Mother Teresa Was A Crook And A Fraud

“The hunger for love is much more difficult to remove than the hunger for bread.” —Mother Teresa

In A Nutshell

The words “Mother Teresa” are modern-shorthand for things like “good,” “kind-hearted,” and “selfless.” Unfortunately, the real Mother Teresa was an authoritarian crook who palled around with some of the most despicable men of her day.

The Whole Bushel

Mother Teresa is famed for being one of history’s true altruists. She devoted her life to the poor, opening her first Missionaries of Charity home in 1950s Calcutta, and going on to open hundreds more across the world. As word of her mission spread, it caught the public imagination and millions of dollars began to pour in, all of which went to help those who needed it most. At least, that’s the official version.

The reality is far grimmer. According to those who’ve volunteered there, Mother Teresa’s missions are squalid cesspits run along violent, authoritarian lines. There are reports of unruly children being tied to beds and beaten, of outdated equipment not being replaced, and of needles being reused in countries with high HIV infection rates (such as Haiti) until they were so blunt they caused pain. All of this wrapped up in a culture of unquestioning obedience, secrecy, and control that is said to resemble a cult.

This might all be okay if the Missionaries were doing some good, but they’re not. In 1991, German magazine Stern revealed that only 7 percent of donations to the organization were used for charity. The rest was funneled into secret bank accounts or used to build more missions. There are reports that missions won’t even buy bread to feed their inmates, preferring instead to rely only on donated food.

And where does all this money come from? Well, some of it comes from regular, kind-hearted folk giving what they can. A heck of a lot more came from some of the most evil men who ever lived. Mother Teresa herself personally took large donations from the psychopathic Haitian dictator “Baby Doc,” publicly defending his blood-soaked rule in return. In the 1990s, fraudster Charles Keating donated $1.25 million of stolen money to the Missionaries. When asked to return the fraudulent money, Mother Teresa simply stayed silent.

Mother Teresa undoubtedly did some good things in her time, but they may yet be overshadowed by her awful legacy. In 2010, Forbes revealed that the first home she set up had a mortality rate of over 40 percent. To paraphrase an old saying, if the poor have friends like her, they no longer need enemies.

Show Me The Proof

Pointing Fingers At Mother Teresa’s Heirs
Search for sins of saint of the gutters
Christopher Hitchens: Mommie Dearest

  • Arjan Hut

    … now ruin Mandela!

    • Cardinal Richelieu

      And the Dalai Lama! Or simply watch the episode of Bullshit! where there all three are pilloried.

      • rick

        the dalai lama has never done anything but good. hes not a fraud like the catholics

        • Susan J Caldwell

          he prays for peace and eats veal. He has good script writers, that is all.

          • Fushin

            Actually, he was vegetarian until his doctor ordered him to eat meat. Don’t focus on the people, focus on the message. Meditate. Do the right thing. Be kind.

          • Susan J Caldwell

            What nonsense, his doctors ordered him to eat meat. We do not need to eat tortured corpses to survive, its not them or us, its cruel to the planet, the animals and the starving billion humans. He si a fraud with a gang of scriptwriters. Im am kind. What I am not is buried in denial and accepting cruelty. Dali lama is a cruel bastard, eating poor abused animals, an ugly man. Be kind. Be vegan, anythng less is gross hypocrosy and contributing to dreadful cruelty.

          • mech126

            And the reason you have a mind at all is because we ate meat..

          • Carolyn Bryant Schaub
          • Carolyn Bryant Schaub
          • mech126

            Sorry, but not true, and putting up a vegan website is not proof, because science has proven that we where eating carbs from plants, but that isn’t what change us, it was hunting, and fire roasted meet that change us, it is proven by science.

          • pointforward

            It has obviously helped you.
            That was written at lower than a 3rd grade level.
            You’re simply wrong, and I’m a biologist who has actually studied it.

          • Dan

            Lol! & it’s meat, not meet.

          • mech126

            It’s still not true.

          • Union Lacktivist

            You = Kooky cunt.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            She sure is kooky

          • Steve Cook

            Veganism is scientifically unnatural, are you sure it makes you so superior? Milk and Cheese are not killing animals, which pretty much destroys your stance of morality by segregating yourself from the other vegetarians.
            Then there are micro organisms, animals so small you eat without knowledge. Not to mention the bugs, spiders and other things you consume without your awareness.
            Next, how is eating one living thing acceptable, yet another is not? Plants are living things, vegetarians kill more than anyone. Not to mention seeds are like plant abortions.

            I am not saying your right or wrong about being superior, I am saying your arguments are lame parrotings of people you like, and like any dogma, shows no truth, just belief in intangible ideas.

            You define vegan as the only non “gross” way, yet fail to identify any distinction between your way and that of a cannibal, forcing your audience to make their conclusions of what you mean. If you’re going to try and “fight” to protect animals, you need to define why we should.

            Humans naturally don’t tend to eat predators, be it because they tend to be smarter, we find kinship, or because they tend to be more dangerous in the wild (Not true actually, as a bull is plenty dangerous). Yet you say the acts of these same animals are likewise as bad as they eat animals, putting animals into a “gross” standing.
            Are animals gross because they eat animals? If so, isn’t that a big circular argument that send negates itself? Sure you can feed your cat vegetarian diet, maybe, but it will still eat that mouse, spider, or whatever else it can get. My dogs will chomp on a bird if they catch it, nothing I could say to change their mind either.
            What about spraying for bugs, spiders, or removing ticks and leeches?
            Is eating animals gross because they are living? If so eating plants are equally gross.

            What exactly is so “wrong” about eating animals, yet not so bad when it comes to bugs, plants, etc? Define your statement before trying to call people sick, wrong or bad, and you may just find people having a hard time calling you a freak.

            Btw, your being a fascist (authoritarian and intolerant) by the way your stated your claim, in such a way that anyone disagreeing is somehow wrong or gross. This is usually a sign of dogmatic religious thinking, and lacks any true inspiration or thought.

            My point is come across as being narrow minded and prejudice, because you’re judging people not like yourself.

          • Carolyn Bryant Schaub

            There isn’t a single vegan that claims superiority. We enjoy doing no harm. If that makes you feel uncomfortable- perhaps you are the one that feels superior? Milk and cheese do kill animals. Do your research. The veal industry is born from the necessity to get rid of young male dairy calves. Calves are ripped away minutes after being born. A dairy cow has a miserable life of constant pregnancy and babies being torn away. Your argument about micro organisms, plants and other sentient beings have no merit and is specious.
            “yet fail to identify any distinction between your way and that of a cannibal, ” Uh- shouldn’t you have said, “There is no distinction between me eating a cow, a dog, a dolphin or a human- why should I not be a cannibal?”
            You, my friend, are feeling threatened. Your cognitive dissonance is strong. Vegans are going out of their way not to harm their fellow living creatures. Why does that bother you? Think about it.

          • Steve Cook

            I quote: “Be kind. Be vegan, anythng less is gross hypocrosy and contributing to dreadful cruelty.” You claim that I am speaking out of turn, that I need to justify my statements. Read the statement I am responding to before you ignorantly lash out at me.
            First, she really needs spell check, secondly I am responding to someone claiming superiority and calling meat eaters gross and cruel. In other words, this is a single vegan that is indeed claiming superiority. Which is what I was responding to, not that she is vegan, but that she is insulting everyone that is not.
            Vegans do harm, just like everyone else. They drive SUVs polluting the air, chop down trees to grow their crops results from buying inefficient crops for “purity” ignoring genetically altered crops that feed more per square mile, assuming natural is always better.
            We cannot live without doing harm to this planet, vegans still have children, still drive, still do other damaging things to this world. They are just as ignorant to the damage they are doing as others, in other words they are no different than anyone else.

            They like everyone else thinks their way of life is superior to others but like everyone else, they parrot and repeat the ignorant arguments presented for them, feeling a sense of greatness for the illusions they claim true and belonging to a small group of outspoken people.

            My statement is do not claim superiority for what you feel, believe, or like. What you choose to eat is no more damaging or less damaging to this world until you actually can prove it. It is a preference until you can bring real proof, not statements, not conjecture nor rhetoric, but facts that prove you stance.

          • Maria

            Veganism is a choice made by people who want to reduce the damage man has created from greed and glutony. It is not only healthier, it reduces the number of animals produced just to be killed so meat eaters can satisfy their tastebuds instead of their health. Vegetables can be made very tasty and satisfying so meat will not be craved. Every 6 year old knows meat is unhealthy. Why do doctors tell patients to cut out red meat when cholesterol levels are out the roof. Never heard a doctor tell anyone not to eat vegetables. To be cliche, you really are what you eat. I would rather be a fresh veggie than a dead cow or chicken. Our bodies were made to eat food that grows from the ground, not ground beef. Also, the way in which meat is raised, fed and slaughtered is bad for OUR health, not to mention the suffering and torture received by the poor helpless animals. The drugs injected in the animals are being consumed by meat eaters. Look at all the new diseases cropping up daily. This comes from chemicals injected into our foods, including GMOs you are feeding to the poor. This only helps the chemical and pharmaceutical companies later when they load us up on drugs to counteract the effects of chemical-laden foods. It is a vicious cycle I broke several years ago. Organic vegetables is now my diet and I have not had even a sniffle since I changed over from a meat eater to a vegetarian. I also lost 30 lbs. And I am at the perfect weight for my body type. My recent blood tests have proven that vegetarianism is the only way to go, not only for my excellent health but that of the health of our great planet and ALL its inhabitants. By the way I am 65, so it is never too late to start. You will see and feel the benefits immediately. And, you will like yourself better. It is not about being superior, it is about being a good human being with proven superior intelligence. Wake up and use yours.

          • Thierry Dumessie

            Look at your teeth, than you already know you are lying about the fact that humans only should eat vegetables, humankind is omnivorious that means plant products, meat and fish etc. Stop kidding yourself to be a veggie or vegan.

          • You’re hilarious; you say that, yet have you actually ever paid attention to your teeth, Thierry? We have flat grinding molars and front snipping incisors which are perfect for the digestion of plant matter, however NONE of it is ideal at all for the oral processing of meat. Carnivorous animals – and I am including true omnivorous mammals like bears and raccoons here – have teeth which are designed to kill; stabbing fangs and side incisors designed for the shearing off of tough flesh. Humans are entirely incapable of killing tough-skinned furry prey like cows with their teeth alone.

            Further, there is no physical part of our entire digestion tract which supports the digestion of meat – from mouth to rear end, our bodies are hardwired for the digestion of plant material. True obligate carnivore animals like cats have extremely short digestive tracts while our digestive tracts are extremely long, much like a cow’s, designed for the long process of digesting plants. Chemically, our bodies do best in an alkaline state, a state which cannot be achieved with a diet that includes animal products, which are extremely acidic. Conversely, obligate carnivores like cats require an acid PH to be at their best and a healthy cat’s PH will be so acidic in fact so as to be anti-bacterial – a fact which aids in the digestion of carrion which would KILL a human. True carnivores and omnivores can eat carrion because their bodies thrive on acid PH and they have much shorter digestive tracts, meaning a shorter transit time from head to tail, preventing infection from bacteria ridden food like rotting meat (carrion) which carnivorous species thrive upon. Lions, hyenas, wolves, bears – name any apex non-human predator and you’ll find it gulping down vast portions of rotten meat whenever it can, something which we humans cannot do, which we would never consider doing on pain of sickness if not death. True carnivores and omnivores eat rotten meat; we do not. We CANNOT. We are not biologically not supposed to eat meat.

            There is actually only one aspect of our entire anatomy which even somewhat supports the digestion of meat and that is the tiny amount of the enzyme pepsin which is secreted in our stomachs. Without it, we would be incapable of eating any meat at all and the presence of one tiny enzyme does not make us successful meat eaters since meat gives us health problems; perhaps not as immediately as carrion, but it kills over years by causing issues such as cancer (by it causing acid PH in our alkaline bodies.) So, looking hard at our anatomy, you will find that humans are not omnivorous at all, that we are truthfully, instead, herbivorous.

            And before anyone argues about meat being responsible for our big brains, that has been found to be wrong because the discovery of cooking is what actually enabled our large brains, unlocking nutrients in our food which would have otherwise been unreachable to us.

          • Thierry Dumessie

            Even if I look hard at our anatomy we still omnivore, we do not have the digestive system of a herbivore. Just to keep it simple for you http://www.qrg.northwestern.edu/projects/marssim/simhtml/info/whats-an-omnivore.html

          • Paladine

            I fully support your right to be a vegan. But when I’m sitting out on my deck, drinking a beer, grilling a couple of thick New York Strip Steaks. I love the smell, and love the taste.

          • pointforward

            If you love the taste, go eat the next squirrel you hit and stop covering up all of your meat with vegetables (that is what spices are).

          • Steve Cook

            You realize you got him with your retort yeah? After all he claimed not to eat veggies in his statement, but I must point out that drinking potatoes would have been a far easier poke. You have proven your wit and brilliance by arguing a point that was not made, and did it so beautifully that I doubt anyone disagrees with your claims.

          • pointforward

            You might want to have your 3rd grade teacher edit your posts for clarity and grammar.
            That made no sense whatsoever.

          • oouchan

            Last warning…call someone a name on this board one more time and I’m banning you. Done with this.
            Want to argue meat vs veggies…go to this area: http://listverse.com/2013/06/05/9-reasons-to-reject-vegetarianism/

          • Omar Lazreg

            Carolyn Bryant Schaub Steve Cook • 2 months ago
            There isn’t a single vegan that claims superiority.

            1 post above her is a vegan not only claiming superiority for being Vegan, but claiming that anyone that aren’t vegans are gross cruel people.

            Hell, I am for veganism, well I am actually for changing our diets to insect and lab produced meats. What I am not for are vegans ruining any chance of having a decent discussion about the merits of veganism by lashing out and attacking everyone around them with their holier than thou attitudes.

            should read “How to make friends and influence people”, because the way both of you behave in this thread is certainly not the way to influence anybody, at least not positively.

