Does religion have a monopoly on teaching humility as a tenet and virtue of life?

[Pineal]

Very insightful and thoughtful observations my friend. Indeed there are many dangers in this and indeed many/most probably fail the test of true humility.
I believe that these were some of the factors that Jesus was referring to when He said, "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." There are indeed many traps and pitfalls in these things that one must guard against and avoid.

Thank you. But then...you only mention this after I point out the problem with what seemed like a complete thought on your part. And you don't answer the question either. Frankly if you think you are acting in the world doing God's will, you cannot be humble. You have to have a very high estimation of your own abilities. Like a surgeon needs or any other expert. At the very least you have used incredible intuition finding the right earthly leader to follow or the same ability in interpreting and applying scripture. 'I am merely..........' fill in the blank cannot apply. You are not merely, you are showing great skill. And some people may have this skill, but to pretend they do not, while at the same time acting and speaking with certainty is hypocrisy.

In the above, you summarize nicely one of the primary pitfalls. Each of your sentences begins with the word "I". The truly humble person does not think in these terms but rather places the credit outside himself.
The truly humble words your comments differently because in true humility the goal is never about him/her.
If I may rephrase.....
I know which religion is right.
Dear God thank you for showing me the path by which to serve you in Love.
I understand what the scriptures mean.
Father guide me in the proper understanding of your Holy Word and send me good confessors and councilors.
I can apply the scriptures in daily life.
O Lord, help me to apply your word, your will and your love in all of my actions daily.
I can wield power in the name of God.
Father, whatever influence I have is yours, guide me to use it solely in love and for your Glory
I am humble.
Oh Lord keep me humble.

The humble recognizes that "The Lord Gives and the Lord takes away - Blessed be the name of the Lord. (Job 1:21)
The humble seeks the council of good and holy priests and people committed to God, in Love and to all things good.
The humble recognizes that his true wealth and/or power lies, not in his bank balance, but in the number of people helped, the number employed, the good that is returned to the community and that, just as God's Love flows through him as a mere agent, any accolades that come to him need to flow through him to God in thanksgiving.

Which means
this humble person KNOWS when God is showing him or her something,
this humble person has this incredible skill.

I suppose a private person, who thinks on occasion, now I am hearing from God, and is guided, might be able to combine humility with this self-acceptance that one has an amazing skill. But the moment you go out into the world and say

This is the way it is, which is what you have done in this thread in a number of different ways, the humility and the sense of one's abilities cannot go together. Even the first case if problematic, but it feels less obviously contradictory. The latter case makes no sense.

A humble person would have to admit they might be confused about who they are hearing from, they would be hesistant to even think for a moment that the way they are applying scriptures is correct, and so on. They would be humble also about their ability to hear from God and not Satan or some half confused angel or their own wishful thinking.

 

[wynn]

You have to have a very high estimation of your own abilities.

Indeed, he does - and he refuses to admit it.

'I am merely..........' fill in the blank cannot apply.

Exactly.

You are not merely, you are showing great skill.

And some people may have this skill, but to pretend they do not, while at the same time acting and speaking with certainty is hypocrisy.

Yes.

Which means
this humble person KNOWS when God is showing him or her something,
this humble person has this incredible skill.

... or at least claims to have this incredible skill.

 

[wynn]

I think it is some theists - though many of the ones who are not like this, do not engage in public or even private debate, their religion is private to them. Even some religious leaders will speak of their times of doubt or how it is not always easy to apply things or to understand why this or that would happen and feel OK with it - read: what God did or did not do. But, yes, there are a lot of mindless followers who seem not to want to look at what is actually happening.

Often, it seems, they have absolutely submitted themselves to an authority - a charismatic leader - alive or dead - a scripture. Once they have done this, they then feel entitled to act as if they have the same authority, since they are (supposedely) following the orders of the authority.

This happens in secular contexts also. Police, soldiers, party followers, police informers. The dictatory, the fascist or communist party or the free world or whatever stands behind them. They are simply doing what is right. No hubris, since this was determined by the great leader or document.

It's a very nice cake and eat it too situation.

