Anything good about religion at all?

nozzferrahhtoo

otto_26 wrote: »

Talking about the good that priests and nuns have done and are doing in the third world must be hard for you to talk about considering they do not go your way.

You are just ignoring the fact that I AM talking about them. You ignore the fact I am so you can pretend I am not.

The only problem for you is I refuse to cherry pick them and talk about them in isolation. It looks good for you if you only talk about such things. As soon as we move to the bigger picture your case falls apart however.

If you just look at the good and ignore the bad the picture will ALWAYS look rosey. That is the trick you are pulling. Using your tactics we can prove Louis Farrakan and Hamas are all great things because of the social work they do and the way they get black kids off drugs. Your rose tinted glasses make everything look great. Reality however is somewhat different to the happy slappy land in your imagination.

otto_26 wrote: »

Mother Teresa was a great great person

No. Agnes was not great. She was horrific. Her opinions on contraception and abortion were damaging. Her use of money donated to her cause was horrific. Her treatment of patients was abhorrent.

And all that aside she was likely not even as religious as you want to pretend she was. Read the memoirs of hers that were released after her death.

seamus

Someone can be kind of forgiven though for assuming that everything was rosy about MT since in Irish education she's practically deified as a shining example of what an "almost perfect" human being looks like.

Claiming otherwise will get the bile going as much as pointing out that Bobby Sands was a criminal terrorist and not necessarily a great man.

It's very difficult to get people to re-examine the things they were taught at an early age. It all goes in and gets accepted as absolute truth.

The Bishop!

I suppose one fairly basic way to look at it would be to ask the question, would the third world have been better off or worse off if the orders had not set up the charities and missions etc?
Or would the level of education among the poor and working classes closer to home have been better or worse off in the era before the state stepped in to provide it?

Dades

Or would the money people gave to the church to do all of those things have been better spent by another, less agenda-driven organisation, or by those people themselves?

Bannasidhe

The Bishop! wrote: »

I suppose one fairly basic way to look at it would be to ask the question, would the third world have been better off or worse off if the orders had not set up the charities and missions etc?
Or would the level of education among the poor and working classes closer to home have been better or worse off in the era before the state stepped in to provide it?

As has been stated, one cannot examine missionary work in isolation. It did not exist in a vacuum but was an integral part of a Western European colonial drive which portrayed itself as a civilising force which would 'save' the natives - a large part of this justification was 'saving their souls'.

Did/do their souls need saving?
That is a question we should be asking.

Without colonialism would we have as distinct a division between 'developed' and 'undeveloped' countries as currently exists?
That is a question we should be asking.

If Western Europe hadn't spent hundreds of years employing the cross and the sword around the globe to asset strip the raw materials vital to it's industrial development and creating tied markets for their manufactured goods would we even have a Third World in the first place?

That is a question we should be asking.

You are asking us to unquestioningly praise missionaries for their work in trying to alleviate conditions but ignore that it was those same organisations who helped to create these conditions in the first place.

You are asking us to unquestioningly praise missionaries for the care they extend to those in need but to ignore that the level of care on offer is dictated by religious ideology not genuine need.

You are asking us to unquestioningly praise missionaries for their selfless work but ignore that a large component of this so called selflessness is excuse for proselytism and a drive to gain converts.

Funny how so many religious organisations don't like it when people ask questions...

joseph brand

The Bishop! wrote: »

I suppose one fairly basic way to look at it would be to ask the question, would the third world have been better off or worse off if the orders had not set up the charities and missions etc?
Or would the level of education among the poor and working classes closer to home have been better or worse off in the era before the state stepped in to provide it?

An even more basic way to look at it is:

Step 1."Get the punters through the door!"

Step 2. Profit!

pastorbarrett

The world and all its culture and peoples therein have been irrefutably moulded and sculpted by religions, this shaping running the gamut of wholly positive to wholly negative and every point in between.

Where religion influenced people and vice versa is at times impossibly convoluted and to pick out obvious examples can be simplistic and at the expense of considering a societies or peoples position from a more objective and encompassing viewpoint. In short, where people are concerned, sometimes there's many, many variables promoting and negating change/ progress/good deeds and bad.

For my money, the world is big enough and wide enough for us all to be wrong.

otto_26

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are just ignoring the fact that I AM talking about them. You ignore the fact I am so you can pretend I am not.

I never said you were not talking about them I said your only talking and cherry picking the bad stuff.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The only problem for you is I refuse to cherry pick them and talk about them in isolation. It looks good for you if you only talk about such things. As soon as we move to the bigger picture your case falls apart however.