          • cdubb1545

            Hypothetically, what if it were determined that plants had feelings too? They are a living entity after all.. The evolution of the primate brain has been proven to be associated with having a diverse diet.

          • pointforward

            The evolution of the human brain was CAUSED by the CHOICE to eat animals in times of extreme need. The cholesterol shifted the balance of gray and white matter, nearly reversing it, and caused our great leap forward.

            It is, nonetheless, not biologically imperative and was a wrong choice. We are not genetically adapted to eat meat, and meat alone is the cause of over 80% of all illness and cancer.

          • Steve Cook

            Meat causes over 80% of illness and cancer????

            Where would you get such an insane claim?
            Vegans can be over weight, they can catch colds, they can get cancer.

            More importantly, illness is caused by a variety of things. We have viruses, we have bacteria, we have molds, insect bites, sexually transmitted diseases (Yeah most aids sufferers are not that way because they ate beef).

            This idea we are not adapted to be able to eat meat is also as easily ripped apart. Our teeth are designed to rip and chew both meat and plant matter, we are in fact omnivorous by structure and design.

            Meat is a place for antibiotic resistant bacteria, as a fact, and it is a fact, is not because it is meat, it is because we people shove garbage into our foods. It is the same as pesticides causing cancer, yes we know they can.

            How is this any different than say DDT? If you are unfamiliar with DDT, it would be the meat eaters version of the garbage arguments people use against meat eating. It and other insecticides or other pesticides have been outlawed because they caused problems, so perhaps eating plants are bad for us because the chemicals we put on or in them?

            This is why I ask people to back their claims, make real claims, not vague statements of assumption. It goes for all people on all sides of any debate.

          • pointforward

            Typical FOX News strategy: call the educated professional expert in the field ‘insane’ so that anyone who agrees with his wholly ACCURATE information feels intimidated and changes their view.

            The AMA just released a report saying that cancer is not genetic (though we geneticists and anthropologists have known it’s environment and not genetics all along; nurture always trumps nature). They reported that 90% of all cancers are due to LIFESTYLE choices and the two that cause these cancers are smoking and meat eating. 90% of the populace eats meat and only 18% smokes, so it’s really, really, really easy math (5th grade level, which I’m sure is beyond you) to calculate that 80% of all cancers are the result of meat eating. Only an idiot would assert otherwise (that’s the truly insane person).

            Vegans almost never get colds. I haven’t been ill in ANY way for over 25 years. They have a 1/100 of 1% rate of cancer compared to meat eaters (and theirs ARE always genetic). Obesity is at 35% in the US, while only 1/10,000 of 1% of vegans are. Only morons would dispute facts and point to anecdotal evidence of that ONE vegan out of a million who is obese or that ONE vegan out of 500,000 that got cancer. Antioxidants prevent cancers and that’s what are in vegetables.

            Anthropologists ripped apart the ‘teeth theory’ of eating over 30 years ago and consider this lower than a 5th grade understanding of human anatomy. The teeth did not evolve solely for eating, as hominids have long used them as tools for cutting fibrous materials and making thread and cloth. Those who did so better had sharper incisors and bred more frequently and passed on this trait (long before they ate ANY meat at all, as evidenced by molecular analysis of their bones that show no meat in the diets, yet canine incisors in the skull).

            The ONLY valid way to look at whether we are adapted to eat it or not is in the digestive tract and organs. Meat eaters have on average 10 pounds of undigested meat in the colon and their organs are so stressed by eating meat that their hormone system is over stressed and the balance of hormones in the body are always incorrect (making them more violent and aggressive and cognitively challenged, as proven by you and the completely ungrammatical and incoherent third to the last paragraph).

            I never said that DDT and other toxins in the environment don’t cause cancers. They do. To a very, very limited percentage of the populace. It’s a very, very small–under 5%–proportion of the 90% caused by environment. So maybe it’s more like 5% from pollution in society, 5% from the pollution we cause ourselves (smoking) and 80% from the pollution we cause ourselves by eating meat.

            I eat only organic plants. It’s more expensive.

            You’re the one who isn’t backing his claims and your literacy level is around 5th grade (which is where your reading and understanding level lies).

            I have a biology degree in genetics, went on to med school, then later finished a PHD in anthropology.

            I don’t have to back it up with articles or resources. I AM the resource and this IS the truth.

            Everything you’ve said is a lie–it is you who are vague and full of erroneous assumptions–because your’e brainwashed by the right wing propaganda state that is the US.

            This is no debate. There are two sides. The truth, which I am on, and lies, which you are laughably trying to support (but that’s what morons do).

          • Joseph Rojas

            Why do cat’s drink milk?

          • pointforward

            Veganism is scientifically natural. The tarsier and lemur-like creatures that evolved into the great apes were wholly vegan and the ape and hominid line ate almost no meat whatsoever for millions of years. It was a societal, not a biological, construct. We are still not genetically adapted to eat meat, as it is now proven by science that only 10% of cancers are due to genetics, while 90% are due to two things: smoking and eating meat (and only 19% of the populace smokes, while 80% eat meat, so virtually all cancers are due to meat eating, not to mention almost all heart attacks, strokes, and cholesterol disorders).

            Cheese and milk tortures animals in an enormously brutal manner and then disposes of them in an exceedingly violent and painful manner.

            While plants may be living things, it takes what would amount to 13 YEARS worth of food for a human to bring one cow to market in its two year life span. Over 10 million calories. That cow produces enough calories for 280 days. The 65 BILLION animals slaughtered annually for meat are nearly 10 times the world’s human population and eat more than 90% of all the plant matter produced by human society for consumption (and if you add up all the fruits eaten by birds and bats and other critters that we don’t consume, you’ll find that the total amount of plant life–which is still not sentient–eaten by animals on this planet is well over 95%).

            Very few animals are predators that eat other animals (most of that is bug life). The frequent protests of meat eaters that chimps and bonobos eat an occasional colubus monkey are vastly over stated as they only do so in times of dire need and it amounts to fewer than 1/10 of 1% of their annual caloric consumption.

            I am a biologist, and you do have your facts wrong, both morally and scientifically. We are absolutely not evolved to eat meat and it is the #1 factor in the destruction of the planet at the moment. Both on the personal level and the biological level. It’s self destructive and a wrong CHOICE (not a biological imperative).

            You’re quite simply wrong on every count.

          • Steve Cook

            Ok, so let me be as simple and clear in my response as I can be.

            You claim is veganism is scientifically natural. I say you have not only failed to provide evidence but failed as a biologist in your claims.

            You first off failed to isolate factors. As a biologist you should know better. Using smoking as rhetoric to add value to your claims is rhetorical bull and beneath any real scientific argument.

            You bring up a laundry list of problems from eating too much meat. Yet, I could equally bring up lists of problems from eating too much of some veggies, or not enough. This is an argument for a balanced diet not omission of a food. In fact I know lots of vegans that are over weight and have problems because they eat way too many fruits, so should we claim fruits as bad for you?

            Your point about cancer is going to be a fun one.

            I know lots of pot head vegans, so as it is an herb, does that make vegans more likely to have cancer? See how the argument is poor, in fact eating tobacco increase the risk of cancer, so it being a herb as well, suggests that vegetarianism is bad for you.

            Secondly, is it the meat, how we prep it, or additives we feed the animals?

            We suspect charred foods increase cancer risk, so overcooked meat may be part of the problem. French fries also increase risk, not to mention several other veggies.
            We feed animals steroids to fatten them up, we know some steroids to be major carcinogenics. Is this any different than the bad pesticides or fertilizers used on plants?
            We know fish can help reduce certain types of cancer, oddly some farm raised fish increase cancer as well. So perhaps this supports it is what we feed them, not the animals argument.

            Cheese and Milk tortures animals? Really, your know this from what, your ranting leaders?
            I will not make any claim that there are not farms that mistreat their animals. That would be like saying there are no corrupt people in the world. There are laws to protect the animals, and there are people that break those laws. This is not part of my claim, nor any valid statement that we should/should not eat meat. The cruelties are not required and not universal. I also agree these places need to be shutdown and stopped, but this is a separate argument you bring in to make some point that is not valid for the debate at hand.

            Your math on consumption, 13 years of food per cow I think is your argument, of which less than a year is produced. You then go on to indicate 65 billion animals are slaughtered annually.

            First you are mixing your facts. Animals != cows, cows are a subset of the 65 billion which include fish, chickens, and such. So your math is flawed by your facts being from different sources. Most of these animals are NOT cows. By the calculations I did based on your numbers and facts of cows slaughtered per animals, I came up with roughly about 200 million cows a year. I will not claim that a small number, but it makes your calorie numbers and “10 times” claim to be invalid. You really do not reflect the critical thinking of a biologist, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and accept your having an off day, but really back your facts correctly.

            Secondly, being wasteful does not validate nor discourage any claims of meat eating practices from a health or natural stand point. It does indicate a well known and studied fact that people are wasteful. In fact 40% of food (all food, not just meat) is tossed out, and that is only the edible parts. However much of all of this waste is going on, and even with population growth, it is great that fewer people in the world are undernourished than just a decade ago. Way to go humans.

            It is great how you point out other animals eating habits, however I must attest this is one based on humans, so it must tie back to us in the end, it should also be truthful.

            Most species are not herbivore, the most common stance is omnivore, though often with more complex diets that all of that. Their needs vary based on region and available foods, most are not eating perfectly balanced diets (even if they knew what that meant).

            In the modern world, most humans can get most of their needs from plants, however this is recent, and not universal yet. Oddly enough we do not eat perfect meals, we have a good idea how much of what we need. A vegan has to pull foods from throughout the world to get a balanced diet, a few decades ago a vegan would be malnourished at best. The ability to choose no meats and still remains mostly healthy is a recent even in human history.

            You claim I am just wrong, yet as a self claimed biologist, you do two things that prove you are either not a biologist, or your argument is not based on biology. First you use rhetoric and garble to make your claims. Secondly your facts are off basis, ignorant, and tied in with poor associations (Your scientific models are FLAWED).

            I would expect more from those who claim to be scientists. Science should not be based on what you want to be true, but the truth itself. You pushed to find facts that supported you, while ignoring facts that went against your arguments. You also warped facts to fit your rhetorical garbage, that was not only obvious but reflects your ignorance. Next time you try to argue all animals are cows, I urge you to do some simple fact checking, go to a farm and see how many chickens they have.

            If you are going to argue scientifically do so, but do it proper. If you are going to claim to be a biologist do not insult the other biologists by doing bad science. You should do the honorable thing and shred that degree for your failure to do basic scientific analysis, you don’t even have a valid hypothesis, let alone scientific backed facts to base your premise on. Your math should add up, your claims should have support, and you should not include facts that are not relevant while excluding facts that disagree with your premise.

          • pointforward

            There is no point in reading anything you say.

            You are trying to simplify something complex because you are a simpleton.

            I’m a professional in the health and biology field.

            Everything you’ve EVER said is wrong and a lie.

            Wake up. You’re brainwashed and psychotically delusional. Get help from a doctor and a shrink. NOW.

          • pointforward

            Good god, you’re one of the stupidest people alive. You’ll never make it to 50 and the world will be better for it.
            Please don’t breed and pass on those bad genes.

          • Katie B.

            And this has what to do with the article?

          • Steve Cook

            It was a spin off by a single point, stating that Dalai Lama is no different. If you trace it back it has some consistency. I stopped commenting on the topic as it was pointed out that it was going to far off topic.

            It has lots of subtle truths, such as subjectivity, of which the article is partial to. However it is not strict to that point. So I conceded it was off topic.

          • Paul Klaver

            Dear Steve, I read your response with interest. It looks like you really like arguing. Apart from the personal attacks and the arrogance with which you present your argument, it is clear that some people rather argue than building bridges to establish common ground. Scoring points and acting in this manner will never make the world a better place, regardless of whether you eat meat oreat vegetables. In relation to mother Theresa she was in fact a sadist and the article in this respect is totally true. If people buy products that involve animal cruelty which bio-industry is known for than these people support practises that support animal cruelty. I wish you all the best.

          • Steve Cook

            I think you are misreading what I stated. I indicated the person was arguing from false claims and not following proper validation. This is an old argument I stopped down because people stated it was not following the original debate, of which I felt it had some relevance, but halted.
            To prove mother Theresa was a sadist, you must first prove she understood any hard she was causing. I do not see your argument supporting this, so please provide a validity to such claims.

            The (weak link) is how the idea of one stance of meat vs. vegetarianism is so divided, it is easy to show how people choose their beliefs then find claims (even when counters to those claims exist) to back up their stance.

            If someone is going to claim fact, I am going to insist they provide science not rhetoric to do so. As such his approach was flawed as I fact checked him and found his numbers off.

          • Paul Klaver

            Dear Steve, you may not appreciate this but I do not have to provide any evidence to anybody and the forum here NEVER prescribed there would be a peer review by a scientific board chaired by yourself. It really is not up to you to individually determine what the rules are and how a discussion should be held on this forum. You may appreciate that since you highlighted the aubject yourself, you may feel that you are at a disadvantage since you are actually communicating with a former executive of the largest scientific publisher in the world, who put in place procedures for the review and publication of scientifc articles globally. In addition I lectured at college where many of the students had to present a thesis in order to gain a masters title. In this environment I also made guidelines for students to follow in order to effectively present a specific point of view. Given the content of the subjects invilved I do not want to engage with you in a never ending discussion. I merely would like to state that I have been involved in the filing of patents for applications in the areas being discussed. The best suggestion I can do is for you to do your homework and to take a scientific approach to research counterclaims which would allow you to either prove or disprove comments from other people rather than putting the responsibility for proving certain obvious issues with other people.

            In addition, may I suggest you consider you bedside manner rather than trying to win an argument with one upmanship?

          • Steve Cook

            Paul, if you have no value to the discussion other than trying to put yourself on a pedestal or trying to attack me, please troll somewhere else.