Although there is a basic problem with assessing one's particular religious epistemology: it seems to alienate one from theists and organized religion; and more importantly, it makes the whole religious/theistic issue one's own, private, personal problem - as if one invented it completely on one's own, as if one had not originally heard on the topic of God from other people.

Trying to "own one's God problem" is trying to take on too much responsibility - given that one did not invent one's "God problem" to begin with.
One's "God problem" had developed in interaction with other people; it was other people who gave one ideas (that are supposedly) about God.
So it stands to reason that other people should also play a part in solving one's "God problem" - either in providing direct solutions, or by taking responsibility for said "God problem," or by ongoing discussion of the problem, for example.

Placing the whole responsibility for belief in God on the individual is nothing but effectual solipsism, or epistemic egotism. These are not tenable.

 

[Pineal]

... or at least claims to have this incredible skill.

Some theists will at this point indicate that really it is something simple and natural - if we do not let our material lodged mind, for example - get in the way. And this may well be true and I think ultimately there is truth to this. IOW we have been - my goodness, I cannot remember the typical word for this from Hinduism, where your are immersed in Maya, what has been done to your perception, but hopefully you know what I mean.


IOW it is not really a great skill, but rather one is NOT doing all these complicated things - that minds do because of culture, desire, etc. - and thus God's presence or the One or the Buddha or Jesus, etc. can be felt.

However...this means one has accomplished something enormous. One has extricated oneself from something that many have tremendous trouble with. And likely one has been very good - humble, devoted, whatever the good is - and thus could be open to God's presence, through what others find a terrible signal to noise ratio.

I wanted to be careful here, since I think this is an underlying and sometimes open argument at this juncture

and I do not think it works.

Our current friend here, is more likely to go the God's grace angle. Making him or her a passive vessel for God's skill. But the religion, whatever one it is, given the language being used, again has a lot to say about how one can avoid interfering with God's grace.

The tricky part. They may continue to assert that God cans simply eradicate all blocks and it really has nothing to do with his or her goodness, openness, humility, devotion.

OK, fine. But then we have a rather goofy deity, smashing through the resistance of some people - who are claiming on the surface that they are not more deserving, since it is merely God's grace - and not others also cluttered by samsara or satans whispers or the fallen world.

Are they really saying that God does this randomly, rewarding some pathetic fools but not others?

And why not smash through the mental resistence of, say, Hitler, giving the Jews more peace and time to stop thinking about how to look healthy during the next cull and find an extra crumb of bread, but rather spend a little more time in prayer or doing good works. (Though I can just imagine suddenly being told what a perfect opportunity the camps were for finding God. Though if this is true, why doesn't God use their samsara locked up mind as the perfect learning opportunity for other people, rather than breaking through that with his or her GRACE.)

 

[Pineal]

Although there is a basic problem with assessing one's particular religious epistemology: it seems to alienate one from theists and organized religion; and more importantly, it makes the whole religious/theistic issue one's own, private, personal problem - as if one invented it completely on one's own, as if one had not originally heard on the topic of God from other people.

Trying to "own one's God problem" is trying to take on too much responsibility - given that one did not invent one's "God problem" to begin with.
One's "God problem" had developed in interaction with other people; it was other people who gave one ideas (that are supposedly) about God.
So it stands to reason that other people should also play a part in solving one's "God problem" - either in providing direct solutions, or by taking responsibility for said "God problem," or by ongoing discussion of the problem, for example.

Placing the whole responsibility for belief in God on the individual is nothing but effectual solipsism, or epistemic egotism. These are not tenable.

i think I see what you mean. I do think that implicitly they are often, many of them, setting themselves up as authorities, and then from there not getting it, not owning up to their own claims of skill or goodness, etc.

I guess for me this does not mean, any more to me, that I need to give them that authority. Not that I take that decision lightly, nor was it a decision in the sense of, hm, I will stop doing that because of X and Y. Good, there that's decided. But rather something that happened over a long period of time where I was reacting to and in dialogue with religious people, sometimes trying to be an adherent of this or that tradition. I confronted members with my doubts, question, problems, even gurus, masters, priests and other leaders. and their reactions and responses became more grist for the mill. How did I really feel about how they treated me, each other? How did I really feel about what they said God was doing? How did their sense of what I really was feel to me? And so on. Of course my rational mind was interspersed in all this, often me trying to understand why I was rejecting things and trying to feel right about it. The rational mind of course can generally be both prosecutor and defense attorney, so this was tricky. But over time there was more alignment between the mind and the gut feeling and heart reactions. Not that any of this is completely resolved.

