Is a person who claims to know God, humble?

[wynn]

It is a claim about oneself, about what one knows and the source of that knowledge -in this case the ultimate authority with all the attendant implications.

Exactly.

Each and every theist is making the claim to be able to discern what is true about God (and related topics) and what is not.

Thus each and every theist is considering themselves to be the ultimate authority on matters of God.



That they claim to follow a disciplic succession originating from God doesn't change their assertion of their own authority.

As long as it was them who chose a particular disciplic succession, they are still making the claim to be the ultimate authority on matters of God.

 

[wynn]

All Signal has done is lodge a question about how making a claim of knowledge about god automatically renders one humble or not.

This to me seems to suggest one is trying to establish a dichotomy between knowledge (at least knowledge edging towards action) and humility.

To discern which religion is the right one (and thus which one to join)
would, in the opinion of some of us,
require nothing short of omniscience.


To go forward and, directly or indirectly, claim that one is omniscient,
is not humble to claim, in the opinion of some of us.

 

[wynn]

Do you realize that you are saying humility curtails the efficacy of knowledge?

I disagree.

I don't think humility requires that one lack confidence or whatever.

On the contrary I think humility empowers knowledge since it makes it more "doable" both for one's self and to whoever one want to pass it on or benefit from it.

It seems to me that you are
taking yourself out of the epistemological and ethical equation, to a great extent.

It seems you are redefining the status of yourself as an epistemological and ethical instance.

It seems that you do not at all see yourself as someone who reasons and decides whether something is right and wrong.

It seems to me that you do not see yourself as someone who is in the position to decide whether, for example, Islam is superior to Christianity.

It seems that you see the reach of your epistemological and ethical authority to be limited to the first next person you see as superior to yourself; but that you don't see yourself as being in the position to judge that person's qualifications (such as deciding whether that person is indeed telling you about God or not).
You simply, apriori presume they have those qualifications.
The moment you would try to assess their qualifications, you would set yourself up as an authority on those matters; in which case continuing to consider that person to be superior to you would be a mere pretense.

IOW humility, or a lack of overbearing ego, increases the reception and application of knowledge

Does humility help to choose the right religion?

Are Hindus full of overbearing ego, because they are not Catholics? And vice versa, and so on?

The dynamic aspect of spiritual life (IOW what makes it go quick or slow) is governed by how much one reciprocates with things outside of one's self (like saintly people, scripture etc)

All this still leaves one with the question of whom to consider a saint.

Surely you are aware that the various people differ on this.

Or alternatively, one can get a general idea from knowledge that surrounds the personality - for instance I doubt whether you personally know or have directly heard from the president of the USA but I bet you can estimate his ideas or how he would like to will action on a great many things --- or for that matter I bet you can estimate a few general guidelines on how the future president of the USA would like to will action even though no one who has a clue exactly who that will be at the present

Except that the President is nowhere near as important as God.

People have different ideas on what the President would do, is worth etc. But okay, we can be to some degree apathetic about this variety, as our eternal destiny does not depend on the President (at least nobody claims it depends on him).

The same is not true in relation to God: People have differing ideas about God - but if we don't get it right about God, we could end up in hell, forever even.

We only hear "about God" from people, we have no first-hand knowledge.

And then we are supposed to decide, on our own, what we are going to consider to be "the truth about God" and what to reject as a "lie about God."
And we are supposed to make this decision based on nothing but our own current knowledge and ability - or burn in hell for all eternity.

Yes, makes perfect sense ...

I chose correctly. I know the Bible is the word of God and the Koran is not. Or vice versa.

Of course there are, as I have said to Signal, theists who think there are many paths to God. But I think it is safe to say this is a minority view.

To then act as if this ability - to know this path is correct, or deeper,than the others - is not a skill or tremendous innate gift is disingenous. To pretend humility on that issue, is hypocrisy.

This is nonsense.

It is precisely the kind of claim that theists are making, implicitly or directly.
Even you.

generally individuals classify claims of knowledge according to the epistemological frameworks they arise from - for instance saying "i heard this on sciforums" probably has less credibility than "i heard this on a news website" which in turn has less credibility than "I heard this on a science research web site" ... even though all of them are on the "internet".

The problem around knowldge of God is that
1. it is of utmost importance,
2. it is not clear what it is and we have no way to check (before it may be too late).

With your internet example, or schools, we can meaningfully talk about degrees and kinds of knowledge: because we are part of that system.

But we are not part of the theistic system.
We have no idea how it works or what the truth is.
We just know that there are many competing ideas about God out there, and each theism claims to be absolute and exclusive, and that if we choose wrongly, there will be irrepairable adverse consequences.

or alternatively, its characteristic of any system of knowledge to have variety

And as long as the implications of choosing a system of knowledge do not include eternal damnation, variety and choice are fine.

 

[wynn]

I would just like to point out that you had presented what seemed like a bind. How can one say that theists cannot be humble and make claims about knowing God's will and doing it and so forth and still be humble yourself? IOW you were assuming that there was a trap and that one could not without hypocrisy challenge theists in this way.

However I take responsibility for my self-evaluation there. Something I do not see a large percentage of theists doing. I do feel I have skills and gifts, based at least on part on long effort on issues like this one. I am good at something and that something gives me the expertise, in my judgment, to claim there is a problem with what theists, those who do this, are doing there.

It is precisely this lack of responsibility taking that irks me. I also think it leads to common judgments theists have of both atheists and theists with other beliefs. I think it is quite pernicious.

I think, but I am not sure, that Signal thinks it leads to damaging interactions with people who may in fact be more aware of themselves - not that I have quite seen her word it that way or go so far. That when a theist who is certain they know God and proclaims this as part of a dialogue with a novice or non-theist or someone struggling with faith or religious knowledge, the dialogue becomes damaging because the theist is not taking responsibility for what they are claiming. And likely end up accusing, at least implicitly, Signal of lacking humility, despite the ludicrousness.

My take is that the lack of responsibility taking is in fact based on a lack of introspection and this becomes damaging when those who lack this ability encounter people who have it.

Thank you for bringing this up.

Yes, I experience interactions with theists as painful usually, even crazy-making.

I would expect that those who claim to be talking about God, would not speak lightly, given what God is usually defined as.

The fact that there exists so much theistic variety - I experience this as very painful.

And then to have theists of various denominations to accuse me that I am a liar, that I oppose God and such if I don't see the truth of their particular religion and reject all others - I find this hurtful beyond comparison.

