When has religion irked you personally and why?

maliagar, I clearly explained why I was exempt from sarcasm...also, a little smoked salmon cream cheese spread would liven up those dry wafers.

I do find your thesis interesting....you have presented us secularists with a challenge: Find a Mother Teresa amongst us...I say we do it folks, yes?

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Quote:
Since the religious ministry is not something I think fair to use as a secular humanist's criteria...

Not fair? Why is that?

Would it be fair to determine a Christian's humanitarian worth by the amount of Satansit teachings he/she divulged?

maliagar wrote:

There are degrees of consistency (is this a goal or the goal?)

This is another element of T-bone's work that gave her inordinate celebrity. If she had worked in several different charitable ministries her fame would not have been as great.

maliagar wrote:

I submit that (1) the goal, (2) the consistency (means towards the goal), (3) the commitment (whole life), (4) the sacrifice and self-denial of Mother Teresa's efforts (and of thousands of other anonymous saints as well), are extremely hard (if not impossible) to find among secularist atheists (or other religions, for that matter).

I disagree. There are thousands of secular humanists. Like I said, the difference between them and Mother T is celebrity, not necessarily dedication etc.

Quote:

The charitable efforts take an administrative toll and charity, no matter how benevolent, is something that needs many to support.

maliagar wrote:

Not true. Mother Teresa is has not been named a saint... yet.

I don't think MJ is in the B-Ball hall of fame..yet.

maliagar wrote:

But they're not special. Anybody does what they do....

:wink:

I never said she wasn't special. Just that there are many who do not acheive celebrity so your request to name famous humanists is not a logical request. The Catholic church makes celebrities of their leaders and that is not the case in other organizations. Those in other organizations are no less worthy of respect for this.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

I do find your thesis interesting....you have presented us secularists with a challenge: Find a Mother Teresa amongst us...I say we do it folks, yes?

First secular humanists would have to start making celebrities of their charitable workers. It's no challenge as this is simply not something that is a part of most secular humanism.

We don't make saints. We don't pray to our humanists.

0 Replies

Good point Craven, I was just thinking that, but you beat me to it.

0 Replies

cavfancier wrote:

Good point Craven, I was just thinking that, but you beat me to it.

Tell ya what: I'll come up with the names of unknown (to you) Mother Teresa types.

Hope you do the same with all those secular saints that haven't been so lucky as to be discovered by a BBC journalist...

Laughing

0 Replies

What on earth is the point? Obscure names that can't be researched does nothing to prove that Christians are more charitable.

If I gave you names of secular humanists I have known who have not the fame of a Catholic celebrity what help would that be? They'd just be names to you.

0 Replies

There is much more to his life, but this is brief enough.

http://www.hawaiiguide.com/origins/damien.htm

Father Damien of Molokai

On April 15, 1889, a leper patient died in the Moloka'i settlement with a smile on his face - "like a child going to sleep" as one onlooker described him. He was buried under a pandanus tree, where he had spent his first nights on Moloka'i many years before. He was gone, and the world should have forgotten him, but as it turned out, the whole world was just starting to remember his name and his work.

He was Father Damien de Veuster, S.S.C.C., the Hero of Moloka'i, and his memory has not dimmed but has spread to every continent in the world... What keeps the image of this man so alive and so startling for each new generation of mankind? Gavan Daws, a historian, perhaps explains it best. "Father Damien," he said, "was an ordinary man who made the most extraordinary moral choices again and again and again.

Ordained In Hawal'i

Damien came to Hawal'i as a young deacon, replacing his brother, Pamphile, who had fallen ill after being assigned to the islands. He was ordained a priest in May, 1864, in the Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace in Honolulu and was assigned to the island of Hawai'i, where he worked in the Puna district for many years.

When Bishop Louis Maigret asked for a volunteer to go to Moloka'i to care for the patients in the leper settlement at Kalaupapa, Damien requested to be the one chosen. Bishop Maigret meant to keep him there only a few months, but Damien knew he belonged there for the rest of his life.

Work at Kalaupapa

Much is known about Damien's work in the settlement. He built as many as 2,000 coffins by hand in which to bury lepers. Coming among the lepers he found chaos and suffering and the slow, demoralizing death in sickness and isolation. Going among them, Damien began his work by cleansing their sores and bandaging their wounds. He gathered up the young children he found as well, and eventually he built homes for them so that they could live in peace. Slowly order was restored and the lives of the patients changed forever, Always he continued to build and to arrange new ways to restore the dignity of the patients.

