Triumph of the hypocrites?

[Frank Lee]

This article is a repost of a portion of an article about fifteen great people that were actually terrible hypocrites.

It's borderline blasphemous to criticize Mother Teresa, or Saint Teresa as of September 4, 2016. No one did more to help the poor and the sick, right? Well, not quite. As reported by the Times of India, Mother Teresa's true motives were actually kind of selfish, with less focus on helping people, and more on boosting the numbers for her own religion.
____________________________________________
Frank Lee's insertion here.
(God allows us to get a peek at the founding of the Roman Catholic church by specifically inserting this scripture. It gives us a look at one of the founding members and the satanic spirit driving that founding member by insisting that a mere woman, though blessed she was, should be adored and worshipped rather than God whose name is jealous)
Luke 11:27 KJVS
And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

Mother Teresa believed the sick must suffer like Christ on the cross, they suggest.

"There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering," the journalist Christopher Hitchens reported her as saying.

(Hitchens referred to her as "a fanaticist, a fundamentalist and a fraud.")

____________________________________________
Mother Teresa's missions, despite having tons of charitable donations at their disposal, rarely — if ever — actually helped poor, sick people become healthy. In fact, most of these places, according to a 2013 paper published in Studies in Religion, were dirty, short on doctors, low on food, and largely bereft of painkillers. Nevertheless, Teresa found the suffering beautiful, like it was making the world a better, holier place. We know this because she said it to the famously anti-religious writer Christopher Hitchens: "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering."

Naturally, this didn't apply to Teresa herself, who, according to Hitchens, would regularly get care at good, American hospitals when sick. Apparently, the world would've gained nothing if she suffered.

But Teresa's true goal was to use her charitable efforts to convert people to Roman Catholicism. Remember how she invoked "Christ's Passion?" That's because she truly felt that the poor, the sick, and the suffering were akin to Jesus on the cross. If they suffered as He did, in her mind, that would bring them closer to Him. It would seem she skipped the parts in the Bible where Jesus actually healed sick people.

Read More: Respected historical figures who were actually bad

Time and again we see men glorifying men rather than God who alone is worthy of glory. Men always ignore the jealousy of God, that He will NOT Allow the sharing of His glory.

Religion kills, Jesus Christ makes alive. We must all watch, be aware of where our loyalties lie. I ask myself;.

Who are we defending and why?

 

[mjrhealth]

Not unexpected, now we with for the fallout.

God bless

 

[tabletalk]

This article is a repost of a portion of an article about fifteen great people that were actually terrible hypocrites.

It's borderline blasphemous to criticize Mother Teresa, or Saint Teresa as of September 4, 2016. No one did more to help the poor and the sick, right? Well, not quite. As reported by the Times of India, Mother Teresa's true motives were actually kind of selfish, with less focus on helping people, and more on boosting the numbers for her own religion.
____________________________________________
Frank Lee's insertion here.
(God allows us to get a peek at the founding of the Roman Catholic church by specifically inserting this scripture. It gives us a look at one of the founding members and the satanic spirit driving that founding member by insisting that a mere woman, though blessed she was, should be adored and worshipped rather than God whose name is jealous)
Luke 11:27 KJVS
And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

Mother Teresa believed the sick must suffer like Christ on the cross, they suggest.

"There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering," the journalist Christopher Hitchens reported her as saying.

(Hitchens referred to her as "a fanaticist, a fundamentalist and a fraud.")

____________________________________________
Mother Teresa's missions, despite having tons of charitable donations at their disposal, rarely — if ever — actually helped poor, sick people become healthy. In fact, most of these places, according to a 2013 paper published in Studies in Religion, were dirty, short on doctors, low on food, and largely bereft of painkillers. Nevertheless, Teresa found the suffering beautiful, like it was making the world a better, holier place. We know this because she said it to the famously anti-religious writer Christopher Hitchens: "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering."

