The tradition of canonisation in Christianity needs to be rethought and overhauled ...
With the news around the world last week about the canonisation of Mother Theresa ... and how the world has divided opinions about her and the work she has done ...: one can’t but stop to think about this whole system:

Firstly, I can’t see why the capability of healing the physically sick is still the main criterion for acknowledging the “saintliness” of people, and more importantly why this applies only to Christian healers!

With the advance of medical science: the human body’s power to heal itself, with or without religious inspiration, has been noticed,
Cases of spontaneous self-healing have been documented all around the world, under the supervision of medical doctors, without the mediation of healers, be they Christian or other ...

And of course, many cases of false healing which were performed by self-proclaimed healers: have also been documented,

Medical science is aware of the hidden powers in the body to heal itself in rare cases from terminal illnesses, 
How this happens is still unknown,
But this power doesn’t seem to be a privilege of the members of any religion, and therefore it should be studied as a natural phenomenon and as a subject of psychosomatic medicine ...
And whether this power can be awakened by the mediation of another person, the healer, be they Christian or other ...: is also still unknown,

The emphasis in Christianity on “healing” is rooted in the belief that Jesus performed many such miracles ... 
Let’s not forget that those “miracles” took place when medical science was inexistent, and children and people of all ages used to die from infections and accidents, most of which are totally treatable today, and health and well-being were believed to be totally under the control of supernatural intervention ...

Canonisation (2)

Most mainstream Christians have learned to tolerate criticism, and this is something they can be praised for, and thanks to their open-heartedness I’m able to write this without any concern about any reaction of whatever kind,
And Christians continue to spread the Message of Christianity according to their understanding, regardless of other people’s opinion of them.

The belief in miracles cannot be taken as a basis of belief, and the scene of what appears to be miraculous is not a proof of the divine or a supernatural power of any kind,
And that’s because those concepts are subject to the individual’s level of education and general knowledge,

And if someone wields what appears to be supernatural power: does this make them divine automatically?
Of course the answer is no: until they have demonstrated knowledge that can guide others in times of strife,

But if someone does demonstrate knowledge that can be helpful in times of strife: but they don’t offer it on a platter of miracles: does this automatically render their knowledge useless?
The answer is of course again no. Hence the weight should be given only to knowledge, even if it takes a long time for it to be digested ...

In such an understanding: the miracles of healing are of no philosophic value whatsoever ...
Especially that it is in rare cases that they can be examined, and in rarer ones they can be confirmed: and in those latter cases: only the science and the logical analysis can decide whether the healing has occurred by the intermediary of the healer or by the sick body’s innate healing power,

In today’s world of advanced science: the miracles of the Christ should be taken figuratively, and if taken figuratively their philosophical significance is by far more important, 
Healing of the sickness of hatred and greed, of blindness to the Spirit, of ailments of the skin that is attached to sensual pleasures ...
This kind of healing is everlasting, and one can carry it to a next life,
Whereas the physical healing is temporary, sooner or later the healed will get sick again, and the revived will have to die ...

Canonisation (3)

Secondly, charity is the highest form of human love, 
Think of it as water: water can be used for almost every purpose: it puts out fire and washes off dirt ... 
But if you limit your use of it to putting fire out and washing dirt off: you haven’t assimilated its healing, you haven’t enjoyed its quench, you haven’t watered your garden, you haven’t swum ...

How sad it is, that in people’s minds, charity is synonymous to donation: that is of food and money ...
Of course you have to give to whomever needs them ...
But it’s best if charity is truly practised: so that the need for donations is ended ...
This has been the purpose of donations in all Abrahamic religions,

So if you think that god created people unequal for them to give donations: think again, 
Inequality is people’s making,
And there’s no spiritual value in being unjust ... for the purpose of continuing on giving donations ...
When there’s justice there’s true charity ... and donations become unneeded,

It’s about time the virtue of charity be understood as the highest form of human relations,
It’s what you can call compassion in Buddhism ... إحسان in Arabic,
This is the charity that was taught by the Christ,

So although it might look generous and benevolent when people donate and exhibit their donations: it doesn’t address the issue of poverty and need,
So long as the economic systems of the world continue on creating startling poverty and inequality, with or without the blessing of religions: no religion in the world can brag about their “charities”,
Worse still if they believed that injustice is their god’s will, and that he will forgive them ..., if they practised the rituals that their clergy have prescribed ...: including the supply of help and donations to the victims of injustice

Canonisation (4)

We shouldn’t be surprised if the use of charities as a propaganda machine to promote religions draws our attention to the dark side of charities ...
It’s as if religions can spread and thrive only if there’s misery ...
This is the good that can only be seen where evil is rampant ...
And not surprisingly, this is the belief in all Abrahamic religions: that god created the devil to corrupt the people, and that religion fixes them ...
The problem with such a belief is that the evil that each religion perceives: is represented by anyone or anything that is not of this religion!
And I’m putting this in the simplest words, because everyone can understand those basic intuitive concepts, without having to have a degree in philosophy or theology ...
Those relative concepts and local definitions of good and evil have served only one purpose: that is to create division, hatred and animosity between religions,
And of course to create divisions within their own communities between the rich and the poor, blessing the greedy to exercise their right to be greedy: so they can give charity and appear benevolent and holy.

While pretending to be champions of peace and cooperation between the nations of the world: in their meetings between themselves: religions, as ordinary people and as authorities: promote a dark image of every other religion and promise victory over every other religion,
Their charities are the best tool for painting themselves as messengers of peace: by helping the victims of the wars which are predominantly fuelled by religious hatred!
And the most effective way to promote themselves as the helpers of the victims of injustice that is caused by the greed that is overlooked, and sometimes blessed, by religions!

Of course, one can’t help but be moved by the sight of suffering people, and giving them the immediate help that they need is essential:
But if no effort is made to stop such tragedies from happening again: any help that you offer to needy people will have only a temporary effect, 
What’s worse: it’s being seen as a fact of life and good morals and religion: let them be hurt then we’ll help them,
This vicious cycle of local good and evil is a manmade thing, this is where it begins and this is where it should stop,
The gods which pretend to look after the poor and the needy would not exist if there’s no catastrophic need and poverty

Canonisation (5)

Whatever was on Mother Teresa’s mind is not for anyone to judge,
And whether psychologists see in her behaviour evidence of psychosis is irrelevant,
People do get moved by the sight of suffering people, and if they decide to dedicate their lives to helping them: it is their choice ...
Selfish behaviour and greed are considered normal today, thanks to the definitions set by psychologists, but self-dedication to a cause is obsessive behaviour, driven by a psychological condition and perhaps mental illness ...!

What motivates people to do things is something that cannot be cast in scientific definitions,
I think that one day in the future some of the theories of today’s psychology will be regarded as the result of self-indulgence and materialistic beliefs,

The human mind is not a box of wires or a tube for chemical reactions,
If psychology regards it today as such: it shouldn’t be surprising that any behaviour that is not motivated by “survival” is considered somehow crazy ...
And if our perspective of the human mind is taken from another angle ...: all the theories of today’s psychology become questionable ...
The findings of psychology hinge on the starting point: which is a belief and not a fact.

We can criticise the politics of religious institutes, and we can reject their dogmas, and we can notice their corruption ...
And we can notice that perhaps Mother Teresa was ill-informed, and unable to see the root causes of human misery ...
But we can’t but be awed by her dedication, and we can’t judge her, that’s my opinion ...