Are singapore pastors millionaires?
-
Maybe god did not appreciate her effort but the Vatican definitely did. She's probably contributed more to the vatican coffers than anyone else.Originally posted by apples:Mother Teresa's motive preached the teachings of the god she wanted to strongly believe but yet reality seems to tell a different story. Regardless, her story, tells of a kind heart and pure motives in the name of goodness and the god she wanted to believe in. I also think it's so important that she tried and did something significant but fail short, i guess, in god's appreciation of her effort.
It's not wonder she's being fast tracked to sainthood. -
What do you mean God didn't appreciate Mother Teresa's efforts? How do you know? She took a vov of poverty so of course she was not materially rich!Originally posted by Phaze:Maybe god did not appreciate her effort but the Vatican definitely did. She's probably contributed more to the vatican coffers than anyone else.
It's not wonder she's being fast tracked to sainthood.
And please explain about her contribution to the Vatican's coffers. -
Hi,
It seems you have not read the previous posts so please allow me to clarify.
First of all, I am an atheist so I do not believe in god so my statement that "god did not appreciate mother theresa" was meant to be taken facetiously.
The context was, in previous posts, we discussed the fact that Mother Theresa was an atheist who did not believe in god. God never revealed himself to her til her dying day.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html
Another poster then commented that perhaps god didn't appreciate her efforts and thus did not reveal himself to her.
The comment on her contribution to the Vatican coffers comes from the fact that she received untold millions, possibly hundreds of millions in donations. Yet she spent very little of it. Where did the money go? She most certainly didn't spend it on herself and her order. So most likely the money went to the Vatican.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/
Also, it seems that although she was fundamentally an atheist, her search for god effectively made her a religious fanatic. She supported poverty and felt poverty was good. She felt earthly suffering was good and did little to end it. Some would argue that her help amounted to extending life so that people could suffer longer.
These are indeed harsh accusations. But look at the evidence with an open mind. -
Not really true to a certain extend.Originally posted by lagrangen:You see. We give our tithes and offerings as a sacrifice to God and we have no control where the money goes to and how is it handled. When we've put our trust in God and fulfil our personal obligations why should we be concerned with the nitty gritty, about how the funds are managed, about how much salary the pastor is taking?
You are giving to know that your money is put into good use or are you giving as an obedience to God?
As a believer we, give willingly, having the faith that we are building God's kingdom and spread the gospel.
Yes I know there are lots and lots of people out there who are very concerned about whether the church is mishandling the funds its members give or not putting it into its best use.
But can i ask, who are you to judge, make baseless one sided assumptions just because one church pastor tend to be more prosperous than others?
Please know a church is a place of religious worship, not charitable organisation.
Please stop flaming for the sake of doing so.
No doubt the offerings and tithes are given to God unconditionally.
The pastors & staffs managing the money is merely God's accountant and does not own a single cent in the tithes. He is allowed to draw a decent salary. But not to the extend of abusive. Abusive denotes capacity to cause his brothers to fall. And from the current stages, some churches are already at that extend. The worst part is that they still feel they have done nothing wrong. The money that is being held temporarily by church pastoral staffs have to be transparent and open to all the members of the church explaining every single cent is going towards what cause.
And being a slave of christ is never easy. Those who want to carry Jesus's cross will never have a good life on earth. But through sufferings and trials for Jesus, we earn the crown of life in heaven where our stored riches do not get looted. Therefore it is essential to come clean with the offerings collected in order to not cause any brothers to stumble when there is hidden accounts.
Some churches tabulate a monthly collection table to show to the members. There're some weekly too. And these tabulated datas show where does the money goes to. The accuracy goes down to every single cent.
But you are very right that since no one has the right to judge, we can only remind our own pastors about things they might carry too far. If he listens then it will be good. If he does not listen, then carry on winning them with our own good conduct but distance ourselves from those activities that are not right. -
hey phaze i suggest a little less of selective choosing of articles and more of finding out more info instead of getting the negative ones and posting them here dont use ur excuse as an aethist to demean ppl of God.. lots of blasphemy going on in this thread...
-
Let me just clarify a few terms that may be confused:
1) Offering:
Given by anyone who visits a church, similar to those in other places of worship. there is no requirement of any minimum amount here and people just give any amount they want.
