Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Dalai Lama? Please...

[Soulforged]

Watching TV last night I noticed how much I didn't know of the lies that are spreaded through the whole world. But now...well let's see...First it's the monumental lie of Mother Tesera, qualified by a columnist (Hitchens) like the worst fraud of modern history. Here's a link to the complete history in various links (because there's to much lies): Mommie Dearest (http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/); India has no reason to be grateful of mother Teresa (http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/mother_teresa/sanal_ed.htm) ; Mother Teresa on Theory and Practice (http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/mother.htm) ; Mushroom Award: Mother Teresa (http://www.valleyskeptic.com/mushroom.htm). There's a lot more. I'll resume the history:
"Mother Teresa is the worst fraud of modern history"- said Christopher Hitchens. The columnist has been studying the so called "Angel of Mercy" for a long time. The first thing atributed to mother Teresa, when someone speeks of her, is the merciful and dignified treatment that she gave to her neighbors. And it's the first and worst lie ever about her. In his convents the treatment was, at best, the same offered to cows preapered to be slaughtered. The conditions inside her institutions were detrimental of the human dignity: uncomfortable beds, a single bathroom to all the people (wich wasn't even washed from time to time), in general poor conditions of health and the worst of all, visitors of the "doomed" were not allowed!. This is a direct derivation (perhaps) of the eternal Teresa's worship to suffering. Yes to her suffering was the best way to achieve God, so the people that were already suffering had to suffer more only because she wanted to. She said that the body of the poor habitating her convent should reflect the devastated body of Jesus. The other thing atributed to her is the great expenditure in favor of the poors that she did with the money that she received in form of donations. The thing is really that there's no record of any contributions of this fraud to the poors in no part of the whole world, less in India. But then where's her money? Well she spended great part of it constructing more "convents of suffering", with her name and the name of his mission "Mission of Charity" (?), yes no single moeny was spended to help the poor and cure the poverty in India, all was spended to glorify her own image.
The last thing are the prizes that she won, of course all her defenders put the prizes above all to "clean" her image. With the Church in the worst of it's moments, i.e. officers commiting rapes, and it's image on the floor, it needed a new christian hero. The best way was to take this old bitch, and turn she in the new charity image. The prizes then came in accordance. The beatification was a logic conclussion of the all this fraud. the Pope even reduced the numbers of "miracles" so she could become a saint.
Next there's Gandhi. There's nothing to say about his method of freedom fight or his wisdom, but was he really a saint? Of course not there's no saints, "Saint's should be presumed guilty, and proven innocent". But then where's the proof? Strangely the prooves are inside his own book. I'll make this shorter: In his book Ghandi expresses his doctrine. Part of it, as many people of his time, was directed towards intolerance. He called the africans "kaffirs" ("negros" in english, "negros" too in spanish), and inferior race, barbarians, he said that they should be treated as such, he didn't even wanted to have an african by his side, avoiding all chances of encountering one, of course this was a normal thing in his days. Next there's his sexual "problems", he was very promiscous sexualy, but besides that, he loved enemas, yes he loved to had his anus clean. If he had done that to himself only, then there was no problem, but no he wanted to clean other people's anuses, namely his female companions. Yes he forced his companions to use enemas, of course we all know why, don't we? In fact the floor could end bathed in excretation.
Of course he was no saint, but this is only to desmithify his image. All in the name of the truth sirs. Here are some links: The myth of "Mahatma" Gandhi (http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/gandhi.html); Myth of Mohandas (http://www.africanbynature.com/eyes/openeyes_mythofgandhi.html); Enema usage and other things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi/Archive_1); Mohandas the eccentric (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/12/27/gandhi.html); The Gandhi that few know (http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt).
And last, but no least, the allmighty Dalai Lama, wow even Richard Gere follows him he must have something!!!~:eek:. The truth is NO, he has not the best phylosophy, if you want phylosophers go and read some books, the old ones, those are real phylosophy. As all we know the Dalai Lama is the top of the food chain, at least he was there before China invaded his precious Utopia. All people stangely support his policies, many don't understand that helping him to recover his grounds will be replacing an evil, for a worst evil. In the community of the Tibet, long ago, the people were forced to live and die mantaining the precious lives of the "high class". Speaking bad or looking bad to the allmighty Dalai Lama meant certain death, they tortured the poor wretch, the punishment were from extirping eye balls to decapitations. Of course all the people lived in slavery. China has improved the things a lot, besides it's depotics views of society. But returning the land to this myth will cause worst real problems, the Tibet will fall again under the grasp of another tyrant, worst than any other modern state. But even the states had been helping the man, with money of course, wich is of unknown destiny. The premise is basic, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", that's how the USA wants to assure an advantage (strategic perhaps) over China, by recovering the Tibet and instaurating a base there, already pacted with the all peaceful Dalai Lama, wich ironically sais no to violence, lies and cheating...~:rolleyes:

[Papewaio]

Which is quotes?
Which is your opinion?

