The Bible: capitalist or socialist?

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

Originally posted by ANDY-J3
I don't believe being wealthy is in itself a sin just as I don't believe that being poor automatically endows one with any great virtue.

Precisely.

Originally posted by ANDY-J3
I think Jesus was aware of that fact which is why he doesn't explicitly condemn being wealthy as a sin.

Precisely.

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

Originally posted by PRgirl
"So what was Christ wearing at the time? A Versace Robe and Gucci sandals?"

Hardly because neither designer was around at that time. But the Bible does record Jesus wore 'a beautiful robe' which no doubt your friend, chortling away at his own brilliance, missed. So Jesus did not wear rags, no.

Originally posted by PRgirl
So when was Christ angry at the defiling of the Temple by the Merchants?

Because God's house was a house of prayer and should not be used for anything else. I think your friend's tears of mirth caused him to miss this too. So Jesus was not anti-business, no.

Originally posted by PRgirl
I just don't get these pick and choose interpretations of Christ with the Calvinist Protestant work ethic but God loves you and shows it by making you wealthy and the reason the poor and homeless exist is cuz they did not follow the rules of Christ.

No-one said this, funnily enough.

It is very much a Roman Catholic viewpoint, mind you, that suffering is a virtue and wealth is a vice - which perhaps explains why much of RC-dominated Latin America and Africa are poverty-stricken hells on Earth. It's what Jesus would have wanted? I doubt it. Children living off the rotting dogs in the street? Yes, that's what Jesus preached in his ministry, folks. God forbid that people should earn a living for themselves and live life to the full - no, Jesus did not preach this.

Originally posted by PRgirl
I guess Mother Teresa has to be crossed off the list of True Christians. She never believed the poorest of the poorest of Calcutta were forsaken by God because they did not own enough private property to avoid being in the street near the end of their lives.

Mother Theresa was a religious fanatic whose 'charitable' works depended entirely upon the beneficiaries of her largesse conforming to her RC viewpoint both in religious and social terms. She, like many charities, seemed to thrive on poverty and actively opposed anything that would actually go towards alleviating it - Mother Theresa opposed the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from compulsory reproduction.

Naturally, when she herself got sick, she flew to California for treatment rather than stay in Calcutta where her own clinic remained dilapidated despite receiving huge sums of money from overseas donors. She would conveniently turn a blind eye to the actions of said donors - praising the despotic regime of Haiti, for example - whilst promising hell and damnation for the lawless masses.

So, yes, Mother Theresa would be struck off my list of 'True Christians' but it's not for me to decide. You can worship her if you like, PR - she sounds like your type of gal.

[DistantCelt]

Mother Theresa was a religious fanatic whose 'charitable' works depended entirely upon the beneficiaries of her largesse conforming to her RC viewpoint both in religious and social terms.

Incorrect.
Mother Teresa was categoric in not thrusting her religion to the benificiaries or being one of the 'rice christians'.
I refer you to andabazarpatrika website ( which is the daily newspaper from Kolkata) - it has been commented several times- by recievers of her charities- that she was focussed on alleviating their condition without enforcing her religious viewpoint. She mentioned God or her viewpoints on religion(Catholic) when specifically asked by the poor and needy in her command or when posed a personal question.
The much publicised 'baptisms before death' were actually a varient of the Palscal's wager.

She, like many charities, seemed to thrive on poverty and actively opposed anything that would actually go towards alleviating it - Mother Theresa opposed the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from compulsory reproduction.

Again, that is incorrect. She is a 'good old christian'- ie, one who believed that women are 'second in command' to men. However, she was considerably more modern in her stance towards women empowerment through the 90s.

Naturally, when she herself got sick, she flew to California for treatment rather than stay in Calcutta where her own clinic remained dilapidated despite receiving huge sums of money from overseas donors. She would conveniently turn a blind eye to the actions of said donors - praising the despotic regime of Haiti, for example - whilst promising hell and damnation for the lawless masses.

Actually she wasnt big into hell and damnation amongst the masses. As per the source of the donations- its irrelevant really unless the question of 'fore-knowledge' is posed.
The missionaries of charity spends the bulk of their donations on distribution of food. Ofcourse,some malpractice has occured in their history but the high court of kolkata's verdict on the cause was insufficient training rather than malpractice( the sisters wernt exactly accountants or financial planners).