The $ from offerings are used for things like paying the salary of staff, printing newsletters, printing evangelistic materials etc. Offerings are not used to build any church buildings.
2) Tithes:
this is what MEMBERS of the church give. it is 10% of what you earn as stated in the Bible. By members i mean those who attend the church regularly and want to be part of a church. it does not include those who just drop by for a visit here and there.
Tithes are given to the church you feel you belong to and are used in the same way as offering.
3) Building fund:
As the name suggests, its is collected for the purpose of building a church building or paying for the rentals, buying chairs, repair of church building etc.
Building fund is a specific fund. This means that the people who donate usually have to write specifically that it is going into the building fund. Means that it cannot be used to pay salaries etc.
So from this, we should understand that the $ used to build the buildings comes from the MEMEBERS. It does not come from the $ donated by the general public. Those go under offerings and are not touched for building.
4) lastly, i believe that we should not go around throwing accusations. i have no problems with a pastor getting rich as long as he is not "stealing" money or filling his own pockets. a pastor can also earn money from his own business paid from his own money. i mean lets just look at the property market now. so many millionaires in singapore already.
i believe there are things called financial statements and people called auditors. since the government is helping various churches in singapore review their finances, lets not throw accusations. And if the government review clears all the churches of financial mismanagement, are we willing to accept the humble pie and make apologies to these people? -
1) One has to be selective when the occassion calls for it.Originally posted by coochi:hey phaze i suggest a little less of selective choosing of articles and more of finding out more info instead of getting the negative ones and posting them here dont use ur excuse as an aethist to demean ppl of God.. lots of blasphemy going on in this thread...
2)If Phaze seemed to be demeaning, it only seems that way to you. Feel free to take it personally.
3)Blasphemy does not exist in the secular mind. Please understand. Please...
And finally, welcome to SGforums. Noob. -
Finding out more info about what?Originally posted by coochi:hey phaze i suggest a little less of selective choosing of articles and more of finding out more info instead of getting the negative ones and posting them here dont use ur excuse as an aethist to demean ppl of God.. lots of blasphemy going on in this thread...
I raised three points.
1. Mother Theresa did not believe in god. This was what Mother Theresa herself wrote in her personal diaries which she had requested destroyed upon her death. However, I guess the Vatican overruled her wished. You can interpret her lack of faith however you wish - that god was testing her, etc. But it is undisputed that she did not believe in god.
2. Mother Theresa may have done more harm than good. Mother Theresa, because of her fame, did raise a lot of awareness on the plight of the poor. However, Mother Theresa did little to alleviate poverty. If you have references to articles or documents that show what she has done, please let me know about them.
Note that claims need to be fact checked.
"Teresa claimed to have 102 family assistance centers in Calcutta, but
longtime Calcutta resident, Aroup Chatterjee, who did an extensive
on-the-scene investigation of her mission, could not find a single such
center."
So for example, what you can do is research for family assistance centers set up by Missionaries of Charities.
3. Mother Theresa and Missionaries of Charities received possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in donations. No one knows where this money has gone. As above, if you have references to articles or documents that explain how the money was spent, please let me know. I'm interested.
I have read Mother Theresa's authorized biography as well as Mother Theresa: Come Be My Light and flipped through Mother Theresa: In My Own Words. -
Originally posted by Phaze:Finding out more info about what?
I raised three points.
1. Mother Theresa did not believe in god. This was what Mother Theresa herself wrote in her personal diaries which she had requested destroyed upon her death. However, I guess the Vatican overruled her wished. You can interpret her lack of faith however you wish - that god was testing her, etc. But it is undisputed that she did not believe in god.
2. Mother Theresa may have done more harm than good. Mother Theresa, because of her fame, did raise a lot of awareness on the plight of the poor. However, Mother Theresa did little to alleviate poverty. If you have references to articles or documents that show what she has done, please let me know about them.
Note that claims need to be fact checked.
"Teresa claimed to have 102 family assistance centers in Calcutta, but
longtime Calcutta resident, Aroup Chatterjee, who did an extensive
on-the-scene investigation of her mission, could not find a single such
center."
So for example, what you can do is research for family assistance centers set up by Missionaries of Charities.
3. Mother Theresa and Missionaries of Charities received possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in donations. No one knows where this money has gone. As above, if you have references to articles or documents that explain how the money was spent, please let me know. I'm interested.