Naturally, this didn't apply to Teresa herself, who, according to Hitchens, would regularly get care at good, American hospitals when sick. Apparently, the world would've gained nothing if she suffered.

But Teresa's true goal was to use her charitable efforts to convert people to Roman Catholicism. Remember how she invoked "Christ's Passion?" That's because she truly felt that the poor, the sick, and the suffering were akin to Jesus on the cross. If they suffered as He did, in her mind, that would bring them closer to Him. It would seem she skipped the parts in the Bible where Jesus actually healed sick people.

Read More: Respected historical figures who were actually bad

Time and again we see men glorifying men rather than God who alone is worthy of glory. Men always ignore the jealousy of God, that He will NOT Allow the sharing of His glory.

Religion kills, Jesus Christ makes alive. We must all watch, be aware of where our loyalties lie. I ask myself;.

Who are we defending and why?

Mother Theresa could simply have meant this:
Philippians 3:10
"...that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,..."

 

[kit]

I personally don't go for Christian celebrities/hero's for this reason. As much as God can redeem us and use us in His way we are still all just people; sinners.

To my thinking, if God uses a human figure to inspire us, thats amazing, but I believe it would be to inspire something in us? Perhaps a call to humility or to inspire us to act; to respond more fully to our own callings? But I cant see how God would call us to simply celebrate that human figure.

And I think of what happened to Jesus and most (if not all) of the Apostles for living in Gods way. Not rounds of applause and magazine cover stories exactly, right? Why would Christ warn us that we would be ridiculed by the world if following his teachings would build our stature in the worldly sense? John 15:18-25

 

[Frank Lee]

In our faith we have but one hero .. Jesus. One leader the rest followers will be caring for each other, encouraging each other, looking out for each other. Like pilgrims on a journey seeing that all who started finish the trip.

 

[bbyrd009]

Mother Theresa could simply have meant this:
Philippians 3:10
"...that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death,..."

MT could have then simply put her money where her mouth was, couldn't she?
denying palliative care for others, that donations were even made for, and then seeking palliative care for herself?
pretty cheesy imo

 

[aspen]

Yeah...I guess if you see Catholicism as not Christian, Mother Teresa would be a bad person......or you could be wrong about Catholicism

 

[epostle1]

from a debate: Hitchens and Donahue

You, know, Christopher, both you and Mother Teresa professed deep concern for the plight of the poor and the destitute and the homeless. The only difference is that Mother Teresa actually did something for all of them. How many people have you literally carried out of the filth and vermin of the gutter, washed the maggots off them, put clean clothes on them, fed them, and gave them a secure place to rest, away from the terrors of the street? You criticize her and her nuns for not building a modern hospital for the desperately ill. That was never her stated intention—she was in the vocation of providing for the last days of the destitute and the dying. If you had taken the time to read the sign in front of her hospices, you would have seen it state,” Home for the Dying and Destitute”—and not THE MAYO CLINIC.

In your so-called book on her you criticize her for providing a hospice in the Bronx that is without an elevator. You don’t mention how she and the other nuns actually carried the destitute up the stairs—those who were unable to physically make it on their own. Your dishonesty is deplorable.

A number of your criticisms are deliberately misleading by leaving out relevant facts. Your book is a study in bigoted and dishonest selectivity. For example, you accuse her of taking stolen money from Charles Keating; you don’t point out that Keating gave the money to Mother Teresa in 1982, but it was not until the 1990s that the details of his swindling came to light—long after the missionaries had already spent it. How conveniently you alter the truth.

Then, you denounce her for taking money from the wealthy and dishonest Duvalier family in Haiti. Tell us, where else in Haiti could she have obtained money to build the orphanages there? From the penniless poor? This is just another phony criticism of yours. As a matter of fact, your entire book on Mother Teresa reeks of phony scholarship: no index, no footnotes or endnotes, no checkable sources, no evidence. If I were your college teacher, I’d have to give it an “F.”

