Most evil person ever who reformed?

[Emiliana]

@bump

St. Ignatius Loyola would have to be up there somewhere; he started as a soldier, and something of a ne’er do well, and ended up the founder of the Jesuit order, and a legitimate Catholic saint.

But being a soldier and a ne’er do well isn’t evil. I’d also object to Nelson Mandela’s inclusion.

(Are there illegitimate Catholic saints?)

[BrainGlutton]

@bump

St. Ignatius Loyola would have to be up there somewhere; he started as a soldier, and something of a ne’er do well, and ended up the founder of the Jesuit order, and a legitimate Catholic saint.

So, he went to the bad?

[BrainGlutton]

As evil persons go she doesn’t rate very high on the malometer, but Tammy Faye Bakker did, when dying of cancer, apologize for all the bad things she had said about homosexuals, etc.

[GIGObuster]

@Emiliana

(Are there illegitimate Catholic saints?)

In 1968, several saints like St. Ursula and St. Christopher, were removed from the official calendar of saints, many thought that they were de-canonized.

As it was reported in a Catholic forum: “The Vatican had done a great deal of research on their history and tradition, and it was felt that there simply wasn’t enough evidence for some popular saints who had not been formally canonized.” (Besides Saint Nick, Saint Valentine also fell, bad news for merchants. )

Indeed, most of the ones that lost their position in the calendar of saints did so because the church noticed that those saints, that usually came from old traditions, were never canonized in a proper way anyhow. There are many that do think erroneously that they were de-canonized, IIUC the church did not do that, they were not legitimate in the first place, but it is very hard to go against tradition and so many of those saints continue to be revered.

[BrainGlutton]

@GIGObuster

In 1968, several saints like St. Ursula and St. Christopher, were removed from the official calendar of saints, many thought that they were de-canonized.

As it was reported in a Catholic forum: “The Vatican had done a great deal of research on their history and tradition, and it was felt that there simply wasn’t enough evidence for some popular saints who had not been formally canonized.” (Besides Saint Nick, Saint Valentine also fell, bad news for merchants. )

Evidence they were saintly, or evidence they existed?

[GIGObuster]

@BrainGlutton

Evidence they were saintly, or evidence they existed?

Just by memory: By looking at both. Sometimes it was found that evidence that they existed was shaky and also that witnesses of the miracles were not found or unreliable. That evidence is very important for canonization purposes.

[Aside]
However, the point can be made among believers too that a few modern canonizations are pushing the legitimate envelope:

http://old.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11780&start=0

Miracle of the Herrings
In order to be beatified it used to be necessary to be credited with several miracles. After 1983 it became just one. Traditionally two miracles demonstrating ‘the practice of virtues in the heroic degree’ did the trick, three if you only had ordinary witnesses to attest to them and four if the miracles were only proven by hearsay.

The problem for those wanting to beatify Thomas Aquinas was that he had none. So they made one up. On his deathbed Thomas asked for herrings. As he was near the Mediterranean, where they don’t have herrings, he was brought pilchards instead in the hope that he might not notice. Aquinas took the fraudulent fish and, knowingly, announced them to be the best herrings he had ever eaten. Pilchards, transmogrified into herrings - a miracle!

[bldysabba]

@GIGObuster

But if we lower the bar then I propose and did remember about Emperor Ashoka of India (304–232 BCE). He became a devout Buddhist and gave up on making warfare after seeing the destruction and many deaths that took place when he conquered Kalinga.

On what basis are you calling him evil?

[GIGObuster]

@bldysabba

On what basis are you calling him evil?

Just an artefact of time lines, when you are described as bloodthirsty in your youth by the Buddhist chroniclers and go on wars of conquest early in your career, that makes one evil in my opinion.

Ashoka

While the early part of Ashoka’s reign was apparently quite bloodthirsty, he became a follower of the Buddha’s teachings after his conquest of Kalinga on the east coast of India in the present-day states of Odisha and North Coastal Andhra Pradesh. Kalinga was a state that prided itself on its sovereignty and democracy. With its monarchical parliamentary democracy it was quite an exception in ancient Bharata where there existed the concept of Rajdharma. Rajdharma means the duty of the rulers, which was intrinsically entwined with the concept of bravery and dharma. The Kalinga War happened eight years after his coronation. From his 13th inscription, we come to know that the battle was a massive one and caused the deaths of more than 100,000 soldiers and many civilians who rose up in defence; over 150,000 were deported.[14] When he was walking through the grounds of Kalinga after his conquest, rejoicing in his victory, he was moved by the number of bodies strewn there and the wails of the kith and kin of the dead.