I have read Mother Theresa's authorized biography as well as Mother Theresa: Come Be My Light and flipped through Mother Theresa: In My Own Words.
What you have said is very insightful, yet I say thisOriginally posted by Phaze:Finding out more info about what?
I raised three points.
1. Mother Theresa did not believe in god. This was what Mother Theresa herself wrote in her personal diaries which she had requested destroyed upon her death. However, I guess the Vatican overruled her wished. You can interpret her lack of faith however you wish - that god was testing her, etc. But it is undisputed that she did not believe in god.
2. Mother Theresa may have done more harm than good. Mother Theresa, because of her fame, did raise a lot of awareness on the plight of the poor. However, Mother Theresa did little to alleviate poverty. If you have references to articles or documents that show what she has done, please let me know about them.
Note that claims need to be fact checked.
"Teresa claimed to have 102 family assistance centers in Calcutta, but
longtime Calcutta resident, Aroup Chatterjee, who did an extensive
on-the-scene investigation of her mission, could not find a single such
center."
So for example, what you can do is research for family assistance centers set up by Missionaries of Charities.
3. Mother Theresa and Missionaries of Charities received possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in donations. No one knows where this money has gone. As above, if you have references to articles or documents that explain how the money was spent, please let me know. I'm interested.
I have read Mother Theresa's authorized biography as well as Mother Theresa: Come Be My Light and flipped through Mother Theresa: In My Own Words.
1) In the end, perhaps she still did not believe in god. The answer is something only she knows. Yet, she portrayed lots of faith in god while pursuing her dream which I guess is why she had so many believers.
2) How the money donated to her is used is unknown and no one has been able to prove that it has been abused? No one has been able to proof or show it and I think she is innocent until proven guilty. If the money is entrusted to the Vaticans as speculated, what's is wrong with that?
Coming back to the forum topic, I guess those church pastors should not be condemned until significant proof has shown a misuse of the money. But it seems that there are clear signs of abuse for self glorification.
3) She has done more good than harm. Her words and legacy remains to be read by generations of people. Her work and thoughts left deep impression to many. Raising awareness is also more difficult thing than just giving and have a far greater and longer lasting impact.
4) She is also right that suffering does bring you closer to god. I agree with this statement.
5) No matter how wise and intelligent she is, some of us will still see light in the other perspective and I still see lots more goodness from the deeds that she has done though some of it could of course have been done in a more effective manner. -
I've kinda wondered about this. What is more important? The ideal or the reality? I tend to think the reality is more important. But I accept I may be wrong. I do think for most people, they like the ideal of Mother Theresa and that idealized image of Mother Theresa they have does make them try to be better. It's not so important what Mother Theresa actually did than what people think she did.Originally posted by apples:2) How the money donated to her is used is unknown and no one has been able to prove that it has been abused? No one has been able to proof or show it and I think she is innocent until proven guilty. If the money is entrusted to the Vaticans as speculated, what's is wrong with that?
[/quote]
I'm not saying that the money was abused. I'm not even sure how to define 'abuse' in this case.
And there is nothing wrong with her entrusting the money to the Vatican. The point I was trying to make is that many people thought they were donating money to help the poor, but they never gave a thought to how the money would be used. They trusted Mother Threasa to use the money appropriately. I'm sure some donors would have no qualms about the money going to the Vatican (of course this is speculative as no one knows where the money went). Others, however, may have wanted the money to be used in a more direct manner to benefit the poor. I do feel, however, that donors have no cause for complaint if they never bothered to check how the money was used.
We could get into a whole 'nother discussion of whether it's ethical to solicit donations for one cause, and use the donations fr another cause. But let's not get into that right now.
Coming back to the forum topic, I guess those church pastors should not be condemned until significant proof has shown a misuse of the money. But it seems that there are clear signs of abuse for self glorification.
In some ways, one could argue that Mother Theresa performed acts of self glorification as well. Her ostentatious displays of poverty screamed, "I'm holier than you. I'm more pious than you."
When she met the Pope, she traveled to the Vatican by bus and wore a $1 robe (and how do you think we know the robe cost $1? Because we were told). Was that necessary? She flies first class and in private jets and stays at opulent residences.
