ex-preacher

But you can be a consistent and unrepentant womanizer and still be a saint? How's that again? Before you get upset, luv, you should know that I am a great admirer of MLK. I don't think his personal sexual behavior detracts from the great good he did. I don't understand your inconsistency, though.

<strong> Hold on. You're telling me that Emerson, Thoreau, DuBois, Paine and Lincoln did not have personal moral philosophies and weren't on the front lines? That's utter nonsense. They each had deeply held personal moral philosophies which have had a huge impact on subsequent generations. If you've researched much, you know that Gandhi, MLK and Mandela all credit Thoreau for inspiring them with his essay on Civil Disobedience. BTW, did you invent the word "disclude"? I like it!

<strong> You keep changing the goal posts ever so slightly when the facts don't support your theory. Other than the fact the it ruins your theory, please tell me why it is so difficult for politicians to join the saint club. Also, does the fact that GW Bush named Jesus as his favorite political philosopher disqualify him (Jesus, that is) from sainthood?

<strong> How do you define stature? I suspect that it means people that you know alot about. I think each of these had and has enormous stature. Once again, you are redefining the terms to fit your pre-determined outcome.

<strong> Surprise! a new set of criteria from luvluv. He certainly met your earlier criteria of stature.

Please address the important point raised by baloo that your entire reasoning process is faulty.

Also, address the point that since religious people have historically outnumbered atheists by a huge number, we only need to provide a very small number of atheist saints to match a huge number of religious saints. Looking at the broad sweep of history (and the fact that atheism was/is a capital crime in most countries for thousands of years), I think a fair ratio would be 1,000 to 1.

Baloo

Luvluv,

Do you agree with the statement that "Since no revolutionary scientific ideas came from women, we can conclude that women, compared to men, are less capable of revolutionary scientific thought." If not, then why are you even trying to advance the position "Since no great moral revolutions are ascribed to atheists, we can conclude that atheists are less capable of revolutionary moral thought." ?

For instance, it would be much more difficult for an atheist to become a great leader in our society than for a Christian. But only for the reason that there are many, many more people today who would support and follow a Christian leader than an atheistic one. As ex-preacher is doing a commendable job of pointing out, all you can possibly show is that this trend is likely exemplified in a historic context.

Let me put this to you in the form of a very forthright question. If Martin Luther King had begun a certain speech "I am an atheist, and I have a dream..." is there ANY part of you that honestly thinks he could have led the civil rights revolution he did, after giving up the common religious ground he had with his followers?

Also, his intentions aside, I think the words Paul wrote have done more to justify the oppression of more women throughout the ages than those of any other person who has ever lived. More than enough hardship for fully half of all people who have lived in Western societies has been endured on Paul's behalf to grossly overshadow the warm fuzzy feeling you get knowing that you're going to happyland when you die. In other words, and this is my opinion, your warm, fuzzy feelings do not qualify Paul as a Saint, nor do they forgive the hell his words have put so many women through for the past 2,000 years.

luvluv

baloo

Is it your opinion that women have faired better in Christian societies, where Paul's words are known, or in non-Christian societies, where Paul's words are unknown.

Are we not stretching the point just a wee bit?

As far as atheists being unpopular with the masses... thems the breaks.

ex-preacher:

"If you've researched much, you know that Gandhi, MLK and Mandela all credit Thoreau for inspiring them with his essay on Civil Disobedience. "

If you read through the thread, you'll see I have already conceeded that.

"I am a great admirer of MLK. I don't think his personal sexual behavior detracts from the great good he did."

Good. Glad we agree.

"Other than the fact the it ruins your theory, please tell me why it is so difficult for politicians to join the saint club"

A Saint would never get elected. See Nader, Ralph.

"Please address the important point raised by baloo that your entire reasoning process is faulty."

It's more of an observation than a reasoning process. The "fossil record" of Saints says that they are more likely to come from religion than non-religion. Perhaps subsequent human history will prove differently, perhaps not. I don't think it is totally illogical to draw this conclusion, but time will tell.

ELECTROGOD

You sure are good at picking through the questions and answering the ones (parts) that fit your pre-conceived conclusions. How about answering the question that went with the above statement from ex-preacher?



[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: ELECTROGOD ]</p>

ZDover

luvluv to ZDover (formerly "Zac")
Sorry, but you don't get to pick what insults me. If you think, as an African American, I am an anomally at being insulted with MLK being dragged through the mud, I welcome you to test this hypothesis. Go to a black church, or a black barbershop, or a black fraternity, or just any group of black people you know and start to talk about what a womanizing fake MLK was. Then, when they get insulted by it, tell them the fact that they are insulted is a dirty trick. By the way, I apologized to Michael at the begining of the last post. I'm assuming you didn't read it.
I will clarify what I said. It's fine by me if you're insulted when people point out that Martin Luther King, in addition to being a charismatic revolutionary who helped change the ways in which blacks in America were treated, was also a wife-beating, plagiarizing philanderer. You are free to take offense at whatever you like. But if you pretend that your offense has any moral worth, or obscures in any way that MLK was indeed a cheating philanderer, or that your offense renders MLK morally perfect, then I'll be that much more comfortable dismissing your arguments.
Maybe your offense is not anomalous when seen in the context of the offense all other African-Americans would take to hearing the truth about Martin Luther King. Maybe every African-American would find it terribly offensive if he or she were to learn that King was a womanizing rip-off artist. But so what? Because a segment of the population is willfully ignorant of the facts about a particular case, should that make their interpretation of the case the correct one? I would think that the willful ignorance of the whole group would ensure that the group's interpretation is most likely incorrect.
You were the one who claimed that Martin Luther King achieved many things he otherwise could not have if he were not religious, and you were the one who claimed that he enjoyed some sort of privileged moral status as a result of his religion. Many here then pointed out that if he did enjoy some sort of privileged moral status, it was a strange kind of moral status since he still cheated on his wife, and plagiarized much of his work in college. Philandering and plagiarism are not behaviors we expect from those who have a claim to being somehow morally privileged and upstanding. If you want to maintain that MLK does deserve some sort of approbation for being an upright guy, then you'll have to show that the charges against him are false, or come up with a really good reason that we should accord him that approbation in light of his dishonest and fraudulent behaviors.

