Is a person who claims to know God, humble?

[Pineal]

They say that anything is good - as long as it is employed in the service of God. This includes anger.

Which would mean, then, that there is a motivation to deny anger that seemed more personal, might be personal or was personal. To channel it into a more acceptable emotion or lack thereof.

I wonder, of the theists who come here, if they frequent theist forums from other traditions. If not, why not? What specific purpose would exposure to atheists, primarily, be a part of?

I have participated in one that was specifically for atheists and mainly Christians. It was interesting to be in this third area there. I think it helped me understand what I was and wasn't, and what my issues in fact were.

 

[wynn]

Which would mean, then, that there is a motivation to deny anger that seemed more personal, might be personal or was personal. To channel it into a more acceptable emotion or lack thereof.

Notice the conspicuous absence of those theists here?


EDIT:
It should be noted that some theists do not view their thoughts and emotions as theirs. By some, the mind and the body are seen as God's energies - and so trying to take responsibility for one's thoughts and emotions, considering them one's own would in fact be an attempt to usurp God's ownership of His property.
It seems those theists see their thoughts and emotions as circumstances which they happen to find themselves in. They do not identify with them, the way people usually do.

I wonder, of the theists who come here, if they frequent theist forums from other traditions. If not, why not? What specific purpose would exposure to atheists, primarily, be a part of?

Go ye like sheep among lions!

I have participated in one that was specifically for atheists and mainly Christians. It was interesting to be in this third area there. I think it helped me understand what I was and wasn't, and what my issues in fact were.

Sure.

 

[Pineal]

Notice the conspicuous absence of those theists here?

I actually am not sure whether to take this as ironic or not.

EDIT:
It should be noted that some theists do not view their thoughts and emotions as theirs. By some, the mind and the body are seen as God's energies - and so trying to take responsibility for one's thoughts and emotions, considering them one's own would in fact be an attempt to usurp God's ownership of His property.
It seems those theists see their thoughts and emotions as circumstances which they happen to find themselves in. They do not identify with them, the way people usually do.

Oddly one could argue that Buddhists believe this also, though without the God part.

Go ye like sheep among lions!

Ah, but....

5 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues.

 

[wynn]

Oddly one could argue that Buddhists believe this also, though without the God part.

Sure. And technically, so do proponents of CBT, DBT and probably ACT as well as some others.

 

[Pineal]

Sure. And technically, so do proponents of CBT, DBT and probably ACT as well as some others.

Good point! LOL.

And there is something brutally Hericlitian Daoist when people say something in the family of

There are plenty of fish in the sea

to people whose suffering only increases when they hear this.

 

[wynn]

It's a dog-eat-dog world. Everyone needs to learn this, nicely, or in the school of hard knocks.

 

[Pineal]

An important issue that has not, I think, been mentioned:

infallibility of authorities.

A theist who is denying responsibility - a developed skill or gift - for the knowledge, by referring to the authority - scripture, guru, Pope, etc. - often considers these things infallible.

Once the possibility that this authority could, for example, have many truths, but also be culturally biased and wrong about certain things, the theist who continues to believe in the infallibility (and universal applicability) of said authority, is deciding, whether they want to face it or not, that they can make a global evaluation of said authority
and accurately.

Given the number of examples of authorities that get some things right but also make errors, this possibility and the complete nature of their intuitive decision should not need to be pointed out to them, but I find it does.

If the theist thinks the authority is fallible but primarily correct, this now leaves open all the kinds of intuitive and reasoned work said theist would need to do before passing on with certainty any particular belief based on this authority.

Here epistemology is an ongoing concern and should be something the person is conscious of. And if they are not, they are being irresponsible and this should be easy to deduce.

I think in fact this is often the motivation for the global evaluation of infallibility. The theist need only make one huge evaluation with epistemological issues and then pretend this never happened as an epistemological event. There is no ongoing stress of having to evaluate - Jesus' implicit support for slavery for example - specific beliefs in-system.