3) She has done more good than harm. Her words and legacy remains to be read by generations of people. Her work and thoughts left deep impression to many. Raising awareness is also more difficult thing than just giving and have a far greater and longer lasting impact.
4) She is also right that suffering does bring you closer to god. I agree with this statement.
It really depends on how you define 'good'. If you define 'good' as bringing people closer to god, yes she has done a lot of good. By the same token, televangelists and megachurch pastors who defraud their chuch members have also done a lot of good.
But if you define 'good' as reducing suffering, she hasn't done much good at all.
[quote]
5) No matter how wise and intelligent she is, some of us will still see light in the other perspective and I still see lots more goodness from the deeds that she has done though some of it could of course have been done in a more effective manner. -
This is a world with many fools who complains at the last. Trust misplaced or trust well placed, I agree to a certain extent that we should accept the consequences of our foolishness. That extent I refer to is the abusive stage where law can come in to deal with the abuser.Originally posted by Phaze:I do feel, however, that donors have no cause for complaint if they never bothered to check how the money was used.
Ah... so you feel that she is flaunting to the world. But I feel she acted as such based on her belief and values. Placing her in those first class rooms is likely not her idea. She is also human after all and can make wrong decisions.Originally posted by Phaze:In some ways, one could argue that Mother Theresa performed acts of self glorification as well. Her ostentatious displays of poverty screamed, "I'm holier than you. I'm more pious than you."
No, she has done more than that. She advocate peace and love. I ask that you read again on those quotations and articles from her.Originally posted by Phaze:It really depends on how you define 'good'. If you define 'good' as bringing people closer to god, yes she has done a lot of good. By the same token, televangelists and megachurch pastors who defraud their chuch members have also done a lot of good.
But if you define 'good' as reducing suffering, she hasn't done much good at all.
As for the church pastors, I cannot say. I guess our government is again going to show us what is the socially accepted behavior of a religious organisation and personally I cannot accept the behavior of the pastors mentioned.
If you refer to the physical pain, yes you are right. She is a religious person and not a doctor and surely could not help alleviate pain or cure disease which doctors know.
She also did not make the poor richer in money and assets. How could she have provided these things when she herself was poor and have rejected the money donated to her.
You know, human can never say enough, for we are built with an unquenchable amount of greed. When poor, we cry for bread and butter. When we have butter, we cry for more comfort that can relieve the hardship in living. When we have comfort, we cry for power and fame. When we have power and fame, we possibly freedom and ...
I've kinda wondered about this. What is more important? The ideal or the reality? I tend to think the reality is more important. -
Yes, sorry I didn't read all the previous posts. However, I don't agree with your views on Mother Teresa. Her main mission was to reach out to the dying so that they will not die alone. I don't believe that the money donated to her went to the Vatican, well not the bulk of it. Her organisation feeds and clothes the destitutes. That takes money. They don't go around distributing money, building schools or whatever like some other organisations do but use the money to see the dying leave the earth with dignity and a sense of being cared for. I believe all charities have their different functions and purposes.Originally posted by Phaze:Hi,
It seems you have not read the previous posts so please allow me to clarify.
First of all, I am an atheist so I do not believe in god so my statement that "god did not appreciate mother theresa" was meant to be taken facetiously.
The context was, in previous posts, we discussed the fact that Mother Theresa was an atheist who did not believe in god. God never revealed himself to her til her dying day.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html
Another poster then commented that perhaps god didn't appreciate her efforts and thus did not reveal himself to her.
The comment on her contribution to the Vatican coffers comes from the fact that she received untold millions, possibly hundreds of millions in donations. Yet she spent very little of it. Where did the money go? She most certainly didn't spend it on herself and her order. So most likely the money went to the Vatican.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/bajuu/
Also, it seems that although she was fundamentally an atheist, her search for god effectively made her a religious fanatic. She supported poverty and felt poverty was good. She felt earthly suffering was good and did little to end it. Some would argue that her help amounted to extending life so that people could suffer longer.
These are indeed harsh accusations. But look at the evidence with an open mind. -
Originally posted by lagrangen:
From the bold parts, the idea I get from u is that you just want to fulfil ur obligation to god by giving ur tithes and offerings, and after that, ur job is done, and that u don't care what happens to the money because u believe that should the pastor take ur money, he will rot in hell, and god will punish him, and that it will weigh on his conscience?