But just because they are making claims of authority does not mean they have it or you should grant it, as far as I can tell.

And thinking back to what I said - I think in another thread - about people not all wanting the same things....

I think you are right in general, they do not want to look at certain things. You do.

I would encourage you to respect that difference and your desire there. IOW not assume that really they want this also AND accept that even though they may not really want this, your wanting it is not bad because of it.

But this is getting very close - however much it might sound supportive - to ME assuming that you and I are 'really' the same and you will feel better if you accept that they are not the same as you or have different needs and need another path and have another place, etc.

And I do not know this either. I really don't.

And in fact you have made it clear that this idea seems very wrong to you - the idea that people have different needs/paths/wants - at least it seemed that way when you said this trivialized religion. And I have to respect that also. And obviously the big traditions have adherents and whole congregations and certainly leaders who agree with you. They would view me and, well, pretty poorly, simply for having this idea. The Hindus would view me as being in some relatively early stage - compared to them - in my spiritual evolution, not getting that ALL souls want to merge again with Vishnu or whomever and desire is ultimately bad - though if you say it is bad, even after they have given off the vibe that it is and implied it repeatedly, will suddenly enter the 'nothing is bad' mode, that such judgments are also part of maya, blah, blah, blah....and I am confused, but not bad, for not realizing that all souls want the same thing. Many Christians would view me as not getting it that we all of this spoon of light in us that wants to accept Jesus and this is the only way I will feel good like every other soul on the planet and REALLY we are all the same. And so on.

So I cannot avoid staking out a particular ground. However I do not think that they would 'really' feel better if they shifted to my belief that we are not all the same and that either they will realize this later at some evolutionary stage down the line in later incarnations OR they will get their asses kicked by God. I do not think this is the case.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Which means
this humble person KNOWS when God is showing him or her something,
this humble person has this incredible skill.

I agree that it is an incredible "skill", if indeed it is a skill at all. The humble person "knows" only after many hours/days/weeks/months/years of prayerful perseverance how to test, sort and separate Truth from temptation.

I suppose a private person, who thinks on occasion, now I am hearing from God, and is guided, might be able to combine humility with this self-acceptance that one has an amazing skill.

If the private person you speak of, seeks, every day and in all ways, to follow God in humble obedience, perseverance and gratitude for all the blessings God has given, s/he may well come to accept that God might occasionally speak to them in special ways.

But the moment you go out into the world and say

This is the way it is, which is what you have done in this thread in a number of different ways, the humility and the sense of one's abilities cannot go together. Even the first case if problematic, but it feels less obviously contradictory. The latter case makes no sense.

Thank you for pointing out that I still have "pride" to overcome in my life. If my answers here have seemed prideful to you, I apologize. Obviously I am not as humble as I would like to think I am. That which I post are the conclusions I have reached through many years experience, much reading and prayerful contemplation. I offer such things not as, "This is the way it is", meaning that you must believe this, but rather, "This is the way I understand it", and offer it for your consideration.
My own failings aside, the contradiction that troubles you, while perhaps common (and thus Christ's warning about the rich and the eye of the needle), is not impossible to overcome. (All things are possible with God.

I don't know of many people who publicly proclaim that God has spoken to them and "this is the way it is". For the truly humble this would be unthinkable unless they were absolutely certain, having tested the spirit and discussed the matter with other, trusted, spiritual advisers, that God has indeed given them some sort of public mission.

A humble person would have to admit they might be confused about who they are hearing from, they would be hesistant to even think for a moment that the way they are applying scriptures is correct, and so on. They would be humble also about their ability to hear from God and not Satan or some half confused angel or their own wishful thinking.

Indeed a humble person, if they feel that God has spoken to them, must always admit that they might be confused and must test the spirit. Likewise they must always seek the wise council of trusted spiritual advisers, a confessor, spiritual director, writings of the great saints etc.