So when the non-theist or neophyte raises issues here, it can be felt as menacing.

 

[wynn]

I think one of the most important factors here actually is the fact that said theists who refer to authorities are members of a religious/spiritual organization.

Being a member defines so many aspects of the person's life - from the entirely practical ones, to social, psychological and philosophical ones.

The emic - etic distinction is helpful to understand this.

A theist who is denying responsibility - a developed skill or gift - for the knowledge, by referring to the authority - scripture, guru, Pope, etc. - often considers these things infallible.

Since he is a member of said organization, it is not his to take responsibility for that.

Once the possibility that this authority could, for example, have many truths, but also be culturally biased and wrong about certain things, the theist who continues to believe in the infallibility (and universal applicability) of said authority, is deciding, whether they want to face it or not, that they can make a global evaluation of said authority
and accurately.

I think that most esp. religious organizations have such doctrinal principles that allow for a (re)evaluation of people in authoritative positions in line with said doctrinal principles - without therefore having to doubt the organization, its doctrines or persons who are considered authoritative.

One of the simplest of these principles is "You're not humble enough to understand this, therefore, you must not doubt it."
There are also more advanced ones that contextualize everything and make it impossible for there to be any decisive act of discernment (other than that the person removes themselves from said religion on account that they are not advanced and not worthy enough to be a member).

The decision-making situation that you describe never actually occurs.

Given the number of examples of authorities that get some things right but also make errors, this possibility and the complete nature of their intuitive decision should not need to be pointed out to them, but I find it does.

I think many people view their choice of religion as they view their choice of race: it is a given, it is not actually a choice.

If the theist thinks the authority is fallible but primarily correct, this now leaves open all the kinds of intuitive and reasoned work said theist would need to do before passing on with certainty any particular belief based on this authority.

This is where the doctrinal principles that allow for a (re)evaluation come in.

I do not know of any religion that would actually have doctrinal principles that could undermine it.
Technically, this makes for circular reasoning, of course.

Here epistemology is an ongoing concern and should be something the person is conscious of. And if they are not, they are being irresponsible and this should be easy to deduce.

And they are conscious of it: within the bounds of the doctrinal principles of their religion.

So when the non-theist or neophyte raises issues here, it can be felt as menacing.

How can a non-member raise relevant issues?

A non-member can be bothersome, tedious, but does not have the capacity or qualification to raise relevant issues.
And the non-member is stupid for thinking he can raise such issues.

 

[Pineal]

Edit: I answered this quite quickly and after realized I was taking certain questions as positions.

Since he is a member of said organization, it is not his to take responsibility for that.

Are you speaking objectively, assuming that the rules stated and unstated within the religion are correct? Or are you saying such a person is being consistent to sub-culture rules? IOW not necessarily acting rationally, morally or with intuitive skill. At the extreme is this not what the Nazis said, that they were following the orders of their culture?

I suppose I am also saying: just because their is a rational and perhaps a denial, does this mean I must take this as objective or off limits to notice and criticize?

I think that most esp. religious organizations have such doctrinal principles that allow for a (re)evaluation of people in authoritative positions in line with said doctrinal principles - without therefore having to doubt the organization, its doctrines or persons who are considered authoritative.

One of the simplest of these principles is "You're not humble enough to understand this, therefore, you must not doubt it."

Yes, I recognize some forms of this pattern.

There are also more advanced ones that contextualize everything and make it impossible for there to be any decisive act of discernment (other than that the person removes themselves from said religion on account that they are not advanced and not worthy enough to be a member).

The decision-making situation that you describe never actually occurs.

I think it does occur, actually. I do not think it is framed this way.

I think many people view their choice of religion as they view their choice of race: it is a given, it is not actually a choice.