You see. We give our tithes and offerings as a sacrifice to God and we have no control where the money goes to and how is it handled. When we've put our trust in God and fulfil our personal obligations why should we be concerned with the nitty gritty, about how the funds are managed, about how much salary the pastor is taking?
You are giving to know that your money is put into good use or are you giving as an obedience to God?
As a believer we, give willingly, having the faith that we are building God's kingdom and spread the gospel.
Yes I know there are lots and lots of people out there who are very concerned about whether the church is mishandling the funds its members give or not putting it into its best use.
But can i ask, who are you to judge, make baseless one sided assumptions just because one church pastor tend to be more prosperous than others?
Please know a church is a place of religious worship, not charitable organisation.
Please stop flaming for the sake of doing so.
I am sorry, but it is this bochup attitude that worries me. True, a church is a religious worship, u do ur part by going to the church on weekends to pray and seek forgiveness and hope that HE will watch over you. You give money in the hope that something good will come out of it. Yet it doesn't concern u 1 BIT where that money may go to instead? So the church or for that matter, any place of worship should not be held accountable to the publics??
Wow, u sure are a trusting person. -
I'm afraid you are wrong. Although Mother Theresa's organization did care of the poor in a sense, it was very different from the way I, and probably you, define care.Originally posted by adetet:Yes, sorry I didn't read all the previous posts. However, I don't agree with your views on Mother Teresa. Her main mission was to reach out to the dying so that they will not die alone. I don't believe that the money donated to her went to the Vatican, well not the bulk of it. Her organisation feeds and clothes the destitutes. That takes money. They don't go around distributing money, building schools or whatever like some other organisations do but use the money to see the dying leave the earth with dignity and a sense of being cared for. I believe all charities have their different functions and purposes.
Please recall that Mother Theresa considered poverty to be sacred. She hardly spent anything. All the money came in and hardly anything was spent. Conditions were so horrible that many volunteers left deeply disillusioned after seeing the the conditions that people had suffer.
Mother Theresa also did little to alleviate suffering. She refused to allow the administering of painkillers among other things.
Please read this account from Susan Shields, who served in the Missionaries of Charity for 9 years.
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/6-Jun-2007.html
I will reproduce the article in the following posts for your convenience. -
"Some years after I became a Catholic, I joined Mother Teresa's
congregation, the Missionaries of Charity. I was one of her sisters for
nine and a half years, living in the Bronx, Rome, and San Francisco, until
I became disillusioned and left in May 1989. As I re-entered the world, I
slowly began to unravel the tangle of lies in which I had lived. I
wondered how I could have believed them for so long.
"Three of Mother Teresa's teachings that are fundamental to her religious
congregation are all the more dangerous because they are believed so
sincerely by her sisters. Most basic is the belief that as long as a
sister obeys she is doing God's will. Another is the belief that the
sisters have leverage over God by choosing to suffer. Their suffering
makes God very happy. He then dispenses more graces to humanity. The
third is the belief that any attachment to human beings, even the poor
being served, supposedly interferes with love of God and must be
vigilantly avoided or immediately uprooted. The efforts to prevent any
attachments cause continual chaos and confusion, movement and change in
the congregation. Mother Teresa did not invent these beliefs - they were
prevalent in religious congregations before Vatican II - but she did
everything in her power (which was great) to enforce them. -
"Once a sister has accepted these fallacies she will do almost anything.
She can allow her health to be destroyed, neglect those she vowed to
serve, and switch off her feelings and independent thought. She can turn
a blind eye to suffering, inform on her fellow sisters, tell lies with
ease, and ignore public laws and regulations.
Women from many nations joined Mother Teresa in the expectation that they
would help the poor and come closer to God themselves. When I left, there
were more than 3,000 sisters in approximately 400 houses scattered
throughout the world. Many of these sisters who trusted Mother Teresa to
guide them have become broken people. In the face of overwhelming
evidence, some of them have finally admitted that their trust has been
betrayed, that God could not possibly be giving the orders they hear. It
is difficult for them to decide to leave - their self-confidence has been
destroyed, and they have no education beyond what they brought with them
when they joined. I was one of the lucky ones who mustered enough courage
to walk away.
"It is in the hope that others may see the fallacy of this purported way
to holiness that I tell a little of what I know. Although there are
relatively few tempted to join Mother Teresa's congregation of sisters,
there are many who generously have supported her work because they do not
realize how her twisted premises strangle efforts to alleviate misery.