          • Paul Klaver

            In short, you state that in your opinion (and I do not whether this is indeed a valid definition) she needed to understand she was causing harm. If mother Theresa was supporting a pedophile within am organisation, that was suspected of harming children even after 8 parties would claim he was hurting children, how would that sit with her having knowledge and her knowing about causing harm? Does one need to provide evidence that pedophiles cause harm to children? Do you really need scientific studies for that? I refer to research on father McGuire, whereby Mother Theresa insisted he would be reinstated and ignoring the many new cases of child abuse being reported.

          • Steve Cook

            A sadist is someone who enjoys inflicting pain on others, you have yet to provide evidence of this.

            Some clarification: I believe religion is bad, I don’t think Christopher Hitckens is the best at debating this, as he relies on rhetoric and shock to get attention which means he preaches to combative atheists and not the general masses (thus sort of religion in a sense). He did however cause people to present the debates, and brought attention to the idea, which has brought other people (some I believe are more successful) into the debate.

            You seem to be fixed on the belief (wrongly) that I think mother Theresa is good. Instead of actually understanding what I am stating (apparently my fault for writing too much for people to want to read, and not being a creative enough writer to hold attention).

            I am simply stating that clarity is important on such a topic. The terms such as sadist suggest self awareness. I believe she thought she was doing good, and thus her actions can be addressed, but her character requires more than just evaluating her actions.

            Her defending a fellow religious person is no different than mothers claiming their children incapable of such acts, or congregations shaming and blaming children when they claim the (insert religious leader) molested them.

            As people we often think two things:
            1) you apparently believe as well. We are ALWAYS right. Often to the point we will start wars or arguments to prove it even after we stop believing we are right.
            2) People who are like us (such as same religion, same philosophy, same profession) will be like us in all capacities (such as a priest would never harm a child).

            So first does she believe he is a pedophile, secondly if she does, is he redeemable in her mind?

            You talk about the act of pedophilia as bad, and I would not argue that.
            1000 years ago crazy people were possessed by demons or under spells.
            Today we are starting to learn just how powerful chemicals and imbalances can inf act be on the brain.
            So is the person to be condemned or fixed? Is punishment really just a form of sadism by society?
            If society backs sadism (such as wiping, death chambers or such) does that justify it?

            Are we so arrogant that we see modern society as the pinnacle of right and wrong?
            Is that not unlike the Catholics who believe their leaders could not be bad. Perhaps acting like religions and using shame tactics to condemn people for being different?
            The same “evils” of 1000 years ago are now accepted as normal, and many of the “goods” are now considered the greatest evils.

            If we do not justify our stances, or beliefs with something that is measurable and falsifiable then we are no different than Mother Theresa or any religious fanatical group who claims truth based on their beliefs.

            So while in casual conversation I do agree pedophilia is wrong, we MUST back it by science, not just socialized rhetorical hype. Perhaps if we did so, we wont condemn our great thinkers like Galileo for speaking against the accepted facts of the masses.

            I do not however believe that we should just punish a pedophile, instead we need to fix them. In some cases if they cannot be fixed, we need to lock them away from society to protect society from them, but punishment is just socialized sadism.

            There are historical accounts of how people acted during WW2, soldiers, civilians, and more. Lead by fear, hate, need, and these acts would be considered atrocities a few years before and even a few years after the way. In fact the reaction to these acts made several communities become very strict (we often fear what we can do more than what others can do to us).

            The acts were terrible, but were the motivations dark or simply survive?

            Context is everything.

          • Paul Klaver

            Dear Steve,

            You appreciate that I responded only to your initial definition of sadist and that
            you just added something in the mix, thereby changing your own rules.

            I do not have the arrogance to assume that you believe Mother Theresa is good. I have not given any indication that is the case I believe. I think you merely wanted me to provide proof of Mother Theresa being a sadist. About 40% of people in her settlements seem to have died. Reports suggest that she believed that suffering brought people close to god.

            You are totally correct in one aspect. Almost all people think they are doing good. Only
            a very few believe they are bad.

            On the topic of religion, there used to be many gods in my view. Two thousand years ago the Greek and Romans had many, many gods. Constantine changed all of them for Catholic monotheism. In the process the bible was reviewed and changed. There were many versions:
            Babylonian, Ethiopian, Coptic, Sahidic, Bohairic, Akhmimic, Tewahedo, Alexandrian
            Greek, Hebrew Bible (Torah).

            During council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. the bible books were reviewed and canon was
            introduced. The position of Mary Magdalena, wife of Jesus was changed and she
            was made out to be a whore. Many books, like the gospel of Judas and other were
            excluded from the bible (52 books of gospel in total). They also added pages to
            the gospel of John and Matthew. Did you know that Adam and Eve were not the first two people. Adam was with a woman called Lilith who refused to be submissive to Adam.

            In the end, people believe what they want to believe. And religion truly is opium for the
            masses. Almost every religion claims to be the only correct one. Yet, on investigation
            it seems that many religions have so much in common. If we want to be scientific, what proof do we have that god exist. Einstein did not believe in god, He did believe in order and that there was something in harmony. But this was not like the god we know.

            So all people think they are good and think they believe in the only god that is
            right. Mother Theresa would be no different. If people inflict hurt on others,
            they may not think it was sadistic. But the acts speak for themselves. In my
            view, children hurting animals is very bad even though they may not realize this
            or have the consciousness of mind at that time. The act of poking a stick into
            n animals eyes by its very nature in my view is sadistic, whether the person
            doing it knows it or not. It is for others to judge whether this is the case.
            We do not get to chose for ourselves, we will always be judged by others.

            On the subject of pedophile, it should tell you that your views are at best naive as unfortunately it is almost impossible to fix them. Even with most effective therapy we know a shocking 95% of them will reoffend and the pedophiles are mostly men, just like serial killers.

          • Steve Cook

            So, you indicated the first point that she may have been actually a sadist, in that “suffering brings us closer to god”. If valid, and my initial scan of the internet suggests it may be, then that is the evidence of her being a sadist, and (more noted by my search) a masochist.

            As far as my “naive” view.
            You must have missed the part where I stated if they cannot be fixed then we need to lock them up to protect society.
            71% of children killed by a parent are killed by mom, that does not mean I think we need to take children away from their moms after birth. Statistics are a generalization that allows us to investigate details of “why” with hopes if finding ways to reduce or prevent it, not launch a mission of fear and hate.

            We so often use statistics to justify our hate and less than humane actions.

            As far as mother Theresa being a sadist or just ignorant, it changes things a lot, because it changes how it should be addressed.
            Her being a Sadist and (if we can prove that), will actually be more powerful to say she was mentally ill, not just ignorant.

          • Paul Klaver

            Dear Steve, you have consistantly requested proof for various statement that people made. You perhaps realize me saying Mother Theresa thinking that suffering brought people closer to god, is no more than my personal comments. I did not provide you with any sources or any publication that would substantiate my personal comment. Yet, as suggested by me all along, you actually took the effort to do some research yourself, for which I am grateful.

            The title of the article does indeed suggest she was a sadist and there are sufficient sources to support this. However, in terms of her being declared a saint, please be aware that the process has been started and is a long way in the making. Going back on the many steps the Roman Catholic church has made would appear to be politically impossible, as it would involve the church admitting the got it wrong in the first place. Like many titles, it is not so much what the truth is but what the majority of people believe. You mentioned scientific approachesto certain subjects. Well the suggested approach by me that the church most likely would take is totally in line with the approach the scientific societies would take when confronted with new research suggesting they were wrong before. The standard response would be to postpone any decision, obscure the discussion, distract from the issue at hand, claim other priorities etc etc. until such time that the evidence isso overwhelming that they can no longer deny the truth. In this respect, both the church and the scientific societies act totally in line how you have been acting. You have one opinion and until such time that various sources make it very probable that this opinion may be incorrect, you would not feel a need to publish a change in your position. This is just the way things work and especially in matters of faith and science.

            In terms of my use of the word naive, I did read you comments about if they cannot be fixed. In my opinion, and this is extremely unfortunate, being a pedophile is a condition which is something, as proven in abundance, cannot really be fixed. The naivity therefore lies in the suggestion from your side, that it may be rather than confirming the sad truth that this is mostly a pervasive and permanent condition.

            I was not aware that mothers do in fact score 78% in terms of killing their own children, Again, how sad that is. I should watch my wife more carefully!!

          • Anastasia Jordan

            Well said! People need to stop bullying those who do not believe in the same things! Everyone is allowed to live a life they see fit and no one person is better than another for living differently!

          • Erwin Alber

            Surely a person who just tries his or her best to live a decent life is better than war criminals like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Blair or Howard who are responsible for the deaths of millions.

          • Paul Klaver

            Milk is actually very bad for humans. It causes allergies and for the bones to loose calcium. About 40% of population is allergic to milk. In addition, red meat causes cancer. Meat is inefficient as a food source. Do you know that cheese is very bad for humans? Every realized that cows milk is not intended for humans but for raising cows?? It takes 50 times more energy to make 1 kilo of meat than corn of wheat. It costs 100 times more water. It takes up a lot of space which could be used for agriculture. Did you know that 53% of all CO2 emissions come from cows and not from cars, trucks or industry??
            Being vegatarian is slightly better as you are not exposed to the bad practises of the milk industry with growth hormones and ways to maximize milk yield. By the way, this article is about Mother Theresa, not Dalai Lama or Nelson Mandelaor milk or meat. Can we stay on point?

          • Steve Cook

            This conversation was flagged as off topic as such I have not been responding to people, however your information is debatable and not as solid as you suspect. It is no different that how Mother Teresa justifies her views based on personal choices of what to accept as fact and dismiss or ignore. We are all guilty of such attitudes, which was my point in the beginning.
            There is proof that having children is bad for the world, yet your not arguing for forced birth control. Then again having children show evidence of increasing one’s life expectancy. What we choose to accept as good or bad is often in the choices of the information we accept (We then often seek the information that supports our views and ignore that which defies it).

            If nearly all scientists see global warming as real, why then can so many people ignore it? We can debate evil of Mother Theresa all day, but we cannot succeed. She is not evil, her actions may be based on bad information and choices, but she is trying to do what she feels is right. Thus we first must show somehow that she recognizes her actions as wrong. Otherwise she is just misguided.

            Note: There are studies that show eating meat reduces the odds of cancer. So just like Mother Theresa your views produce a myopic view of the world.
            The basis of this argument was that people claimed the Dolly Lama was not good just like Mother Theresa, my statement (and how it relates) is that one view of good and evil is speculative as best. Thank you for aiding me in proving that stance.

            I was just annoyed that people were making judgement instead of providing proof or showing how “their proof” is superior to counter proof.

            As this is not about cancer and diet, I will not debate those details, if you want a more rounded view, I suggest you do your own digging into the topic. I am not claiming meat eater or vegetarianism is better, merely pointing out how our attitudes about such topics is nothing different than Mother Theresa’s belief that she is doing good.

            Also don’t complain about not staying on point then going off point yourself.

          • soulquest7

            When you are very sick, doctors will often tell you to eat more substantive food. Mahatma Gandi was vegan until he got very sick, then his doctors coaxed him to at least eat goat milk products. Steve Jobs was vegan until his cancer was very advanced and then he ate fish. This is not uncommon. Now, if vegan doctors can come up with a different protocol, fine. But many people are given this kind of advice. My diet is mostly vegan right now and I hope it can stay that way.

          • Carolyn Bryant Schaub

            Steve Jobs death was hastened by the inclusion of animal products. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81xnvgOlHaY

          • Rupert Inkpen

            Ghandi was a wife beating piece of shit. And a close friend of Adolf Hitler. So fuck Mahatma.

          • pointforward

            Those docs are wrong and shills for the sick care industry. Dietary science wasn’t even taught until the mid 90s (Andrew Weill points out that at Harvard in the 70s, they had a half hour lecture on diet in the whole medical school program).

            The only thing you can’t get from a vegan diet is B12, which is abundant in ALL faux milk products as as supplement. If you get that, you won’t get ill.

            Jobs veganism probably saved him from getting cancer two decades earlier. His exposure to the toxic metals and environment of computer manufacturing was probably worse than living on a superfund site or near a nuclear dump.

          • And yet many of the best athletes in the world are vegan and can outperform non-vegans, so yours isn’t a good example.

          • Thierry Dumessie

            Sure

          • Joseph Rojas

            Examples? Please? I’m dying to know? Link one? Please? Just one “best athlete” that is a vegan. And if you can – link me what “vegan” meals he is eating. I guarantee its mostly vegan supplements that are ridiculously expensive in order to get the right protein gains. Most “vegan” athletes go back to eating meat….

          • Russel Purves

            Susan, if you wan’t to be Vegan, good for you. but don’t call everyone that does not have the same views as you cruel bastards. you are putting yourself on the same level as racists.

          • Carolyn Bryant Schaub

            I suppose Jeffry Dahmer was just a poor, misunderstood gay man? Murder of sentient beings, whether they are human or dog is wrong.

          • Steve Cook

            Sentient: Able to perceive or feel things, or even responsive to or conscious of sense impressions.
            Depending on how loosely you define it, plants are sentient. They can sense and respond to sunlight, the difference is they are slower to respond to it than most animals.

            This is my biggest point, is we throw words around without establishing a point of precision, then claim one is superior. You can either do this by a scale (such as blue wave lengths are smaller than red ones), or you can do it via Boolean statements, “X is bad/causes as defined by Y”. The problem with the latter is that if it is not well enough defined it becomes invalidated quickly.

            First we cannot argue morally, as that is purely based on culture. If we look at things ethically, then we are at least less abstract in the premise and more able to present solid assumptions.

            So to ethically back your statement, the first world “Sentient” is in question. As definitions reflect, you can see how I can easily assert that plants are sentient, and thus killing plants must also be equally problematic as killing a dog, and thus the reverse show how it can be as easily accepted.

            Next the word Murder: By some definitions it is clear to be human vs. human, and thus you cannot murder a dog. In other forms it is the “unlawful act of taking life”. Thus soldiers are not murderers, whereas someone killing a dog may very well be. So if we accept unlawful removal of life, is not killing your neighbor’s tree murder? Hopefully you can understand how easily these words can be warped, and hopefully agree that clarity is important.