It’s part and parcel of the research you produce for your two favorite sources of publication. The Nation, a pretentious pseudo-intellectual rag, and Vanity Fair, known widely as an anti-Catholic tabloid.

The majority of your writings are on the level of People magazine: superficial and without any in-depth research. What you compose most often lacks any careful study or any thorough scholarship. You write for effect—not for discovering the real truth. You’re the one who’s a fraud, Christopher—not Mother Teresa. She has backed up her world-wide reputation with countless good works for the downtrodden. Her life is her genuine testimony. Your opinion of her is based on distortion and prejudice.

You blame the lack of population control on Catholic doctrine, yet on the very previous page of your book you actually state that the secular-leftist government predominates there in Calcutta—the type of politics that you personally espouse. Thus, your position lacks consistency and logic. Your hatred of her is also partly because you disagree with her position on sexual behavior; she disapproves, like the Catholic Church, of sodomy and promiscuity. If everyone were to follow what the Catholic Church teaches about sex and marriage, there would hardly be any venereal disease and death due to AIDS. And yet you’re happy hurling cheap jokes and insults at the missionary nuns, their work, and their celibate vocation.

Hitchens:

Let me protest that I don’t do nun jokes. Never did. Never will. And I resent your implying that I do. Also, to say that AIDS is death from sex I regard as an obscenity. Your Church has a long history of blaming homosexuals for their sexual behavior; what they die of is a filthy and deadly virus which can and will be cured. You have no right to condemn them for expressing love to each other.

Donohue:

You don’t make jokes about nuns? You just earlier referred to the supposed virginity of Mother Teresa. And how about the title of your book against her, The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice? Only a phony would deny there’s a cheap sexual pun in the title. Again, you’re being the ultimate phony. And do you really think people get AIDS from a bug biting their behinds? Christopher, if you drink too much alcohol, you can get cirrhosis of the liver; if you smoke too many cigarettes, you can get lung cancer; and if you practice sodomy or promiscuous sex, you’ll likely wind up with some venereal disease.

Your libertine leftist philosophy somehow prevents you from accepting these truths.

Ultimately, the real reason you hate Mother Teresa is that her whole life stands for Jesus Christ. And you hate Jesus Christ so much that you’re unwilling to frankly acknowledge even His historical existence—which is truly stupid and absurd. Christopher, you’ve lost objectivity; you’re so blinded by your bias and ill will. Your attacks on Mother Teresa amount to no more than phony, dishonest logic based on personal animosity.

DONOHUE-HITCHENS DEBATE MOTHER TERESA

 

[epostle1]

This article is a repost of a portion of an article about fifteen great people that were actually terrible hypocrites.

It's borderline blasphemous to criticize Mother Teresa, or Saint Teresa as of September 4, 2016. No one did more to help the poor and the sick, right? Well, not quite. As reported by the Times of India, Mother Teresa's true motives were actually kind of selfish, with less focus on helping people, and more on boosting the numbers for her own religion.
____________________________________________
Frank Lee's insertion here.

Your attacks on Mother Teresa amount to no more than phony, dishonest logic based on personal animosity. Or Seventh Day Adventist indoctrination.

 

[Frank Lee]

EEEEpostle1... This is not my article.


Who and what are you defending and why? Your deominational doctrine is more important to you than any defense of the gospel. God and his word being at the most secondary in importance to the defense of the great whore that is seated upon many waters.

 

[epostle1]

If it's not your article, why does it appear under your name? You are a phony like your atheist buddy Hitchens. We are not focused on boosting numbers they same as your hate cult. You confuse attraction with proselyting, something that violates the Vatican's statement on religious freedom. The Missionaries of Charity have always been forbidden to proselytize, but you accept the lies of Hindu politicians.
‘Conversion’ Charge Against Mother Teresa Stirs National Protest in India
A broad cross section of Indian society joined with the local Church in denouncing the allegations made by the leader of India’s Hindu nationalist lobby.