Unaware that most of the donations sit unused in her bank accounts, they
too are deceived into thinking they are helping the poor. -
"As a Missionary of Charity, I was assigned to record donations and write
the thank-you letters. The money arrived at a frantic rate. The mail
carrier often delivered the letters in sacks. We wrote receipts for
checks of $50,000 and more on a regular basis. Sometimes a donor would
call up and ask if we had received his check, expecting us to remember it
readily because it was so large. How could we say that we could not
recall it because we had received so many that were even larger?
"When Mother spoke publicly, she never asked for money, but she did
encourage people to make sacrifices for the poor, to "give until it
hurts." Many people did - and they gave it to her. We received touching
letters from people, sometimes apparently poor themselves, who were
making sacrifices to send us a little money for the starving people in
Africa, the flood victims in Bangladesh, or the poor children in India.
Most of the money sat in our bank accounts.
"The flood of donations was considered to be a sign of God's approval of
Mother Teresa's congregation. We were told by our superiors that we
received more gifts than other religious congregations because God was
pleased with Mother, and because the Missionaries of Charity were the
sisters who were faithful to the true spirit of religious life. -
"Most of the sisters had no idea how much money the congregation was
amassing. After all, we were taught not to collect anything. One summer
the sisters living on the outskirts of Rome were given more crates of
tomatoes than they could distribute. None of their neighbors wanted them
because the crop had been so prolific that year. The sisters decided to
can the tomatoes rather than let them spoil, but when Mother found out
what they had done she was very displeased. Storing things showed lack of
trust in Divine Providence.
"The donations rolled in and were deposited in the bank, but they had no
effect on our ascetic lives and very little effect on the lives of the
poor we were trying to help. We lived a simple life, bare of all
superfluities. We had three sets of clothes, which we mended until the
material was too rotten to patch anymore. We washed our own clothes by
hand. The never-ending piles of sheets and towels from our night shelter
for the homeless we washed by hand, too. Our bathing was accomplished
with only one bucket of water. Dental and medical checkups were seen as
an unnecessary luxury.
"Mother was very concerned that we preserve our spirit of poverty.
Spending money would destroy that poverty. She seemed obsessed with using
only the simplest of means for our work. Was this in the best interests
of the people we were trying to help, or were we in fact using them as a
tool to advance our own "sanctity?" In Haiti, to keep the spirit of
poverty, the sisters reused needles until they became blunt. Seeing the
pain caused by the blunt needles, some of the volunteers offered to
procure more needles, but the sisters refused.
"We begged for food and supplies from local merchants as though we had no
resources. On one of the rare occasions when we ran out of donated bread,
we went begging at the local store. When our request was turned down, our
superior decreed that the soup kitchen could do without bread for the
day. -
"It was not only merchants who were offered a chance to be generous.
Airlines were requested to fly sisters and air cargo free of charge.
Hospitals and doctors were expected to absorb the costs of medical
treatment for the sisters or to draw on funds designated for the
religious. Workmen were encouraged to labor without payment or at reduced
rates. We relied heavily on volunteers who worked long hours in our soup
kitchens, shelters, and day camps.
"A hard-working farmer devoted many of his waking hours to collecting and
delivering food for our soup kitchens and shelters. "If I didn't come,
what would you eat?" he asked.
"Our Constitution forbade us to beg for more than we needed, but, when it
came to begging, the millions of dollars accumulating in the bank were
treated as if they did not exist.
"For years I had to write thousands of letters to donors, telling them
that their entire gift would be used to bring God's loving compassion to
the poorest of the poor. I was able to keep my complaining conscience in
check because we had been taught that the Holy Spirit was guiding Mother.
To doubt her was a sign that we were lacking in trust and, even worse,
guilty of the sin of pride. I shelved my objections and hoped that one
day I would understand why Mother wanted to gather so much money, when
she herself had taught us that even storing tomato sauce showed lack of
trust in Divine Providence." -
Ah... so you feel that she is flaunting to the world. But I feel she acted as such based on her belief and values. Placing her in those first class rooms is likely not her idea. She is also human after all and can make wrong decisions.
I do agree that placing her in first class rooms was probably not her idea. Flying first class and in private jets was also not her idea. All this was sponsored I'm sure. It has been documented that she hardly paid for anything. "God would provide" was her refrain.