            I will then clarify a stance where killing a person or dog is different from say a chicken or farm animal.

            A dog is likely either your own pet, or a pet of another. In such there is an emotional bond established where it’s usefulness beyond food is greater to the actor (murderer as you would call it).
            So by defining a dog as a likely pet, it is not separate from a farm animal, and thus should likely be treated separately (and indeed generally is).

            A person is an entity of the same form as the actor. If you look historically “person” is a moving target, slaves were usually considered less, and it may very well be worse to shoot someone’s dog than their slave (another human). So again we are using changing meanings and worlds.

            So as we evolved past the point where slaves were below the actor is a hierarchy, it is common establishment that other people are equal or near equal to the actor, or more importantly the judges of the actor (as the actor could very well believe themselves to be a god).

            As such by definitions and accepted hierarchy of society, what Dahmer did was more serious than killing a chicken, by the eyes of society and ethics.

            Now from a natural stance. Many animals will kill the children of another of the same species, in some cases even their own children may not be safe. So to argue there is a natural order of these things fails, as killing children is common practice, and killing the parents is likely only held back by fear or risk to one’s self. Many animals will fight and kill each other. Dogs will attack other dogs, cats will attack other cats and kill them. Humans most definitely do such acts, so it is society not nature that mandates murder to be bad or wrong.

            You are trying to alter ethical stances and hierarchies, to do so requires consensus of understanding and acceptance of terms. Killing a cow by most people is not murder, killing a pet is less accepted, and killing a person is even less accepted (except by republicans). Don’t go to extremes as this will just point out how flawed your stance is, because of how extremely different it is.

            Start off by showing people how inhumane we treat some animals, get laws passed to stop using steroids, or stop “poor treatment” of animals. The world works by shifting, not be flipping. Perhaps decades from now meat eating will be something society frowns on, but it will not happen by trying to force it with shock and awe, that is a republican tactic, and it only lasts until the kardashians do something stupid, and the next conversation starts up.

          • oouchan

            @Steve Cook @marionhohensheldt:disqus @pointforward:disqus

            Ok…enough with the really off topic of vegan/meat convo. This isn’t about the topic of MT being a crook. Please move to another forum or stick to the topic at hand…considering all the bickering and fighting going on recently about this.
            I appreciate your efforts. Thank you.

          • Ben Stevens

            While I don’t really wish to present an opinion as to what constitutes a morally sound diet, as it’s somewhat of a nullity, I’m pretty damn impressed by your ability to present explicated argument.

          • Deborah Horvath Rowden

            So, you oppose abortion?

          • pointforward

            You eat too much meat. It has obviously clogged your arteries to such a degree that oxygen flow to your brain is half of what it should be.
            There is no other explanation for a specious apples and oranges argument tying it to racism.

            People who kill to eat are cruel, evil bastards.
            It’s simply a fact.

          • Roger Amdahl

            Wow. You are pretty weak and pathetic, aren’t you. You are what we call a looser, and the looser need to shut up, and know its place.

          • oouchan

            Name calling against another person isn’t allowed here. Comment removed.

          • Roger Amdahl

            You are a motherfucking son of a barbie bitch moderator arent you?

          • oouchan

            One more and you will be the next to be removed. Behave or be gone.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            God aloud humans to eat the fish of the sea and animals walking about on the ground.There is nothing wrong with it.

          • Susan J Caldwell

            Oh here we go a bible thumper with a hotline to his imaginary friend. The dumb bible was written by men and us full of contradictions. If there was who wanted animals to suffer he souls Bevin evil psycho and there is no god anyway but the animals are real and sinus their suffering. Dont quote the evil bible to me , there are plenty of rape and murder endorsing passages in that ugly book. Cruelty is wrong , its that simple

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            The Bible isn’t evil,you are.

          • Rupert Inkpen

            The bible is the most evil book ever written, closely followed by the qaran and every other bit of nonsense claiming that their “god” is superior. It’s all fantasy.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            I know it’s allowed,just a stupid error on my part.
            The Bible isn’t evil and neither is God.I feel sorry for you then,you have nothing to look forward to.

          • pointforward

            Neither do you. You will become worm food and your consciousness will evaporate.
            There is nothing after.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            You’re already worm food,it’s obvious by your stupid comments.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            Lol

          • Thierry Dumessie

            The bible is a nice story and god, sorry he does not exist. Please feel free to proof otherwise with facts not fiction.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            Thierry..u are in for a big surprise.He does exist,just by looking at the solar system,the earth,etc,etc,etc.Saying such a thing,just proves how ignorant you are.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            Please feel free to prove that he doesn’t exist.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            No way is there any comparison between The Bible and Quaran.The bible isn’t evil,when God initiated any killing in the bible it was to stop people from persecuting his true followers or to stop evil.

          • pointforward

            Because talking things out should be the second choice. Kill first and ask questions later.
            That’s your god. He’s an asshole.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            No he’s not an asshole …you are.

          • oouchan

            Name calling against another poster isn’t allowed. Comment removed.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            Lol You idiot with no sense.

          • anreeta

            Really?? So where is this god now…millions of children missing…taken underground…being tortured and used in blood rituals…killed in the most horendous ways…even as we speak…gods people? Everyone is from the Source…every organic life form…theres no selected few…if you advocate to to such a belief then you support the psychopath that is playing god and protecting its hybrids…that the jealous god of the ol testament…

          • Thierry Dumessie

            Please all books of Abraham are evil, though it is a nice fairytale. Kill your son if you love me…….. such a nice book is it not .

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            Thierry That was a test from God to see if Abraham would be faithful to him..stop with the fairytale nonsense.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            Thierry..the only fairytale is the one you are in.

          • Rupert Inkpen

            The bible is totally evil.Religious adherents are responsible for more crimes against humanity than any other people that have ever existed.The big book of fairy tales gives guidelines and excuses for being absolutely horrible to others.

          • pointforward

            The bible is the most evil book ever, and its adherents the most evil people.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            Imagine that.You would be describing yourself.

          • pointforward

            3rd grade education and understanding of the world.
            Also the psychosis of believing in the imaginary.

          • oouchan

            I warned you. Bye.

          • Iced T

            lmao you a freakk af slay queen

          • Rupert Inkpen

            It’s allowed.

          • anreeta

            The problem is which god allowed man to consume each other…that is what this whole madness is about…. eating everything that is organic/alive!! Ever wondered WHY the so called god made us this way?? Or would God…the real one create such a sick mess??
            …it is such a twisted system…one needs to get to the core of the creator’s creation… rethink to not accept it natural to cause pain fear and trauma,whch one carries imprinted in the soul after a horrific physical death btw, when animals or plants are killed….
            Its obvious this world is not functioning as normal beings should…we have been set up and manipulated at every level ,from pre-existence into the physical form… designed to be in disharmony with our Spiritual self… if one is able to argue beyond making any excuses or compromise…the reality we live in becomes clear.
            humans have been designed to unwillingly be part of a psychopathic experiment/farming/deception/imprisonment…I remember in the ol days priests and yogis use to say humans dont need to eat…as we have a natural nectar to sustain us in the physical vessel…unfortunately the knowledge has been buried and people aren’t aware of the fact,we weren’t suppose to be of two genders…neither were we designed originally to be in densed physical form…in the Prime Creator’s blue print our physical vessel was semi physical plasmic in nature…we were angelic (for a lack of better word to describe) and were androgyns…we are not suppose to procreate…this has all been forced upon humans and even the animals and plants have been illegally altered.
            We had been lied to from the very beginning …it is so deep and disturbing…everything we are taught and perceive as being part of nature is nothing but a lie.

            That is why great ancient civilisations get wiped out after certain time…so we never get to evolve to higher stages to ever discover the truth…

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            Sorry,but nothing you have stated is true,nor is it wrong to eat meat.
            As long as God says it’s ok,then it’s ok.

          • pointforward

            You are a moron with an 80 IQ.

          • oouchan

            Name calling isn’t allowed. Behave.

          • pointforward

            Only in your little PC world. A good insult makes Dorothy Parker smile.
            Plus, I simply stated a fact.
            People who believe in god are shown to have an IQ BELOW 80 on average, and the technical term for that in the dictionary is moron.

            It wasn’t name calling.

            It was diagnosis from an expert who is qualified to make such diagnoses.

          • oouchan

            Tough. Don’t like it, find another place to be. And an expert should not be using the term “moron”. How unprofessional.

          • pointforward

            I’m an anthropologist with several advanced degrees. It’s the SCIENTIFICALLY accurate term. It’s not unprofessional at all. It’s the same with ‘retarded’ in terms of development. It’s accurate. The term only got demonized by the PC police in the 90s (think fire retardant).

            You’re just wrong.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)

          • oouchan

            On this site, it’s offensive and NOT allowed. Either behave or be gone. Will not warn you again.

          • pointforward

            I didn’t know your site had a different dictionary than the one the rest of us use.

          • oouchan

            And it’s 100% unprofessional. You would not be someone I would recommend at all. It’s disgusting.

          • pointforward

            Less disgusting than your calling someone a twatwaffle I’m sure.
            I have plenty of clients, but I mostly do research these days to avoid
            people like you.
            Using accurate scientific terms is NEVER unprofessional, but you are
            completely unprofessional to support the censorship of the right wing
            propaganda state.

          • pointforward

            You must not have read the thread. She calls people evil. Another poster called someone a ‘kooky cunt’.
            I guess I need to flag those.

          • oouchan

            Please do. Thanks.

          • Steve Cook

            Not sure you are familiar with history, civilizations do not collapse, they change, but rarely collapse.
            Take Rome for instance, Rome changed over time, but it’s collapse evolved into the feudal European empires, the culture very much remains even today, though it has evolved and changed over the years. This is true of many institutions from ancient times. There are definitely instances where great works and knowledge were lost such as the destruction of ancient locations by Constantine the Great (looser).
            Science and knowledge remains and evolves from the ancient Greeks, Chinese, and Egyptians, and while some things are lost over time, we are still far more knowledgeable and advanced than any ancient culture ever was.
            You make claim of priests and yogis not needing to eat, sleep or use the little boys room, however I also remember the great stories of the dragons flying the skies, little angles and devils sitting on your soldier, and other extreme fantasies of the ancients. So what is more likely? These fantastic creatures, locations and edges of the world that you would sail off, vanished with these great civilizations or they were nothing but fantasy and stories. Is Harry Potter real? After all it is far more believable than the stories of these fantastic yogis.
            This is the type of belief and thinking that allow people like Mother Theresa to con people out of their money while keeping the poor ignorant and repressed, living in hope of a greater being to save their pathetic lives instead of making a better one for themselves.

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            Anreeta..He is far from a jealous God,soon u will find out all about him.If u understood the Bible you would know that many things will and have happened to fulfill his phrophesies,they are being fulfilled as we speak.Do u think this world can go on the way it is?If it did,there would be no one left on the earth,we’re gradually killing each other off.It’s depravity cannot go on and will not…remember Sodom and Gomorrah?

          • pointforward

            There is no such thing as god.

          • Squally Maelstrom

            Vegan, hah.

          • Deborah Horvath Rowden

            Susan, one question? What’s your position on abortion?

          • Thierry Dumessie

            Please a human is an omnivore not a herbivore….killing yourself slowly be a vegan.

          • Iced T

            the hell is wrong with you, crazy bitch?! I’m finna knock the shit out of your ass before you can see what’s coming at ya, you sayin he an ugly man stfu girl go be vegan somewhere else

            y’all go look at her profile smh I’ve lost more brain cells then I lost listening to Nickelback. this comment made me want to go to hell and bring back some red velvet loving, I can’t deal with this I gotta revise

        • Yes, bashing a belief will earn major points!

        • Vegan-Hanz Debartolo

          the dalai lama eats meat…surely this is not good for the animals.

          • FIRSTAMENDMENTSDEAD

            lol… keep your diet to yourself

        • Zak Martin

          You have got to be kidding. The Dali Lama – who is still in the CIA payroll – is the biggest crook of them all.

        • Ranitha Jayamanne

          THERE ARE FRAUDS IN ANY RELIGION,WHAT HAS DALAI LAMA DONE FOR POOR?? EDUCATE ME PLEASE!!

        • Shaun Aisbitt

          The all wise Dali Lama spent an afternoon in Japan praying, meditating and imparting ‘Wisdom and a mission’ to a man who he requested be alone with him, and he told that man “You have the spirit of the Buddha, spread true Buddhism throughout Japan. Know who that young man was? That young man’s name was Shoko Asahara, leader of Aum Shinrikyo. Aum was legitimized by Dali Lama, and was in contact receiving vast donations right up to the incident on the Tokyo Subway. Following that incident the press went sniffing about and found plenty of letters on record linking the two despite Dali Lamas protestations that he knew nothing of the group and it’s founder / leader. Aum Shinrikyo enjoyed tax free status that religious institutions get in Japan, and it had to be recognised, sponsored by and accountable to a Worldwide sponsoring body, the Dali Lama and his organization were delighted to sponsor Aum Shinrikyo, and legitimize them as long as they were getting large sums of money! They kept taking the money until it was shown to be happening months after the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway Many questions were asked of the Dali Lama by the media but no answers came fourth except that they were a very busy organization and that had ‘slipped’ through their net. Then Dali Lama denied ever meeting Shoko Asahara or knowing anything about him, until photos began to circulate and Dali changed his tune saying this was just a photo of another young man standing next to me, there’s thousands of pictures of people who asked if they could get a picture with me, and I usually comply if our schedule is running ok. When it had been pointed out that each of the pics together had them in different clothes or robes, it showed this Dali Lama was in contact with Shoko Asahara over an extended time period. Later it emerged The Dali Lama had spent quite a few days around Shoko Asahara over a five year period, and his approving of Shoko Asahara as one with the spirit of Buddha. He has been tight-lipped about the whole affair & not responded to any further questions. Sometimes silence speaks volumes

        • maryellen Flanagan

          do not judge all catholics together… my faith is in God… not the priests or saints… and for those of us who believe in God, I will be judged when I die… as will other people. .. I am not perfect.. none of us are… we are after all human

        • Crankcase

          The Dalai Lama represents a priesthood that indulged in the abuse of young boys while it had a symbiotic relationship with a dictatorial feudal class that oppressed the peasantry. All this filth was kicked out by the Chinese, but dappy middle class kids with their heads in the clouds think he’s some kind of saint.