First Signs of Disease

And then, in 1876, Father Damien noticed in himself the first signs of the disease which had claimed so many before him. He had spent three years on Moloka'i, having arrived there on May 10, 1873, and he knew what would happen to him as the disease progressed, and yet he showed no reluctance or fear. Only a few knew that he was experiencing the first difficulties, until June 1895, when Damien announced to his patients and to the world that the disease had claimed him.

He lived four more years and continued to work. Someone visiting the settlement in 1888 was stunned to find Father Damien on the roof of the new church, worldng with the masons and carpenters. His people, the patients of the settlement, were at his side, restoring the land, building homes and offices, and living once again as human beings with hope.

Ultimate Sacrifice

He died in 1889, and the story of his life and his death was flashed around the world. With the story came the words which have startled and awed generations since that time. Damien, knowing that he had made the ultimate sacrifice for his own, said:

"Blessed be the Good God! I would not be cured If the price of the cure was that I must leave the island and give up my work. I am perfectly resigned tomy lot. Do not feel sorry for me."

0 Replies

Come on, Craven. Are you afraid of taking the challenge?

Sacrifice and heroism are always recognized by those who pay attention. Mother Teresa was first recognized not by Catholics, but by Hindus, Muslims, and the secular media.

The nun-nurses that served U.S. troops during the Civil War, WWI and WWII were recognized by troops from all backgrounds, and by the U.S. government.

It's usually called "Humanitarian work"...

So if you claim that the same heroism and total commitment can be found among secularist types (to the point of death), it should have been acknowledged by others (secularists or not), and you shouldn't have any trouble whatsoever finding it.

Bring me your humanitarian secularist heroes... Your atheist Martin Luther King, your hedonist Gandhi... Laughing

HINT: Perhaps you could start with the Nobel Peace Prize recipients (the Nobel Institute presumably being a perfectly "independent" source of recognition)???

:wink:

Craven de Kere wrote:

What on earth is the point? Obscure names that can't be researched does nothing to prove that Christians are more charitable.

If I gave you names of secular humanists I have known who have not the fame of a Catholic celebrity what help would that be? They'd just be names to you.

0 Replies

maliagar,

It's not a wish to avoid a challenge so much as sincere disrespect for the "challenge" posed. I have explained why. Whever I have a particularly germane argument you counter with exercises in futility and long texts that do not address the argument.

I have already explained why I find it pointless to play the celebrity humanist game.

0 Replies

Well, you know what they say, a leper never changes their spots....

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

Come on, Craven. Are you afraid of taking the challenge?

And how about you, Maliagar.

Don't you want to take me on on the question of whether or not lots of this Mother Theresa stuff could more easily be attributed to fear of a barbaric god than altruism?

I know I roughed you up a bit on the question of slavery -- and the Catholic Church's method of handling the issue -- but, hey....

...this is something different completely.

Why not engage me?

Or, as you asked Craven, are you afraid?

0 Replies

The issue is very simple:

Since Secular Humanism believes that there is nothing beyond this life, Secular Humanists cannot afford to sacrifice it.

And I understand them. It would be foolish to die for a cause if this life is all we've got. It would be crazy to engage in dettachment and self-denial if this is everything we've got. If this is it, we should party, enjoy, be as selfish as we can get away with, be "happy", and have as much pleasure as possible.

That's why there are no Secularist Mother Teresas, Maximilain Kolbes, Father Damiens, Martin Luther Kings, or Mahatma Gandhis. Only their religious faith gives them the guidance, strength, and motivation to do what they do for others.

You have now an idea of how our culture and morality would become radically impoverished if the Secularists triumphed. (in fact, this pitiful poverty is already around us, especially in the wealthiest parts of the world)

So if you don't want to apply what you deem as solely Christian criteria to non-Christians, fine. But then don't claim that Secularist heroes are all around us, doing their thing in silence, but so ignored by the larger secular culture that you can't come up with even one name (!!!). The fact is: You won't see abortionists dying for women's right to abort. Etcetera (unless, of course, some sort of remanent religious feeling still operates in them).