Not long ago, Albania's Communist dictatorship banned anything having to do with the existence of God. Ironically, most Albanians were not aware of one of the most universal religious figures in the world, who also happened to be a native of Albania.

Communist dictators share the sentiments of phonies. In fact, they are the source of so much hate propaganda that that gets gobbled up by uneducated people.
It was once forbidden to say Mother Teresa's name in Albania

"great whore??" Educated Protestants no longer teach that kind of idiocy. It's comic book theology for ignorant angry phonies.

 

[epostle1]

After distorting the text and history to read what they want into the Bible, and thereby obtaining God's "blessing" on their hatred of the Catholic Church, some "Christians" ignore the only texts of Scripture which tells us about the religious leanings of the Antichrist. The Catholic faith being a religion you would think they would see what it teaches on the only criteria the Bible actually gives about the Antichrist. In St. John's letters (1 John 4, 2 John 1), he tells us that the spirit of the Antichrist denies the Incarnation (the Son of God becoming man) and thereby also the Trinity (the Father and the Spirit, too).THIS IS THE SPIRIT OF ANTI-CHRIST.

There is not a single text in 2000 years, including the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, where the Catholic Church, her popes, her bishops, her official teachings, her saints, or her acknowledged ecclesiastical authors, deny the Word-made-flesh or the Blessed Trinity. Instead, all of Christianity owes the preservation of these Truths to the Catholic Church, whose great Councils formulated them and whose saints and popes have defended them to this day, often at the cost of martyrdom.

This may be why Bible cults such as sabbitarians reject the Trinity.

The Catholic Church does not have the spirit of the Antichrist but of God, since no one without the Spirit can say "Jesus is Lord" (1 Cor. 12:3), something the Church and Catholics always have done and continue to do!

So what does one do about a hypocritical "Christian" who ignores 1 John 4, 2 John 1 and changes the facts of history?

Frank Lee, you have posted numerous LIES attacking my faith and then you pretentiously claim I am not defending the gospel. I am not trying to "defend the gospel" but counter the endless LIES AND INSULTS posted by self acclaimed experts and hypocrites. To defend it you have to know what it is, and your psychotic Catholic bashing is not it.

Frank Lee, which of these would you like to burn down first?

 

[mjrhealth]

Ho Hum ,, so boring the religious defending the lies......

 

[epostle1]

EEEEpostle1... This is not my article.
Who and what are you defending and why? Your deominational doctrine is more important to you than any defense of the gospel. God and his word being at the most secondary in importance to the defense of the great whore that is seated upon many waters.

Go over all my posts, I defend when things are attacked by ignorant anti-Catholics, I don't go out of my way to preach Catholic doctrine. Your remark about the great whore deserves some attention, because it's so stupid. It's found on every board on the internet because it's rebellious and rebellion is fashionable.

How many times have we all heard ignorant people claim that the “whore of Babylon” mentioned in the book of Revelation is the Vatican / Holy Catholic Church? Way too many times. So who or what is the whore of Babylon anyway?

In order to find out, Catholics should always refer to previous texts in the Bible, and never take a verse out of context. The Whore of Babylon is described in

Revelation 17:1-18
​

If you look at the very last line (verse 17) above, you will see that the Whore of Babylon is a “great city that has dominion over the Kings of the earth”. Now we all have to ask ourselves if the Vatican has any dominion over any Kings of the earth today. Well there aren’t that many Kings around anymore, for one thing, and even if you transpose the word “president” for “king”, it’s laughable to say that the Vatican has dominion over any president or ruler of a country today, with all of the legalized abortion, contraception, divorce and remarriage, etc., that is going on in most countries today. And in countries that do have Kings, like Saudi Arabia, certainly the Vatican has zero dominion over Muslim countries.​