And then further, if I point this out to them, to have myself further criticized and ridiculed - it really makes me doubt whether God exists at all, and whether it would be worth it to be a theist or not.

To the best of my knowledge, it would simply require omniscience to discern which religion is the right one.
But now, apparently because I am not omniscient (and all those theists are?), I deserve to go to hell. Whereby it is not my fault that I am not omniscient.


On the other hand, to completely remove oneself from theistic discussion, would be to ease into the prospect of being burnt alive for all eternity (due to not having made the right religious choice).

 

[wynn]

But where I agree with you is that someone cannot be entirely humble, through and through, and publically claim to be certain about anything, especially tricky things that require strong intuition or skill. A surgeon certain about how to approach a tricky bypass and taking up the scalpel cannot be entirely humble - or they should pass the scalpel to a colleague. Likewise with 'knowing God' or doing God's will, etc,. especially if this is expressed in such a vague generalized way.

Well, I did think of one simple explanation for all this:

For some people, religious choice has never existed as a real issue in their lives.

Either:
1. They are sure of the religion they were born into, or the religion which they remember practicing for as long as they can remember.
2. They joined a religion later in life, whereby they had a strong sense of "this is the right one."


Such people for whom religious choice has never existed as a real issue in their lives are unable to relate to those for whom such a choice exists.

I imagine it is possible that for some people, such a choice has indeed never existed.

This would explain the characteristic lack of empathy on this issue with those who are facing such a choice.


Perhaps Lightgigantic never wondered whether to become either a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Hindu or whichever.
Perhaps MindOverMatter never wondered whether to become either a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Hindu or whichever.
Perhaps such decision-making situations simply never occured for them.

Based on their doctrines, they may be able to provide some abstract, theoretical decision-making process for arriving at the right religion, but it is a decision-making process that they themselves have not used in order to arrive where they are. It is not a tested decision-making process.
In other words, they may be unfit to help others in this matter.

 

[Pineal]

Thank you for bringing this up.

Yes, I experience interactions with theists as painful usually, even crazy-making.

I would expect that those who claim to be talking about God, would not speak lightly, given what God is usually defined as.

I think many people do what they think they are supposed to do, assert beliefs as if one either has a belief or not and there are no gradations, do not have context-based skills, and see their own goodness, holiness, spiritual good qualities as based on tranmitting from authority outward. It is not their place to get in the way of ideas transmitted to them. In a way they have a very limited role in the religion, even in themselves.

Not unlike how people in fascist organizations view their role - align with party policy and the leader. That is my role. Anything else is suspect.

IOW theist, non-theist, I see this as a pattern in humans in general.

Some may feel they have some skill and thus allow for being able to creatively convey some of the ideas - and respond to criticism - but still they would likely see their role as still transparent to the Bible, guru, scientists, whomever or whatever really knows.

The fact that there exists so much theistic variety - I experience this as very painful.

And then to have theists of various denominations to accuse me that I am a liar, that I oppose God and such if I don't see the truth of their particular religion and reject all others - I find this hurtful beyond comparison.

It does not seem loving to me either.

And then further, if I point this out to them, to have myself further criticized and ridiculed - it really makes me doubt whether God exists at all, and whether it would be worth it to be a theist or not.

I think that is how atheism arises in many or is maintained. Or agnosticism.

To the best of my knowledge, it would simply require omniscience to discern which religion is the right one.
But now, apparently because I am not omniscient (and all those theists are?),

Well, clearly most of them are not, since most of them have not made the right choice. Which again should end any discussion on the humility issue. Any theist who is saying, as most Abrahamic ones do, that there is one right choice and he or she has made it CANNOT BE SEEN AS HUMBLE BY THE OTHERS. Since they are sure he or she is wrong and certain.

IOW most theists should agree with you that most theists are not humble enough if only because of this. If they claim they made the right choice of religion - even just for themselves.

So LG trying to defend theists in general makes no sense and they would certainly not return the favor. Oddly, given his position, they would think he and most other theists are not humble enough. His position makes no sense since most theists disagree with him.

I deserve to go to hell. Whereby it is not my fault that I am not omniscient.

Well, I don't believe that. And isn't 'omniscient' making it even worse than it is. You would 'only' need to recognize the right path - according to them -, not know what Chang Wu is thinking as he wakes up this morning, etc. I do not mean to belittle the issue at all, but I think saying you need to be omniscient is making it impossible - by every religion's estimation.

On the other hand, to completely remove oneself from theistic discussion, would be to ease into the prospect of being burnt alive for all eternity (due to not having made the right religious choice).

If there really is a prospect of it. IOW 'for all you know'. But then for all you know engaging in theistic discussion is what leads to a chance of eternal damnation. (I may not be taking the word 'prospect' with the right nuances here and below)

Language gets very tricky here: but as written about one could take it as: Christianity is THE DEFAULT, objectively, statistically.

But really you are even less omniscient than that. If we are really going to take a critical look at your omniscience, you don't know, even, what eases you into prospects and what does not. I hope that doesn't make you feel worse. I suspect it doesn't, but I just want to be clear about my intent.

But here at a meta-level one could take what you wrote above as a claim to knowledge.

If I do X, it opens up the possibility that I will burn forever.

First of all, I don't think that is true, but more importantly, you don't know this, even in its statistical formulation.

This is not to trivialize the fact that at some point you got bombarded by this notion and so, of course, privately, you are going to suffer the aftereffects of those experiences and do not feel you know it is false at this time.

But here it is being put forward at least in a similar for to claims to knowledge.

I hope that was clear. It's tricky. And I am certainly not claiming you are hurting anyone else here. But it seemed like in terms of self-care the transition from subjective to objective in language is an important issue and has consequences.

'I am afraid this may mean....'

is a wording I would not have reacted to in this way.

I realized, here, that in a sense there is a benefit to recognizing what one does not know is even more widespread. If you really do not know, there are certain things you simply cannot do and cannot control.

IOW right now I would interpret what you said as saying, well, if I keep engaging in theistic discussions, I am not increasing my prospects of......

What we have here, potentially, is someone doing something that feels bad because they think it controls the possibility or liklihood of certain negative outcomes. When really, given what they have said elsewhere, it seems they cannot know this at all.

A greater sense of ignorance may in fact be easier.

 

[wynn]

IOW theist, non-theist, I see this as a pattern in humans in general.

One would think that theists would be exempt from this all-too-human condition!

IOW most theists should agree with you that most theists are not humble enough if only because of this. If they claim they made the right choice of religion - even just for themselves.