:wink:

Craven de Kere wrote:

maliagar,

It's not a wish to avoid a challenge so much as sincere disrespect for the "challenge" posed. I have explained why. Whever I have a particularly germane argument you counter with exercises in futility and long texts that do not address the argument.

I have already explained why I find it pointless to play the celebrity humanist game.

0 Replies

Charity
Not that I have anything against Mother Teresa (though I haven't read what Christopher Hitchens wrote about her), but it seems to me that charities are sort of overrated. Supposing that it is a good thing to give to charities, then the good people are the ones who are giving to them. So you are taking away money from good people to give to somebody else who might not be good. Better, I think, is to tax all people and use that tax money to give to your worthy cause. That way, you are taking money from selfish and unselfish people indifferently. Giving to charity generally is good, but it is more logical to my mind if starving people (understandably) bother you to work to get laws changed so as to reduce disparities in income, for example. One could argue that FDR did more good along those lines than Mother Teresa, though I suppose FDR was at least nominally religious.

0 Replies

maliagar wrote:

I could also say, for example, that I see your views as a way of justifying X lifestyle (if that were the case). Or that I see your views as a way not to think about the possibility that, after all, Christ may be the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that we get to fully know Him through his One and only Church...

Of course, this ad hominem argument wouldn't be acceptable... Yours isn't either.

ossobuco wrote:
I grew up with all you, Maliagar, are saying as background and might have listed the points you are making as arguments to others. Your confidence in your arguments reminds me of my own at eighteen. I see it as a little confidence to ward off a kind of panic.

Ahh, you're right, that was a bit ad-hominemy (or hominy, as the case may be).

So, I'll rephrase.

In response to the Topic post of this thread, I would like to add that I have been irritated initially on many different occasions by the confidence levels I have heard in the words of many different people who share their religious fervor at extensive length. However, unless I am trapped in their company, thus having a sense of personal invasion, I usually remember my own one time confidence on similar points, as well as the common saying, "He doth protest too much." I am not in conflict with people who have faith so much as in conflict with aggressive proselytizing behavior.
Occasionally, I may overreact to nonproselytizing but extensive confident talk by persons of faith, as annoying.

0 Replies

maliagar is very good at naming other people of charity, but what has he done? Naming others is easy, especially if they've been covered by the world media. Who hasn't heard of Mother T or Martin Luther King, Jr? Bragging about other people's accomplishments while ignoring their own contributions compared to the average joe is meaningless -IMHO. c.i.

0 Replies

To bring it into perspective, there are other well-known world figures, because of the publicity they have received, and they're not all religous or secular. As Craven suggested, if not for the world media, Mother T would be only another good samaritan - of which there are many in this world. There are heroic acts done every day, but they are not blasted on the front page of every newspaper on a regular basis. Some people sacrifice the safety of their own lives to save another. That, to me, is the ultimate sacrifice. I can still remember that guy who jumped into the freezing water to save a woman when that plane crashed into the river in Washington DC. He's one of the real heroes in this world. Many have forgotten him, because his name doesn't appear as frequently as Mother T's. Doesn't make him less heroic, nor make Mother T more. c.i.

0 Replies

Okey dokey....hang on there maliagar....let's get a little focused here. Let us get off your fetish for saints dying for causes. In most of the cases you cited, it seems to me that death was forced upon these people, not chosen. All you can claim is that their faith allowed them to make peace with themselves, and their cause, before dying. Yes, often martyrs make their cause well-known, but I think you would be hard-pressed to convince anyone that any person truly 'wants' to die for a cause. 'Willing' to die for a cause is another thing entirely, and that I believe crosses both religious and secular lines.

0 Replies

Maliagar's contention that people who do not guess there is a GOD will not do heroic things -- is so close to ridiculous, I honestly cannot differentiate it from that word.

Can anyone else?

By the way, Maliagar, I did ask you a question about whether or not you are chicken. I have yet to hear you cluck up.

Still waiting.

0 Replies

I stick by my last post, and await a reply.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

Occasionally, I may overreact to nonproselytizing but extensive confident talk by persons of faith, as annoying.

Yes, people have lost the capacity to tell the difference. They think every believer is, by definition, an Osama Bin Laden.

Do you overreact to confident talk by non-religious people?

:wink:

0 Replies

When has religion irked you personally and why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know