 

[wynn]

Asking MoM for the fourth time:


Surely you would also like to specify which religion has the monopoly on teaching humility, would you not?

Or do you think that Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, native Aboriginal religions, Bahai, Buddhism etc. etc.
are all equally good sources for teachings on humility and that they all bring about the same results in people, as far as humility goes?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Asking MoM for the fourth time:


Surely you would also like to specify which religion has the monopoly on teaching humility, would you not?

Or do you think that Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, native Aboriginal religions, Bahai, Buddhism etc. etc.
are all equally good sources for teachings on humility and that they all bring about the same results in people, as far as humility goes?

None.

 

[wynn]

None.

None?


In the OP, you argued that religion has the monopoly on teaching humility as a tenet and virtue of life.

Then I asked you which one - since there are many religions which tend to exclude eachother.

And now you say that no religion has a monopoly on teaching humility as a tenet and virtue of life?


??

 

[wynn]

And thinking back to what I said - I think in another thread - about people not all wanting the same things....

I'm not sure whether all people want the same things or not.

Rather, I am approaching the issue of religious choice from the perspective of the weight usually ascribed to religious choice in religions.

If religious choice is so important and so relevant that it warrants eternal, permanent, irrepairable consequences - then what does this imply about the constitutional and current states of individual people?
It would seem to suggest that by wanting different things, one could be condemning oneself. So by this logic, to avoid negative consequences, all should want the same - given if one religion is the right one.

Secondly, the idea that one religion is the right one, or the superior one (which is an idea held by many religions), could imply that all people ultimately want the same, or at least should want the same - or that God is a nasty character who creates some people to forever be stuck with lower desires, keeping them stuck in lower forms of existence.

I would encourage you to respect that difference and your desire there. IOW not assume that really they want this also AND accept that even though they may not really want this, your wanting it is not bad because of it.

Hm. Perhaps (some) theists really do not have the desire to understand their own epistemology of religion. This could be possible. (Although I can't relate to that; I tend to assume everyone has the desire to understand their own epistemology of religion.)

But this is getting very close - however much it might sound supportive - to ME assuming that you and I are 'really' the same and you will feel better if you accept that they are not the same as you or have different needs and need another path and have another place, etc.

Hm. This is an interesting angle on the matter, I haven't thought of that before.

Variety is not something that I would find easy to understand, especially when it is in the context of (the possibility of) eternal damnation.


Usually in these discussions, I take particular theistic or atheistic claims, and see what their implications could be.
I rarely make claims on this myself, I am mostly just exploring various arguments. That may lead to some confusion; I apologize for that.

And in fact you have made it clear that this idea seems very wrong to you - the idea that people have different needs/paths/wants - at least it seemed that way when you said this trivialized religion.

When I speak about trivializing religion/spirituality, I am referring to the lightness, superficiality with which many people (theists and atheists) treat religious choice and practice.

Ie. when they speak of religions/spirituality as if it would be yet another one one's personal accessoires, like a bag or jewelery - something visible but not all-important; or as if it would be yet another simple enough task that one can put on one's to-do list (1. Do laundry. 2. Choose my personal religion. 3. Shop for groceries. ...); or when they talk about it as if it would be about something that would not have eternal consequences (while the doctrines themselves usually do speak about eternal consequences of religious choice).


This lightness about religion/spirituality is clearly not compatible with all religions, certainly not with the Abrahamic ones.


I think Buddhism contextualizes variety well and isn't on a crusade to convert others.
In Buddhism, too, there are elements of trying to influence others - but there are very specific gradual approaches for doing that; in fact so gradual and so specific that if a skilled Buddhist were to instruct you, you wouldn't even notice that you are being instructed. (I'm speaking about one-on-one encounters, not public lectures.)

And I have to respect that also. And obviously the big traditions have adherents and whole congregations and certainly leaders who agree with you.

Just to be clear: I didn't say that I believe all people want the same.

I do recognize that given some religious scenarios, everyone wanting the same things would avoid certain adverse consequences.

(I may have in the past claimed that all want the same things - but I would now say that I was strongly under the influence of the fear of those adverse consequences.)

 

[Mind Over Matter]

None?


In the OP, you argued that religion has the monopoly on teaching humility as a tenet and virtue of life.