So LG trying to defend theists in general makes no sense and they would certainly not return the favor. Oddly, given his position, they would think he and most other theists are not humble enough. His position makes no sense since most theists disagree with him.

Indeed.

If anything, theists of different denominations might be considered humble - if they lived and functioned only within their own mono-cultural, mono-religious society, cut off and shielded from others.

Engaging in interactions within a society in which there are many denominations each of which claims absolute and exclusive status, changes everything.

Well, I don't believe that. And isn't 'omniscient' making it even worse than it is. You would 'only' need to recognize the right path - according to them -, not know what Chang Wu is thinking as he wakes up this morning, etc. I do not mean to belittle the issue at all, but I think saying you need to be omniscient is making it impossible - by every religion's estimation.

Of course it is making it impossible, and religious people readily enough acknowldge this.

Language gets very tricky here: but as written about one could take it as: Christianity is THE DEFAULT, objectively, statistically.

Actually, no.
I see it more like this:
Consider being presented with the choice to pick either an apple, a pear or a banana.
Now consider being presented with the choice to pick either an apple, a pear, a banana, or a car.
Now compare these two choice-making situations. It's the option of the car that throws the spanner in the works of decision-making.

The consideration of eternal damnation in religious choice is like that car in the above choice-situations: it makes any sane decision impossible and brings the decision-making process as such to a halt.

But really you are even less omniscient than that. If we are really going to take a critical look at your omniscience, you don't know, even, what eases you into prospects and what does not. I hope that doesn't make you feel worse. I suspect it doesn't, but I just want to be clear about my intent.

But here at a meta-level one could take what you wrote above as a claim to knowledge.

If I do X, it opens up the possibility that I will burn forever.

First of all, I don't think that is true, but more importantly, you don't know this, even in its statistical formulation.

This is not to trivialize the fact that at some point you got bombarded by this notion and so, of course, privately, you are going to suffer the aftereffects of those experiences and do not feel you know it is false at this time.

But here it is being put forward at least in a similar for to claims to knowledge.

True, I do not know about such things either.

I think what is so paralyzing here is the amount of unknowns that I have to consider.

I realized, here, that in a sense there is a benefit to recognizing what one does not know is even more widespread. If you really do not know, there are certain things you simply cannot do and cannot control.

IOW right now I would interpret what you said as saying, well, if I keep engaging in theistic discussions, I am not increasing my prospects of......

What we have here, potentially, is someone doing something that feels bad because they think it controls the possibility or liklihood of certain negative outcomes. When really, given what they have said elsewhere, it seems they cannot know this at all.

A greater sense of ignorance may in fact be easier.

Agreed. But then comes the problem of how to bear the thought of being ignorant.

I can't say "I don't know, and I'm okay with not knowing." Because it is simply not true: I am not okay with not knowing.

The kind of humility (?) required to be a functional agnostic is ... unknown to me.
And I certainly have not learned about it from theists!

 

[NMSquirrel]

I can't say "I don't know, and I'm okay with not knowing." Because it is simply not true: I am not okay with not knowing.

lol..the older you get, the easier it is to be ok with not knowing..

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Is a person who claims to know God, humble?

The answer to that will lie in the truth of the "claim".

That truth will be seen in the witness of the person.

Jesus tells us that we know the tree by it's fruit.
Likewise we are told that the world will know we are His disciples by how we Love one another. (John13:34-35)
And agian we are told that, He who loves knows God for God is Love..(1 John 4:7-8)

Love - Brotherly Love (Agape) is looks outward. Read what Scripture says about Love:

1 Cor 13
1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; 5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; 10 but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. 13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Can one who embraces such Love fail to be humbled by so great a gift?

 

[wynn]

Love believes all things?
So, for example, love believes that whites are superior to blacks, that abortion is not murder, that people should be stoned to death if they are not Christians, that Allah is the true God and that the Catholic Church is a w....?
Really?

 

[Pineal]

lol..the older you get, the easier it is to be ok with not knowing..

That hasn't been true for me. I am not sure it is a positive phenomenon either, though I do see it in perhaps most other people as they age.

 

[Pineal]

One would think that theists would be exempt from this all-too-human condition!

They don't seem exempt from any all-too-human condition. Though I think I understand what you mean. In a sense, I think, you are putting yourself in their shoes. If I was certain, knew I knew God, knew God's will....
I would be.....

And when they are not you find it confusing. A theist may leap in and say you cannot know how you would be, but I actually agree with you here.

Indeed.

If anything, theists of different denominations might be considered humble - if they lived and functioned only within their own mono-cultural, mono-religious society, cut off and shielded from others.

Engaging in interactions within a society in which there are many denominations each of which claims absolute and exclusive status, changes everything.

Yes. This new, mulireligious state has not raised serious doubts for them. Once in contact they either reevaluated and maintained their belief - feeling justified doing this - or felt there was no reason to reevaluate. Further, their public utterances take on a very different meaning.

'White is the best race.' approaches an equivalent.

Actually, no.
I see it more like this:
Consider being presented with the choice to pick either an apple, a pear or a banana.

Which cannot be done rationally, at least in the usual situations where one is choosing fruit. Not a commodities trader, for example.

Now consider being presented with the choice to pick either an apple, a pear, a banana, or a car.
Now compare these two choice-making situations. It's the option of the car that throws the spanner in the works of decision-making.

The consideration of eternal damnation in religious choice is like that car in the above choice-situations: it makes any sane decision impossible and brings the decision-making process as such to a halt.

I understand what you mean, but I disagree. I suppose I have to: I do not consider myself insane and I made a decision - or really an ongoing set of decisions. ((when I reread this, this struck me as important. If this is viewed as a single decision, it takes on such catastrophic proportions. It has not been a single decision for me, and probably not even for LG, at least for a time. Over time many small decisions, doing the best I can with the tools that I have and am, I have ended up going in a particular direction - like in sailing, perhaps. If the best I can do - my best guesses and conclusions - will end up with me in hell, what can I do? I cannot love that God and I cannot evade his punishment.))

Which of course is a proclamation of bias, along with being, perhaps, using myself as a counter-example.

I suppose in a sense I ended up in a place where any God had to reach me - I didn't just sit there pouting - at least not all the time. I tried out various approaches. But I can't get my feet in size three shoes, couldn't swallow someone else's phlegm - these are metaphors of course - couldn't dance en pointe....etc. So many approaches did not stick. The God that thinks some humans should burn in hell for eternity has not reached me. He is one of many stories with attendant activities/practices. Popularity of a belief seems to have little connection to its coupling to reality.