luvluv to three4jump
To put it bluntly, King would have been a philanderer in his youth whether he was religious or not. Your mention of that is totally irrelevant to the discussion. With religion, MLK was a philanderer who revolutionized the way we interact with each other on a daily basis. Without religion, MLK would have just been a philanderer. Your mentioning that is not relevant to my argument.
This assumes that religion was responsible for MLK's effect on the world, which was the point you for which you were trying to argue. There's no point in argument if the conclusion is going to be assumed.

luvluv, putatively to Darkdruid
By what logic would you assume that if Dr. King had not been religious he would have therefore not cheated on his wife?
You are acting like his cheating was a function of his religion, which it is obviously not since his religion forbids adultery.
However, his moral stances WERE a function of his religion, he clearly and meticulously stated that his morality came from that of Jesus, and he was given to quoting scriptures to support his moral positions.
No one ever stipulated that MLK wouldn't have cheated on his wife if he hadn't been religious. You're barking up a tree no one considered climbing.
If MLK's moral stances were a function of his religion, then his religion must have condoned cheating in school and infidelity to the covenant of marriage. If MLK's morality came from Jesus, then Jesus must've given counsel that infidelity and plagiarism are okay. Sure, the religion MLK claimed as his own forbids adultery. But MLK ignored that prohibition, and cheated on his wife. If he did that, then why should we believe that he really practiced that religion? Why should we accept any of his moral prescriptions, given his hypocrisy?

luvluv to ZDover (formerly "Zac")
I am not applying a double standard here. I've stated from the time that this conversation started that personal failings do not count against Sainthood, which involves helping all of mankind turn a moral corner. The Saints were human beings, they were not going to be sinless. You could very easily discount all religion at all times simply because of the fallibility of human beings. No human is perfect. And sinlessness is not a requirement of Christianity. We are required to pursue a holy life, but are told expressly that we will often fail. Like scientist sometimes fail at their math, Christians will sometimes fail at their virtue. Like scientists, Christians will try to make up for their mistakes and keep going. If a mistake disqualified someone from any endeavor, none of us would be able to do anything. We have all on this board made mistakes. As far as I'm concerned, everyone on this board still has the potential to be a Saint. I will not disqualify someone from doing great in life for having made errors. That is putting the cart before the horse. If any of you go on to do great things, risking not just your own safety but that of your spouse, family, and friends... if you surrender your liveliehood and your popularity... if you are hounded day and night by threats on your life and the lives of your loved ones... if you endure all of this to make men love each other more... when your name is brought up after you have passed from this place I will certainly not mention if you have cheated on your girlfriend when you were in your 20's. If that makes me a bad person I guess I'll just have to cop to that.
Either personal failings should factor into who we're willing to call a saint, or they shouldn't. Your position is that they shouldn't. Sinlessness is not a requirement of Christianity, you say. I'll agree that sinlessness isn't a requirement of Christianity, but to hold that the standard for sainthood should be the same as the standard for being a mere Christian seems wrongheaded.
The analogy between mathematics and virtue fails. Failing to perform a mathematical operation correctly is clearly very different from failing to perform a virtuous act, or engaging in a vicious act. Failure to correctly perform a mathematical operation does not necessarily have morally signifiant ramifactions. Failure to act virtuously does have morally signifigant ramifications.
If you endure unspeakable hell to ensure that people get along with one another better than they did before you were on the scene, then sure, you deserve some approbation. Clearly not everyone could have done what you did, and hey, you did it. But does the fact that you did it mean that whatever wrong you did never happened? Certainly not. And if the wrong you did stands in direct contradiction of the moral system you espouse, we have reason to doubt your honesty, and reason to call you a hypocrite.

I am not talking about the small things, good or evil, that religious people do. I am not talking about the small things, good or evil, that non-religious people do. I am saying that both religious and non-religious people can and have done big evil, but that only religious people have done big good in terms of improving human relations.
Then I guess we can write off the contributions of Vaclav Havel to human relations. It's funny, because he was able to effect about as much change in the Czech Republic as MLK was able to effect in America. To think that Havel's work would have been morally signifigant, and worthy of the term "big good," if only he weren't an atheist!

In closing, salvation by grace is morally irresponsible and repugnant, and anyone who without qualification subscribes to it is morally bankrupt.

[ March 14, 2002: Message edited by: ZDover ]</p>

Baloo

luvluv,

I can only take from your most recent response that you concede: your case holds no water. Only all or none of these can be true:
1) Women are less capable of scienitific thought than men.
2) Blacks are less capable of playing hockey than whites.
3) Atheists are less capable of being moral than theists.

So, are they all true, or are none of them true?

The arguments regarding Paul are moot: if you want to consider him a Saint, be my guest. After all, we both appear to agree that the ratio of theistic saints to atheistic saints is not indicative of the moral merits of theism vs. atheism. Unless you would like to contend this point?