Mother Theresa, of course!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-10-17 16:19:35
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why is this an either or situation? I was sad when Mother Theresa died. I was sad when Princess Di died. Why should the life of one have value over the life of another? Because one did good works at great sacrifice and the other was a Princess? When you begin to place value on someone's life, you begin to judge worthiness on criteria that cannot and never can cover the entire story.
For example, Princess Di raised a lot money to help people in need, money that Mother Theresa could never have gathered. You can also ask how many of the people Mother Theresa tended to would have been better off if she had passed out condoms along with food and medical supplies.
No human being is perfect and no human being is inherently more worthy of love than any other. Deeds set us apart, but how can one judge when one does not know all of a persons actions or motivations? It would bring the question of what value do you have when compared with Princess Di and Mother Theresa? Should anyone mourn you because you are not an angel of mercy?
2006-10-17 15:47:38
·
answer #2
·
answered by Muffie 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mother Teresa worshipped the suffering of others. Her 'homes for the dying' were just places you could drop a relative off for them to die in - they offered no health care in the slightest. She spent the vast majority of the money she was given on nunneries, not on the sick or the poor. In my mind, she was a horrible person.
I don't know much about Diana, but she couldn't have been worse than Mother Teresa.
2006-10-17 15:42:18
·
answer #3
·
answered by eri 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I mourned the deaths of both women, but, for different reasons.
I mourned the passing of Mother Teresa, because as you note in your question, she was an Angel of Mercy, & it was sad that the world lost such a humanitarian.
I mourned Princess Diana, because she was a young woman sincerely seeking love, only to be used by the very men she fell in love with:
First by her husband, Prince Charles, who only married her to gain heirs & for public display, all the while carrying on a romantic relationship with another married woman.
Then by James Hewitt, who cashed in on his relationship with the Princess of Wales.
And finally by Dodi Al Fyad(sp.), who, I suspect, only got together with Diana, at his father's request. Please allow me to explain my reasons for thinking this way.
The same summer in which Dodi & the Diana were killed in a drunk driving accident, Dodi was supposed to get married to someone else, but, he suddenly dropped his fiance for Diana. Dodi's father, Mohammed Al Fyad(again, sp.)has been trying desperately forever to gain citizenship in the UK, & is repeatedly rejected, as he has a reputation for being a sneak. Were Dodi to have married Princess Diana--the mother of the future King of England--it would have made it suddenly become easy for Mohammed Al Fyad to gain his coveted British citizenship.
Diana & Dodi were only dating for about a month when they were suddenly killed. Who knows where the relationship would have gone. Yet, Mohammed Al-Fyad keeps pushing the idea that the two of them were completely in love & were going to get married. Mohammed Al-Fyad is also the one who encouraged the rumours that the couple were murdered by the British Royal Family, rather than a drunk driving accident, when clearly that was what caused the pair's deaths.
2006-10-17 15:58:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by clusium1971 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I felt sad for both women. However, two world figures passed away simultaneously; one had the wealth, glamour and niceties of this world but was not happy and dissatisfied. The other enjoyed living among the poor and less fortunate and was content and joyous while doing it. I've learned a great lesson from it. It does not matter what we have or who we are here on earth, we cannot carry anything with us - the grave makes all men equal.
2006-10-17 15:45:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by charmaine f 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think of its very unfair to evaluate those 2 females. that they had no longer something in subject-loose in existence, and now they are the two ineffective. i do no longer see why human beings could desire to mourn any much less for one than the different, they have been the two wonderful and regrettably ignored. i'm remembering my ultimate buddy right this moment - she died only one 12 months in the past. could desire to I mourn much less for her, an unknown individual, than for mom Theresa ? of direction no longer. we could no longer evaluate and choose after a individual had died. Its an extremely uncharitable subject to do.
2016-10-19 22:04:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by lindgren 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
What is that supposed to mean,drunken Diana.? It's not like she was driving.
2006-10-17 15:35:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by Piper 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Yes I mourned for both of them. They were great women.
2006-10-17 15:36:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by Midge 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Why should I mourn an adulteress and why shouldn't I mourn a pure lady of faith?
2006-10-17 15:38:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Chevalier 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
Both
2006-10-17 15:36:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
neither. they were the same. just a woman under their clothes.
2006-10-17 15:36:27
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