But he got better… as many noted:

H.G. Wells wrote of Ashoka in his book The Outline of History: “Amidst the tens of thousands of names of monarchs that crowd the columns of history, their majesties and graciousnesses and serenities and royal highnesses and the like, the name of Asoka shines, and shines, almost alone, a star.”

[bldysabba]

@GIGObuster

Just an artefact of time lines, when you are described as bloodthirsty in your youth by the Buddhist chroniclers and go on wars of conquest early in your career, that makes one evil in my opinion.

Ashoka - Wikipedia
But he got better… as many noted:

That’s a description of Ashoka as being bloodthirsty by Wikipedia. And the Buddhist chroniclers have reasons to exaggerate his flaws in his earlier career. From your link.

Professor Charles Drekmeier cautions that the Buddhist legends intend to dramatise the change that Buddhism wrought in him, and therefore, exaggerate Ashoka’s past wickedness and his piousness after the conversion

All we really know is that he had a massive empire in India, part of which came from winning a war, the cause of which is unknown. Even if it had been just a pure war of conquest, I think it’s a stretch to classify him as evil. You would be similarly condemning almost every leader history, especially ancient history, tells us about, and that’s a standard of evil that I don’t find myself agreeing with.

[GIGObuster]

@bldysabba

That’s a description of Ashoka as being bloodthirsty by Wikipedia. And the Buddhist chroniclers have reasons to exaggerate his flaws in his earlier career. From your link.
All we really know is that he had a massive empire in India, part of which came from winning a war, the cause of which is unknown. Even if it had been just a pure war of conquest, I think it’s a stretch to classify him as evil. You would be similarly condemning almost every leader history, especially ancient history, tells us about, and that’s a standard of evil that I don’t find myself agreeing with.

Thing is the description of why he repented is also coming from Ashoka. Your position requires to then to also dismiss what Ashoka recorded in his Edicts in Rock Inscriptions regarding why he did feel remorse for what he did.

Incidentally you are again flattening the timeline, I do not see him as evil now thanks to what he did later.

[bldysabba]

@GIGObuster

Thing is the description of why he repented is also coming from Ashoka. Your position requires to then to also dismiss what Ashoka recorded in his Edicts in Rock Inscriptions regarding why he did feel remorse for what he did.

No, it does not. Could you point me to the edicts that support your position that he felt remorse for what he did and thus converted to Buddhism?

Incidentally you are again flattening the timeline, I do not see him as evil now thanks to what he did later.

I understand what you’re saying perfectly. What I’m saying is I cannot see him as evil even if all he’d done was conduct a war of conquest to expand his empire and then rule over it.

[GIGObuster]

@bldysabba

No, it does not. Could you point me to the edicts that support your position that he felt remorse for what he did and thus converted to Buddhism?

Wikipedia is not the end of the cites, the cites they use regarding the remorse are mentioned and it comes from:

VINCENT A. SMITH, C.I.E.

M.A. (DUEL. ET OXON), HON. LITT D. (DUBLIN)
INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE RETIRED, M.R.A.S.
Author of The Early History of India, &c.

Asoka, the Buddhist emperor of India : Smith, Vincent Arthur, 1848-1920 :...

The total period referred to is conse-
quently somewhere about four years. The conquest of
the Kalingas took place in the ninth ’ regnal year ’
(B. c. 261), while the Rock Edict describing that opera-
tion was issued four years later in the thirteenth
’ regnal year ’ (B. o. 257). When that edict, which
expressly ascribes Asoka’s conversion to his remorse
for the sufferings caused by the war in the ninth
‘regnal year,’ is read together with the Minor Rock
Edict which traces his progress in virtue for four years,
from the condition of a comparatively careless lay
disciple to that of a zealous monk, it seems to be
a necessary inference that Asoka became a lay disciple
under the Buddhist system in his ninth ’ regnal year,’
immediately after the conquest of Kalinga, that he
began to be zealous about two and a half years later,
when he had been consecrated for*about eleven years,
and that he attained to a high standard of zeal more
than a year subsequently when he began to issue his
religious edicts in his thirteenth ’ regnal year,’ B.C. 257.