Her view of God's providence was very different from ours. She didn't view monetary donations as providence. If she received $100 in donations, she wouldn't use it to buy food. She would expect god to provide food in the sense that a baker should show up with bread, or people would bring food.
Do you not think that people would be more than happy to sponsor clothing as well? I'm not saying she needed to dress in silks and the finest clothing - though that would have been gladly given to her as well. A simple, functional robe would have done. Do you not think that someone would offer to drive her from the airport to the Vatican? Do you not think that a taxi driver would have gladly given her a ride?
I do agree that she's human and she can make wrong decisions. But I think her goal was to advance Catholicism and she pursued that goal to the detriment of helping the poor.
No, she has done more than that. She advocate peace and love. I ask that you read again on those quotations and articles from her.
Words. But is it not the deeds we do that change the world?
After the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal exploded and toxic chemicals killed 2500 people and permanently impaired the health of many thousands, Mother Teresa went there post haste. Investigation later revealed a pattern of negligence by the corporation and showed that previous warnings about lack of safety at the plant had been ignored by it. Throngs of angry relatives of victims greeted her at the airport and asked her advice and counsel. She gave it. She intoned her usual homily for solving complex problems: "Forgive, forgive, forgive." A group of residents in one of the worst slums in the nation's capital confronted her on her visit there and told her that they needed housing, jobs, and services -- not charity. They asked her what she was going to do about it. She advised, "First we must learn to love one another."
I would say she caused harm because people thought they were doing good when they donated to her. Because they thought Mother Theresa was taking care of the poor, their conscience was free.
There was another thread about a malay family with 10 children and the father could not support his children. In India, the situation was far worse. Mother Theresa was opposed to any form of contraception and claimed that abortion was the greatest destroyer of peace in the world.
I can't help but feel a tinge of anger at the following quote.
When Mother Teresa was asked if she would agree that there are too many children in India she replied: "I do not agree because God always provides. He provides for the flowers and the birds, for everything in the world he has created. And these little children are his life. There never can be enough."
If god provides, why was the Missionaries of Charities even needed? Why did so many children have to die? If there is a god, he works through us to do his deeds. And Mother Theresa always left things to God. Suffering was a beautiful thing.
And death with dignity?
Mother Teresa has a San Francisco hostel named The Gift of Love; it is for homeless men with HIV. They are not allowed to watch TV or smoke or drink or invite friends, not even when they are dying, and so, of course, they are exceptionally depressed. One man said how afraid he was of dying without morphine. It is hard to find anyone with a good word for The Gift of Love.
If you refer to the physical pain, yes you are right. She is a religious person and not a doctor and surely could not help alleviate pain or cure disease which doctors know.
She also did not make the poor richer in money and assets. How could she have provided these things when she herself was poor and have rejected the money donated to her.
But she had the means. She could have helped alleviate pain, but she rejected the use of painkillers because she thought suffering brought people closer to God and that suffering could save the world.
And finally, she did not reject the money donated to her and in fact, failed to return money even after being informed that she received stolen money. -
The word of one bitter person who left her order does not convince me. I am a Buddhist but I lived with Mother Teresa's order for 2 years doing voluntary work. And my experience is so much different from that of that poor bitter person. And I believe my experience has - hopefully - made me a better person, a more devoted follower of my faith.
Mother Teresa was more frial in person than on TV and fyi, she took medicine for herself. Medicine was also provided for the sick and dying - prescribed by doctors, not Mother Teresa or her sisters. As I am not a nurse, I did not dispense the medicine but I did help in "stock" take so I know there was medicine.
She believed in the virtue of poverty but that doesn't mean she lived in a cave. For instance if you were to give her a washing machine, she would not accept it for use for herself and her sisters but would send it to one of their homes to be used for washing the laundry of the people in their care.
Anyway, I see your mind is made up. You want to believe the negative things about Mother Teresa. So be it. I do not want to labour this point with many posts day after day. We each have our own opinions. Mine is not based on the rantings of a bitter person but from real life observatiion.
p.s. I just want to add that I have not read the entire ramblings of the bitter person as it is too long. Sorry about that. -
You guys worry more about ur faith to the almighty one. Let God judge those that deserved to be judged. And the hand of God will will strike them down. Nobody escapes the heavenly justice. Especially those that understand his words but knowingly goes against his will , will be punished tenfold.