I also do not spend large amounts of money on jeans, and I am not as sexy, I suppose, as the man who has the right car. I do not hate blacks or think my country is the greatest country in the world - though there are large numbers who would think I was a traitor for being like that or a moron for not being the other things.

Worldviews have been pummeling me since birth - they all bear the onus of proof. They all must reach me.

This is not a demand on my part. I certainly tried to reach them. I thought it was all my responsibility, but even with my efforts, suddenly I found myself turned off, rejecting (though also rejected, these two can be very closely tied together, so close I cannot separate them - how can I accept what does not accept me. Note: this could sound like I uttered ultimatums ((ultimati?)) or refused, out of pride, ha, ha - I am sure I would be judged this way). But it is more physical than that, more inevitable.

I do not have gills, I cannot live with the deep sea fish. I do not have wings - a better metaphor, frankly. When I leap of the sea cliff with the terns, I just crash into the sea.

But overall, I am ignorant, in some ultimate sense. I can't be sure in the scientific way of things. The Christian torture God is one of many things I cannot be sure of, but at my base, I do not think I deserve to be tortured for all time and I would wish that on no one, not even the worst possible human murderer. Not only do I have nothing resembling scientific evidence fo such a God, I am at odds with any such God. That God will not love me. It simply does not work.

And note: I did not reach a position via deduction. "I can reject hell, because.....due to......thus......" The deduction is a post experience model of how it happened, not how I thought.

I can absolutely understand how the above may have no effect on the hold the idea of hell has on you.

But I do not find myself insane.

True, I do not know about such things either.

I think what is so paralyzing here is the amount of unknowns that I have to consider.

Yes.

Agreed. But then comes the problem of how to bear the thought of being ignorant.

I can't say "I don't know, and I'm okay with not knowing." Because it is simply not true: I am not okay with not knowing.

I am not OK with not knowing, however, once you are in that place of not knowing, which is where it seems, by your own account, you are, then whatever steps you take are from the real situation you are in.

It is a hallucination for you to think you have some control if you act as if you know that certain steps can protect you statistically from hell.

The kind of humility (?) required to be a functional agnostic is ... unknown to me.

I am not suggesting you become humble and say to yourself you do not know. But if you don't, what are the advantages of letting a bunch of nut jobs decide what you must think you know? You can't know if there are any advantages or if considering what they say even possible is not what takes you to hell. In the short term this seems true, at least.
(oops, let in a piece of less careful judgment, pardon me)

And I certainly have not learned about it from theists!

Yeah, there is quite a bind out there. Hang with the liberal atheists and it can give your Self a kind of strength. They understand questioning and when the topic is on the table, they can at least be critical of theist epistemologies, if not their own. But then they cannot support the urges you have to find out, to find a process that heals you, protects you, in a more ultimate sense because they have given up. You're born, you die and the best thing is to make the best of the middle - using whatever current paradigms in childrearing, moneymaking, non-theist self-actualizations are rolling through the suburbs where you are supposed to want to set up shop.

I do think you can find nicer theists than the ones you have been dealing with, even in the major religions. I am not sure they will reconcile the issues, but I think they can help. Probably nicer atheist rationalists also.

We have to get strong, I think, we have to find as much that nurtures us as possible so we can tackle these things. ( I say this because I think at least reading about this in post, it can seem a very mental process, it can seem like one just works it out logically or tests it empirically - iow idea juggling or science. As if our state of being had nothing to do with this, what we can consider, think and feel.) This is a daily struggle - I take sustenance where I can - regardless of whether it is theist or not, learning to not introject, but chew the food I am served, even push the plate back on occasion, even if it seems rude.

 

[Pineal]

Is a person who claims to know God, humble?

The answer to that will lie in the truth of the "claim".

That truth will be seen in the witness of the person.

Jesus tells us that we know the tree by it's fruit.

Then, it seems to me, there is something wrong with the tree, if the sharing of its fruit does not help the eater (read:listener). But most theist blame the ones they do not convince. They judge them not humble, resistant, too mental, in league with Satan, closed to God, childish, attached to worldly things, sinners..............etc.

Likewise we are told that the world will know we are His disciples by how we Love one another. (John13:34-35)

The history of Christianity is spreading, therefore, a bad rep for Jesus, with all their purges, intersect wars, colonialism....and recently - no doubt again - sexual abuse of Christian children.

Can one who embraces such Love fail to be humbled by so great a gift?

Waht was the gift here?

 

[lightgigantic]

It seems to me that you are
taking yourself out of the epistemological and ethical equation, to a great extent.

It seems you are redefining the status of yourself as an epistemological and ethical instance.

It seems that you do not at all see yourself as someone who reasons and decides whether something is right and wrong.

It seems to me that you do not see yourself as someone who is in the position to decide whether, for example, Islam is superior to Christianity.

it seems you are just making statements devoid of any context that would make them comprehensible

It seems that you see the reach of your epistemological and ethical authority to be limited to the first next person you see as superior to yourself; but that you don't see yourself as being in the position to judge that person's qualifications (such as deciding whether that person is indeed telling you about God or not).

perhaps if you isolate the said individuals from the cultural context (eg guru, sadhu and sastra) that they appear in ... which as a rule, I don't

You simply, apriori presume they have those qualifications.
The moment you would try to assess their qualifications, you would set yourself up as an authority on those matters; in which case continuing to consider that person to be superior to you would be a mere pretense.

so if you, say, assess the efficacy of any said medical practitioner you are practically re-writing medical theory or something?

... i mean its not like I have to go around like some mad artist who refuses to work by any other label than "I made it"

Does humility help to choose the right religion?

Are Hindus full of overbearing ego, because they are not Catholics? And vice versa, and so on?

I am not sure how you could define humility as the exclusive property of a cultural group any more than a geographical one.

All this still leaves one with the question of whom to consider a saint.

Surely you are aware that the various people differ on this.

surely you are aware that they all converge on certain characteristics too, but regardless, if one is so far down the spiritual ladder any one that one reciprocates with can be elevating.

Except that the President is nowhere near as important as God.

People have different ideas on what the President would do, is worth etc. But okay, we can be to some degree apathetic about this variety, as our eternal destiny does not depend on the President (at least nobody claims it depends on him).

The same is not true in relation to God: People have differing ideas about God - but if we don't get it right about God, we could end up in hell, forever even.