@bldysabba

I understand what you’re saying perfectly. What I’m saying is I cannot see him as evil even if all he’d done was conduct a war of conquest to expand his empire and then rule over it.

Well, that is your opinion, not what many others think when they hear about the emperor.

[bldysabba]

@bldysabba

No, it does not. Could you point me to the edicts that support your position that he felt remorse for what he did and thus converted to Buddhism?

To clarify, I’m not contesting that he came to a general moral realisation that he did not like death and violence, that he unquestionably did. I’m saying that I see nothing to classify him as particularly bloodthirsty, compared to any other king or leader that we know about from history. That’s my position.

[bldysabba]

@GIGObuster

Well, that is your opinion, not what many others think when they hear about the emperor.

When they hear what about the emperor? Tell me what separates him from hundreds of thousands of kings and emperors through history? Apart from his having become an avowed pacifist 10 years into his reign of course.

[GIGObuster]

@bldysabba

When they hear what about the emperor? Tell me what separates him from hundreds of thousands of kings and emperors through history? Apart from his having become an avowed pacifist 10 years into his reign of course.

:sigh: his remorse for what he did regarding Kalinga and his conversion. As mentioned before, it is very hard to find something similar in history.

Going forward, it is also peculiar why you are making this to be more complicated than it is, I was not imagining things, in popular sites like TV tropes the fame of what took place is mentioned:

The Philosopher King - TV Tropes

At first, Ashoka was no where near this trope; but then he got sick of war and became a great ruler, particularly noted for religious tolerance and the promotion of learning and trade.

[bldysabba]

@GIGObuster

:sigh: his remorse for what he did regarding Kalinga and his conversion. As mentioned before, it is very hard to find something similar in history.

So you think he can be classified as evil because he felt remorse over the death and destruction caused by war?

ETA: I know you don’t think he was evil overall, but you have to classify him as evil to be able to then say he reformed. So to be precise - What about his actions before his reformation make you classify him as evil?

[GIGObuster]

@bldysabba

So you think he can be classified as evil because he felt remorse over the death and destruction caused by war?

ETA: I know you don’t think he was evil overall, but you have to classify him as evil to be able to then say he reformed. So to be precise - What about his actions before his reformation make you classify him as evil?

This is missing the point, when more than 100,000 died in a war that they did not bother to report the reason why it took place and many others were deported, I have to take into account what Ashoka did report. (IMHO if a reason for the war was not recorded it is more likely that the reason was a dumb one, he likely did choose to do it for what even then was considered a very embarrassing reason)

I know that you are attempting to use an “all rulers then did the same” angle, but the point is that Ashoka learned that there are reasons why that form of warfare should be discouraged. He was not the same as the other rulers that never wondered if humans could do it differently.

[bldysabba]

@GIGObuster

This is missing the point, when more than 100,000 died in a war that they did not bother to report the reason why it took place and many others were deported, I have to take into account what Ashoka did report. (IMHO if a reason for the war was not recorded it is more likely that the reason was a dumb one, he likely did choose to do it for what even then was considered a very embarrassing reason)

At this point, I don’t even care what the reason for war was(which is something that is rarely ever reported in history that far back btw, so your reasoning is specious). Let’s assume it came from pure desire to expand his kingdom, Ashoka started it without provocation.

I know that you are attempting to use an “all rulers then did the same” angle, but the point is that Ashoka learned that there are reasons why that form of warfare should be discouraged. He was not the same as the other rulers that never wondered if humans could do it differently.

You’re not answering my question. My question is - What about his actions before his reformation make you classify him as evil? I’m not contesting that he was different from other rulers. He was different, because he decided that he disliked the death and suffering that came from war and, by and large, gave it up, not because his early actions before that decision were particularly bloodthirsty or evil.

To restate my question another way, if the title of this thread had been - Evil people who never reformed, would your nomination have been Alexander the Great?

[GIGObuster]

@bldysabba

To restate my question another way, if the title of this thread had been - Evil people who never reformed, would your nomination have been Alexander the Great?

Again, missing the point, It is Ashoka himself the one that realized that what took place was not good, if one can put doubts on the history that is written by the victors that usually whitewashed what they did, one has to respect a lot when a victor himself recognized that a “common” or “business as usual” deed was not done for good.

[Gatopescado]

@Deeg

George Wallace would be a candidate.

Such is the duality of The Southern Thing.