at least in Calcutta, was quite little, as my book will show. Even more importantly, she had turned away many many more than she had helped - although she had claimed throughout her life that she was doing everything for everybody. My brief against her is not that she did not address the root or causes of suffering and I am not for a moment suggesting that she ought to have done so, as I understand the particular religious tradition she came from - I am saying that there was a stupendous discrepancy between her image and her work, between her words and her deeds; that she, helped by others of course, engaged in a culture of deception.

On a superficial level, I need to tell the truth about Teresa because I feel humiliated to be associated with a place that is wrongly imagined to exist on Western charity. Perhaps the main reason why I want to tell this story is because, I believe, each of us has a duty to stand up and protest when history is in danger of being distorted. In a few years' time Mother Teresa will be up there, glittering in the same galaxy as Mozart and Leonardo.

I wish to convey my thanks to the some of the world's most powerful publishing firms who put up obstacle after obstacle in the path of this book. Indeed, the British arm of a multinational publishing house signed me up and then cancelled the contract nine months later by sending me a half-page fax. My resolve to get the book published grew all the more stronger by such obstacles.

I know I cannot change 'history' as pre-ordained by the powerful world media, but I can attempt to put a footnote therein.

I would disapprove of my book being called 'controversial', as I see it as a book of hard facts, albeit disturbing sometimes.

Calcutta has recently been renamed Kolkata by its rulers and a section of its citizens. The new name, which is politically correct and is closer to the vernacular pronunciation, has caught on faster than expected. In this book, I have exclusively used 'Calcutta', partly because to me it makes more historical sense, and also because to tell the story of Mother Teresa, 'Calcutta' to me seems more appropriate.

Aroup Chatterjee

London and Calcutta, 1996-2002

So, does God have a soul?

If he did, he'd be us.

I believe, each of us has a duty to stand up and protest when history is in danger of being distorted. In a few years' time Mother Teresa will be up there, glittering in the same galaxy as Mozart and Leonardo.

I think it is incredibly ironic that this author, while blaming Mother Teresa for being a self publicist, worries about her being associated with two of the greatest self-publicists of all time.
I wondered how hard she struggled to come up with these comparisons. It seems weird that she'd contrast someone who has been acclaimed for her humanitarianism with two people who are extolled for their genius. Where on earth is the parallel? Even her most devoted admirers never claimed Mother Teresa as renaissance woman.
Could it be that she feared to use the obvious parallel with the two people most often cited as great humanitarians - Gandhi and MLK. The problem is that they also had feet of clay, some of their personal actions and beliefs don't quite stand up to the hype. That comparison might make Mother Teresa's idiosyncrasies much more understandable and that wouldn't suit the author at all.
I'm no fan of Mother Teresa and I am convinced that she got lots of things wrong. I am also convinced that her emphasis on things spiritual was continually glossed over by the world press, who preferred to emphasise a secular aspect of her work that was easier on public digestion and much less controversial. But when her two major critics use such shabby tactics and rhetoric to discredit her, I am forced to wonder about their own motives and integrity.

My apologies for getting Aroup Chatterjee's sex wrong and referring to him as 'she'.

If he did, he'd be us.

The circle is now complete.

.