So which city is John talking about anyway? The 7 mountains that the Whore sits on with the 7 Kings gives us a clue. The Vatican does not sit on one of the 7 hills of Rome, which are Aventine Hill, Caelian Hill, Capitoline Hill, Esquiline Hill, Palatine Hill, Quirinal Hill, and Viminal Hill. Vatican Hill sits across the Tiber River from ancient Rome, and was a crucifixion site (where Peter was crucified upside down). It was not made part of the city of Rome until the 9th Century, well after John wrote the book of Revelation. And since we know that 5 of the 7 kings have already fallen in John’s time, and the other 2 must remain “a little while”, the city had to exist in John’s time, 1st Century AD. This is all confirmed by Revelation 1:1, which says:

"The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, "

“Soon” would NOT be 8 centuries later, for sure.

So this means that the Whore of Babylon is a great city that had to have existed in the first century. Which city might that be? Revelation 11:8 gives us the answer:

“and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.”

Jerusalem, the great city where Jesus was crucified, seems to be the great city, or the Whore of Babylon! But wait a minute – Isn’t Jerusalem the HolyCity? How in the world could anyone say that Jerusalem is the Whore of Babylon? For the record, Jerusalem also sits on 7 hills, namely, Scopus, Nob, Mount of Corruption, Old Mount Zion, Ophel, Rock, and New Mount Zion. And at the time of John, Jerusalem did have a lot of power over many Kings of the earth (because Jerusalem was the center of worship of God), as well as being a center of commerce.

Well, let’s look elsewhere in the bible, and in the words of our protestant brothers and sisters, we will let scripture interpret scripture. For example, in Isaiah 1, God is castigating Israel for its many sins, even referring to Israel as Sodom and Gomorrah in Isaiah 1:10:

Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah!

In Revelation 11:8 above, we learned that the Whore is allegorically called SODOM! And in Isaiah 1:21 below, God calls Jerusalem a harlot, which is another word for whore:

“How the faithful city has become a harlot, she that was full of justice! Righteousness lodged in her, but now murderers.”

Israel is also called a harlot in Jeremiah 3:6:

“The LORD said to me in the days of King Josiah: "Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the harlot?”

Ezekiel 16:2 says that Jerusalem has abominations:

“Son of man, make known to Jerusalem her abominations, “

And these abominations are described by God as harlotries in Ezekiel 16:26-30:

It would seem that God is describing Jerusalem as a harlot because He considered Jerusalem to be one with Him, as a man marries a bride. But Jerusalem and its people always seemed to going after pagan wives, worshiping false idols like the golden calf, and generally not being true to the covenant God had established with them during the time of Moses. And now, in John’s time, the leaders of Jerusalem were teaming up with pagan Rome to not only kill the apostles and prophets, but also the Messiah Himself.

Jesus Himself condemns Jerusalem in Matthew 23:29-38

It would seem that God is describing Jerusalem as a harlot because He considered Jerusalem to be one with Him, as a man marries a bride. But Jerusalem and its people always seemed to going after pagan wives, worshiping false idols like the golden calf, and generally not being true to the covenant God had established with them during the time of Moses. And now, in John’s time, the leaders of Jerusalem were teaming up with pagan Rome to not only kill the apostles and prophets, but also the Messiah Himself.

Jesus Himself condemns Jerusalem in Matthew 23:29-38

Here we see Jesus foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem by pagan Rome in 70 AD. Why? Because they killed the prophets and stoned the ones sent to them. This should sound familiar, because in Revelation 18:20, 24 we heard that

"Rejoice over her, O heaven, O saints and apostles and prophets, for God has given judgment for you against her!"

"And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on earth."