-
But that is the spirit of donation whether to the Church, Temple, Charitable Organisation, Friend, Famiily member etc. We don't with one hand give $ and with the other say give me an account. I have done that only once when I had misgivings to "donate" money to someone and I wanted to be certain that that person used it well.Originally posted by nanren4ever:From the bold parts, the idea I get from u is that you just want to fulfil ur obligation to god by giving ur tithes and offerings, and after that, ur job is done, and that u don't care what happens to the money because u believe that should the pastor take ur money, he will rot in hell, and god will punish him, and that it will weigh on his conscience?
I am sorry, but it is this bochup attitude that worries me. True, a church is a religious worship, u do ur part by going to the church on weekends to pray and seek forgiveness and hope that HE will watch over you. You give money in the hope that something good will come out of it. Yet it doesn't concern u 1 BIT where that money may go to instead? So the church or for that matter, any place of worship should not be held accountable to the publics??
Wow, u sure are a trusting person.
Place of worship should be held accountable only to their own followers. But public charitable organisation funded by tax payers etc should be made public. This is my view. I have donated money to places of worship, be it Muslim, Buddhist, Christian and I have not asked for an account. I gave because I was just happy to give. -
I agree that places of worship should be accountable only to their own followers. However, religions should lose any tax privileges they may have.Originally posted by adetet:But that is the spirit of donation whether to the Church, Temple, Charitable Organisation, Friend, Famiily member etc. We don't with one hand give $ and with the other say give me an account. I have done that only once when I had misgivings to "donate" money to someone and I wanted to be certain that that person used it well.
Place of worship should be held accountable only to their own followers. But public charitable organisation funded by tax payers etc should be made public. This is my view. I have donated money to places of worship, be it Muslim, Buddhist, Christian and I have not asked for an account. I gave because I was just happy to give.
If a religion wants to enjoy tax privileges, they should abide by the same rules as any other IPC. -
What you want to believe is, of course, your own prerogative and there's no need to apologize if you don't wish to read.Originally posted by adetet:The word of one bitter person who left her order does not convince me. I am a Buddhist but I lived with Mother Teresa's order for 2 years doing voluntary work. And my experience is so much different from that of that poor bitter person. And I believe my experience has - hopefully - made me a better person, a more devoted follower of my faith.
Mother Teresa was more frial in person than on TV and fyi, she took medicine for herself. Medicine was also provided for the sick and dying - prescribed by doctors, not Mother Teresa or her sisters. As I am not a nurse, I did not dispense the medicine but I did help in "stock" take so I know there was medicine.
She believed in the virtue of poverty but that doesn't mean she lived in a cave. For instance if you were to give her a washing machine, she would not accept it for use for herself and her sisters but would send it to one of their homes to be used for washing the laundry of the people in their care.
Anyway, I see your mind is made up. You want to believe the negative things about Mother Teresa. So be it. I do not want to labour this point with many posts day after day. We each have our own opinions. Mine is not based on the rantings of a bitter person but from real life observatiion.
p.s. I just want to add that I have not read the entire ramblings of the bitter person as it is too long. Sorry about that.
I didn't realize that you spent 2 years working with Mother Theresa and of course, your personal testimonial is very powerful. And of course, why would you believe the accounts of others when you have seen with your own eyes. 2 years is also not an insignificant amount of time so you have a strong basis for your beliefs.
But of course, all you see is the good work done with what you think is very little. You don't realize that much has been given.
I do accept that Mother Theresa might have done some good. But I do think she could have done a lot more with what she had received. And I think too much money has gone unaccounted for except possibly to the Vatican. But of course, you have made it clear that you feel there is nothing wrong with that.
I never did dispute there were doctors, and there was medicine. My point was simply that it was very little compared to the amount of money coming in. And I know Mother Theresa didn't spend it on herself or the organization. However, they did not spend it on the poor either.
I suspect this was a religious quirk of hers. She didn't want to spend anything, instead wanting people to donate or give things for free. I would explain further but it would make a long post already longer. And all this has already been covered before.
In any case, I will wish you well and leave you with a thought. Our eyes fool us all the time. It is critical thinking that allows us to reach beyond our all too human limitations.