I'm not sure if you are outraged or in agreement?

[ichi]

But when will the Org look to debunk the myths surrounding our saints, Gawain, Pindar, and that ichi guy.

When?

ichi:bow:

[Reverend Joe]

I can tell you that the book you are taking Ghandi's ideas from represents a younger Ghandi, who was still militant at the time. I am not saying he was perfect- but he was still one of the best nonviolent leaders in history.

By any chance, has the Revolutionary Communist Youths Brigade opened up a wing in Buenos Ares? I met those guys once; they are real marxists, and as such, I hate them. But this sounds like their kind of nutjob rhetoric.

[Soulforged]

Which is quotes?
Which is your opinion?
I'm not sure if you are outraged or in agreement?
No of them are opinions, all are facts, resumed with my words of course. Sorry if I let my words tell a little about myself too, but I think I didn't commited that mistake now. Of course I'm not in agreement, this is all outrageus, mainly the Teresa subject, it's a pretty damn tenacious image between the common folk you know. I was just trying to post other's people works to desmithify all this people.

I can tell you that the book you are taking Ghandi's ideas from represents a younger Ghandi, who was still militant at the time. I am not saying he was perfect- but he was still one of the best nonviolent leaders in history.I didn't say that. Again if you read one of the links I gave (the one called Myth of Mohandas) you'll see the entire history. Again I like Gandhi's phylosophies, beyond it's clears eccentricism, but I was just trying to bring down the saint, or to tell truth.

By any chance, has the Revolutionary Communist Youths Brigade opened up a wing in Buenos Ares? I met those guys once; they are real marxists, and as such, I hate them. But this sounds like their kind of nutjob rhetoric.Here exist a lot of communist movements, wich identify themselves with Guevara, though many of them are just members-instruments for the heads of the movement, who are the really ones enghlighted with communist theory. One of them is simply called PC (Partido Comunista). I accept that you don't understand marxist, in fact the theory protrayed in his Manifesto, and in various quotes of other books, are flawed, but communism in general takes a principle that is acceptable, more than capitalism (for another discussion). Nutjob rhetoric? What do you mean? To tell you the truth I like only two shows of TV, wich are the only two that I watch regularily, "Penn&Teller's: ********" and "Family Guy", of course I extracted this information from the first, so no the ideas are out there, mainly investigated by unbiased journalists. This is mainly of course work of atheists, if that's what worries you, and liberals or left-wingers (category that I don't like), wich are in better place to leave all the faith behind and see reality by what it's. The works done over both, mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama, were made by american investigators, one of them quotes in my previous post. The work made of Gandhi, if mainly a product of the same indians investigators. All the words posted are words that came out of the same program, not my creations.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Anybody calling Mother Teresa a 'female dog' had better not do it where I can hear it.

And let me get this straight: you don't agree with hitchen's article on Mother Teresa?

Crazed Rabbit

[Soulforged]

Anybody calling Mother Teresa a 'female dog' had better not do it where I can hear it.

And let me get this straight: you don't agree with hitchen's article on Mother Teresa?
How many times I've to say "I AGREE WITH HITCHEN'S", because hitchens sais the truth: that's Mother Teresa was a sadomasiquist, at the best...~:rolleyes:

[Kekvit Irae]

Isnt it Saint Theresa now, or did the Church not canonize her yet?

[Papewaio]

Is there a need to refer to her as a sadist and a bitch?

I don't think there is a place here in the Org to attack people. Attack the idealogy or their actions.

Attacking the person is not on, and in the case of such extreme claims one would have to use a less biased source.

[Soulforged]

Is there a need to refer to her as a sadist and a bitch?People get the picture best this way. In any case I didn't know that there was a rule against words like bitch, or directed towards third parties non-patrons, unless mother Teresa is a patron.~;)

I don't think there is a place here in the Org to attack people. Attack the idealogy or their actions.I'm attacking her actions.