So here we see in Revelation that the Whore of Babylon killed apostles and prophets. Apostles were those that had actually been with Jesus, and prophets only existed up until the first century, way before the Vatican was established. One trap that some fundamentalists fall into is their sincere mistaken belief that the Catholic Church wasn't started until Constantine came along in the 4th Century. While that isn't true (we have the writings from the early Church Fathers that confirm that the Catholic Church began with Peter's commissioning), the question has to be asked then how can the whore of Babylon be the Catholic Church, because the whore had to be around in the first century when the last prophet was killed. So Jesus and Revelation agree that Jerusalem has killed the ones sent to it, and Jesus predicts the coming destruction of Jerusalem in this generation, which happened about 40 years later, in 70 AD.

And who destroyed the Whore of Babylon? Babylon did, which was pagan Rome. Babylon is a code name for Rome, which symbolized sexual and immoral excess. Revelation 17:16 says that the ten horns (symbolizing the rulers of pagan Rome) will destroy the whore by fire, which is exactly what the Romans did to Jerusalem in 70 AD. And then Revelation 17:14 says that the Lamb will conquer them both. This happened in the 4th Century, when Constantine became the first Christian emperor of Rome, who stopped all of the religious persecutions of Christians with the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. Constantine built the Vatican directly on top of the tomb of St. Peter, on Vatican Hill, outside the city of Rome.

And so what or who is 666? In numerology, each letter is assigned a value. In Greek, the name Caesar Nero, the emperor alive at the time Revelation was written, adds up to 666. Nero killed his own brother and mother, and was generally known as the most decadent of all the emperors of Rome. John was trying to tell the Christians alive at the time that Jesus would eventually triumph over wicked Jerusalem and pagan Rome. The stubborn Jews of that day, like the murderous Saul, were turning in Christians to the Roman authorities to be tortured and murdered. Thankfully, on his way to Damascus, Saul saw the light of Christ and became the saintly Paul. But there was a price to be paid, as Nero not only killed Peter for preaching the Truth, but also Paul, who died by being beheaded (he was a Roman citizen, and therefore escaped crucifixion).

And for the record, the word Antichrist appears nowhere in the book of Revelation ! St. John does describe who the antichrist is in 1 John 2 - An antichrist is someone who denies that Jesus is the Messiah.

 

[epostle1]

There is a lesson to be learned from this story, and that is this.

When God's chosen people decided to do their own thing and follow pagan ways, God let their enemies destroy them. Now we Christians, the new chosen people of the New Testament, have to ask ourselves if we aren't going down the same path, with our embrace of pornography, Freemasonry, homosexuality, artificial contraception, cloning, embryonic stem cell research, assisted suicide, adultery, fornication, gluttony, disrespect for the sabbath, love of money, etc., over Jesus. If the answer is yes, then we can expect destruction by our enemies as well. 9/11 may have been a harbinger of what is in store for us. Only by embracing Jesus and His Church can we expect to escape the doom we have created for ourselves by walking down the same path as ancient Jews, who wandered in the desert for 40 years after worshipping a false God, and who saw their great city and culture destroyed in 70 AD for forsaking God and embracing the ways of pagan Rome. May God have mercy on us all.
Catholic Bible 101

 

[mjrhealth]

Only by embracing Jesus

Hallelujah he got part of it right..

 

[DPMartin]

This article is a repost of a portion of an article about fifteen great people that were actually terrible hypocrites.

It's borderline blasphemous to criticize Mother Teresa, or Saint Teresa as of September 4, 2016. No one did more to help the poor and the sick, right? Well, not quite. As reported by the Times of India, Mother Teresa's true motives were actually kind of selfish, with less focus on helping people, and more on boosting the numbers for her own religion.
____________________________________________
Frank Lee's insertion here.
(God allows us to get a peek at the founding of the Roman Catholic church by specifically inserting this scripture. It gives us a look at one of the founding members and the satanic spirit driving that founding member by insisting that a mere woman, though blessed she was, should be adored and worshipped rather than God whose name is jealous)
Luke 11:27 KJVS
And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

Mother Teresa believed the sick must suffer like Christ on the cross, they suggest.

