winstonjen

I would say that the surgeon is guilty of causing those deaths through omission.

Not in all cases. Failing to save a drowning person (or failing to TRY to) can merit a murder/manslaughter charge.

Calzaer

It's not an uncommon reaction. Christians refuse to judge the acts of God or Christ, when blatantly immoral and/or illegal (or just illogical) based solely on the identity of the person committing the acts.

It follows cleanly that anyone associated with God or Christ, particularly on the European Catholic side of things, could drown puppies in boiling lead without being condemmed by God's fan club. Hell, even in America, how many laymen were DEFENDING the Catholic Church's policy towards repeat sex offenders?

It's the end result of a long chain based off irrationality and denial. The upper echelons of a system that is allegedly holy are beyond reproach for even the most heineous crimes.

Radorth

Re: Winstonjen

So you must "take responsibility" for any suffering you allow to occur. How about bigotted atheists insulting and demeaning Christians at II? Would that count?

Rad

Yellum Notnef

Are you implying that people here have caused you or other Christians to suffer?

the_cave

Uh, could it be that MT is neither evil nor a saint, but something in between?

Misguided. Maybe even a bit unbalanced. A miser. A hypocrite, sure. But I can't see her ethos causing any _more_ suffering in Calcutta than is already present.

I mean, exactly what are we great ethical evaluators doing at this very moment to alleviate suffering in Calcutta, according to our obviously superior principles?

A whole lot of squat, that's what.

MT appears to have had some bad ideas about suffering, but I don't see her causing any more than was already there.

Hence, I have a hard time calling her "evil". She doesn't appear to have inflicted pain for pleasure. She does appear to have found some satisfaction in already-existent suffering, but that's different. Besides, she doesn't appear to have encouraged suffering for its own sake. She appears to have felt that it led to a higher happiness. As I say, perhaps misguided, but not evil. Yes, there is a point when misguidance becomes evil, but I don't think MT crosses the line. That doesn't mean she isn't above criticism---isn't that obvious? It really isn't either-or, and a lot of people here seem to be treating it as such.

christ-on-a-stick

But are we *claiming* to? And being venerated worldwide as though we are? And receiving *millions* of dollars for that particular purpose and sending it to our "parent company" to sit in a bank account??? Like I said before, anyone - ANYONE, theist or atheist, doing the same is a flat-out fraud. *That* is what people are (or at least I am) talking about - and I don't think that someone who is a flat-out fraud is worthy of being called a saint.

People collectively contributed millions of dollars to MT's "organization". Most of that money was NOT used to help the poor. Why is it that none of MT's supporters want to touch that? You're right, that is different. We tend to call people who "find satisfaction in suffering" disturbed and often sociopathic. Not "saintly".

lpetrich

Radorth:
So you must "take responsibility" for any suffering you allow to occur.

To within reason for a non-omnipotent being.

How about bigotted atheists insulting and demeaning Christians at II? Would that count?

Whatever Radorth means by that.

Calzaer

I hate it when Radorth posts right after me. It completely negates the discussability of any of my points.

wade-w

I don't want to see this thread get any further off topic. Please ignore the latest tangent.

Radorth

The latest and most heineous examples being set in the last century by non-Christians.

Speaking of denial.

Snide comment deleted

Rad