Attacking the person is not on, and in the case of such extreme claims one would have to use a less biased source.Less biased? Please give me one...All this sources that I gave are from diferent procedence, and all defend the facts, it's not my opinion is what really happened. Again no part of the statements are my creations, even the ones that appear to be opinions were said in the show.

I know that many people want to see Teresa as an idol, a saint, the truth is that nobody is perfect. But Teresa...well the actions speak by themselves. Of course when it involves "saints", heros or idols, it's difficult to wipe away faith and see reality.

[Xiahou]

I know that many people want to see Teresa as an idol, a saint, the truth is that nobody is perfect. But Teresa...well the actions speak by themselves. Of course when it involves "saints", heros or idols, it's difficult to wipe away faith and see reality.Or to see thru propaganda and smear campaigns perhaps? That's certainly what all of your links that I've looked at are.

[Ser Clegane]

People get the picture best this way. In any case I didn't know that there was a rule against words like bitch, or directed towards third parties non-patrons, unless mother Teresa is a patron.~;)
I'm attacking her actions.

I disagree - by calling her a "bitch" you are attacking the person, not the action.
I think the majority of people here are pretty much capable of understanding criticism (or "getting the picture") without you having to resort to a kind of lnaguage that is not a appreciated here.

Criticizing "heros" is OK - merely slandering them (and calling somebody "old bitch" is slander) gives the impression that you have to resort to offending people to get attention for the point you are trying to make.

I expect a more civilized approach to such topics

Thanks

Ser Clegane

[Papewaio]

Put it this way... if you are going to kill sacred cows you had better be making some really good steak...

[KukriKhan]

Isnt it Saint Theresa now, or did the Church not canonize her yet?

Not yet. Currently she is "Blessed Theresa", one notch below sainthood. I guess they await the 'miracles test'.

And the anti-Theresa crowd is in fine company http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=52388 (Warning: 'Bad' language alluded to at the link)
How does Sharon Osborne even have a opinion on the matter? Oh wait...she's married to a rockstar, right? That 'splains it.

[Proletariat]

So from this we can deduce that in Soul's world Che Guevara > Mother Theresa.

~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker:

[Byzantine Prince]

So from this we can deduce that in Soul's world Che Guevara > Mother Theresa.

~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker:
LOL, more like Che Guevara > Jesus

[Proletariat]

...Che Guevara > Nietzche...?

~:confused: ~D

[Byzantine Prince]

GAH! :hide:

You pwned me.

But why does soul hate nietzsche?

[R'as al Ghul]

I do remember that the German press published some pieces on Mother Theresa after her death.
According to these articles, the majority of the donated money she received
was directly given to the Vatican, instead of flowing into her charity-projects.
It was perceived as betrayal by many of the donators, who had no idea
that they weren't helping to improve situations in India but filling the accounts of the Vatican bank.

[Proletariat]

But why does soul hate nietzsche?

Because he's not Che?

(Now I've been owned. *sigh*)

[Prodigal]

I really can't be bothered to read all of your first post of horrified outrage, but I would be interested in how it is you think Mother T managed to make a life in the slumbs of Calcutta worse for people. I mean, "toilets seldom cleaned". Have you ever been there? Have you even the faintest idea what conditions are like for some people there today let alone when she started knocking about.

[Devastatin Dave]

Christopher Hitchens likes to argue different points. He was completely against the first Gulf War but supported this one. i believe he is very intelligent and writes things such as this to see a different angle. Does he really believe this, I don't know but who really knows. I think he's just stirring some curry on this one.~;)
Maybe we should give him an honorary membership to the Backroom, he'd fit right in!!!:bow:

[Ser Clegane]

I mean, "toilets seldom cleaned". Have you ever been there? Have you even the faintest idea what conditions are like for some people there today let alone when she started knocking about.

Indeed - I thought the "uncomfortable beds" to be a bit strange as well...

[solypsist]

awesome post. :bow:


Christopher Hitchens likes to argue different points. He was completely against the first Gulf War but supported this one. i believe he is very intelligent and writes things such as this to see a different angle. Does he really believe this, I don't know but who really knows. I think he's just stirring some curry on this one.~;)
Maybe we should give him an honorary membership to the Backroom, he'd fit right in!!!:bow:

[Devastatin Dave]

awesome post. :bow:
I have my moments, and yes, they are very rare!!!~:joker:

[Crazed Rabbit]

How many times I've to say "I AGREE WITH HITCHEN'S", because hitchens sais the truth: that's Mother Teresa was a sadomasiquist, at the best...