All this has nothing to do with the fact that we can discern general knowledge about an individual's will/desire/action based on the obligational duties one would expect from hem

We only hear "about God" from people, we have no first-hand knowledge.

ditto "the president"

And then we are supposed to decide, on our own, what we are going to consider to be "the truth about God" and what to reject as a "lie about God."

ditto "the president"

And we are supposed to make this decision based on nothing but our own current knowledge and ability - or burn in hell for all eternity.

different ideas on hell are there, but regardless of your take on it, general consensus is its not a place one would like to go.

... and a s a further detail, going to hell is more a consequence of irreligiousity and choosing the "right" one in that sense is simply one that steers you away from it

Yes, makes perfect sense ...

what would you prefer?
A system where there is no free choice?

It is precisely the kind of claim that theists are making, implicitly or directly.
Even you.

as far as I am aware I have only made the claim that there are a variety of religious paths to suit a variety of people's levels.

So the "right" one is then a question of the said individual

The problem around knowldge of God is that
1. it is of utmost importance,
2. it is not clear what it is and we have no way to check (before it may be too late).

With your internet example, or schools, we can meaningfully talk about degrees and kinds of knowledge: because we are part of that system.

But we are not part of the theistic system.
We have no idea how it works or what the truth is.
We just know that there are many competing ideas about God out there, and each theism claims to be absolute and exclusive, and that if we choose wrongly, there will be irrepairable adverse consequences.

If you simply have an eye for detail as opposed to general outline you can land yourself in the same conundrum even within the education system.

The only persons who are part of the education system are those who are teaching or have studied the basis behind it.

And as long as the implications of choosing a system of knowledge do not include eternal damnation, variety and choice are fine.

You constantly bring this up and then constantly shirk away from it when queried how increasing the magnitude of a decision renders it inoperable.

Its like you are in favor of "free will is ok except fro the important stuff"
:shrug:

 

[lightgigantic]

Yet this servant of the servant of the servant is still presuming himself to be so able that he can discern

which lineage of personalities

is indeed from God

and which one is not.



You yourself have somehow come to realize, on your own,
that the Catholic apostolic succession
is inferior
to a particular Hindu disciplic succession.

After that, you joined a Hindu organization, and not the Catholic Church.

This suggests that you consider yourself to have an incredible gift of discerning "which religion is the right one."
And you have had this gift, this ability before you joined an organized religion.

I guess the first step is discerning it (disciplic succession) as a requisite for choice ...

What is this??

humility is as much a property of a cultural group as it is a group with moustaches or whatever.

IOW it is nonsense to talk of it simply because humility is a personal quality

 

[lightgigantic]

Not at all.
I was not calling upon the Buddha or Buddhism or the Pali Canon as an authority, I referred to him/them merely as a source of an idea, just like I would cite any other source.

OMG!!
You have the audacity to think you have the special gift to discern what is an authority on Buddhism!
:bugeye:

 

[lightgigantic]

Yes, it is out of place in some contexts.

so empowering knowledge is out of context for humility?

Confidence in one's own abilities AS ASSERTED TO OTHERS.

so you don't think that there exist any obligational relationships between individuals (where one is in a position to benefit the other - eg parent/child) that can co-exist with humility?

What, in my description of the surgeon, confident and openly asserting, if necessary, his or her confidence in his or her knowledge and skills
is an overbearing ego.

It was more my suggestion that humility disappears not simply in situations where one can benefit another but in situations where one plays such benefit for the sake of fulfilling egotistical need for fame, name, wealth, etc.

If I were to say 'I know Obama's will' I would have to feel like some kind of expert.

So if I told you he works part time at the grocery store you would be totally bereft of personal tools to establish the credibility of that statement?

I can make some estimations, but I would not make that statement. If I did, I would also be able to openly take responsibility for why I had such faith in my discernment of a person I have not had a complex, deep and rather long set of discussions with. Where I heard his words responding to my words. Or even non-verbal exchanges that I felt confident in.

regardless on your artificial attempt to inhibit dialogue or whatever by refusing to make a statement, its impossible to make an estimation on anything without having a rich source of qualities on the subject to draw from

Then I would be an expert compared to many people, especially if I was confident he spoke with candor or was transparent. And I would take responsibility for that expertise. I would make I based statement regarding epistemology and my confidence I knew his will.

If you have ever voted in any sort election on candidates that you have not met personally, you have nulled this statement

But many of these Muslims would say that you are following a bad religion and if Signal was right about the vows during initiation, that you actually ritually cut yourself off from the true profet and via that God. And I doubt many of them have epistemological qualms about their certainty on this.

A very large percentage of Christians would have similarly harsh judgments about your epistemology, though this word would not come up.

For example, many would say that you cannot distinguish Satan's voice from God's and you bowed down to a false prophet.

Should they not be more humble?

then I guess it would behoove such persons to explain their POV's in a philosophical language ... which generally they don't.

This doesn't mean that christians/etc aren't philosophical - it means that if you want to engage in philosophical discussion (or have a problem that requires it) you have to engage persons other than the fanatical element

Isn't Signal on to something, even if you don't think it applies to theists like you?

everyone can benefit from the advice "be more humble" but talking about it in terms of "are mexicans/men with moustaches/muslims humble" is anecdotal at best and complete nonsense at worst.

So you think you can humbly think that All Christians at not at the same level of education as you?

Your analysis is simplistic.
Spiritual realization is a consequence of application which arises from theory.

Discussions about different levels of theory may attract certain persons to apply it, but if we are talking about different levels, its more about realization from application (which is why discussing things in terms of christians are lesser/greater is infantile)

Fine, but that's not the issue.

It certainly is since your prerequisite for humility requires a state bereft of normative opinions - which is probably only possible for the clinically dead ....

The issue is not whether the Catholics are not serving God, the issue is how can someone believe that their intuition is better than every single Catholic since by definition they need to accept the Pope as THE ONLY AND THE MOST IMPORTANT representative of God on earth and you know this is false.

For the simple reason that the world is jam packed for religious ideas in different geographical regions and time eras. IOW I think any authority that asserts theistic superiority to the exclusion of all others (to the point of declaring them false) is not valid if its only over a small tract of land over a small period of time.
IOW I think the job description of god requires a more broader outlook ... much like you probably think that the president of the united states has a broader work port folio that prohibits him from working part time at the grocery store (no matter how much I whine "but how do you KNOW that")

Depends on the context. But note, this was disingenous. It's not one of the examples raised by Signal. So it becomes a counterexample as if exceptions meant there was not a problem with other kinds of statements of certainty around God.

