http://www.amazon.com/Mother-Teresa-Narration-Richard-Attenborough/dp/B000WOYRUI

In terms of time, from what age should one be morally good and remain good to achieve this level of recognition? What's your acceptable grading criterion?

I would think that at the very least one should not align oneself with ruthless dictators, provide sub-standard care for people while simultaneously getting the best care available to anyone with the money that was donated for helping the people that she was not helping. How can you possibly look at the list of things she has done and shrug your shoulders and say, "Yeah, she was good."

I lived in a slum area for a year and for 7 years I traveled with slum dwellers by trains and buses. I've talked to them, eaten at their home, learned from them and appreciated their survival skills.

And how often have you told them how great it is that they suffer and scrape to survive?

You cannot appreciate the light unless you've been in the dark.

Which is the same apologetic that people use to excuse god's violent behavior against us, and it doesn't work then either. Do you have to eat rocks in order to enjoy a steak? I reject your line of argumentation that one must need to suffer in order to enjoy anything, because it's simply not true.

That's like saying that extraterrestrials are really just from Earth, because the meta word has "terrestrial" in it.

I agree that the definitions are not well formed. If terra refers to Earth, then yes. If terra can refer to land on any planet then no.

a "saint" is said to be someone who surpasses human abilities and is not bound by human limitations

In other words a human that is not really human. Is this logically accurate? All humans have the ability to surpass the human limitation they set for themselves (usually short of their potential max limit) but they cannot surpass their own max limit. They will always remain within the range of human. Its just logical. Mother Teresa may have touched her max limit; usually known as unconditional love and acceptance for all, which is quite tough to reach. She maybe no saint to you, but to those who have experienced her ways, they might disagree but then again some might agree.

What's the point in saying that Mother Teresa was a good, moral person if it simply wasn't so?

In terms of time, from what age should one be morally good and remain good to achieve this level of recognition? What's your acceptable grading criterion?

I'm sorry, but there is nothing beautiful about suffering. I think to test this thought of yours, you should go to the poorest nations and watch people suffering from starvation and tell them how beautiful you think their suffering is.

I lived in a slum area for a year and for 7 years I traveled with slum dwellers by trains and buses. I've talked to them, eaten at their home, learned from them and appreciated their survival skills. That's the closest I've gotten to living among some of them. I have family surviving and succumbed to cancer & surviving heart diseases. My wife suffered neurological breakdowns and her right side paralyzed for a short while. I broke my shoulder, suffered from jaundice, malaria, pox and more while living in a nation just like you mentioned. I'm not an American. But after all this, I see beauty in it. You cannot appreciate the light unless you've been in the dark. Why don't you try it and I don't mean it sarcastically. There are always opportunities to learn.

Let me go with the definition you proposed. She is human period, just like all of us. "Super human" is still a logical subset of human, that's why the word "human" still exists within that term.

That's like saying that extraterrestrials are really just from Earth, because the meta word has "terrestrial" in it. No, in this sense, a "saint" is said to be someone who surpasses human abilities and is not bound by human limitations. Mother Teresa was certainly no saint.

To recognize someone's morals that are on a plane higher than others does not mean "everyone else sucks".

Nor did I say that it did. It does mean that that person's morals really should be higher than others if we are going to claim as much. What's the point in saying that Mother Teresa was a good, moral person if it simply wasn't so?

Very few can see beauty in suffering, even fewer see beauty in everything even death.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing beautiful about suffering. I think to test this thought of yours, you should go to the poorest nations and watch people suffering from starvation and tell them how beautiful you think their suffering is.

You can't just ignore the bad that people do and claim that they're good people. It takes the meaning out of the word good.

But I do it! Somewhere I see beyond what they see themselves as. I see somewhere someone only wanting to be happy at any cost, someone who is in fear at this point in time and also acting out of fear. I see it because I walked this path myself.

Thoughts?
- Evans

It is not my job to judge others but its definitely my job to judge "myself" instead.

Is it your job to judge others as positive? Because you seem to be doing that. Is it your job to judge is for our view that her impact wasn't positive? Because you seem to be doing that too. Everyone judges the role of other peoples work; it's part of being a human. To only focus on the good and avoid the bad makes the concept of a "good person" completely meaningless, because everyone would viewed as a "good person", being that:

The only thing I positively care to see is the results of the good deeds done. That's all that matters. If there is bad, everyone is capable of making mistakes, she is human too. No one is perfect, even if she claimed to be that.

You can't just ignore the bad that people do and claim that they're good people. It takes the meaning out of the word good