Well that tells me all I ever need to know about you.

Crazed Rabbit

[Devastatin Dave]

How many times I've to say "I AGREE WITH HITCHEN'S", because hitchens sais the truth: that's Mother Teresa was a sadomasiquist, at the best...~:rolleyes:
So then are you saying your agree with him about the current war as well, or are you just being sarcastic? I'm a little confused. Could you clarify it for a ignorant gringo such as myself could understand?~D

[Wardo]

Hey Soulforged, it's very healthy to challenge and de-construct myths, but have you deconstructed any myths of the "Partido Comunista" or Che Guevara's life yet? ~D

I would tend to believe you are an Atheist when it comes to these three figures or religions, but are you not the most dogmatic fundamentalist fanatic when it comes to Che Guevara? :bow:

[Adrian II]

I wish you would refrain from invective such as ‘bitch’ which only demonstrates your poor command of the subject. She certainly represented the ugly side of Catholic charity, the one that loves poverty instead of the poor, as Hitchens states so well. But unclean toilets in Calcutta? Please, show me a clean one.

Why not let Hitchens do the talking? He points out inconsistencies (an understatement, really) in her views and charitative work, some of which are no doubt the result of her poor upbringing and primitive surroundings, others of the profound obscurantism cultivated by parts of the Catholic Church and by the former Pope in particular. I hear John Paul and Mother Teresa got on like a thurible on fire. Hence her speedy beatification.

[Devastatin Dave]

the one that loves poverty instead of the poor
You could say the same thing about most liberals as well. power to the people.~D

[Soulforged]

Or to see thru propaganda and smear campaigns perhaps? That's certainly what all of your links that I've looked at are.
But please you're one of those, then show me proof of propaganda. I'll like you all to notice that the propaganda is widely spreaded by the Church in this case, is ironic that you're discussing this, or not even discussing this because you consider all of this propaganda. I'm sure there must be some Right Wing link for you, are you gonna believe me if I found it?

Criticizing "heros" is OK - merely slandering them (and calling somebody "old bitch" is slander) gives the impression that you have to resort to offending people to get attention for the point you are trying to make.You still don't get it, right...All of those words were said on the program by the same Penn. I only translated them. If you want me to admit I'm wrong OK I'M WRONG. Now are we gonna add something useful to the discussion.

Put it this way... if you are going to kill sacred cows you had better be making some really good steak...Again I presented proof, wheter you want to call it propaganda or full of prejudice I don't care. If you want to argue your point then present some proof yourself.

So from this we can deduce that in Soul's world Che Guevara > Mother Theresa.Of course, I could deduce the same from your nick.

I really can't be bothered to read all of your first post of horrified outrage, but I would be interested in how it is you think Mother T managed to make a life in the slumbs of Calcutta worse for people. I mean, "toilets seldom cleaned". Have you ever been there? Have you even the faintest idea what conditions are like for some people there today let alone when she started knocking about.There are videos of the interior of the convents. There are testimonies of indians saying the same, what proof do you've against my points or Hitchen's 0...Now even if you want to dismise all this proof, you still have written rules that didn't allowed visits to the people treated there. Like I said, the same Teresa admited in an interview that she profesed the worship of pain (I guess that you can find a video about that, but I'll recommend you to see Penn&Teller's show the video was passed there), also a ex-nun who worked in one of those Teresa's convents made the same testimony.

Well that tells me all I ever need to know about you.Sure Rabbit why not...~:rolleyes:

So then are you saying your agree with him about the current war as well, or are you just being sarcastic? I'm a little confused. Could you clarify it for a ignorant gringo such as myself could understand?1- I answered to that old post stating that I've never called no gringo an ignorant. 2- I agree with him at this because he and other people presented proof. 3- The war was not justified.

I would tend to believe you are an Atheist when it comes to these three figures or religions, but are you not the most dogmatic fundamentalist fanatic when it comes to Che Guevara?No.