My point is that Signal's statements are mere details - kind of like trying to declare the whole endeavour of personal health is unresolvable by getting stuck on arguments between surgeons and dieticians or something.

Claiming one knows something about God is speaking to another person. Active verb, affected other person. Very important issue, thus potential strong effects - I am hardly being generous. Note, it is also the result of a self-evaulation. An action based on a serious of introspective actions - one would hope. This shouldn't even need to be said. Then take an example like Signal's - I am doing the will of God and this is an action that can have all sorts of effects on listeners and even those this statement is relayed to. Now those actions referred to become messages about God's will also.

my point is that action arises from knowledge and that due to your generous definition of action, you have no "room" left to define knowledge.

That's why I challenged you to define knowledge - which you didn't ...

It is a small example with enormous implications about who is paying attention to God or can. And it is damn important to those Jew and Muslims for whom it is important.

Think of it like this. The president's military advisers has certain behaviors which define him as listening/being obedient to the president. So does his wife. So how is it that two different types of people can display totally different behaviours (to the point of being contradictory) in accordance with the will of a single personality?

Please tell Orthodox Jews that not eating pork is a 'detail' and see if they think you have an epistemological problem and hubris.

please convince the president's military adviser to behave like the president's wife and watch the tabloid headlines manifest ....

One could be humble in relation to other parents out there and be conscious of uncertainties confusions and doubts and still be a good parent. A parent who says I know I raise my children as God wants me to is not being humble.

If they are saying I raise my children as I want it doesn't really make any difference because they are acting in the same fashion - ie being bereft of (your definition) of humility

So when you tell Muslims their religion is like prep school and your is like university, do you get along on epistemological issues?

Only if I imagine a university professor invited to give a lecture to prep school students would approach the problem in that way ... which of course I don't ....

 

[Pineal]

so empowering knowledge is out of context for humility?

I am not sure what that means.

so you don't think that there exist any obligational relationships between individuals (where one is in a position to benefit the other - eg parent/child) that can co-exist with humility?

1) is that what you are doing with Signal? Really? It doesn't sound like it. It sounds bitter to me and clever, in the negative sense used in Buddhism. It seems like a battle. Do you really see yourself as coexisting in humility with Signal and that you are trying to benefit the other?
2) All I was pointing out was that you repeatedly make it knowing and both Signal and I have made it clear it is not about simply knowing.

So if I told you he works part time at the grocery store you would be totally bereft of personal tools to establish the credibility of that statement?

What does that have to do with me knowing Obama's will? That was the statement in context.

And even the statement 'I know Obama.' If I went around saying that to people it would, in English, mean something much more than knowing his job.

I think the way you argue is often disrespectful, because it seems very much an attempt to make the other person seem like an idiot. Oh, Gosh, how stupid of me, sure, I know Obama doesn't work in a grocery store part time.

So I see this asking of the question, that really isn't quite or in context all, in this fashion as disrespectful discussion and really laughable if the goal is service to God.

regardless on your artificial attempt to inhibit dialogue or whatever by refusing to make a statement, its impossible to make an estimation on anything without having a rich source of qualities on the subject to draw from

My artificial attempt to inhibit dialogue? Waht are you talking about? I would not say I know Obama or his will. This is me being honest. I have never said those things or anything similar about some famous person, there was nothing tactical or artificial about it. I wouldn't make the statement because it is not true.

If you have ever voted in any sort election on candidates that you have not met personally, you have nulled this statement

Well, I am consistent on that one. I don't vote.

then I guess it would behoove such persons to explain their POV's in a philosophical language ... which generally they don't.

This doesn't mean that christians/etc aren't philosophical - it means that if you want to engage in philosophical discussion (or have a problem that requires it) you have to engage persons other than the fanatical element

It would not just be the fanatical element of Christians who would think you are making epistemological mistakes in worshipping a guru. And I can only assume you would think that in this they are overestimating their abilities to judge such things. IOW not being humble. Let alone Muslims.

everyone can benefit from the advice "be more humble"

Nope. Try that as a response to sexual abuse victims.

but talking about it in terms of "are mexicans/men with moustaches/muslims humble" is anecdotal at best and complete nonsense at worst.

Of course that's not the context. The context is in the act of making specific statements.

Your analysis is simplistic.
Spiritual realization is a consequence of application which arises from theory.

Discussions about different levels of theory may attract certain persons to apply it, but if we are talking about different levels, its more about realization from application (which is why discussing things in terms of christians are lesser/greater is infantile)

It is you who brought up the issue of prep school versus college. It is in your belief system that there are stages of evolution spiritually and other religions than yours tend to cater to earlier conceptions of God. (I don't think I said lesser/greater so again you respond askew. I do not respect this kind of twisting what another says)

It certainly is since your prerequisite for humility requires a state bereft of normative opinions - which is probably only possible for the clinically dead ....

Well, no. But it's good you avoid trying to demonstrate this through reasoning.

For the simple reason that the world is jam packed for religious ideas in different geographical regions and time eras. IOW I think any authority that asserts theistic superiority to the exclusion of all others (to the point of declaring them false) is not valid if its only over a small tract of land over a small period of time.

So Catholicism at the very least has not been valid most of its existence and arguably today. Also any Christian religion where one must accept Jesus or one will not get to God, Heaven. Likewise much of Islam.

IOW I think the job description of god requires a more broader outlook ... much like you probably think that the president of the united states has a broader work port folio that prohibits him from working part time at the grocery store (no matter how much I whine "but how do you KNOW that")

UM, you've now continued to twist bizzarely my refusal to say I know Obama or I know Obama's will to meaning I do not know any facts about him. As if a theist only know facts about God when they say they know God or know they are doing God's will.

Perhaps English is not your native language, but if I say I know someone, it indicates much more than I know facts about this person. If I say I know I am doing their will, it means I have an incredibly confident sense of what this person's internal life is all about.

My point is that Signal's statements are mere details - kind of like trying to declare the whole endeavour of personal health is unresolvable by getting stuck on arguments between surgeons and dieticians or something.

And so your approach is to try to make her look foolish and unreasonable, and make it seems as if she is simply creating a problem out of nothing.

Even the above assessment of her position - in analogy - is not a fair one. It is belittling and does not work as an analogy to what she presented as a question in the OP and title.

My experience of you is that you twist what I say and try to present it in the worst possible light, make it seem like I am being stupid and there is no possible basis for what I am saying. I think you are doing this with Signal too.