The term monopoly, from the Greek, "monos" (alone-single) and polein (to sell), technically means the "Only seller" - the only one to sell a commodity. Since one cannot "sell" a character trait, it was obvious that what I was asking about was not the trait itself but the valuing, the teaching and the embracing of the trait.
Secondary to that is the fact that our modern understanding of the term has negative aspects, such as exclusivity, preventing others from participation, killing off competition etc.

Now in light of the above, you can see that the OP states that as a rule (but not absolute) religions have a monopoly on teaching humility and embracing it. However, the monopoly (such as it is), is one that exists only because other institutions do not teach and embrace humility in the way or to the degree that religions do. Religions do not exclude others from teaching humility, the others choose not to.

Then I asked you which one - since there are many religions which tend to exclude eachother.

And now you say that no religion has a monopoly on teaching humility as a tenet and virtue of life?


??

In this you asked, "Which religion has the monopoly on teaching humility?".
To which I answered - None. No specific religion has a monopoly on teaching humility. Christianity in it's many forms teaches it - Buddhism teaches it - Hinduism teaches it, undoubtedly others do as well.
Add to this the fact that any institution is free to embrace and teach humility and one can see that the answer to your question here is, indeed, "None".

Does this help clarify?

 

[Pineal]

I'm not sure whether all people want the same things or not.

Rather, I am approaching the issue of religious choice from the perspective of the weight usually ascribed to religious choice in religions.

If religious choice is so important and so relevant that it warrants eternal, permanent, irrepairable consequences - then what does this imply about the constitutional and current states of individual people?
It would seem to suggest that by wanting different things, one could be condemning oneself. So by this logic, to avoid negative consequences, all should want the same - given if one religion is the right one.

Personally I think that different people do want different things and in this I am not humble. I think the religions are confused when they say that there path is the only right one, and, essentially, God will punish those who make the wrong choices.

But I hear what you are saying here about how you arrive at your conclusion. In this, it seems, you are aligned with those religions, at this metareligious level. Or at least cannot find an alternative that seems plausible.

Secondly, the idea that one religion is the right one, or the superior one (which is an idea held by many religions), could imply that all people ultimately want the same, or at least should want the same - or that God is a nasty character who creates some people to forever be stuck with lower desires, keeping them stuck in lower forms of existence.

At least the Calvinists more or less said this, with the whole predestination idea. That feels more consistent to me, instead of blaming people for making bad choices, ones they would make if they were born in a Hindu village also.

Hm. Perhaps (some) theists really do not have the desire to understand their own epistemology of religion. This could be possible. (Although I can't relate to that; I tend to assume everyone has the desire to understand their own epistemology of religion.)

I don't think so. I would think this is a projection. It does not fit my experience of most theists, even those who have shifted religion. The problem you are having getting theists to at least say

Ah, I see what you are grappling with around this humility/certainty issue. I disagree and show how there really is nothing particularly skilled in their certainty - of based on natural individual gifts or earned via great struggle and spiritual work, etc.

But they don't.

The Abrahamic traditions are notoriously non-experiential which adds to the issue. They are based on hierarchy and authority AND not necessarily personal experience. In fact in Christianity having personal experiences could have led to torture and death and even now could lead to ostracism even if the experiences were in complete and obvious alignment with the Bible, let alone when they were not.

So empiricism is taken out of the base of epistemology right from the get go.

Very few theists train themselves in deduction or, in any case, meet much challenge on their sloppy deductions.

So induction and deduction are not trained.

Introspection would instantly bring to light things like doubt and confusion. These feelings are generally discouraged, though some priests and more rabbis - in my experience - allow such expression. Still they are scary and there is no reward for expressing them, and generally punishment.

Hm. This is an interesting angle on the matter, I haven't thought of that before.

Variety is not something that I would find easy to understand, especially when it is in the context of (the possibility of) eternal damnation.

That I can understand. I was not raised where this idea was coherently or consistently mentioned. It was marginal and implicitly, I would say, I got the message that good people were loved by God (and I think I generally drew the conclusion, therefore safe). Of course I was affected by notions of hell, despite the soft version of Xtianity I experienced, but it was not driven into me in the ways it has been for many. In this life anyway.