So, yes, Mother Theresa would be struck off my list of 'True Christians' but it's not for me to decide.

She is no more 'true/untrue' christian than any other christian celebrity- historical or contemporary( emphasis on the word - any- that includes J.C. himself).

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

Originally posted by DistantCelt
Incorrect.
Mother Teresa was categoric in not thrusting her religion to the benificiaries or being one of the 'rice christians'.

Mother Theresa was an RC fundamentalist who viewed every person, even the sick and dying, as a potential recruit to her religion. In her words, she provided people with 'a Catholic death'. To believe she cared not a jot what people believed is to ignore a substantial part of her work and one of the prime motivations behind it.

If that's how she chose to spend her time, that's up to her but I think to dress up religious missionary work as 'charitable' work is quite grotesque and offensive. Many of the donors who gave, thinking they were supporting that charitable work, ended up merely glorifying Mother Theresa's own religious order.

Originally posted by DistantCelt
Again, that is incorrect. She is a 'good old christian'- ie, one who believed that women are 'second in command' to men. However, she was considerably more modern in her stance towards women empowerment through the 90s.

She opposed birth control, abortion and divorce. Very modern. As I said, she opposed measures that would have gone some way to liberating women and lifting them out of poverty.

Originally posted by DistantCelt
As per the source of the donations- its irrelevant really unless the question of 'fore-knowledge' is posed.

So when she licked the feet of the Duvaliers in Haiti or praised Albanian monster Enver Hoxha she was merely doing so out of naive innocence?

Originally posted by DistantCelt
She is no more 'true/untrue' christian than any other christian celebrity- historical or contemporary( emphasis on the word - any- that includes J.C. himself).

Are you saying Jesus Christ is not a true Christian?

[DistantCelt]

Mother Theresa was an RC fundamentalist who viewed every person, even the sick and dying, as a potential recruit to her religion. In her words, she provided people with 'a Catholic death'. To believe she cared not a jot what people believed is to ignore a substantial part of her work and one of the prime motivations behind it.

The bible *IS* a pretty fundamentalist book. You cannot have christianity conforming remarkably well with the bible without fundamentalism.
As such, saying that a christian fundamentalist isnt a true christian is a contradiction in terms. As per to what to believe about Mother Teresa or not - well, i've met her a few times personally really. She was not like Benny Hinn or your regular catholic missionary- sure,she did preach but she kept that aspect largely seperate from her charity works.

She opposed birth control, abortion and divorce. Very modern. As I said, she opposed measures that would have gone some way to liberating women and lifting them out of poverty.

For your information, there are very very few(if any) christian churches that have a pro-abortion standpoint.
Same goes with divorce.
As per birth control, the roman catholic church is automatically opposed to birth control and as a member of the church, she cannot defy that. Your judgement on mother teresa is not objective of the person but inclusive of all roman catholics- something that can be construed as bigotry.

For your information, Mother Teresa was pretty big on educating women and women working for a living (as long as they still take care of their home duties).

So when she licked the feet of the Duvaliers in Haiti or praised Albanian monster Enver Hoxha she was merely doing so out of naive innocence?

She was actually a pawn in a political move regarding Hoxha.
The Duvaliers- i dont know.
Not that i care much really- action speaks louder than words. She also was successful in opening charity organisations in many communist nations at that time... if heaping praise on a sociopathic dictator enables me to help thousands of needy, thats a rather small price to pay for a much greater good.

Are you saying Jesus Christ is not a true Christian?

no truer than Mother Teresa. If one is capable of casting doubt on the motives of Mother Teresa, one is definately capable of casting doubt on the motives of Jesus Christ.

[Gypsum_Fantastic]

[quote]Originally posted by DistantCelt

The bible *IS* a pretty fundamentalist book. You cannot have christianity conforming remarkably well with the bible without fundamentalism.

Strange, a lot of people manage it, too.

Originally posted by DistantCelt
[quoteFor your information, there are very very few(if any) christian churches that have a pro-abortion standpoint.
Same goes with divorce.

Mother Theresa supported Princess Diana's divorce whilst actively supporting the 'no' vote in the divorce referendum vote in Ireland. She stunk. She stunk to high heaven.