If you see your actions here as in service to God, I can only give you the feedback that you are very confused about how you come across and how to meet someone with spiritual issues. If you want to blame Signal for the way you are behaving, then I do not think you understand your own religion very well.

This does not mean, obviously, that I think you need to agree her, but it does mean that it does not help things along having a non-charitable interpretation, repeatedly, of what someone is saying who you disagree with.

I would seriously suggest you ask your guru or whatever more longer term devotees you respect to help you evaluate both what you are actually doing here and how you are going about this.

my point is that action arises from knowledge and that due to your generous definition of action, you have no "room" left to define knowledge.

For the very reasons you do not choose to act by telling people on what you consider lower stages of spiritual evolution that you think they are on those stages, I consider the interpersonal act of speaking, yes, an action.

You keep making it sound like I am being strange or unreasonable, but you do not explain why it is odd to consider such speech acts, actions.

That's why I challenged you to define knowledge - which you didn't ...

Frankly it is not relevent. It is you who seemed to think that telling people things is not an action. Now you are making the claim that this leaves no room for knowledge, to view communication as actions, without demonstrating why this would be the case.

Think of it like this. The president's military advisers has certain behaviors which define him as listening/being obedient to the president. So does his wife. So how is it that two different types of people can display totally different behaviours (to the point of being contradictory) in accordance with the will of a single personality?

This is also irrelevent. It is a response to an argument I am not making. I am sure it is an argument you face here. But it is not one I am making. I am telling you that Jews and Muslims would consider you to be wildly overestimating your knowledge and that you are not humble enough. And I can only assume you would think they are confused when they would say this.

You may be polite and not say that you consider most of them at early stages in spiritual evolution than you and thus subject to the confusions and limitations of those stages. In fact I would guess you would be reticent to say this - perhaps intuitively understanding that speech act are acts - but the truth is you do think they are in these earlier stages and if you did say them, they would judge you - at the very least - as not being humble. If most of the world's theists think that most of the world's theists are not humble, which is the case, I cannot see how your defending them against this charge is tenable. And, as I said, they would not return the favor.

please convince the president's military adviser to behave like the president's wife and watch the tabloid headlines manifest ....

Not the point at all. Completely irrevelent. I am not criticizing them for acting differentlly. I am not arguing there is no God because they do. I am not saying they are not hearing from God.

Only if I imagine a university professor invited to give a lecture to prep school students would approach the problem in that way ... which of course I don't ....

Well, I can see that via analogy you would consider yourself a university professor lecturing prep school students - something which does happen by the way - if you were to tell Muslims and Jews what you believe - that the pork issue is a mere detail.

It is good to know the extent of what a humble self-conception can be.

Further it is good to know that you consider some speech acts inappropriate to perform. But not any of the one's that bother Signal.

So you could have acknowledged that yes, there can be problems with theists saying things that are true, but would be inappropriate and this perhaps happens quite a lot out there, iow speech acts, even ones that merely relay truths can be problematic,
but instead your approach is to make it seems like the whole issue is made up and that really the problem, which you then feedback in a skewed form, is of your making Signal.

And now me.

Signal seems to have more patience than me.

But I cannot repeatedly have what I say twisted or dealt with evasively and continue a conversation.

I am putting you on ignore.

I know I should be more like you and just imply the ad homs, I suppose that is more holy.

 

[Yazata]

Is a person who believes themselves to be acting in the world doing God's will, humble?

It implies that they have knowledge of what God's will is. So they are implicitly claiming to possess a tremendous gnosis, I guess. There's also an implicit moral suggestion that if you disagree with what they are doing, then you are challenging God himself.

So if we give the claim a strong and literal interpretation, it's about as far from humility as one can get. It's very close to being a claim to be a Biblical or Islamic style prophet.

Having said that, I think that in real life theists typically don't mean anything nearly so grandiose as that. If they say that they are trying to do God's will, that's probably just their way of saying that they are trying to do the right thing and behave ethically, as they see it.

You know, perhaps it really does sound humble to them, because they are trying to conform their will to what they believe is God's will, instead of deciding what's right and wrong for themselves through their own autonomous human powers. To them, that's accepting God's lordship and their creaturehood, instead of rebelling against it and presuming to put themselves in God's holy place.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all possess an implicit monarchical model in which God is "Lord" and imagined as if he was an ancient king.

Of course, this peculiar idea of humility assumes that a religious choice has already been made that's of even more moment than any ethical decision that these people deny that they are making. They assume that they already know what the correct religion is and what God's intentions for them are.

I'm kind of an existentialist in these matters and question whether human beings can escape our own personal responsibility for our decisions and actions nearly as easily as that. It's always going to be our choice, even if we meekly choose to always defer to somebody else.

 

[lightgigantic]

I am not sure what that means.

it means you can't empower knowledge while one is humble.
yes/no

1) is that what you are doing with Signal?
Really? It doesn't sound like it. It sounds bitter to me and clever, in the negative sense used in Buddhism. It seems like a battle. Do you really see yourself as coexisting in humility with Signal and that you are trying to benefit the other?

No more clever than a complete absence on your behalf to play the same line of questioning to Signal .... or are you trying to say that obligational relationships only have one set of persons who are required to bear obligations?

2) All I was pointing out was that you repeatedly make it knowing and both Signal and I have made it clear it is not about simply knowing.

You are still not giving a clear answer on whether you think humility can co-exist in an obligational relationship

What does that have to do with me knowing Obama's will? That was the statement in context.

Nothing provided one thinks part time workers in grocery stores bear the same will/decision issues as presidents

And even the statement 'I know Obama.' If I went around saying that to people it would, in English, mean something much more than knowing his job.

google "know obama"

I think the way you argue is often disrespectful, because it seems very much an attempt to make the other person seem like an idiot. Oh, Gosh, how stupid of me, sure, I know Obama doesn't work in a grocery store part time.

I don't argue against your person but your ideas.

For instance you are making the argument one cannot make statements of knowledge unless one is an expert. You suggest you cannot make claims about Obama because you are not an expert.
I point out how even you can make a claim of knowledge about Obama without being an expert by rejecting the notion that he works part time at a grocery store.
Similarly the notion that one cannot begin to hope to make heads or tails about god suffers from the same weaknesses.

IOW in certain circumstances you utilize the same knowledge theory that you claim theists abide by.

So I see this asking of the question, that really isn't quite or in context all, in this fashion as disrespectful discussion and really laughable if the goal is service to God.

Actually the goal at the moment is to highlight the weaknesses of your argument about god being unknowable or theists riding a weak form of knowledge theory

My artificial attempt to inhibit dialogue? Waht are you talking about?