I wish you would refrain from invective such as ‘bitch’ which only demonstrates your poor command of the subject. She certainly represented the ugly side of Catholic charity, the one that loves poverty instead of the poor, as Hitchens states so well. But unclean toilets in Calcutta? Please, show me a clean one.This is some kind of joke right. Whatever....The point is that all the people in the convent lived in unhealty conditions and with only one bathroom, even if you don't care ther being clean or not.

Why not let Hitchens do the talking? He points out inconsistencies (an understatement, really) in her views and charitative work, some of which are no doubt the result of her poor upbringing and primitive surroundings, others of the profound obscurantism cultivated by parts of the Catholic Church and by the former Pope in particular. I hear John Paul and Mother Teresa got on like a thurible on fire. Hence her speedy beatification.If I've founded the article of Hitchens (well the book really) I would have posted it right away, but I couldn't.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

By "proof" it appears that you mean some suspicious online articles and columns that are more than a little biased against her.

I'm sure I can find more mainstream "proof" of her good deeds.

[Soulforged]

I'm sure I can find more mainstream "proof" of her good deeds.Please go ahead. Though you're missing that I posted this because the subject came out on Penn & Teller's show, there they presented clear proof of what I'm saying, but of course I cannot pass the chapter to you can I?
No for the bias thing...Again the same, tell me what makes the articles biased...~:rolleyes:
However I'm noticing that almost everyone is trying to defend her, it's clear to me that the propaganda about her is more thick than those of the other two.

[Papewaio]

Always kill your own sacred cows before eating someone elses.

or

Remove the beam from your eye before harking about the splinter in someone elses.

=][=

As for bias you need to use a neutral source. You do not go to neo-nazis to get unbiased information on Jews, you do not go to Creationists to get unbiased views on Evolution. You need a party that has no vendetta or reason to prefer one party over the other and/or multiple views from many different parties to form a spectrum of opinions.

For instance if the BBC, Fox and Al Jazeera agree on something then it probably is true. If they all disagree then you need to do more research and/or use their track record.

Someone trying to make money by selling books is not an ideal choice as an unbiased source.

[KukriKhan]

,,,For instance if the BBC, Fox and Al Jazeera agree on something then it probably is true...

Wouldn't that be a sight? Maybe they could agree on the time, or the color of the sky... nah, AlJazeera would blame the darker blue sky on the US's secret nyuk-a-ler tests undersea, BBC would tangent the time discussion into a study of the diversity of actual, measureable time scans within time zones, and the Foxies would report how some Democrat had unpatriotically voted against the Daylight Saving Time extension of the latest Energy Bill.

Never happen.

So, like Pape says, multiple sources = best.

[Soulforged]

Wouldn't that be a sight? Maybe they could agree on the time, or the color of the sky... nah, AlJazeera would blame the darker blue sky on the US's secret nyuk-a-ler tests undersea, BBC would tangent the time discussion into a study of the diversity of actual, measureable time scans within time zones, and the Foxies would report how some Democrat had unpatriotically voted against the Daylight Saving Time extension of the latest Energy Bill.

Never happen.

So, like Pape says, multiple sources = best.
I posted multiple sources...but let's see, for what I'm hearing about I've to present proof, when no other does, so I should look for a Right Wing or a Christian source to prove it? Please give me a break, if I post any Christian source they will defend their points with faith not with science but I'll try to do that...~:rolleyes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As near as I can evaluate, based on this and other posts, Soulforged is one of those people who believe that:

1. Our physical reality is the only reality that exists and that death is the complete cessation of one's existence.

1a. Therefore, that religions are at best nonsense and at worst active charlatanry. Altruism connected to religion is therefore impossible.

1b. Therefore, explanations of religious "activities" that deconstruct the "spiritual" motivation of any action and preference a "temporal" explanation are inherently more valid.

2. Most large scale collective organizations are inherently exploitative of the individual.

2a. Therefore, deconstructions of these collectives that show the inherent inconsistencies of the organization are a good learning tool.

2b. Therefore, if pushed far enough, and if enough such "sacred cows" are destroyed, the individuals who have been sublimated into these oppressive collectives will be freed to pursue their own betterment as individuals.


If this is even partially accurate -- and feel free to correct me if you wish Soul' -- his willingness to accept and support such a stance vis-a-vis the named individuals is understandable.

I don't accept the premise, so my failure to agree with these conclusions is also pretty understandable.