AAAAAAAAAAAAA yes you do refuse... my problem is you cherry pick bad stuff and talk about them in isolation because It looks good for you if you only talk about such things. As soon as we move to the bigger picture your case falls apart however.

SO I SAY.........

If you just look at the bad and ignore the good the picture will ALWAYS look terrible. That is the trick you are pulling. Using your tactics we can prove Mother Teresa was terrible because of the ineffective why she used money. Your black tinted glasses make everything look terrible. Reality however is somewhat different to the terrible evil selfish charity workers in your imagination.

Yes. Mother Tersea was great. She was wonderful. Her opinions on people going home and loving their families was brilliant. Her use of money donated to her cause was used to help the starving people in the third world. Her treatment of patients will be cherished by the people she has helped.

And all that aside she has been interviewed on TV saying she does this work as the work of god. Watch the interviews of her that were released.

So I say again..

Even when a shop keeper gives people free cakes people will still find something to complain about..... that's just life.

The Bishop!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are asking us to unquestioningly praise missionaries for their work in trying to alleviate conditions but ignore that it was those same organisations who helped to create these conditions in the first place.

You are asking us to unquestioningly praise missionaries for the care they extend to those in need but to ignore that the level of care on offer is dictated by religious ideology not genuine need.

You are asking us to unquestioningly praise missionaries for their selfless work but ignore that a large component of this so called selflessness is excuse for proselytism and a drive to gain converts.

I don't think that's an accurate representation of my position at all.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Funny how so many religious organisations don't like it when people ask questions...

Not sure what you mean by that. I'm sorry if you're getting the impression that my responses are comparable to those organisations tactics or dislike of criticism/asking questions.

nozzferrahhtoo

otto_26 wrote: »

I never said you were not talking about them I said your only talking and cherry picking the bad stuff.

I am not cherry picking anything but suggesting we look at the whole picture of the good AND bad stuff together. And then answer the 5 questions about the full picture that I have asked many times. You have ignored, evaded and avoided them each and every time however.

So if I say look at the bad and good stuff together in the whole picture... then you claiming over and over that I am cherry picking the bad stuff is, at best, wanton and egregious dishonesty.

otto_26 wrote: »

Mother Tersea was great.

So you keep saying but you appear to have to ignore everything bad about her in order to say it. The money was not used how you claimed, the "treatments" she engaged in were horrific and inhumane, and her own memoirs show she was not even as religious as you want her to have been.

Bannasidhe

The Bishop! wrote: »

The religious orders, not least the Irish ones, have a long and distinguished tradition of providing welfare and education to the poorest of the poor in the absence of other organisations to all corners of the globe. To deny this is to deny historical fact.

Theories about a nefarious scheme of souperism just don't stand up to me i'm afraid. Sure there was that element of conversion, but it's overly cynical to imply that this was the underlying reason for the missions. Then as now, they exist for primarily humanitarian reasons.

The same balance is needed for the conspiracy theory that they were implicit in Imperialism101, unless there is some evidence of this global plot that i'm not aware of. For the most part at least, the people that went there and that still thankfully go in large numbers were not cackling with glee at the prospect of being involved in asset stripping or state sponsored agendas.

On the contrary, the church has historically filled the gap where the state has failed them.
That goes for at home as well as in the third world, as the historical records of welfare and education show. Last time i looked.

The Bishop! wrote: »

I don't think that's an accurate representation of my position at all.



Not sure what you mean by that. I'm sorry if you're getting the impression that my responses are comparable to those organisations tactics or dislike of criticism/asking questions.

I apologise if I have misrepresented your position but as you can see from the first post I have quoted you did use the good thing about religion is all the charitable work undertaken by missionaries argument.

I simply pointed out that when looked at in the context of time/place there were serious short and long-term socio-economic repercussions of this missionary work and the Western European dominance of Non European cultures it enabled that did not benefit people. Quite the opposite. It created inequality and poverty.

The missionary 'in the Third World' helping poor people argument is quite often trotted out as part of pro/anti religion dialogues but rarely is the role of the Missionaries in creating this 'Third World' noted or discussed or the ideological terms and conditions attached to such aid.

As for 'good work' at home - can we really separate The Magdalene Laundries and Industrial Schools from all the 'good' things? They were part and parcel of the same over-all thing and cannot be ignored. Up until recently they were portrayed as charitable works which offered succor to the vulnerable and needy and were it not for a few brave whistle blowers that is still how they would be perceived.