Like Mauna or something - ie adopting a practice of verbal silence in a bid to quell the mind's fertile ability to capitulate the consciousness with ideas

I would not say I know Obama or his will. This is me being honest.

yet you can reject the notion that he wants you to go to your local store and buy the milk on special since there is a surplus or any of a million other will based directives you would expect to come from a grocery store worker

I have never said those things or anything similar about some famous person, there was nothing tactical or artificial about it. I wouldn't make the statement because it is not true.

just because you may (artificially)avoid externally let rip with normative descriptions that define personalities, you have the tools to reject descriptions that clash with (obvious) representations - such as the claim obama works part time at a grocery store

Well, I am consistent on that one. I don't vote.

So you have never voted in any form on anything?

It would not just be the fanatical element of Christians who would think you are making epistemological mistakes in worshipping a guru. And I can only assume you would think that in this they are overestimating their abilities to judge such things. IOW not being humble. Let alone Muslims.

and if they have philosophical issues, they can present them - that would make it a philosophical discourse. IOW you preempt that all such discussions are made without philosophical discourse.

Nope. Try that as a response to sexual abuse victims.

wrong.
humility is especially an important component for angry people to self repair.

Of course that's not the context. The context is in the act of making specific statements.

"mexicans are humble" is not a statement?

It is you who brought up the issue of prep school versus college. It is in your belief system that there are stages of evolution spiritually and other religions than yours tend to cater to earlier conceptions of God. (I don't think I said lesser/greater so again you respond askew. I do not respect this kind of twisting what another says)

Then its a misinterpretation on your behalf to suggest that higher levels of theory translate as higher levels of application which makes university students "better" than prep students or whatever.

Well, no. But it's good you avoid trying to demonstrate this through reasoning.

Just try and demonstrate a state bereft of normative opinions ...

So Catholicism at the very least has not been valid most of its existence and arguably today.

So because I might popint at a sore point of one detail the whole thing is now invalid?
how does that work?

Also any Christian religion where one must accept Jesus or one will not get to God, Heaven. Likewise much of Islam.

ditto above

UM, you've now continued to twist bizzarely my refusal to say I know Obama or I know Obama's will to meaning I do not know any facts about him.

My point is that even you can draw ideas about his will from the facts you know about him.

As if a theist only know facts about God when they say they know God or know they are doing God's will.

Perhaps English is not your native language, but if I say I know someone, it indicates much more than I know facts about this person. If I say I know I am doing their will, it means I have an incredibly confident sense of what this person's internal life is all about.

Not in the slightest since a major aspect of world leaders as a class (or even the mere position of "world leader" in a particular field) is about establishing a willed idea that multitudes (multitudes above and beyond the handful or so people that it is humanly possible to communicate one's inner life to) follow.

And so your approach is to try to make her look foolish and unreasonable,

My policy is about ideas not people.
What's yours?

For the very reasons you do not choose to act by telling people on what you consider lower stages of spiritual evolution that you think they are on those stages, I consider the interpersonal act of speaking, yes, an action.

I don't see how that is a definition of knowledge.
I was asking for your definition of knowledge because the definition of action you offered is far far too broad.
I think you will see that the moment you offer a definition of knowledge.

You keep making it sound like I am being strange or unreasonable, but you do not explain why it is odd to consider such speech acts, actions.

I don't.

As mentioned earlier, I consider action as arising from knowledge - so it becomes absurd to discuss action that has no basis in knowledge or whatever.

Frankly it is not relevent.

This is also irrelevent. It is a response to an argument I am not making. I am sure it is an argument you face here. But it is not one I am making. I am telling you that Jews and Muslims would consider you to be wildly overestimating your knowledge and that you are not humble enough. And I can only assume you would think they are confused when they would say this.

and the basis of this is what exactly?
That the reason they level this charge is because there are conflicting behaviours, all of which are said to be in obedience to one said personality?... hence suppose we had a president and his wife and a military adviser ...

You may be polite and not say that you consider most of them at early stages in spiritual evolution than you and thus subject to the confusions and limitations of those stages.

Only if I thought that higher/lower levels of theory automatically translate into higher\lower levels of application ... which for the record, I didn't say ....

In fact I would guess you would be reticent to say this - perhaps intuitively understanding that speech act are acts - but the truth is you do think they are in these earlier stages and if you did say them, they would judge you - at the very least - as not being humble.

Time, place and circumstance is everything.

Unless your immediate reaction to a 6 year old's drawing is to comment how you can do it better, you agree.

If most of the world's theists think that most of the world's theists are not humble, which is the case, I cannot see how your defending them against this charge is tenable. And, as I said, they would not return the favor.

Here's a quick list of problems with your definition of humility and its application.

1. It requires a state bereft of normative opinions
2. You think that because one doesn't defer to another (regardless of the context) they are not being humble
3. You try to establish humility in accordance to cultural groups (eg christians/ muslims etc) which is just as far fetched as applying it so mothers/fathers, men with moustaches/men without.

Not the point at all. Completely irrevelent. I am not criticizing them for acting differentlly. I am not arguing there is no God because they do. I am not saying they are not hearing from God.

How does that work?
Since the behaviors of the military adviser and the wife conflict, the president doesn't exist?

Well, I can see that via analogy you would consider yourself a university professor lecturing prep school students - something which does happen by the way -

I know.
You might also be surprised to learn that representatives from other religions give lectures to other religious groups.

if you were to tell Muslims and Jews what you believe - that the pork issue is a mere detail.

Why talk of different religions?
Even within the confines of the same religious traditions there is (sometimes heated) debate between what constitutes a detail and what constitutes a principle.

It is good to know the extent of what a humble self-conception can be.

Its even better to have a practical model

Further it is good to know that you consider some speech acts inappropriate to perform. But not any of the one's that bother Signal.

So you could have acknowledged that yes, there can be problems with theists saying things that are true, but would be inappropriate and this perhaps happens quite a lot out there, iow speech acts, even ones that merely relay truths can be problematic,
but instead your approach is to make it seems like the whole issue is made up and that really the problem, which you then feedback in a skewed form, is of your making Signal.

like what?
arguing an alternative POV?

And now me.

Signal seems to have more patience than me.

But I cannot repeatedly have what I say twisted or dealt with evasively and continue a conversation.

I am putting you on ignore.

I know I should be more like you and just imply the ad homs, I suppose that is more holy.

perhaps you would feel more comfortable having discussions with persons who agree with you