"There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering," the journalist Christopher Hitchens reported her as saying.

(Hitchens referred to her as "a fanaticist, a fundamentalist and a fraud.")

____________________________________________
Mother Teresa's missions, despite having tons of charitable donations at their disposal, rarely — if ever — actually helped poor, sick people become healthy. In fact, most of these places, according to a 2013 paper published in Studies in Religion, were dirty, short on doctors, low on food, and largely bereft of painkillers. Nevertheless, Teresa found the suffering beautiful, like it was making the world a better, holier place. We know this because she said it to the famously anti-religious writer Christopher Hitchens: "There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering."

Naturally, this didn't apply to Teresa herself, who, according to Hitchens, would regularly get care at good, American hospitals when sick. Apparently, the world would've gained nothing if she suffered.

But Teresa's true goal was to use her charitable efforts to convert people to Roman Catholicism. Remember how she invoked "Christ's Passion?" That's because she truly felt that the poor, the sick, and the suffering were akin to Jesus on the cross. If they suffered as He did, in her mind, that would bring them closer to Him. It would seem she skipped the parts in the Bible where Jesus actually healed sick people.

Read More: Respected historical figures who were actually bad

Time and again we see men glorifying men rather than God who alone is worthy of glory. Men always ignore the jealousy of God, that He will NOT Allow the sharing of His glory.

Religion kills, Jesus Christ makes alive. We must all watch, be aware of where our loyalties lie. I ask myself;.

Who are we defending and why?

the facts here are they were dirt poor and without any means and she was a representative of a church that is supposed to bring souls to Christ.
so what you are accusing her of is, being amongst the poor that remained poor and the suffering who still will loss their life in the flesh to bring souls into the fold as she understood a good catholic should, that for all intents and purposes would have brought everlasting life to those who would truly believe in Christ. and you are accusing her of not suffering and being dirt poor, like you are not dirt poor and not suffering as described in stories of her. and you went to India when? did you even give any attention to the poor in India? did you go to India and heal as many as would fall into your shadow or something?


is there something wrong with you?

 

[Frank Lee]

Wrong with me? Yes, you. You can't read. This is an article I pasted.
Why are you filled with anger? Who are you defending? What are you defending? Why do you hate? Why?

 

[epostle1]

the facts here are they were dirt poor and without any means and she was a representative of a church that is supposed to bring souls to Christ.
so what you are accusing her of is, being amongst the poor that remained poor and the suffering who still will loss their life in the flesh to bring souls into the fold as she understood a good catholic should, that for all intents and purposes would have brought everlasting life to those who would truly believe in Christ. and you are accusing her of not suffering and being dirt poor, like you are not dirt poor and not suffering as described in stories of her. and you went to India when? did you even give any attention to the poor in India? did you go to India and heal as many as would fall into your shadow or something?
is there something wrong with you?

What makes you think Saint Mother Teresa's example didn't win any souls to Christ? Why is it so important to you that I go to Calcutta? Your demands on me are unrealistic.
Have you met her personally?
Is there something wrong with you?

MT wasn't called to lead people in the sinners prayer, she was called to serve the poorest of the poor, and give them a decent place to die and the orphanages she established. Do you know the hearts of the lives she touched? You could be a special assistant to the missionaries with the amazing super powers and mind reading abilities you have.

Matthew 25:31-40 MT lived this with her heart and soul. Perhaps you've heard of it but it never really sunk in. Especially verse 40.

 

[epostle1]

Wrong with me? Yes, you. You can't read. This is an article I pasted.
Why are you filled with anger? Who are you defending? What are you defending? Why do you hate? Why?

I am not the one regurgitating comments from a Christian hating atheist and a leftist Hindu politician, both with an agenda against a great saint of our time. Be more discerning with what you paste. Your OP is a joke.
What I hate are the sick lies in your op. There is nothing "Christian" about bearing false witness.