My comment re: religious organisation's dislike of people asking question was not aimed at you personally- it was merely a general observation.

kylith

otto_26 wrote: »

Yes. Mother Tersea was great. She was wonderful. Her opinions on people going home and loving their families was brilliant.

Her opinion that the poor should suffer so that she could get closer to her god, less brilliant

Her use of money donated to her cause was used to help the starving people in the third world.

What use of money? Got some stats to show what her lot are spending the money on?

Where does the money go? Why do they not reveal what they're using the money for? Why does the Home still have a bucket for a toilet when the Missionaries of Charity receive millions in donations? Why don't they do something to alleviate the TB, malnutrition and leprosy instead of opening over 100 convents?

Her treatment of patients will be cherished by the people she has helped.

Yeah, 'treatment' of patients...
http://www.demotix.com/news/280662/mother-teresas-home-dying-people-kolkata#media-280655

The most common diseases are tuberculosis, malnutrition and leprosy. All the patients are just numbers. Many of them are going to die soon, some others will go back to live in the street and nothing change in their life.

They get better or they die. In between the Missionaries, as far as I can see, do very little.

There are none so blind as those that won't see.

pauldla

A few posters, myself included, have challenged this view. Perhaps you'd like to present an unbiased argument as to why you think MT was a 'great great' person?

otto_26 wrote: »

Yes. Mother Tersea was great. She was wonderful. Her opinions on people going home and loving their families was brilliant. Her use of money donated to her cause was used to help the starving people in the third world. Her treatment of patients will be cherished by the people she has helped.

And all that aside she has been interviewed on TV saying she does this work as the work of god. Watch the interviews of her that were released.

I hope I'm not butting in here, but can I suppose my request has been answered?

The Bishop!

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I apologise if I have misrepresented your position but as you can see from the first post I have quoted you did use the good thing about religion is all the charitable work undertaken by missionaries argument.

Ok. Well, apologies back at you if that quoted post seemed dismissive of any links with imperialism or evangelism. There is definitely no denying that the 'sword and the cross' as you put it did had a symbiotic relationship.

I suppose everyone has different ways of looking at it in terms of how the relationship panned out at ground level; how many participants were knowingly complicit and how many were 'useful idiots' in the non-humanitarian agendas or outcomes of that time.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The missionary 'in the Third World' helping poor people argument is quite often trotted out as part of pro/anti religion dialogues but rarely is the role of the Missionaries in creating this 'Third World' noted or discussed or the ideological terms and conditions attached to such aid.

True i'm sure. There's a flip side to that of course. Not aimed at you now, but on the balance of posts in this thread one could equally say that the missionary complicity in asset-stripping, culture-annihilating, poverty and inequality-creating argument is quite often trotted out, but rarely is the role of the missionaries in helping to alleviate this 'Third World' noted or discussed.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for 'good work' at home - can we really separate The Magdalene Laundries and Industrial Schools from all the 'good' things?

Yeah, that's the crux of the whole thing isn't? We certainly shouldn't forget, ignore or downplay them; that goes without saying. It should never be forgotten.
But nor should it come to define the topic in general - that is the role of the religious orders here and elsewhere in the era before free and compulsory education.

otto_26

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So if I say look at the bad and good stuff together in the whole picture... then you claiming over and over that I am cherry picking the bad stuff is, at best, wanton and egregious dishonesty.

In all your posts I have read one line about the good that was done and read paragraph after paragraph of all the bad. To say you want to look at the full picture and look at the GOOD and the BAD in an unbiased way to me looks like Wanton and egregious dishonesty.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So you keep saying but you appear to have to ignore everything bad about her in order to say it. The money was not used how you claimed, the "treatments" she engaged in were horrific and inhumane, and her own memoirs show she was not even as religious as you want her to have been.

you keep saying she is bad but you appear to have to ignore everything good about her in order to say it. The money was used to help starving people in the third world but you claim it wasn't used at all this way. In fact you claim she engaged in were horrific and inhumane activities from the most reliable people I'm sure!!! Of course you could never question the reliability of the information gathered no of course not its the truth in stone completely because its good for you.

"The easiest thing a jealous shop keeper can do to his rival is to tell people lies about him sit back and watch the lies spread"

Like I said before If a shop keeper gives people free cakes they will still find something to complain about.... but that's just life

Bannasidhe

otto_26 wrote: »

Like I said before If a shop keeper gives people free cakes they will still find something to complain about.... but that's just life

Pardon me for butting in but where is this shopkeeper who gives away free cake as I would like to partake of their largess before the liquidator gets called in and declares them bankrupt?