        • But very unfortunately, even if god ( if some of these people believe in anything ) came down to earth, these people wouldn’t even know who he was. The dalai lama is a spiritual person, groomed to be a spiritual leader of possibly one of the most spiritual people in the world. The fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam is that they are both aggressively expansionist. It’s either My Way or Go Away. These leads to concentration of power in man to use the name of god to muster more and more money and power, since everyone else is an heathen or a infidel. Can one even imagine how rich the Vatican has ?? Can one imagine how much power a mullah controls, and how many endless suicide young men they have at their command ?? Now please compare this with the dalai lama, and tell me how much money or power he has ever had. And despite that an entire nation, who eventually got invaded and deprived of their nationhood. It’s tough for people to understand this simple truth, religion is not a football club like Manchester United or Barcelona or Madrid who need unending loads of money to keep on buying the best players or even retaining the ones they have. That is exactly what religion today has become. Hinduism and Buddhism, and other religions which were given birth by Hinduism is exactly opposite. You can never ever convert to be a Hindu !! A Hindu is the only person who can go into a church or even a mosque and pray to Christ or Allah as if they were his own. That is the way to god, and that is what a noble soul like the Dalai Lama is !! For all the ever increasing ignoramuses in the world today, they frankly do not have the time or actually enough brains to comprehend all this. So for them ” eats veal. He has good script writers, that is all ” for poor Susan who seems like a recent convert to being vegan, she cannot stand the fact that someone else is enjoying meat,or has been told to medically, but for her, in any case just this fact makes him a reincarnation of Lucifer. Wow !! It’s interesting to see how this topic has now veered towards vegan……and nowhere near the fact that Mother Teresa was a fraud and crook. Who ever wants to go deeper into this, I would be happy to share some very interesting reads.

        • Erwin Alber

          He has dosed infants with the oral polio vaccine on a number of occasions, which for me had the effect of knocking him off the pedestal I had him standing on.

        • Erwin Alber

          I lost all respect for the Dalai Lama when he dosed infants with the oral polio vaccine.

          http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/questioning-dalai-lama-who-would-buddha-vaccinate1

          He’s just another puppet if not a member of the criminal elites.

        • Dogly

          Yes he is a fraud. A CIA emoyee paid $180,000 a year. A gluttonous meat eater who violates the first principle of his own religion. Do No Harm. Real buddhists are vegan. He is a pampered jet setter who relishes veal!

      • Alexis Bidel

        Mandela wa..a clown letting white folk run his punk ass self

        • Vegan-Hanz Debartolo

          Fuck Mandela, he hunted and cheated on his wife.

          • CrissCross

            which wife? he had 3

          • FIRSTAMENDMENTSDEAD

            what’s wrong with hunting? lol… you domesticated lil sheep

          • Cheddleton

            He hunted his wife ??

          • Ryan Corlew

            Ramsey Bolton style.

      • Layla Tarin

        And what did the Dalai Lama do? He never stole any money, did not do anything to negatively affect society or paint a good picture of himself to public. He doesn’t eat meat, doesn’t hunt. All he does is pray and teach those willing to learn. Why would you want to insult him?

      • Erwin Alber

        I lost all respect for the Dalai Lama when I came across photos f him dosing babies with the oral polio vaccine – which has been banned in developed countries because it causes polio! It seems he’s just an other puppet of the psychopathic elites.
        http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/questioning-dalai-lama-who-would-buddha-vaccinate1

    • Swapnaja

      The brutal human testing thing was earlier mentioned on this site… so he is not saying anything on his own.

    • LuvsHorror

      And Mr. Rogers.

      • cfsporn

        Mr. Rogers once received a parking ticket. Upon viewing it, he said “Darn it.” under his breath. In his entire life, this was the worst thing Mr. Rogers did.

        • FIRSTAMENDMENTSDEAD

          he was just happy the parking cop didn’t hear the naked kids screaming in the trunk… lol

    • dagonet

      and Pope Francis perhaps.

      • Garu Derota

        a Pope is a disgrace by itself, always.

        • rick

          oh yeah? how so, hun?

          • How so? It’s a wonderful trend. Hate on anything that isn’t about you. Or in this case, about Garu. Like their name, they’re as air-headed as the Wind.

          • FIRSTAMENDMENTSDEAD

            he is the anti christ..

        • Julie

          Yes!

      • FIRSTAMENDMENTSDEAD

        anti christ

  • Rainer Spott

    I wonder, why you didn’t point out the sinister Mother-Teresa-Nazi-connection, let alone her stand on abortion, gay marriage and other post modern subjects of the righteous opinion police force.

    (Josef Goebbels said something like the following: Let’s throw shit at them, something is going to stick.)

    • ElBandito

      I do know that Mother Theresa was also vehemently against medically-allowed third-trimester abortions. Thinking that it’s only allowed as a means of birth-control (whereas it’s not, because that’s to save parents from having to continue to carry a dead infant or suffer toxic shock syndrome from carrying a decomposing fetus).

      • Catholics allow abortion when there is no death involved or death cannot be prevented.

        • kotrba

          Catholic moral teaching does not allow any abortion, which they understand as killing of the embryo/fetus. They sometimes allow things like removal of the fallopian tube with extrauterine pregnancy, which is according to them permissible under the doctrine of double effect. However, they don`t allow the same with intra-uterine pregnancy. The mother is supposed to die with her fetus in such case. See Savita Halappanavar and the case of sister Margaret McBride (hospital administrator excommunicated for approving a lifesaving abortion)

  • UN

    whats listverse obsession with ruining great legacies gandhi, teresa….don’t get me wrong i think we should know all the facts of a certain person but still

    • acoom

      Well because they’re not great legacies, they’re delusions and ultimately fabricated stories of vile people who don’t (often) even deserve respect on an average level, especially not praise and admiration.
      The quicker the world can publicize how all such people (and ideally all the preachers, shaman, witch doctors, holy men, cult leaders, psychics etc) are nothing more than a bunch of frauds and cheats who should be kicked into the gutter and left there, the better off the world we be.

  • Exiled Phoenix

    Religion in all its forms are flawed. Humanity created the “Gods” not the other way around.

    • EdouardM

      Religious institutions are flawed. Religious texts are interpreted and imposed on the rest of society by fallible men, who have their own agenda.

      Religion in itself should not be a problem, if only man would not deliberately change it to fit his objectives ( eg. Henry VIII, Council of Nicea, the crusades, king by “divine right”, al-qaeda recruiting illiterate children, etc..)

      • Chris

        Everything man does is flawed. Politics, science, medicine etc, all “man made”. But they all grow, including religion.

        • EdouardM

          *Religious Institutions.

          Religion is or it isn’t. God is real or invented.

          If real, then religion is perfect and we are very flawed. If invented, then religion only exists with a religious institution.

          • getz

            Religion in itself is a problem. Religious claims are non-descriptive: gods have unknown natures, work in mysterious ways, perform miracles(don’t know how they happen), are supernatural(aren’t allowed to investigate them), are “beyond science” and any number of claims that present no potentially existing thing to identify but does devote a remarkable amount of energy to justifying a belief in it anyways. It settles on faith, where the mere belief that a claim is true is a sufficient support for the claim. It’s also useless, as it supports pretty much every claim equally.

            If it supports each claim equally, and believers have no way of demonstrating the validity of their own beliefs, then criticisms about religion being abused are empty. “The gods want me to kill everyone with a hat” has exactly as much support as any other claim you can make about religion, even the basic “god is real”. No single statement requires any more manipulation than another; it’s a ridiculous system that drives confidence in individual beliefs: as faith justifies holding onto those beliefs for no good reason, but it also erodes discussion, as faith provides no good reason for someone else to agree with you.

            People are basically extremely passionate about unknown things they believe in for no good reason and can’t demonstrate the existence of in any way. There is no real phenomena there to even potentially exist. People don’t realize that though, so they continue to trump up the value of faith, magical claims and try to understand how the world works through exploring popular mythologies. All of that combines to represent the general problem with religious claims themselves, why people believe them, and how they influence society.

            If some other thing happens to exist, it has nothing to do with the nonsense covered by religion. Should it be discovered, we can let whoever discovered it give it a name.

          • EdouardM

            Your argument proves my point. Just because man doesn’t understand something, he misinterprets it to fit his own belief or agenda ( in this case, your argument of “proving” the non-existence of God: “believers have no way of demonstrating the validity of their beliefs”, as non-believers cannot prove the validity of their beliefs.)

            I am just saying that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, and that simply because you don’t see something doesn’t make it exist. Let me remind you that 100 years ago, we didn’t know of the existence of other galaxies, but that didn’t make them non-existant.

            And seriously, ‘miracles’? What miracles? There are logical explanations to everything. But any major event that does not have immediate logical explanation will be seen as a miracle or magic, because we, as a people, are stupid and gullible. Why? Because we take our explanations of ‘miracles’ from pastors, bishops, the pope, in the exact same way that suicide bombers are indoctrinated into believing what a good muslim is from people they think know better.

            Lastly, I think you need to learn how to read and learn definitions of words, such as “if” and “or”. If you’ve read religious texts with the same lack of comprehension of such basic grammar, then I understand your narrow-mindedness on such a matter.

            Just to be clear, I was just saying that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, with hard facts.

            But let me leave you with the words of a man far smarter than me, when asked whether or not he believed in God: ” Your question about God is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the univers. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvellusly arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.” Albert Einstein.

          • John Rarere

            Without faith evrythng u see is all that exists!Gravity honesty trust hate and love cannot exist in a faithless world

          • JarFil

            …or so you believe. They seem to still exist in my world, though.

      • Exiled Phoenix

        I agree, people in power use religion to subjugate those that were indoctrinated as kids to advance their agenda. Until we confront it and relegate religions to the bin of mythology once and for all, it will continue.

        • EdouardM

          I don’t think all religion should be relegated to the bin of mythology. Unless, man understands the entirety of the universe in all its complexity. But we don’t, do we?

          We’re about as dumb as a species can get. The amount of time and energy, we put into subjugating others and destroying our minds and bodies, for some weird type of pleasure is insane. Does Monsanto need to have patents on seeds? Does Congress really need to have a dick measuring contest instead of doing their job? Do we really need a taco made out of a Doritos shell? Does the Jersey Shore need to be an influential show? Do we really need to have high gas prices, carbon emissions, wars, so that a few people keep lining their pockets? I’m barely scratching the surface here, and this is just the US. We’ve got a drug producing continent, from Mexico to Peru, completely screwed, completely overun by gangs, cartels, and “socialists”. We’ve got the continent of complete corruption over in Asia. Japan advertises the Yakuza in magazines as if they were rockstars, and I’m not even getting into their extensive “film”

          • EdouardM

            Industry. China is Orwell’s worst nightmare. India is a bit too rapey, not to mention the caste system. North Korea is a jester with nuclear ambitions. And then there’s South East Asia, with Thailand and Laos and the Phillipines, but that’s too long. Then the middle east is a war field, commanded sometimes by a king or such who has good favors from the west for giving all that oil. Africa is Mengele and Ishi’s dream come true. Europe is hypocritical, being more or less united on an international scale when faced with the US or China, but bickering like Congress internally. Last, but not least, you’ve got Czar Putin over in a country whose economy is mostly mafia/oligarch controlled. And the lesser states controlled by dictators that reach to Asia.

            This is the state of the world, after living as a community for thousands of years, acquiring knowledge generation after generation, but all that has changed from the beginning are the ever-increasing power of weapons and size of terrain in our wars, and our selfishness in our society. And we think we know better than a guy that talked to a burning bush.

            *I don’t have time to really go country by country, but you get the idea

          • Exiled Phoenix

            I get the idea of the basic fact atrocities carried out by those that “Believed” they were carrying out gods will. had a major impact on how things on the world stage play out. You forgot to mention that.

            China, agreed communism in the form they use is corrupted to the root. God does not fit in to that country or any of the asiatic nations barring the phillipines as christianity and islam were heavily introduced there.

            Ah the middle east, yes it is a warfield heavily influenced by upwards of 5 different religions (This takes into account the offshoots of shi’a islam.)
            It will continue to be a warzone as long as these areas continue to indoctrinate their children into their respective religions.

            Africa has a bunch of different tribes that haven’t gotten over ensuring their members are loyal to that tribe first and foremost…. Much like religions!

            Russia, it is basically the kmart to the U.S. being sam’s club. They have stuff, get some new items once in a while but overall they aren’t a threat to anyone at the moment.

            The state of affairs of the world loom large. This is no time to just sit down and say “god will fix it when jesus returns” We must take responsibility for changing things for the better.

            Whether you believe the bible or not, we are the stewards of the earth and as such still culpable for the mess it is in and will continue to be. Even if there is a god, I’m sure he would be much happier with a world not destroyed half to shit.

          • EdouardM

            I agree, but that’s not my point. What I’m trying to say is that everyone is responsible and shouldn’t blame others for their beliefs, because we’ve all done wrong.

            As far as religion goes, I am with Marcus Aurelius: “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods , but unjust, then they you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”

            We just need to do things for the advancement of society as a whole, instead of profit and ego gratification.

          • Logan Rieck

            Actually, the Bible demands works for justification for faith such as not only praying one being fed but also giving them food to achieve this (see Saint James’ epistle). Even the Lord Jesus Christ told His early disciples and followers that men are known by their fruit, beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing, and not everyone who professes to follow Him will be saved but those who do the will of the Father (which is the will of the Triune Godhead) as shown by the Lord’s command to love one another.

          • Exiled Phoenix

            You have no point as to why religion is necessary?
            The bible has great stories. These stories though are no more relevant than any good book that anyone else chooses to read without religious overtones.

            i believe the feeling I get from a good book is no different than the feeling you get after reading your bible.
            People can learn to help their fellow man without having to think those that choose to believe differently are wrong or evil.

