lordjedi said:I also wouldn't say, as you have, that Mother Theresa was obsessed with death and suffering. I will say that she lived amongst the poorest of people so she would understand what it was like. To suggest that a "free market" is going to help some poor individual in South Africa is, to me, a joke. While a free market would definitely help them, there's nothing wrong with giving up what one has in order to help the less fortunate. If you've got a TV, you've got more than most people.
I also don't understand why someone like Mother Theresa is given a hard time by you. She felt that the best way for her to help people living in poverty was to give up what she had, live among them, and do what she could to make their lives better. She showed the world the kind of poverty that exists. That is exactly what God calls us to do. See Luke 21:1-4, Luke 3:11
I know a lot of people respect mother Teresa, but, from everything I know about her, she was a horrible, disturbing person. She was obsessed with pain, suffering and death and her unhinged behavior is quite well documented. She wouldn't help sick people so much as, instead, keep them trapped in her dank, dark houses of death and then watch them die so she could be close to the "suffering" (which she strangely believed would bring her closer to Jesus . . . which is fucking crazy). Even mainstream supporters of Mother Teresa don't deny this crazy, sick behavior of hers (they simply try to dismiss it in light of what supposed good she did . . . which I don't really see).
C3PX said:Tiptup said:... tries to pretend a "vow of poverty" (and worthless Mother-Teresa-style shit like that) has any value in the sight of God. Hard work aimed at wise productivity in a free market is far more pure and helpful than some supposedly high and lofty individual that spends her life obsessed with death and suffering (as apposed to someone who works hard to alleviate and heal death and suffering).
I resent that comment. I have no idea why "Mother-Teresa-style" selfless living for others should be called shit. Sure it isn't for everyone, but to me it is just unbelievable that you'd claim a life is better spent living for youself and your family, working hard and productively in a free market society than it is living your life for others. Even more stupid is that you claim it has no value in the eyes of God.
Mother Teresa was not selfless but selfish . . . and crazy. Considering the way she pretended to be righteous and the way people (like you) say such wonderful things about her, she should have been working as hard as should could to produce medicine or heal sick people. Instead, when ordinary people threw a ton of money at her (money that could have been used to employ people or to help cure the lost and sick) she simply spent it to make more of her creepy houses of death.
Maybe in her craziness she still did some good somewhere (in ways that I don't know of), and to the degree that she did that there's probably some value to the work she did "in the eyes of God." But, the way I see it, God doesn't overlook evil and ultimately our actions cannot be called "good" if we knowingly do wrong. Mother Teresa was a creepy, cult-ish person that illegitimately exploited the suffering of real people so she could be close to it and I think her conscience knew that was wrong. She also wasted money designated for the poor in a bunch of ways that never went to help the poor in any way (and that was really wrong too).
Sure, I selfishly have an Xbox and a TV (as lordjedi mentioned) while people are starving somewhere, but I wasn't claiming I was some "higher" person (like you claim Mother Teresa was). Plus, while Xboxes and TVs tend to have a very vain, recreational purpose, at least people were employed somewhere to make those products for doing real work (as apposed to me just giving money to people for doing nothing . . . as you would want?).
I know that if I were to better devote my wealth to goodness that I would be behaving in many different ways. However, I try to keep my overall life centered on the best overall course of action that I can (which is not something I succeed at, but I try anyways). To be well centered in that way means I can't run off and try to do every little action I think I should have done or should be doing. To the degree I haven't done good or am not doing good, I have to accept that fact and try to improve myself in smaller ways. Therefore, to the degree that I live where I live, I deemed both an Xbox and a TV to be reasonable possessions within that. I know I could probably do far more, but I'm nowhere close to that point and it's a slow, difficult process to improve myself without destroying other good things I'm aiming for in my life.
"Vows of poverty" (as how certain Roman Catholic sects would define them) are very sick to me and I won't back down from defending that position of mine (I don't care if the truth as I see it offends people). People who elevate such a vow to the level of an ideal actually pretend that living in squalor and forsaking all possessions is a good way to help people. I, however, find that obviously crazy and illogical on the surface. The only reason United States of America has so much wealth it can then spread around the world is because its society works with a free market where people work for profit and private property. I defy you to name me anyone that helped others by having nothing (in other words, it's not possible to get something from nothing). Lastly, the poverty=godliness movement believes that the material world is evil and that was a heresy rejected by the Roman Catholic Church in its early years (so any Monks or Nuns who believe it today are believing what their own church defines as a heresy). We should not avoid productive work or private wealth, but instead devote it all to goodness as best we can.
A question for either C3PX or lordjedi: do you believe every ruler in the world should be living in the same poverty as their poorest subjects?
Also: would you rather people were given jobs where they can work for their own sustenance while simultaneously benefiting those who gave them the job, or would you rather people were just given straight charity?