1. EM's post doesn't say what faith is really all "about." That's not the point of this essay. It's conclusions are about the illogically circular nature of it (in the mainstream), as well as the painful effects of it to Teresa's (and by implication, others') life.

2. Compare Teresa's private letters to the public image made from and out of her. Which do you think is more accurate - by geting at the true heart of her inner life - and why?

In sum: please read the linked article and then the original post.

Although I am not an atheist, neither am I a religious person. In fact, I find religion manipulative. It's interesting that when a person’s prays are allegedly answered the person says "Praise be to God!" When not answered they say "It must be Gods will!" instead of the logical response "xxxxx to God!" The simple answer of course is that, regardless of their prayers, the outcome was probably simply preordained by natural chance.

However, being contantly surprised by what science keeps discovering, I'm prepared to believe that some form of energy power force could possibly be governing natural events and keeps everything in some kind of balance and order. BUT! It’s not a God in the convention sense of the word. It's beyond the human mind to comprehend and therefore not open to discussion or contact.

There is however, if one wishes to research, lots of evidence to substantiate the existence of other domains or dimensions after so called death. But that's another subject.

Geoff

The argument that all the money could have been used to build sophisticated medical centres is really rather juvenile and shows the difficulty of comprehending the scale of the problems of poverty and some basic ethical questions about the distribution of resources in health care.

But there is mystery sure; but not myth about the faith of Mother Teresa, as these letters show. Surely, what she showed was infact and in deed, her faith. Without any comfort of sentiment, she continued, believing in the value of the love she showed. She wasn't dishonest! She was honest enough to question whether she was a hypocrite. She questioned herself, she was human, she was challenged by the questions of life and suffering and what is true or good or right. And yet she continued to carry out her work in faith that simple acts of kindness are what please God and that God is very human too,incarnate infact in both the giver and receiver of human acts.

Sadly, though, the "Mother-Theresa-helped-the-poor" idea is only a myth.

Your point would be spot-on even without the 300-year history of the Inquisition, which seems to me be indirect support for the concept of desensitization. The tortures used in that evil attempt at thought control point to psychopathy. That it was offically sanctioned for so long says much.

If this concentration on torture, including flaying alive, boiling in oil, whipped to death etc. isn't indicative of some sort of sickness, then I don't know what would qualify as a cruel and ugly state of mind. And don't get me started on the sickening "relics"...

Why is it that the Roman Catholic church in particular glorifies suffering?

This is a good point. The Catholic church, even more so than most Christian denominations, glorifies pain and suffering. Just think of their canonical symbol - a man nailed to a cross and writhing in agony. Most other Christian churches are content with the empty cross, which is horrible enough in its own way, but at least less graphic.