            I respect a persons right to believe in a deity. I do not support a person that read a book they happen to like, demands we live by its doctrine and listen to their churchs heirarchy.

          • Logan Rieck

            I disagree, religious books such as the Bible (and perhaps the Qur’an) are terribly more awe-inspiring than normal books and can attain to. I can read Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and feel my heart break when Brutus charges into a sword rather than fall to Octavius’ forces but this is nothing compared to the God-Man Christ Jesus Who died for the sins of the world, suffering for us. That’s my opinion at least.

            Christianity laid the seeds of righteousness in the West and established compassion and love regardless of any man’s persuasion and we live on the fruit of this work. Rome herself was still wrestling in depravity and decimation when Christ died upon the Cross again.

            No, people shouldn’t be compelled against their will. Somewhat like Republicans and Ayn Rand, eh?

          • Exiled Phoenix

            Christianity laid the seeds of rightiousness and compassion? You can not be serious!! The most increduliously stupid thing I have ever heard!!

            Christianity once it rose to power carried out the same type of subjugation by the sword the “depraved roman empire” did as you attest.

            In Rome while yes some people were subjugated to slavery because their empires or states were defeated, a slave could overcome. Rules on slave treatment were far better than your jesus indoctrinated hyperbole ever could be.
            Books were burned throughout many other civilizations that didn’t agree with your jesus centered religion. You people have the nerve to say your religions should be respected and the people that don’t believe should let others believe if they wish to. The worst part is you don’t live by that doctrine, you send out missionaries, demand your fantasy be taught in school, yet do not want science taught in your churches, your temples, or your holiday activities.
            No my friend, your religion did not create something better. It only changed the dynamics of belief from a polytheistic environment to a monotheistic one. My belief is one day to bring about belief in humanity as a
            species capable of achieving its own goals without the need for myth to justify its origins.

          • Logan Rieck

            Yes, Christianity extended a compassion previously unheard of, to say otherwise is either ignorance of what Jesus taught or how inhospitably men were treated back then.

            You realize Christianity and science aren’t exclusuve, yes? The Roman Catholic Church, which comprises over half of Christendom, accepts evolution (which I’m sure the main point of your argument of science was brought in for).

            Also, it is very presumptuous to say Christians don’t live out their beliefs and makes me think you are using your own judgment and presuming rather than actually knowing. Most Christians I know actually try their best to live out their beliefs.

          • Bris Vegas

            The so-called “Judea-Christian” system of ethics was created by pagan Greeks. It has no basis in Judaism and very little to do with a mythical Jewish prophet named Jesus.

            Roman “depravity” is mostly based on early Christian propaganda. Rome actually collapsed AFTER it became Christian.

          • Wonderful dismissive Fallacy. Right here.

          • Exiled Phoenix

            Of course I can dismiss your religions. They are false. But you… Your book tells you judging others is wrong… You show hubris in the face of your deity.

          • Oooh, a big word. Have you been talking to Saffy?

          • Exiled Phoenix

            And somehow you think religion is a good thing in those cases?
            Monsanto developed a seed “not of gods creation” it had the basic characteristics but in many ways far superior to the original. If I created a better seed than the all mighty himself, I would want it patented as well. Who’s to say god might not try to rip it off as his own creation?

            As for the rest of your statement, yes we do need these things. In a democracy because it can be created. Granted it shouldn’t always be created like
            “Jersey shore”. But the ability should not be hindered by a religion.

          • EdouardM

            I’m not sure democracy works. For every reasonable thought out idea comes 10 voices to suppress that idea because that’s not “cool” or whatever. Take healthcare for example..if we truly are to believe ourselves the dominant super power leading the world, we can’t permit ourselves to be more egotistical on issues. Look at European healthcare, for example. It is more civilized than what we have here. But instead we turn that debate into what this government shutdown BS is. Congress is acting as if they’re in primary school.

        • Jim Jones

          > people in power use religion to subjugate those that were indoctrinated as kids to advance their agenda.

          Not just religion. Religion is one of the levers of power. There are other levers: wealth, position, connections, knowledge. There are few who will not abuse these levers.

          “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”
          — Abraham Lincoln

          And if you want to see him at his worst, give him power over women.

        • Don’t hate just because it doesn’t conform to -your- personal life.

          • Exiled Phoenix

            You have shown hate… Again, I have no book to guide my judgement of you… You should know better than to judge… It is your deities domain.

          • I show hate because I am Neutral-Evil. Get it correct.

      • JustPassingThrough

        Some historians are coming out and suggesting that the crusades are horribly misrepresented, and I tend to agree, however, humanity is flawed, plain and simple. Even the best of intentions often lead to casualties and suffering and ignorance.

        • EdouardM

          Best intentions don’t travel halfway across the world, by foot, to slaughter indiscriminately in the name of a God that professes unconditional love.

          There’s, unfortunately, only one way to really represent that.

          • Raina Mermaid

            yes they do. LOL. what’s that saying? The road to hell is paved with good intentions? intention does travel everywhere. Intention is literally the lifeblood of every choice.

      • Garu Derota

        Religious texts have been made by men and though I think debating whether there is a god or not is pointless, I think that 100% of any religion is wrong. Simply because it’s man made stuff created and used for the sole purpose of controlling other people. There is no proof any single line of any single religious text comes from some “god”. Miracles, saints, incarnations of god: it’s all stuff from centuries ago, when ignorance was the most abundant resource on earth. In that situation, cheating a planet of miserable ignorants was the easiest trick. Try today to climb a mountain alone by yourself and get back with 10 rules written on stone. Then try saying a flaming bush told you they are god’s will….

        • EdouardM

          We can’t, with certainty, say that it doesn’t come from God as we weren’t present. What we are sure of, is that texts have been altered numerous times, and that religion has been used to control weaker men since its inception.

          But answering to whether there is a God or not, if there is one, it is certainly not the one represented in Holy Books. Maybe Moses talked to a burning bush, maybe Jesus did those things, maybe Muhammad was dictated the word of God by the Angel Gabriel. But in all sincerity, it’s a very long shot.

          However, we can’t ignore the Big Bang and the meaning that something was made out of nothing, let alone the entire universe. Create the universe out of nothing? I can only see two plausible solutions, a white hole or God. But a white hole would “link” us with another universe, only pushing us further down the rabbit hole. Or God, because if anything defies logic, it is Him.

          As for getting anyone to believe a cliché religious scene, have you heard of Vissarion? Or José Luis de Jesús? Men that pass themselves off as the reincarnation of Christ and they actually have a following. I’m sure there are more than we believe.

          • Jim Jones

            > Create the universe out of nothing? I can only see two plausible solutions,

            There is no evidence that the universe has not always existed.

      • Logan Rieck

        I’m not quite sure you understand what the Council of Nicea is, or what was discussed and why it was arranged if you think it was used to deliberately change religion (Christianity). Because of this error I’m not very sure you are credible to discuss religious ideas with.

        • EdouardM

          From what I understand the Council of Niceae was called by Constatine to determine what scriptures should be included in the Bible, and which should be removed. So that a written text, which all Christians would agree upon, would give the Church authority and power.

          I may be wrong, but please explain why.

          • Logan Rieck

            The Council of Nicea was called by Emperor Constantine by the behest of the Bishops of the Church to definitively settle the heresy of Arianism which claimed that Jesus Christ was a Creation of God and thus not God. Only the Emperor would have the complete authority to have the Bishops show up and end this issue. Hence the Nicene Creed that most Christian Churches still recite today. The first chapter of John’s Gospel quickly dispels any notion of Jesus Christ not being God but what-you-will.

            That Constantine ordered a canon to be written up and codified isn’t quite true, the 50 Bibles of Constantine are true but this didn’t prove that the canon was quite set. The canon wasn’t completely set until about the end of the 4th century during the Synods of Hippo and Carthage and by a papal letter of Pope Saint Damasus that the canon was set and still matches what Catholics use as Scripture today. A couple notable saints who argued what is Scripture or not were Saint Augustine and Saint Jerome.

            Obviously, the Reformation would change Scripture so that the Old Testament matched what the Jews held as their canon but that’s neither here nor there.

          • Jim Jones

            > the Council of Niceae was called by Constatine to determine what
            scriptures should be included in the Bible, and which should be removed.

            A camel is a horse designed by a committee. The bible is a collection of books designed by a committee.

          • EdouardM

            I don’t understand. What’s your point?

          • Jim Jones

            If you want to know about committees, go to the annual meeting of a condo association.

            Now figure out how religion will make this better or more reasonable.

          • EdouardM

            I didn’t ask about committees, but about your point.

            And for your second point, read my comments. I think we agree more than you realize.

          • Very bad analogy, bubby. Is this the “Kool-Aid” you’re trying to sell now?

          • Jim Jones

            You don’t know what words mean?

          • I refuse to give you my money!!

  • ElBandito

    Well. Fuck.

    • g.g.palin

      And how.

  • Chris

    I saw somebody comment about abusing statistics yesterday, and a lot of that is going on here. But a mortality rate for your first missionary in 1950s India is never going to be good. And oh no, she used the donated money to set up MORE missionaries? She may as well have spent it on Lamborghinis.

    People are willing to believe absolutely ANYTHING that’s anti-Catholic. And before anyone says that some people will believe anything that’s Catholic, remember that atheists are supposed to be unbiased and base opinions on fact. These kind of articles just show that you can barely believe anything you read (and that listverse has finally copped that all it has to do is publish anything about Christianity and its ad revenue will go skyrocketing)

    • ddrddrddrddr

      If her missionaries’ are shit holes, maybe she should stop building more missionaries. I’m pretty sure the poor is not a new problem that started in the 1950s.

    • Rijul Ballal

      You are not quite so clear, do you support Teresa,Do you consider the evidence presented here Untrue?or is your comment a general statement?

      • Chris

        Just a general statement. For all I know, Mother Teresa wasn’t the saint most people think. I dont mind people exposing frauds (obviously, it’d be weird if I did), but I think the internet has bred a culture where everything we believe has to be proven false. Lincoln was gay, Teresa was evil, the first pope was a banana. I think people like to be the ones that make shocking, exposé type discoveries, and in doing so, latch on to one piece of evidence that proves contrary to popular belief.

        It’s easy to type “mother teresa stayed silent”, but there are any number of reasons for that. Was she sad about what had happened? Did she already spend the money and have no way to return it? Maybe she did accept donations from bad guys, but did she know who they were or what they had done at the time?

        I just think that a lot of articles like this (not just on list verse/knowledgenuts btw) prefer to present alternative, conspiracy theories to history. And that’s fine, but the way this is presented isn’t providing us with info to arrive at our own decision. It’s presented as fact, even though a lot of the facts are debatable.

        I’m rambling now (I can’t form a short thought right now, horrific migraine) but what I’m trying to get across is that i’m all for seeing what we think proved wrong, but many of these articles are about as reliable as vaccine related to down syndrome articles: pick and choose evidence that suits, ignoring the bits that don’t. It’d be different if there was some indisputable evidence, but quoting statistics without any background or reference points is enough to make the most successful people or ventures look like evil

      • Arjan Hut

        True, I do miss something of a guiding voice in this article. Come on M., don’t disappear behind the info.

  • Chester

    Umm Sources for these allegations??

  • Brp Goyo

    Do one for Obama!

    • diablo135

      He’s doing it himself

  • LEDZEPPELIN

    YOU CAN WISH IN ONE HAND AND SHIT IN THE OTHER AND SEE WHICH ONE FILLS UP FASTER BUT IN THE END ALL YOUR GONNA DO IS WISH YOU HADNT SHIT IN YOUR HAND INEVITABLY USING YOUR WISH WHAT THIS MEANS IS YOU ARE ALWAYS GONNA GET DIRTY DOING GOOD THAT IS THE NATURE OF SACRIFICE IF SHE HAD SHADY DEALINGS IT WAS ONLY CAUSE SHE MUST HAVE THOUGHT THE PRO OUTWEIGHED THE CON AND REST ASSURED THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY MOTHER TERESA HAD WAY MORE CONVICTION TO HELP THE UNDERPRIVILEGED THAN ANYONE WHO WILL EVER READ THIS LIST

    • Klove

      WTF are u talking about – that is the dumbest run on sentence I have ever heard – are u the pope or one of the priests that raped boys?

      • LEDZEPPELIN

        WAY TO GO AND GAY SHIT UP ONLY QUEERS TALK ABOUT QUEERS

        • Nick Mulgrave

          You realize that in a 12 word sentence you used the words gay and queer 3 times?

    • Pyncky

      Bullshit.

    • Jon Adamson

      YOU KNOW WHAT HE HAS TO SAY IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT’S ALL IN CAPS AND THERE IS NO PUNCTUATION EVERYTHING IS ONE BIG SENTENCE HARD TO READ NO EDITING AND HE STILL USES THE WORD QUEERS WHICH WAS PHASED OUT AROUND 1978

  • Lagrace Nua

    Who’s next Ghandi and Mandela?

    • Ji99a

      Ghandi was a pedo and Mandela had a huge dick, so there’s that.

    • Valkyrie

      They’ve already done one dissing Ghandi

  • Pete Bogg

    Not sure what your “sources” are of volunteers who’ve worked there. A close friend worked as a volunteer at the Calcutta mission and describes a very different picture than your “sqalid, authoritarian cesspits”. I’ll take the word of someone who’s been there over another Morris M. steaming pile.

    • Rijul Ballal

      Well what about the many,many other accounts of her abuse of the system? Just because wrote the list does not make it wrong, Just because you know someone who has been there does not mean the person or you are accurate.

  • dagonet

    That’s it?

  • sweatynumbthumb

    Christopher Hitchens released a book stating much the same.

  • Albert Einstein

    What the hell were you doing at that time? Why didnt you stop her from doing all the crimes? Are you too a Nobel Laureate?? Who cares?? You better change History by doing something more useful than writing such articles

    • What the hell were you doing at that time? Why didn’t you stop him from writing such articles? Are you a Nobel Laureate?? Who cares?? You better change History by doing something more useful than writing such comments.