[solypsist]

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

and


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position_%28book%29

[Xiahou]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
"The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see discussion on the talk page." -Wikipedia

[solypsist]

"The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see discussion on the talk page." -Wikipedia

so what? the link has plenty of interesting information & the caveat is pretty obvious to anyone who sees the page, so I'm confused as to why you felt the need to post that.

https://img487.imageshack.us/img487/4781/clipboard015kq.jpg

[Ser Clegane]

You still don't get it, right...All of those words were said on the program by the same Penn. I only translated them. If you want me to admit I'm wrong OK I'M WRONG. Now are we gonna add something useful to the discussion.




No of them are opinions, all are facts, resumed with my words of course. Sorry if I let my words tell a little about myself too, but I think I didn't commited that mistake now.

It was not the opinion I (and others) took exception at but the choice of words - and this choice was yours as you said.
If you expect people to add "something useful" to the discussion, perhaps you should set an example by starting the discussion in less offensive language

Thanks :bow:

[Adrian II]

Someone trying to make money by selling books is not an ideal choice as an unbiased source.If Richard Hofstadter were alive and were asked to add a new paragraph to his essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics, he would no doubt chose to address the use of the term 'bias' in recent U.S. politics. It has almost hysterical connotations.

One thing I have noted on this forum is a funny use of the word 'agenda'. Everybody has an agenda, even if only implicit. This is perfectly legitimate and healthy. Here is how it works: we get up in the morning (well, most of us do), perform certain tasks, follow up on more or less clear thoughts and ultimately try to achieve certain goals.

Judging by the context in which it is used, however, an 'agenda' is considered a liability in the U.S. these days. The word 'agenda' is used as a pejorative form of the word 'idea', as in 'Eww, you have political views! Do I sense an agenda?'

Let me assure you that there is nothing wrong with agenda's. People who succeed in life usually have firm ideas, firm plans and a tight schedule in which to implement them; in other words, they have clear agenda's. So do good politicians. Imagine a President of the United States with no agenda whatsoever. He would just sit there on the White House lawn for four years and meditate.

When asked by reporters what it was all about, President Wantless sighed and said: 'My mind is like an empty cup. It is full of One-ness. Awesome.'
Your remark about books strikes me as another instance, Papewaio, because it usually occurs in posts from Americans: 'Suchandsuch has written a book about this issue, so he must be biased.'

In almost every other country of the world, writing and selling a book to advocate certain causes is considered a good thing. People tend to think: 'Well, Suchandsuch has written a book about the issue, so he must be more knowledgeable about it than my next door neighbour who has never even read about it in the papers'.

Writing and selling a book is also considered a good thing because it means you do not hide behind slogans and vague outlines, but state your case on the record, in full detail, thus opening yourself up to scrutiny and criticism. In fact, you can afford less bias whilst writing a book than whilst speaking off the cuff in improvised situations and out of the public limelight.

[Watchman]

Plus publishing books creates work and keeps money circulating, so it can't be all bad...

[Rodion Romanovich]

I must say the first post seems quite biased and exaggerated. On the other hand, I don't expect people well-known for some good acts to be total saints.

What Ghandi's sexual taste has to do with his political views seems the most outrageous thing to me. It has very little at all to do with political views what he likes to do in private...

It also seems unlikely that Mother Theresa would have led mass-torture. I have very little facts on the matter, but it seems very unlikely that she could have built so many hospital-like institutions and get patients for them unless she would have treated them quite well.

Finally, I've never seen anything mentioned about untraditionally severe cruelty from the Dalai Lama regime before China took Tibet. But I have to agree that restroing Dalai Lama to power over Tibet would be a bad thing. Tibet gaining freedom is not necessarily a bad thing, but nobody with demigod status should ever rule a country IMO, especially if they're treated as demigods already from birth - it's an extremely good way of tempting the individual to become corrupt and so on. It's likely that the philosophy of Dalai Lama, which is at the moment IMO just traditional Buddhistic-Christian-ahimsa politically correct stuff, would have a chance to develop further when Dalai Lama isn't wasting his time ruling a country, and can concentrate fully on his religious task. Whether Tibet should gain freedom from China or not is an entirely different matter IMO, and if Tibet did gain freedom it should IMO not have Dalai Lama as leader. To summarize: the propaganda here also seems exaggerated, but I'm against Tibet being ruled by Dalai Lama, but not for the reasons implied by the thread starting post.