As for Mother Theresa :mad:

fitz0

otto_26 wrote: »

you keep saying she is bad but you appear to have to ignore everything good about her in order to say it. The money was used to help starving people in the third world but you claim it wasn't used at all this way. In fact you claim she engaged in were horrific and inhumane activities from the most reliable people I'm sure!!! Of course you could never question the reliability of the information gathered no of course not its the truth in stone completely because its good for you.

If I can just throw this in here. There seems to be a lot of statements both ways but evidence is only being offered from one side. Perhaps if you could post up some links and such for consideration there could be a more balanced discussion.

kylith

otto_26 wrote: »

Like I said before If a shop keeper gives people free cakes they will still find something to complain about.... but that's just life

She didn't give away free cake, though. She was given cakes by corrupt bakeries who had stolen them from hungry people. Then she dried out the cakes and used them to build a house, whilst giving the starving a few crumbs.

nozzferrahhtoo

otto_26 wrote: »

In all your posts I have read one line about the good that was done and read paragraph after paragraph of all the bad.

And I repeat again that I think you have to look at the big picture and not just focus on the good or the bad. You need to look at the benefits and evaluate the costs of those benefits, whether religion actually has anything to do with those benefits, and whether they can be achieved without them. You appear unable or unwilling to do any of that. You can not even write your own posts half the time, stealing text from mine instead.

otto_26 wrote: »

you keep saying she is bad but you appear to have to ignore everything good about her in order to say it.

What good? The good you have so far listed has been made up or wrong or both.

otto_26 wrote: »

The money was used to help starving people in the third world but you claim it wasn't used at all this way.

No. It was not. But you are the one making the claim so back it up. Show me the money trail and your evidence for it.

otto_26 wrote: »

In fact you claim she engaged in were horrific and inhumane activities from the most reliable people I'm sure!

As you were already told, but ignored, "part of her ideology was that suffering and pain brought a person closer to Christ, so in many of her hospitals procedures were carried out without anaesthetics, and dying patients despite receiving personal care (food, shelter, etc) from the staff, were never given any form of palliative care."

gbee

As mentioned a few times already, religion was a tool used by oppressors to suppress new nations.

As best as we understand at this time, man evolved and had many fears and believed in many objects which later got interpreted as God's ~ the typical ideology is Sun worshipping and there are many other God's for the weather, fertility and growth.

This leave man with a presupposed condition to 'accept' sacrifice, punishment and reward.

The Romans are responsible for the rise of global organised religion, early Roman success was achieved not just through military might but also through allowing self determination and religious freedoms [as long as they did not clash with Rome].

Clashes did arise however, as Rome saw the power of a fisherman and took that idea and imposed their version on the rest of their Western Empire, their Eastern Empire was already in revolt and arose as an Islamic Empire, most of whose followers had been followers of Christ and [unwittingly] joined the Holy Roman Catholic Church ~ but they weren't fooled for long.

However, the idea that one could threaten masses of people with a vengeful super-being and they in turn bended to your very whim was a potent cocktail for small dictators with limited armed suppression forces to copy this model around Europe and eventually offer tribute and taxes to the authors of the idea, the Popes of Rome, France or Spain [wherever they sat at any one time or multiple times together].

The whole game was control, wealth, power. For some time now, about 200 years the playing fields have been changing; Today the concept has moved somewhat as people don't believe in a God anymore, at least one that will physically come down and punish one in person, rather people's beliefs have moved to bank balances and property ~ financiers have been trying to impose a religious like compliance to Bond Holders since early America and President Lincoln was their first sacrifice.

Sarky

Mother Teresa was a f*cking monster.

pauldla

Sarky wrote: »

Mother Teresa was a f*cking monster.

Given the evidence above, an understandable conclusion to come to, though expressed somewhat, er, passionately. I'd like to see a considered, logical rebuttal, perhaps with references, quotes, etc. I wonder if we'll get one?

keane2097

kylith wrote: »

She didn't give away free cake, though. She was given cakes by corrupt bakeries who had stolen them from hungry people. Then she dried out the cakes and used them to build a house convent, whilst giving the starving a few crumbs.

fyp

otto_26

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And I repeat again that I think you have to look at the big picture and not just focus on the good or the bad. You need to look at the benefits and evaluate the costs of those benefits, whether religion actually has anything to do with those benefits, and whether they can be achieved without them. You appear unable or unwilling to do any of that. You can not even write your own posts half the time, stealing text from mine instead.

