brighid

dbporter,

Unfortunately, this is almost modus operandi for Sabine and others when it comes to tough topics such as this. There has also been plenty of information presented that one could look through in order to come to a more educated conclusion. One, as a supporter of MT could also present facts/information/evidence of ones one in rebuttal. However this has not been forthcoming and it is unlikely. As a new user here the history of such behavior would be unknown to you, but to those of us who have been around for a while expect it although we hope against hope that things will be different the next time around.

I also believe that the questions I asked did not need one to actually have an opinion one way or the other, but were a basic exercise in logical deduction: If one were in said situation, what would one do, etc.? Are those questions really so difficult to answer?

I am confident that the neutral position is being taken in order to avoid the hard questions and answers that come with acutally examining those questions. I do not feel it is being done for the sake of neutrality, but it is entirely possible that I am wrong. I would welcome being proven wrong in this case.

Brighid

NFLP

I'm not going to presume that I am aware of Sabine's full scope of thoughts and motives---neither should you.

It seems her main objection is to the voracious and vulgar delight with which we immediately devour the icons of conflicting cherished notions. It is unbecoming and eventually leads to incredulity in the psyches of those who reside outside a given choir.

Sabine is one of those, actually; I've seen her make statements which are apostasy to the pale of othodoxy. I've seen her chide Christians with points similar to the ones made here.

I've seen her attempt to remind herself of what she attempts to remind us. It is best to start with kindness, respect and reason.

----
I must say that if you are indeed a moderator in this thread, the just-this-side-of-snide charaterization you made of la Sabine to a new member, was a bit inappropriate.

----
I think the most cogent (and akin to Sabine's) approach came from Psychedelia at the top of page four. I'll just copy the last paragraph:


so what she did and did not do is a moot point in my opinion. what she left behind is tangible, and that legacy is not altogether a bad one.

one last point - a lot of the criticism directed at her is being amplified by the hindu fundamentalist wave that is currently sweeping india. what i mean here is that we should always consider the source and evaluate it for propaganda. i am opposed to fundamentalism in any religion - i think it is a horrific example of the way in which religion can be used to manipulate people, and it's probably one of the main reasons for me being non-religious. and on that note, perhaps we should also be a little wary of atheist fundamentalism of sorts, a trend i seem to find in some so called 'free thinkers' who espouse the 'my way is the only way' of thinking that we denounce in religious people.

wade-w

The main page of each forum lists the moderators of that forum at the top. Brighid moderates another forum on this board, not GRD.

NFLP

Thanks; that feels a little better.

dbporter

I appreciate the caution about Hindu 'fundamentalism'. My sources are from Europe. Which brings up an interesting subject: reliability of sources: it seems that each of us have been giving opinions based on one's own assessment as to the reliability of sources, since presumably only two possible contributors claim to actually have seen Agnes in action in Calcutta, or even to have read the book(s). Even the discussion re: Sabine seem to be largely guesses about what you mean, since your role appears to be mostly about the way people express themselves, not the subject of Agnes. Is that fair to say? Is all of this too much of a side-track from the main discussion? Does someone know of a thread that is epistemological in that sense? I suppose that sources from Europe and India could constituted some beginnings of 'triangulation'?

brighid

NFLP,

I do not feel I made any snide characterization of Sabine, or anyone else for that fact, nor do I feel as a moderator in another forum that I have acted inappropriately. As I said, I could be entirely wrong and would welcome being proven as such. I feel you have read a tone into my language that does not exist, but it is difficult to interpret those sorts of things via this medium of communication. It's a mistake easily made as I have done so myself on several occassions.

I stand by my statements and silence on the part of the MT defenders speaks volumes IMO. Feel free to take or leave my opinion, disagree with it or even tell me to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

Psychedelia's statements are not Sabines, or that of other theists on this particular subject and I believe Sabine is fully capable of speaking for herself.

If I have indeed mischaracterized anyone I will surely apologize, but thus far the record speaks for itself. I asked thought provoking questions not in any attempt to demean any other person, but for a moral examination of what we know and compare that to what one would do in a similar situation inorder that comparative conclusions be made. Nothing more and nothing less. The theists chose silence, snide remarks and deflective "argumentation." Prove up is all I ask of them. I do not find that to be an unreasonable request as this discussion is an important one, and one that deserves perspective and answers.

Brighid

wordfailure

We as a culture seem to value discernment. We admire the wine connoisseur. James Bond can tell if his martini has been stirred rather than shaken. But we don't seem to have use for nuance here. It doesn't seem to be necessary to be able to distinguish Mother Teresa from Attila the Hun, for example, in order to be smug and condescending. Mother Teresa was a religious aesthete whose values and beliefs came from a different time. She appears to have believed that dignity and meaning to ones life are paramount, and that these things are only possible when one is contributing something, to others or to God. Some task, however small, was provided for everyone with any capability. The Catholics, as I understand it, believe that personal suffering can be "offered up" to God, and that such offerings have value to Him. So even those unable to contribute anything else can still contribute this offering. All this may be hogwash, but it is in fact not the same as being indifferent or ruthlessly harvesting souls or such. We should be able to discern the difference. We ought to criticise on this level, IMO. It may be that our assumptions that the noblest of goals is death without discomfort, or that we ought to go to third-world countries and put their poor and dying up at the Hilton and drug them into oblivion without regard for cultural or societal impact or consequences regarding responsibilities of local governments and etc. may themselves be in need of justification.

By the way, there is an interesting piece by Carol Zaleski in the May 2003 issue of the "ecumenical" periodical First Things: The Dark Night of Mother Teresa should any of you 80% (poll results) actually decide it necessary to know something about Mother Teresa before calling her a bitch.

dbporter

Thank you. It looks like this thread finally has a DA. At least we know a good bit of where you stand. I will read the article.

Rhea

Until one contemplates that Theresa didn't really believe that, based on her actions. Eh? What you say? She came from an era when suffering was godly? She really believed that? What, you say? Then she went to a bang-up hospital for her own otherwise-fatal condition?

Hmmm. Something is amiss. I believe there is sufficient data to "criticize on that level". Personally.





So she had different values than I. So she had a differernt culture. (PLEASE NOTE she also had different values and different culture from her victims/recipients)

Hmmm. That might be believable/understandable if she was internally consistent. Alas, she was not.

What is the student to conclude?

We value truth and honesty (yet take stolen money)
We value suffering (yet we take painkillers ourselves)
We value death with "dignity" (yet we don't offer clean sheets when we could)

Here is the problem. The underlying problem. Her actions belie her words. This is the problem that will not be touched. Isn't it?

So, let's start a list.

• What were her claims?
• What were her actions?

Can they stand to see the light of day side-by-side? My observations are "no". And that is the problem, isn't it? That is what we'd like addressed. Shall we make it easy? Shall we make a spreadsheet? Would that allow the discussion to actually take place?

Rhea

By the way, someone has claimed that "Theresa never intended to 'harvest souls'. " This claim is intended to show how loving and charitable (and presumably beyond reproach) she is.

Let's listen to Mother Theresa herself - and to Jesus as he spoke through her. The source of this info is a pro-Agnes site. These are HER WORDS.


She writes of her own feelings:
She write what she wants to do about those souls
Because of others who have done it.
She writes that Jesus told her
Jesus again
Agnes again, her mission:
If this is not deliberate, premeditated, glorified soul harvesting, then I'm not sure I would be able to say what is.



(note she seems to have decided not to continue with this train of thought...