    • Pepper CmG

      Yea lets not express our opinions…. Lets uhhhh uhmmmm change the world!!!! And he thinks hes Albert Einstein right? Exposing crime and fraud is more than most people ever do to change the world. Probably more than you will ever do.

  • Mike N

    This article is unfortunately fairly accurate. While the Mother Theresa we all were raised to know was worthy of sainthood, the reality is she was a fairly terrible person who questioned her own faith at the end of her life (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-3199062.html). She was in the belief that everyone should suffer like Christ and did little to HELP the people who came to her missionaries (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/10/my-take-the-mother-teresa-you-dont-know/comment-page-16/).

    Like the article states, she knowingly took money from some pretty horrible people, refused to return money she KNEW came from people being fraudulently scammed and put little of that money back into her charities. Sure she may have built some more missionaries with SOME of the money but, as stated in this article and in many more out there, the missionaries were nothing but centers of suffering.

    Her rushed canonization after her death was nothing but a scam by the Catholic Church to elevate this character to mythical levels. Her “miracles” were fraudulent (like every other miracle) and were proven so. The woman she “cured” of cancer was cured by medicine, not MT. Don’t believe me? Ask the woman’s husband (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/1443320/Medicine-cured-miracle-woman-not-Mother-Teresa-say-doctors.html).

    All in all, she was not this great, sympathetic, caring, nurturing Saint that the world was led to believe.

    • Jim Jones

      > she was a fairly terrible person who questioned her own faith at the end of her life

      That was the best thing she ever did – and she tried to hide it.

    • JustPassingThrough

      I’m not trying to invalidate any of your statements, but I just wanted to briefly point out that her intention was really never to heal people physically that I know of, (partially because she probably knew that a vast majority of the “care” they could get there hands on wouldn’t help, and probably would make things worse) but to merely allow these people who were dying the opportunity to “die with dignity.” Basically meaning dying of tb in a stained cot and being told “Yo, you’re a human being and you matter, RIP buddy” vs. dying of tb alone on a curb. From what I understand (I admit my understanding is limited) it was more about basic human dignity than curing anybody and granting them a few more miserable weeks, if that.
      As for the suffering part, Catholicism teaches that grace (and subsequently forgiveness) can be granted through the process of offering up your suffering as an offering sort of in exchange for said grace, either for you or for someone else. So basically if you have a broken leg, and the pain meds haven’t kicked in yet (not taking the meds for the sake of experiencing pain to offer up is seen as sort of a violation of your own body as it obstructs healing) you can say “Jesus, I offer this pain up for my neighbor’s dead niece, please forgive her of any sins and get her out of purgatory pronto.”
      And a last nitpick, you said she “questioned her own faith at the end of her life.” Catholics view doubt as a sort of form of spiritual growth. Those who never question what they are told and never seek answers are seen by many as ignorant. Catholics claim that their religion is based on logic, and that no matter how many questions you ask or what you think, if you follow logic, you’ll eventually end up right back at the Catholic faith. They did invent scientific method, after all. And possibly beer, (or some form of alcohol) but don’t quote me on that one.
      Sorry that was long and fugmuggity, but I felt compelled to point those lovelies out.
      Cheers!

  • Patricia Josephs

    I grew up in the catholic church and have since departed. Mostly it was because I found my mother’s adoration of statues and images of Christ and Mary to be quite ridiculous. I decided that if God did indeed create the world then he was also responsible for the brain in me that dictated I think sensibly. I did however have great adoration for Mother Teresa. It was not because she won the nobel, or that celebrities like Clinton and Princess Diana were happy to be pictured with her. It was simply because I believed that each day she woke up in the slums of Calcutta and her other missions, she did it with the intent of helping the lowest of the low, and acted on it. How many of us are inspired by kind acts and think, I would like to do that for someone else as well, but never do?

    I read the article by Hitchens years ago and it still did not dimish my adoration for her. The reason for this is simple, she did that which most of us are not capable of – devote herself to helping the poorest. Calling her a crook is uncalled for. Yes, she did not make the best use of the money she received but neither did she go off to buy a fleet of private planes or take to slipping away from the missions for a weekend to lie on the beaches of Hawaii sipping margharitas. I like to think that she was just the woman I saw on television and in pictures. A humble nun who probably lacked the high mindedness and education to know how to best make use of the money thrust at her. Even her stand on abortion and contraceptives should have given people an idea as to her rigidness. This does not mean she was a bad person, simply ill informed and ignorant.

    I doubt very much she had a solid understanding of half what Baby Doc was doing to his people. Your mortality figure means nothing given she was picking up the dying from the streets so they could at least have some comfort in their final
    moments. I’m surprised the figure was not far higher than 40%. You do not have to be smart to be kind, but you still have to be extraordinary to give up your entire life to helping the poor like she did.

    As you call her a crook and fraud Mr Morris M., perhaps you can help us better understand your argument by explaining how she profited.

    • Jim Jones

      > I did however have great adoration for Mother Teresa. … It was simply because I believed that each day she woke up in … she did it with the intent of helping the lowest of the low, and acted on it.

      And every morning Bernie Madoff woke up and did it with the aim of helping his friends and fellow Jews manage their money. How’d that work out again? It may be that he donated more to charity than Anjezë Bojaxhiu – we don’t know since neither kept honest books we can see.

      • Denise

        Wow, pretty sure that MT wasn’t quite living the Bernie Madoff lifestyle- lining his own pockets as well as his buddies. Somehow the slums of Calcutta don’t seem to compare with a NYC penthouse!!

        • Jim Jones

          Talk about missing the point. A dubious motive doesn’t excuse absolute hypocrisy and corruption.

          • Denise

            Missing the point? Enlighten me-what is the point-? MT was looking to get rich, as well as bilk her friends and associates? She had no regard for her friends and associates? Tell me about the”dubious motive” and “ABSOLUTE hypocrisy and corruption” as that compares to MT”s deeds.

    • JustPassingThrough

      I totally respect your opinion and even agree with it, however, I feel the need to point out that Catholicism deems worship of saints, Mary, and especially pictures of them to be idolatry, a most grave sin indeed. Granted it’s a mysterious, interesting and complicated religion (imo) and I really don’t get a lot of it, I feel it should at least be portrayed properly. No disrespect/nagging intended. And Mother Teresa (now Blessed Teresa of Calcutta MORRIS) rocked.
      Cheers!

      • Logan Rieck

        The Catholic Church allows for statues and icons (pictures) to be used in worship as long as God Himself is the recipient of the worship and the statue (Crucifix for God the Son) not itself become what is worshiped; for the Virgin and other saints they are to be asked for intercession and not given the worship given to God alone but venerate as one would venerate a holy man you know to encourage yourself to be holier.

        The use of icons and statues are based off the fact that the ancient Israelites still used objects to venerate God (Solomon having built cherubim in the Temple and the Ark of the Covenant being praised to an exalted degree) but run into opposition from modern (Reformation and later) denominations. The Eastern Orthodox Church also uses statues and icons as well.

        • JustPassingThrough

          Well I guess we’re both in agreement! Sorry, I thought you were talking about worshipping the actual statues. Turns out you know more about it than I do, haha.
          Cheers!

        • The Manz

          The Catholic Church is not a Christian religion although it masquerades as such. It is gnostic, Judaic, mystic pagan Babylonian religion, exalting itself above the throne of God. The true and only vicar of Christ on earth is the Holy Spirit, not the perverted papacy.

        • Ryan Corlew

          A lot of Catholics pray to Mary. Is Mary the Way, the Truth, and the Life? Did Mary die for your sins?

          • Cheddleton

            No, and nor did the other lad !

          • Marion Hohensheldt

            You are so right…Ryan

        • Marion Hohensheldt

          Idols in any form,are wrong.

          • pointforward

            So is psychosis. Go to a psychiatrist immediately.
            There is no god, so there are no false idols.

    • Oh, an Ex-Christian Atheist. yep.

    • The Manz

      Adoration is reserved solely for God. ALL humans are fallen. Mother Theresa was no different. The RCC is hiding her sordid activities.

  • Euterpe

    She wanted to be a saint and to be worshiped in the altars. Her sin was sheer pride, and all she did was to appear heroic and charitable. She rejected financial help, she never questioned injustice at large and did nothing to stop it, because she thrived in an unjust environment, using the poor as her excuse to become a venerated saint.

    • Pepper CmG

      That is 100% true. She loved pain and wanted to be adored. If you look up MT quotes you get sooooooo many about all that matters in life is being loved. Sounds nice right? But if you look HARDER hiding behind those quotes you will find quotes like “I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.” To me this says she is being helped by the suffering of the poor

  • Zozo The Cat.

    An ancient saying says, “Don’t speak ill of the dead; they cannot defend themselves.” It’s up to the Almighty to judge her now.

    • Eoghan-Tony Dwyer

      The Almighty what? Flying spaghetti monster?

      • kylie

        The almighty Johnsons, best gods around (its a tv show before you flame me)

      • Hillyard

        Cthulhu!

      • Zozo The Cat.

        Whatever flies your kite….

    • Junior Crusher

      public figures never die until people stop talking about them. she effected people alive today, yes it is okay to talk bad about her if it is truth.

      • Zozo The Cat.

        ‘Kay then!

  • Alex

    So Tessa was a serial killer eh? Wow this is kind of scary….

    Ghandi was an evil Nazi collaborator without a conscious… God roast his soul.

  • Arjan Hut

    Songs Led Zeppelin Stole, that would make some nice lists. A band as evil as Ghandi and Mother Theresa.

    • LEDZEPPELIN

      LED ZEPPELIN KICKS ASS EVERYONE ELSE HAD THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO SAMPLE MUSIC AND JIMMY PAGE WAS SMART ENOUGH TO PUT OLD SOUND WITH NEW SOUND IN A WAY THAT PIONEERED ROCK AND OR ROLL AND OH YEA YOUR WIENER IS SO LITTLE YOU PEE ON YOUR BALLS

      • Arjan Hut

        Or: Artists That Sued Led Zeppelin. Could make a poor writer a couple of hundreds.

  • Scott

    For some stupid reason people automatically equate missionaries with doing good. That’s pretty much never the case. If they aren’t destroying the local culture with their bullshit they’re usually taking advantage of the populace for their own gain.

  • Errkism

    Not sure why this is a surprise. Religion taking money from people??? We haven’t seen this before!

  • kylie

    I like turtles 😀

    Thought id lighten the mood as these arguments are going nowhere.

  • all max

    what is this?? Knowledgenuts just a conspiracy theory website???

  • diablo135

    Two of these “sources” are based on Christopher Hitchens, hardly cite worthy. The other is mostly about the fact that these were very basic services given in very shitty part of the world. All in all, poor job

  • diablo135

    So two of the “sources” are based on Christopher Hitchens, hardly worthy. The third source, the author of this nugget took some liberties with. So Mother T basically gave basic care to almost dead people in a very shitty part of the world. And she did it her whole life. Of course she took money when and where she could. Who wouldn’t?

    • Kevin

      Christopher Hitchens was a journalist who used some of the same sources other authors did when coming to the same conclusions. No one has successfully dismissed any of the accusations that were leveled at Mother Teresa… in fact, most of the retorts I’ve read have been along the lines of “Yes but… she wasn’t trying to save their bodies” or “Ok, she took the money… but she had good intentions” or “Oh you just don’t understand the religious implications”. In other words, spincraft. Attempts to deflect attention away from the facts and towards ad hom attacks on the person relaying the story. Much like your comment, diablo.

  • jack Wright

    Crook And A Fraud ?…….so i take it she bought fast cars, mansion and enjoyed the high life with the money she raised……she was an woman that had her beliefs the world is no perfect if a few of the thousendes stole some donations money or what so. Mother Teresa was no master criminal.

    • daniel

      you are mad she was a good lady and I am a 1o year old boy and even 7 year old sis knows and mr el bandito
      do not say f word on asite

    • Pepper CmG

      Not everyone who is a crook and a fruad is in it for the same things you would be in it for. To believe this shows your lack of understanding of people. Some people want a lambo, while other people want less obvious things.

  • mario barrientos

    catholic church believes it’s our fault and by repenting, physically, mentally or another way, they’ll be closer to salvation. That’s the belief. As crazy as it sounds, what she did had no wrong doing. In the contraire, it had all the right stuff for the salvation of her followers. Wrong in our eyes? Maybe. Doing the right thing according to her, and the majority of the 1.2 billion followers, beliefs? Yes. I know, sad, wrong, malevolent, righteous. All in one. Everyone’s beliefs have a gray area, some bigger than others.

  • JTM

    Man, with the way y’all thinking, you’re going to Hell when you die. There, you will regret forever for not believing in the one true God.

    • Ian Moone

      What does this have to do with anything?

  • Melissa Gleeson

    Yawn.

  • Hillyard

    Morris strikes again. So what is being said here is that Mother Teresa was human. She had doubts, occasionally used money from shady sources to further her goals, and a (to me) weird set of beliefs. So she believed in strict discipline, wow that’s just awful, guess what, most successful organizations have strict rules. She wasn’t perfect but she accomplished a lot more than people that think hitting ‘Like’ on Facebook will change the world ever have or ever will. As far as her impending sainthood is concerned that’s an issue that only concerns the Catholic Church and its leader. And the guy with the post-hole digger hat is never wrong. Or so I’m told.

  • Gazal Buch

    What Rubbish!!! Soo many ill comments about her!!! SHAME!!..
    Here’s the real story, When I first visited the place in Kolkatta called as “Home for the Dying & Destitute” , I swear to god, I couldn’t even stay there for more than 10 minutes, the people there were in such terrible conditions, with horribly stinky diseases whose own family members had deserted them & there were those nuns & volunteers who were cleaning the, feeding them, taking such good care of them. And to spend your whole lives to take care of such people is the highest form of humanity. So i would recommend, please go & have a look at the place & people. I bet, you will change your opinion. & those stating the facts about the mortality rate, well, it also has an other side of the story, the people who comes there, is mostly in their final stages & their wounds have become so poisonous that they cant be saved. But atleast in their last days, the amount of affection is shown to them is such, that am sure it would ease out their pain. So please refrain talking ill about someone’s work when you can’t even stand there for 5 minutes.