1. In 1962, Mother Teresa received the Philippines-based Ramon Magsaysay Award for International Understanding, given for work in South or East Asia.

2. She was appointed an honorary Companion of the Order of Australia in 1982, "for service to the community of Australia and humanity at large.

3. The Balzan Prize for promoting humanity, peace and brotherhood among peoples.

4. The Nobel Peace Prize, "for work undertaken in the struggle to overcome poverty and distress, which also constitutes a threat to peace.

5. The United Kingdom and the United States each repeatedly granted awards, culminating in the Order of Merit in 1983, and honorary citizenship of the United States received on 16 November 1996. Mother Teresa's Albanian homeland granted her the Golden Honour of the Nation in 1994.

But of course the people on boards fully accept the criticism of her but will question all of the above because firstly they know all the ins and outs of her charity work more than any of the above organisations because they watched two you tube clips!!!! :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As you were already told, but ignored, "part of her ideology was that suffering and pain brought a person closer to Christ, so in many of her hospitals procedures were carried out without anaesthetics, and dying patients despite receiving personal care (food, shelter, etc) from the staff, were never given any form of palliative care."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA YES money was used to help poor. But you are the one making the claims against her so back it up. Show me the money trail and your evidence for all you claim above.

nozzferrahhtoo

No the thread is about whether anything is good about religion. The claim he money was well spent was yours. Can you back it up or not?

Further you are talking about one person here. Which does not answer the questions being asked of you.

otto_26

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No the thread is about whether anything is good about religion. The claim he money was well spent was yours. Can you back it up or not?

Ha Ha

Firstly The Question is Anything good about religion at all? I said yes Mother Teresa because the great work she did and how she claimed in interviews that it's gods work that's my answer to the question full stop.

Your the one that brought up the money thing saying how she spent it ineffective your the one that questioned her work. CAN YOU BACK IT UP OR NOT?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Further you are talking about one person here. Which does not answer the questions being asked of you.

Yes it does answer the question Anything good about religion at all? yes Mother Teresa doing gods work. Religion gave her, her strength (in her words).

Just because you don't believe in it or just because it doesn't suit you doesn't mean its not a relative answer.

nozzferrahhtoo

It does not answer it because as I said you have to look at the whole picture not just cherry picked parts of it. Removing an infection by cutting off the whole arm does mean you have removed the infection but looking at the whole picture the price paid was not worth it. Especially if other ways of dealing with the infection could be found.

Similarly cherry picking good things done by religious people does not mean:

1) The price paid in parallel is worth it.
2) That religion had anything to do with it.
3) That the same things can not or have not been done without religion.

As for Agnes try reading a book called the "Missionary Position" or if you need something shorter to suit your shorter attention span try this paper here for starters. Theres more if you get through that.

Bannasidhe

otto_26 wrote: »

Ha Ha

Firstly The Question is Anything good about religion at all? I said yes Mother Teresa because the great work she did and how she claimed in interviews that it's gods work that's my answer to the question full stop.

Your the one that brought up the money thing saying how she spent it ineffective your the one that questioned her work. CAN YOU BACK IT UP OR NOT?



Yes it does answer the question Anything good about religion at all? yes Mother Teresa doing gods work. Religion gave her, her strength (in her words).

Just because you don't believe in it or just because it doesn't suit you doesn't mean its not a relative answer.

So your total argument is because of Mother Theresa claiming that she was doing God's work and religion gave her strength religion is good?

In case anyone is wondering Dun Laoghaire is also good as Bob comes from there and he has helped millions of starving people and gotten awards and been on TV and everything. It makes no difference that he is an insufferable t**t.

Otto -there are far better examples you could have picked you know. But you probably haven't heard of them as they were too busy helping those in need not collecting awards or appearing on TV.

fitz0

otto_26 wrote: »

4. The Nobel Peace Prize, "for work undertaken in the struggle to overcome poverty and distress, which also constitutes a threat to peace.

In fairness, Henry Kissinger won that too, despite being a warmongering politico.

Bannasidhe

fitz0 wrote: »

In fairness, Henry Kissinger won that too, despite being a warmongering politico.

Obama won it too when he was only in office for a wet weekend. He won it for what he possibly, maybe, might, do based on what he said he was going to do if he was elected.