Mother Theresa: Another Catholic Fraud?

[OSBF]

Trying to get a straight answer out of you is a tougher job than Starr had with Clinton.

But then I understand, when you don't give direct answers, you don't have to really commit to anything one way or the other.

You must have a reading comprehension problem. What I wrote was clear and easily understood. Do you just play dumb?

I know, you just don't like being pinned down with facts.

[houndawg]

Regardless of her motives, none can deny that she was a going concern.

[JohnStOnge]

I notice that the "take" is garnered from an atheists' web site. On what basis do atheists say that, assuming the piece is absolutely accurate in conveying Mother Teresa's impact, anything she did was "wrong?" What intrinsic standard do they appeal to?

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, if it's true that Mother Teresa placed a higher priority on "conversion" than she placed on seeing to physical needs, that should not be surprise. It should be expected if she was a sincere Christian.

[JohnStOnge]

In upholding the irrational dogmas of Catholicism, she failed to recognize - or perhaps chose to disregard - the obvious conclusion that inadequate access to family planning services was and is one of the greatest causes of human destitution.

What a ridiculous statement. I mean the part about inadequate access to "family planning services" being one of the greatest causes of human destitution. Good GRIEF.

So, if we announce tomorrow that anybody that wants them can have condoms and abortions on demand, "human destitution" is going to disappear or even be significantly reduced in terms of proportion of the human population suffering from it? That's a pretty big assumption.

[JohnStOnge]

...and called AIDS a "just retribution for improper sexual conduct".

Retribution? Who knows. But it's pretty clear that there would be no AIDS epidemic in the absence of behavior that fundamentalist Christians of any stripe would say is "against the rules." If everybody followed the rules as fundamentalist Christians would state them to the letter, there would be no extramarital sex and no IV drug use. The only sex would be between male/female pairs that would be virgins until they were married and then would remain exclusively monogamous for life. About the only way somebody could become infected by HIV under such circumstances is if one partner became infected by IV drug use or blood transfusion. IV drug use would be against the rules. Whether there would even be a problem with blood transfusions would be questionable because somebody would have had to aquire the virus in some other way at some point.

Like it or not, it is absolutely true that the AIDS epidemic exists because of behavior that fundamentalist Christians would say is against the rules. No such behavior, no AIDS epidemic.

[Pwns]

Welcome to the board JSO.

[houndawg]

In upholding the irrational dogmas of Catholicism, she failed to recognize - or perhaps chose to disregard - the obvious conclusion that inadequate access to family planning services was and is one of the greatest causes of human destitution.

What a ridiculous statement. I mean the part about inadequate access to "family planning services" being one of the greatest causes of human destitution. Good GRIEF.

So, if we announce tomorrow that anybody that wants them can have condoms and abortions on demand, "human destitution" is going to disappear or even be significantly reduced in terms of proportion of the human population suffering from it? That's a pretty big assumption.

Well, I suppose one good leap deserves another.

The planet's biggest problem is overpopulation. If everybody wore condoms it wouldn't be.

[Chizzang]

[travelinman67]

What a ridiculous statement. I mean the part about inadequate access to "family planning services" being one of the greatest causes of human destitution. Good GRIEF.

So, if we announce tomorrow that anybody that wants them can have condoms and abortions on demand, "human destitution" is going to disappear or even be significantly reduced in terms of proportion of the human population suffering from it? That's a pretty big assumption.

Well, I suppose one good leap deserves another.

The planet's biggest problem is overpopulation. If everybody wore condoms it wouldn't be.

[Appaholic]

...and called AIDS a "just retribution for improper sexual conduct".

Retribution? Who knows. But it's pretty clear that there would be no AIDS epidemic in the absence of behavior that fundamentalist Christians of any stripe would say is "against the rules." If everybody followed the rules as fundamentalist Christians would state them to the letter, there would be no extramarital sex and no IV drug use. The only sex would be between male/female pairs that would be virgins until they were married and then would remain exclusively monogamous for life. About the only way somebody could become infected by HIV under such circumstances is if one partner became infected by IV drug use or blood transfusion. IV drug use would be against the rules. Whether there would even be a problem with blood transfusions would be questionable because somebody would have had to aquire the virus in some other way at some point.

Like it or not, it is absolutely true that the AIDS epidemic exists because of behavior that fundamentalist Christians would say is against the rules. No such behavior, no AIDS epidemic.

He's right. Following the fundamentalist Christian belief will result in a world free of Aids. Also, according to Leviticus 20, population control shouldn't be an issue if everyone followed fundamentalist Christian beliefs....
http://bible.cc/leviticus/20-10.htm

....& personally, I'm willing to live in a world with AIDS if the alternative is no sex with blood relatives.....

[AZGrizFan]

...and called AIDS a "just retribution for improper sexual conduct".

Retribution? Who knows. But it's pretty clear that there would be no AIDS epidemic in the absence of behavior that fundamentalist Christians of any stripe would say is "against the rules." If everybody followed the rules as fundamentalist Christians would state them to the letter, there would be no extramarital sex and no IV drug use. The only sex would be between male/female pairs that would be virgins until they were married and then would remain exclusively monogamous for life. About the only way somebody could become infected by HIV under such circumstances is if one partner became infected by IV drug use or blood transfusion. IV drug use would be against the rules. Whether there would even be a problem with blood transfusions would be questionable because somebody would have had to aquire the virus in some other way at some point.

Like it or not, it is absolutely true that the AIDS epidemic exists because of behavior that fundamentalist Christians would say is against the rules. No such behavior, no AIDS epidemic.

Now if we could just get all fundamentalist Christians to follow their own rules first, us heathens would be right behind them.

[Chizzang]

Retribution? Who knows. But it's pretty clear that there would be no AIDS epidemic in the absence of behavior that fundamentalist Christians of any stripe would say is "against the rules." If everybody followed the rules as fundamentalist Christians would state them to the letter, there would be no extramarital sex and no IV drug use. The only sex would be between male/female pairs that would be virgins until they were married and then would remain exclusively monogamous for life. About the only way somebody could become infected by HIV under such circumstances is if one partner became infected by IV drug use or blood transfusion. IV drug use would be against the rules. Whether there would even be a problem with blood transfusions would be questionable because somebody would have had to aquire the virus in some other way at some point.

Like it or not, it is absolutely true that the AIDS epidemic exists because of behavior that fundamentalist Christians would say is against the rules. No such behavior, no AIDS epidemic.

Now if we could just get all fundamentalist Christians to follow their own rules first, us heathens would be right behind them.

AZ,
The key elements of any (ANY) form of Religious Fundamentalism:
1) The rules are for "everybody else" to follow
2) We know more about God than you
3) Only Satan asks questions we can't answer