[quote]Originally posted by DistantCelt

As per birth control, the roman catholic church is automatically opposed to birth control and as a member of the church, she cannot defy that.

Yet, again, strangely, many do.

[quote]Originally posted by DistantCelt

For your information, Mother Teresa was pretty big on educating women and women working for a living (as long as they still take care of their home duties).

LOL. Yeah, I can imagine how that particular 'teaching' was framed. LOL.

[quote]Originally posted by DistantCelt

if heaping praise on a sociopathic dictator enables me to help thousands of needy, thats a rather small price to pay for a much greater good.

Even if her money to 'help the poor' was coming from people who were creating an underclass of their own in their own countries? Yeah, I can see how that logic works.

So as long as Mother Theresa Incorporated gets its cash, then the poor and oppressed in Haiti, Albania, etc. can go and hang. Hell, she'll even throw in a public endorsement of the benevolent regime. Help ma boab.

[quote]Originally posted by DistantCelt

If one is capable of casting doubt on the motives of Mother Teresa, one is definately capable of casting doubt on the motives of Jesus Christ.

One is very capable of judging Mother Theresa - a flawed human being. I find it quite absurd, and mildly offensive, to compare Jesus Christ to this woman.

[DistantCelt]

I got a request- can you please sort out your post ? it looks like an inverted pyramid and is a rather big eyesore.

now..back to the topic at hand:

---------------------

Strange, a lot of people manage it, too.

They think that they do- but they dont. I've read the bible and its a pretty fundamentalist book. You cannot follow a fundamentalist source with a moderate standpoint and then claim that its conforming to the source. That is a fundamental contradiction.

Oh another thing- i dont consider most christians as christians-i think they delude themselves into thinking that they are christians.
Infact, you cannot be true-anything with respect to Abrahamic faiths and not be a fundamentalist- for the whole Triangle of Abrahamic faiths(Judaism,Christianity and Islam) are fundamentalist to the letter of the law.

Mother Theresa supported Princess Diana's divorce whilst actively supporting the 'no' vote in the divorce referendum vote in Ireland. She stunk. She stunk to high heaven.

???
I have never heard of this.

Yet, again, strangely, many do.

I am yet to hear the official papal decree that says birth control is okay.

LOL. Yeah, I can imagine how that particular 'teaching' was framed. LOL.

I can give yo word-for-word verbatim actually. In short, during the 90s, her stance was that women should be educated and work if it doesnt disrupt her duties towards her husband/children- which is pretty much the 'standard' for liberal christians from the establishment.

Even if her money to 'help the poor' was coming from people who were creating an underclass of their own in their own countries? Yeah, I can see how that logic works.

By your reasoning, every friggin thing on this planet is hypocracy(and it is)- i suppose you dont think that Capitalism creates an underclass and maintains it eh ?
As i said, the whole 'if you are not against him, you are with him' logic is baffling and idiotic.

So as long as Mother Theresa Incorporated gets its cash, then the poor and oppressed in Haiti, Albania, etc. can go and hang.

Umm...that is categoric slander- her entire point of buttering up the dictatorships in albania or DuValier was to GET help to the poor and needy under those regimes. Not exploit em- that would be the domain of one Benny Hinn and his type of evangelists.

One is very capable of judging Mother Theresa - a flawed human being. I find it quite absurd, and mildly offensive, to compare Jesus Christ to this woman.

I consider J.C to be a human being too and so far i see nothing more than a good hearted person with a narcissitic streak for self glorification ( known as the Moses complex).
Something that is against the grain has to be proven inorder to be accepted. To claim that Jesus wasnt human(which is against the grain-for practically everybody else is/was human, even by biblical definition) is absurd to me- it has to be categorically proven that he wasnt a good hearted reformist with a narcissistic streak for self glorification with an extreme case of Moses complex ( to the point of being a martyr). It has to be proven that he indeed was 'non human'. And no- talk of miracles and lavish praise from his pawns is not categoric proof- by that definition, there are several 'divine beings' walking around amidst us right now and several thousand 'gods/sons of gods' have existed over the course of recorded history.

So you see, nobody is really above question in reality. The entire premise that Jesus is 'divine' is based on an assumption- the assumption that he wasnt a narcissistic reformist and the assumption that all the apostles were 100% honest.