I also found that I am solid - to use a metaphor - at a certain level. I am not infinitely malleable - as far as I can find. I could not accept that God and would be at odds with such a God, regardless of what practices and self hatred were added to the situation.

I say this not as an argument that shows to you certainly -or even showed to me - that there is no such hell and damnation, but rather, I knew on some level that, if so, I was doomed anyway.

I was a pretty flexible child in many ways and also an adult for a long time. My first - trained - reaction was to go along often, interpersonally, to authority. But underneath there was a hard core, and I would challenge authority when I thought it was cruel - not that I always realized.

I do not think there is anything I can do about this. Given my recognition of this, and I verbalized this at about 12, that kind of Christianity was of no use to me. It could not speak to my condition, ever. So I looked elsewhere and these experiences led me to have other beliefs.

My unfitness was, I suppose, a kind of evidence to me. But it was moe the experiences I had after.

 

[Pineal]

Usually in these discussions, I take particular theistic or atheistic claims, and see what their implications could be.
I rarely make claims on this myself, I am mostly just exploring various arguments. That may lead to some confusion; I apologize for that.

Or perhaps I should have noticed this. In any case, it is an approach most people have a lot of trouble recognizing or dealing with - an issue which is coupled with the issues raised about theists, where there are contexts where questions/exploration themselves are taboo.

When I speak about trivializing religion/spirituality, I am referring to the lightness, superficiality with which many people (theists and atheists) treat religious choice and practice.

Ah, ok. I don't think it is a light thing, the choice of this or that religion. Not for the person in question - though in some cases it may be - or in general. Nor do I think the possibility that many options are right for certain people means that the issue is easy or light for those who do not think, yet, there is a clear home anywhere. IOW this does not translate into 'Oh, many paths work, just choose one.' NO, no, no. I do not hold with that lightness, at all. I wouldn't tell you not to be light, but that you think it is a heavy decision/process I take as right for you and also happens to be right for me.

Ie. when they speak of religions/spirituality as if it would be yet another one one's personal accessoires, like a bag or jewelery - something visible but not all-important; or as if it would be yet another simple enough task that one can put on one's to-do list (1. Do laundry. 2. Choose my personal religion. 3. Shop for groceries. ...); or when they talk about it as if it would be about something that would not have eternal consequences (while the doctrines themselves usually do speak about eternal consequences of religious choice

).Right. I addressed this above. Though I would say that in my worldview, today I can make errors. And I have made errors and these, I do not assume at all, led to eternal consequences. I understand how once this notion of eternal damnation is ingrained - to whatever degree - the 'today's error leads to eternal consequences' is potentially a powerful presence and one not necessarily at all easily banished.
For me it had/has to be banished.

This lightness about religion/spirituality is clearly not compatible with all religions, certainly not with the Abrahamic ones.

I agree. There are individual exceptions within at least C and J. But they are exceptions. Which makes LG's attempted defense of theists in general ludicrous. Most theists would view him as not being humble enough - and likely fatally so. So either they are right about him or they are not being humble enough. They are radically overestimating the universalness of their truths. To them he is not being humble enough in relation to the Bible (or other scripture) or Jesus or Muhammed. He is not being humble enough when he assumes he is at a later stage in evolution than they are, and that their religious beliefs fit them at their early stage - pat, pat on the head.

Apart from the mere fact that they would judge him as having given his soul to an agent of the Devil - his guru.

I think Buddhism contextualizes variety well and isn't on a crusade to convert others.
In Buddhism, too, there are elements of trying to influence others - but there are very specific gradual approaches for doing that; in fact so gradual and so specific that if a skilled Buddhist were to instruct you, you wouldn't even notice that you are being instructed. (I'm speaking about one-on-one encounters, not public lectures.)

Though the Buddhist, essentially, views us as already being in hell, and often contributing to this hell, via our ignorance. So I can't let them off the hook entirely.

Just to be clear: I didn't say that I believe all people want the same.

I do recognize that given some religious scenarios, everyone wanting the same things would avoid certain adverse consequences.

(I may have in the past claimed that all want the same things - but I would now say that I was strongly under the influence of the fear of those adverse consequences.)

Got it.