Posted on 02/27/2004 3:40:31 AM PST by ejdrapes
Yes he died.
The only one that I know of that was stoned and didn't die was Paul. Although there is some discussion about that. It is possible that Paul didn't even know for sure.
Tribune7: "I suspect a Mother Teresa would be the first. She did have a good track record there. :-)"
Hint, hint: The very, very, religious are legalists who compare themselves among themselves.
Those sorts of mentalities do not view themselves as being "low-life sinners". And unlike Jesus, they avoid even being in the company of "low-life sinners" for fear of being contaminated by them.
They think that God isn't talking about them when He says that ALL human effort to act in accordance with divine or moral law (righteous behavior) are like menstrous rags to Him.
By their self-righteousness, they are denying that only the righteousness of Christ imputed to them will make them acceptable to God. [The *gift* of Christ's righteousness: Rom.5:17]
Isn't that special?
Among the people who Mr. Hitchens puts in that category is Mother Teresa. It's pretty safe to say Mother Teresa would have been the first person to assist Mr. Hitchens if he should find himself in the situation you describe.
While, I often myself in agreement with Mr. Hitchens in this matter he is a hypocrit.
Hypocrite: "Actor. One who affects virtues or qualities he does not have." I don't see where Hitchens fits that definition "in this matter". Maybe you can explain it to me.
On the other hand, Hitchens sees where some others might fit that definition. What would be your definition of the sort of behavior mentioned here?:
"..Believers are likewise enjoined to abhor and eschew divorce, but they are not required to insist that a ban on divorce and remarriage be a part of the state constitution, as Mother Teresa demanded in a referendum in Ireland (which her side narrowly lost) in 1996.
Later in that same year, she told Ladies Home Journal that she was pleased by the divorce of her friend Princess Diana, because the marriage had so obviously been an unhappy one …
[MT took] misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan.
Where did that money, and all the other donations, go?
The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit.
But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order.
Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?
...Many volunteers who went to Calcutta came back abruptly disillusioned by the stern ideology and poverty-loving practice of the "Missionaries of Charity," but they had no audience for their story.
One of the curses of India, as of other poor countries, is the quack medicine man, who fleeces the sufferer by promises of miraculous healing.
Sunday was a great day for these parasites, who saw their crummy methods endorsed by his holiness and given a more or less free ride in the international press. ..."
Hitchens affects the virtues of being honest, objective and reasonable. Concerning Mother Teresa and the Passion he is obviously not.
You quote a long tract from Hitchens attacking Mother Teresa. Why do you believe it? The people who knew here best appreciated her.
By SUSAN CABA CALCUTTA, India -- The truest tribute to Mother Teresa Saturday was in the streets of her adopted city. While cardinals, queens, diplomats and politicians paid homage in a state funeral that stressed her devotion to the have-nots of the world -- but included few of them -- tens of thousands of poor and working-class Indians assembled behind barricades to watch her cortege pass.
She was saying this when it was not cool:
God told us, "Love your neighbor as yourself." So first I am to love myself rightly, and then to love my neighbor like that. But how can I love myself unless I accept myself as God has made me? Those who deny the beautiful differences between men and women are not accepting themselves as God has made them, and so cannot love the neighbor. They will only bring division, unhappiness, and destruction of peace to the world. For example, as I have often said, abortion is the greatest destroyer of peace in the world today, and those who want to make women and men the same are all in favor of abortion.
Here's a short biography. She's done far more than Hitchens will.
I think many of the first followers of Jesus were Jewish, probably. Perhaps you are right, calling them Christians is not tecnically correct.
Don't know where to find box office data, all I know is the thing took in 25 million plus on opening day, in the middle of winter, no less.
I have no opinion on it one way or the other. This is not about me and what I believe.
You are the one that used the word "hypocrite" to describe Hitchens.
In the excerpts I provided, Hitchens portrayed contradictory behaviors by various people.
The names of the people involved aren't important.
My question to you was, and is, what word would you use to define such behaviors -- if they indeed did occur as he stated? That's all.
Yes. Exactly.
My question to you was, and is, what word would you use to define such behaviors -- if they indeed did occur as he stated?
The more important question to me is what if they didn't. What if they are exaggerations, taken out of context, or made up entirely?
And what if the teller of these things -- who also is attempting to destroy a reputation -- claimed to be a man of truth and a lover of people?
Based upon the various comments I've seen and heard some people make about the movie, the "message" they are "getting" has more to do with their pre-conceived notions, personal agendas, and personal perceptions, than with anything having to do with reality.
Tribune7: "The more important question to me is what if they didn't. What if they are exaggerations, taken out of context, or made up entirely?"
Don't worry. I won't ask you more than three times to answer the question. You've proven my point.
Actually your point is "the very last person who would stop to render meaningful help to a low-life sinner like him, would be the very, very religious."
My note to you was Mother Teresa has a well deserved reputation for
a: being very, very religious and
b: doing just that to "low-life sinners"
You then imply that Mother Teresa didn't do those things and provide as evidence a link to writings by Mr. Hitchens. Is Hitchens telling the truth?
The intellectually honest who were watching you tap-dance know what my point was, and know that you proved it. The opinions of the rest don't count.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.