  • goddamm

    Dios no existe

  • mw

    Rolling in money, ruining lives – the truth about so-called Mother Teresa.

    Mother Teresa’s House of Illusions

    How She Harmed Her Helpers As Well As Those They ‘Helped’
    by Susan Shields

    The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 1

    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 the 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.

    For nearly a decade, Susan Shields was a Missionaries of Charity sister. She played a key role in Mother Teresa’s organization until she resigned.

    * Pat Franklin adds: The money which poured in is money which could have gone to some of the really great charities which actually do help so many in India and round the world – and which give poor people the gospel as well! She did not, and as her own death drew near, she reportedly did not know if she was going to heaven or not. ‘Mother’ Teresa – I’m glad she wasn’t MY mother!

  • Kumar Animesh

    We all just became the victim of an outrageously luring story title, probably aimed at getting attention rather than considering all the facets of the actual story. Using these kind of catchy titles is really becoming effective these days: “THIS STORY WILL MAKE YOU CRY!!”, “THIS IS THE FUNNIEST VIDEO OF YOU’LL EVER SEE!!”…
    how we fool each other… -_- I feel so hopeless…

  • http://thepropheticnews.com/

    A wasted life.

    It’s hard to grasp the concept of a wasted life when it came to Mother Teresa, yet when we understand the message of grace, versus the teaching of works as a means to justification by faith alone, we get a more precise picture of how far someone can stray from the truth of the cross and fall into spiritual ruin.

    “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36)

    I was reminded of this verse recently when the world paused to remember the death of the ‘King of Rock & Roll’ Elvis Presley. Well, maybe it wasn’t the whole world. I’m pretty sure there are at least a billion people in China who never gave Elvis’ death a moment’s thought. But for those of us in the good old USA who think the world revolves around us it was almost like a day of mourning, or at least a national holiday.

    I wasn’t a big Elvis fan growing up but just like every one else I remember where I was when the announcement was made that the ‘King’ was dead. My first thought was, “must have been drug related”. But soon thereafter, even though I was not serving the Lord at that time, I began to think of Mark 8:36 – What profit is there in gaining the whole world? Where is the value in all that fame, money, and worldly honors? Here was a man that had everything the world says is important and yet he came to his end alone, sitting on a toilet, fat and drug addicted at the age of 42.

    Unfortunately these kinds of wasted lives are all too common in our celebrity crazed culture. But there is another kind of wasted life that, on the surface isn’t quite as obvious. It is a life seen by the world as being given totally to the service of mankind. The life of a humanitarian or religious figure can be just as wasted as that of the celebrity hedonist.

    On Dec. 11, 1979, Mother Teresa, the “Saint of the Gutters,” went to Oslo. Dressed in her signature blue-bordered sari and shod in sandals despite below-zero temperatures, the former Agnes Bojaxhiu received that ultimate worldly accolade, the Nobel Peace Prize. In her acceptance lecture, Teresa, whose Missionaries of Charity had grown from a one-woman folly in Calcutta in 1948 into a global beacon of self-abnegating care, delivered the kind of message the world had come to expect from her. “It is not enough for us to say, ‘I love God, but I do not love my neighbor,’” she said, since in dying on the Cross, God had “[made] himself the hungry one — the naked one — the homeless one.” Jesus’ hunger, she said, is what “you and I must find” and alleviate. She condemned abortion and bemoaned youthful drug addiction in the West. Finally, she suggested that the upcoming Christmas holiday should remind the world “that radiating joy is real” because Christ is everywhere — “Christ in our hearts, Christ in the poor we meet, Christ in the smile we give and in the smile that we receive.”

    Yet less than three months earlier, in a letter to a spiritual confidant, the Rev. Michael van der Peet, that is only now being made public, she wrote with weary familiarity of a different Christ, an absent one. “Jesus has a very special love for you,” she assured Van der Peet. “[But] as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak … I want you to pray for me — that I let Him have [a] free hand.”

    Almost everyone in the world would agree that Mother Teresa was a living saint. She gave her life in service to the least of those among us. She took a vow of poverty in order to identify with the poorest of the poor. She forsook all the comforts of modern life in order to minister as a woman of faith in the poorest slums of India and around the world. Surely this woman was sent by God. Surely this woman who was so selfless in her life is now occupying an honored place in God’s eternal kingdom.

    “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew: 7:22-23)

    Now we find out that all we thought we knew about Mother Teresa may not be so. In a Time magazine feature story we discover that Teresa herself never had any assurance of her place in God’s kingdom. In letters heretofore unpublished, Mother Teresa confides her lack of faith in a spiritual confidant and mentor, Father Michael van der Peet.

    These revelations have already been seized upon by atheists and skeptics eager to prove that all religious thought is merely the imaginative speculations of the human mind. Some in the religious community have attempted to prove just the opposite, that despite her inability to ‘feel the presence of God’ she was still a grand example of faith.

    The real truth from all this should come as no surprise to any true bible believing Christian. Mother Teresa did not feel the presence of God because she was an idolater. She practiced an empty form of religious ritual based on the vain traditions of men rather than the truth of Gods word. She had a form of Godliness that had no real power to save, heal or deliver from sin. Examine closely the following statements made by Mother Teresa herself:

    “We never try to convert those who receive aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied.”

    “It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” — [Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations, and Prayers, pp. 81-82]

    “I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic”–Mother Teresa [A Simple Path p 31]

    Mother Teresa was a Catholic through and through. She worshiped Mary as the mother of God and co-redeemer with Christ.

    “Mary … is our patroness and our Mother, and she is always leading us to Jesus.”– Mother Teresa speech at the Worldwide retreat for Priests – Oct 1984

    She worshiped the Eucharist and in direct violation of Hebrews 9:28 and 10:14 taught that Christ must be offered over and over for the remission of sins. “At the word of a priest, that little piece of bread becomes the body of Christ, the Bread of Life.” — Mother Teresa speech at the Worldwide retreat for Priests – Oct 1984

    She exalted men into the place of Christ.

    “When the priest is there, then can we have our altar and our tabernacle and our Jesus. Only the priest put Jesus there for us. … Jesus wants to go there, but we cannot bring him unless you first give him to us. This is why I love priests so much. We could never be what we are and do the things we do without you priests who first bring Jesus to us.” — Mother Teresa speech at the Worldwide retreat for Priests – Oct 1984

    She believed in the Catholic doctrine of suffering in this life to atone for ones sins.

    “The dying, the crippled, the mentally ill, the unwanted, the unloved — they are Jesus in disguise. … [through the] poor people I have an opportunity to be 24 hours a day with Jesus. Every AIDS victim is Jesus in a pitiful disguise; Jesus is in everyone.” — Mother Teresa (12/4/89, Time magazine, pp. 11,13)

    It is this last form of false religious belief that should trouble us the most. Ask anyone about Mother Teresa’s work and they will tell you that she did wonderful things to ease the suffering of the poor. Many are convinced that she ran a crude hospital in the Calcutta slums but the reality is quite different from the myth.

    There was never any hospital, never any medical care of any kind. What she ran was a warehouse in which the terminally ill were given a cot, a minimal amount of food, and were allowed to die surrounded by hundreds of other poor desperate souls. There was no privacy, a communal open toilet sufficed for all, friends and family were barred from visiting. This was the result of her idolatrous Catholic belief system. A belief system that denies the sufficiency of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection and instead teaches that man must atone for his own sins either by suffering in this present life or suffering in purgatory in the after life.

    Though she took a vow of poverty, her organization raised millions (by some accounts hundreds of millions) of dollars every year. No one is quite sure how much money the Missionaries of Charity raised over the years because Teresa was fiercely protective of not only how much was raised but how it was spent. Even though Indian law requires all charitable organizations to make their financial records open to the public, somehow this was never enforced in relation to the Missionaries of Charity. Many suspect that a great deal of the money raised ostensibly to help the poor went directly to the Vatican Bank. It should also be noted that while Teresa thought it noble for the poor to suffer without medical care, whenever she herself needed medical care, a private jet flew her to the world’s most exclusive clinics and hospitals.

    “But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.” (Isaiah 64:6)

    All of our human attempts at righteousness before God are as filthy rags. We can never do enough. We can never make ourselves right regardless of how many good works we do. Even if we truly give our lives in the service of others it is all for naught if we think those works are making a place for us in heaven. It is sad that this woman followed such as false religious system thinking that her good works would usher her into the presence of God. The only answer for us is to trust in the righteousness which is in Christ Jesus.

    “If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” (John 15:19)

    Mother Teresa was loved by the world. She was exalted as an example of what a true Christian should be. She won the Nobel Peace prize and over 100 additional humanitarian awards. Even most Christians would argue that the scripture above should not apply to this woman. I beg to differ. Any time you see the world exalting any person in the religious realm your discernment alarm should be on high alert. No true Christian will ever be well received by the world and that applies to every arena – religion, politics, business, every area of life. Any person who receives honor from the world cannot be displaying the true character and nature of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Revelation 13:11 describes a beast that arises from the earth. This beast has two horns like a lamb. In other words he looks outwardly like what the world thinks a Christian should look like but he speaks with the mouth of the dragon. I cannot think of a better example of this beast than Mother Teresa. She had all the outward attributes of a great woman of God but as the above quotes prove she did not speak the words of Christ. She spoke as the great dragon who deceives the whole world.

    Friends, we are in an hour of great deception. Jesus said the false teachers would do great signs and wonders to deceive if possible the very elect. Don’t fall for it. Put God’s word first place in your life and judge all things by that word. This is the only way to overcome when you are judged.

    “God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Romans 3:4)

    Had Mother Teresa come to the knowledge of the cross, and not religion, she might have had a very different outcome spiritually, but sadly, Teresa went the way of many who had a form of religion, but in the end, they deny the very one in whom they have claimed to believe in, all because they never really knew Christ, they simply adapted some of his teachings, but rejected his friendship. Let us reject this form of religion and turn people back to the cross, by faith alone.

    Christopher

    christopher152@gmail.com

    Share this:http://thepropheticnews.com/

  • I’d still rather be with her in Calcutta than with Hitchens. Oh WAIT. You mentioned the Hitchens Razor. Yeah, sorry. He was a complete sham as well.

  • Denise

    Or ruin anyone that’s attempting to do good- but isn’t perfect-compare them to a Bernie Madoff. Give me a break!! This article is so twisted and skewed. I’m sure that MT woke up every morning and said “Let me see who’s money I can steal today”. Focus that negative energy on something positive-volunteer, visit someone in a nursing home, let someone merge into traffic, or buy a homeless person a meal.
    “If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other”. Mother Teresa

  • Kwitcherbellyakin

    The one story I heard about Mother Teresa was that drug companies offered her pain medication for those dying people. She declined, saying that the pain was from God, and left it at that.

  • minted

    What a horrible, nasty person! Bet you’re a man! And bet you’ve never lifted a finger in your life to help anyone.

  • Princemorningstar

    Sadly, everything here has been confirmed, and worse. At her ‘shelter’ in Calcutta, the families of the sick have complained for years that once admittede, patients are denied all access to their families and friends, or any visitors. In mother Teresa’a care, they were starved and pain relief was never administered. It appears that the Indian government knew much about what went on, but were cowed into silence by her international reputation.

    Two American nuns who worked for her and were naturally horrified at the conditions, have spoken publicly about her “cult of suffering.”

    She admitted that she hadn’t believed in God for about 18 years before her death.

  • Paul

    Mother Teresa was one of the most loving, caring, devoted, Christian women on this earth……………she did so much for so many and loved what she did…………..she was loved, not worshipped, by so many people……………if only more people had the love that she had and showed while alive, this earth would be a much better place………………….

  • Cherie

    What’s it like to wake up suck a ignorant bastard that you would pick on someone that has done Gods work. I’d find something better to do then waste your time spreading lies.

  • Carolyn Bryant Schaub

    Mother Theresa ran missions that provided comfort for the dying. She never claimed to do otherwise. They were not there to give out free food or cure disease. The mission did not exist to convert Hindus to Catholicism. It was a place to go to be prayed over and receive a bit of comfort before death. That’s it. Mother Theresa had no obligation to use donated money in any other way than to do what she wanted with it. At least her charity had tangible results. You want to skewer some charities that rake in billions of dollars and NEVER do with the money what they claim? Disease and research charities. Cancer, ALS, Cystic Fibrosis, etc. None of those charities has improved the outcome of their respective diseases…ever. At least Mother Theresa gave the dying a place to lay their head and die with dignity.

  • JR

    Just wondering since she had millions stashed away why did she choose to live and die frugally instead of retiring to the Caribbean? Maybe she was waiting to be 95 before finally enjoying her riches. Who would have imagined..

  • privatedick

    She also stopped believing in God for the last 40 years of her life, due to the immense suffering she saw in the world.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/1414752/Mother-Teresas-diary-reveals-her-crisis-of-faith.html

    and many more, if you Google “mother teresa diary crisis of faith”

  • Jaysonrex

    The truth about Mother Teresa of Calcutta is quite embarrassing but then the Catholic Church is used by now with scandals – sexual and financial. Pope Francis will claim that everything is OK even though the Vatican structure is in danger of collapsing.
    Talking about scandals, the Vatican is currently trying hard to ‘sweep under the rug’ the sexual relationship between Pope John Paul II (aka Karol Wojtyla) and his secret girlfriend Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka.
    All in all, one ought to keep a safe distance from the Vatican and the Roman Curia if one values his money or his virginity.

  • Kip McKay

    I feel sorry for the resentful cynical people who feel like they have run down exemplars like Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama. The real “squalid cesspit” this writer complains about is in his own mind.

  • Kip McKay

    I feel sorry for the resentful, cynical people who enjoy running down exemplars like Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama. The “squalid cesspit” this writer complains of is in his own mind.

  • Will Kalynuik

    dalai lama is a racist prick btw people below