[A.Saturnus]

A conservative`s comment about Mother Teresa (from www.intellectualconservative.com):

It was never her intention to build medical facilities and to argue that she should have pursued such an endeavor ignores both her goals and the complexities of such an undertaking, which would involve all kinds of issues -- from legal and liability concerns to proper administration and management -- that would have entangled her precisely in the material world she mostly sought to escape.

Nevermind that the people who gave millions of money to her and the church at least partly thought that it was meant to build medical facilities and such material entanglement and not just converting India to Christianity.

[Soulforged]

As near as I can evaluate, based on this and other posts, Soulforged is one of those people who believe that:Here we go again...~:rolleyes:

1. Our physical reality is the only reality that exists and that death is the complete cessation of one's existence.Is there another?

1a. Therefore, that religions are at best nonsense and at worst active charlatanry. Altruism connected to religion is therefore impossible.Altruism is possible for anyone or anything (when actually religion is not the one altruistic, but the people who actually "help"), but it's not a good thing, I've said many times why I think it's not good I'll not repeat it here.

1b. Therefore, explanations of religious "activities" that deconstruct the "spiritual" motivation of any action and preference a "temporal" explanation are inherently more valid.As long as they're founded...If I believed that it's ok to bring down our enemy by any means (as someone believes) then I'll be turning into my worst fear. But I can see that you're religious, I'll not question your values, however it's a different and annoying thing to blind yourself from reality.

2.Most large scale collective organizations are inherently exploitative of the individual.I don't know from where do you get this ideas~:confused: . Not they're not, but they tend to mantain the status quo. They function only as an analgesic, not a real cure.

2a. Therefore, deconstructions of these collectives that show the inherent inconsistencies of the organization are a good learning tool.~:confused: WOW~:eek: I should look at my english, where did you get that? The convents of this "lady" didn't help anybody, further more they were made with the explicit purpose of some kind of sadistic experiment, of course this is not the best analogy because the Church rarely does experiments. But some christian defender (of course) of this "lady" came up and stated something like this: "It was through their suffering that Mother Teresa got closer to God". As AdrianII pointed out, she loved poverty before the poor.

2b. Therefore, if pushed far enough, and if enough such "sacred cows" are destroyed, the individuals who have been sublimated into these oppressive collectives will be freed to pursue their own betterment as individuals.As long as this colectivities are similar to Teresa's convent...With the other one's (the altruistic) I've no problem with them existing, as long as society doesn't remain stangnant accepting an evil for another good.

If this is even partially accurate -- and feel free to correct me if you wish Soul' -- his willingness to accept and support such a stance vis-a-vis the named individuals is understandable. Look Seamus if they came up with facts without proof I'll not believe them, I believed the same as you of this "lady", but the fact is that they came up with proof of the facts, didn't they?~:rolleyes:

What Ghandi's sexual taste has to do with his political views seems the most outrageous thing to me. It has very little at all to do with political views what he likes to do in private...Sorry? Did I say at any moment that they were related? No! What I was trying to do is desmitify the figure. Now his racism had anything to do, didn't it?

It also seems unlikely that Mother Theresa would have led mass-torture. I have very little facts on the matter, but it seems very unlikely that she could have built so many hospital-like institutions and get patients for them unless she would have treated them quite well.Of course it seems unlikely. But you should take a look at the same words of Mother Teresa supporting pain to achive God. She seriously (perhaps) believed than by making her pacients suffer she'll help them to achieve heaven, sicked view, between that and torture there's only faith.

To summarize: the propaganda here also seems exaggerated, but I'm against Tibet being ruled by Dalai Lama, but not for the reasons implied by the thread starting post.LOL- I seriously don't understand you, I gave the same reasons!! And again propaganda? Ufff...Where's it? Is a bold attempt to claim that everything is propaganda, however it will be even bolder to actually post some proof of it.

It was not the opinion I (and others) took exception at but the choice of words - and this choice was yours as you said.
If you expect people to add "something useful" to the discussion, perhaps you should set an example by starting the discussion in less offensive language
The word was translated literally. If I had the need to do it...No I didn't, but I also accepted that I was incorrect in the same post, however you want to discuss this subject over an over, wouldn't it be easier for you to send me a warning. Not trying to offend, I'm just wondering why do you relate "adding something useful" with a previous statement, it has nothing to do, if you've something then present it, if not then don't try allegate that everything I posted is biased, propaganda, and that sort of things.