Sure, and I was born into ideas that were givens also. But at a certain point they fit or don't, feel right or not. I can choose to notice these reactions or not. And if I do not have them, even a flicker of them bothering me at the edges of my consciousness, then I am aligned with them.

This is where the doctrinal principles that allow for a (re)evaluation come in.

I do not know of any religion that would actually have doctrinal principles that could undermine it.
Technically, this makes for circular reasoning, of course.

But then, so does a doctrine confirming itself and serving as the grounds for itself.

I would say also that some indigenous religions allowed for changes in the religion to come from many sources. There was some hierarchy, but anyone could have a vision or dream or insight and the religions changed over time.

Most religions, I think, are doctrines based on individual divergences from other religions. Christianity, Islam, Protestantism, the various Buddhisms as they moved East. My sense is this is true for Hinduism also, but I can't remember the slightest detail.

And they are conscious of it: within the bounds of the doctrinal principles of their religion.

I think they are conscious of it. I think there are many Catholics, for example, who do not think one cannot question the Pope. They do not have scriptural permission, but then his status is a little hazy in the Bible.

How can a non-member raise relevant issues?

A non-member can be bothersome, tedious, but does not have the capacity or qualification to raise relevant issues.
And the non-member is stupid for thinking he can raise such issues.

Let's say you have a cult that thinks if it commits suicide it will end up on flying saucers. (real cult) A neophyte or outsider questions this, perhaps after a time. Perhaps based purely on intuition.

I don't think such a person is being stupid.

Your position - if it is your position - seems to make every religion objective in its little region. But insights may be arriving, perhaps even from God, via outsiders.

Perhaps the suicide process is right for some of those people, but not for all. So when the neophyte questions this, she is correct at least for herself and the cult leader is confused when thinking it is right for all or a mistake not to join in the suicides.

Or the outsider parent of a member.

In other words I cannot see the neophyte or outsider critics being ruled out categorically.

Nor can I rule out Martin Luther's critique even though he was not the Pope. Or Jesus' reformulations. Etc.

This does not mean that the outsider or the neophyte must be taken as right or has the right to demolish the sect. I cannot by category make either side, if they are on sides, objectively right and one not to be questioned challenged.

On a personal note: in the Hindu tradition I was in, I was repeatedly told to bring everything to the guru. So I did. I think there is organizational practice in a number of religions - at least formally - to allow doubt, ciriticism, objections even to be raised as part of one on one encounters with religious leaders. In practice this may be much more like walking into a room to get spit on. And, in fact, I did not get direct responses, for the most part, and there was some weird and frankly creepy and disconnnected ways the guru 'communicated' with me via a very close friend who stayed in the religion. But the process worked for me anyway.

 

[wynn]

Are you speaking objectively, assuming that the rules stated and unstated within the religion are correct?

From the insider perspective, they certainly are.

Or are you saying such a person is being consistent to sub-culture rules?

Yes. (Although the insider doesn't consider their culture to be a sub-culture.)

IOW not necessarily acting rationally, morally or with intuitive skill.

What it means to "act rationally, morally or with intuitive skill" depends on the particular group that the speaker belongs to.

You seem to be assuming there is such a thing as group-independent thinking, but I don't think there is much of that, even theoretically possible, and whatever there is, is limited to some immediate experiences.

At the extreme is this not what the Nazis said, that they were following the orders of their culture?

This is an oft-cited example that doesn't show anything other than that the judges (and those who side with them) presume themselves to be right, to be morally superior, to be acting rationally, morally or with intuitive skill that is objective and in no way group-dependent.

Even if one doesn't belong to a particular party, clique, nation or any other kind of social group, this does not do away with the fact that humans are communal beings and their cognition is defined by the society they live in. Even if this society is pluralistic, with incoherent beliefs etc.

Moreover, that Nazi answer needs to be seen in context of what the after-war courts were seen as by the Nazis: the Nazis didn't see those courts as legitimate. So why would they open up to them, acknowledge them?

"I was just following orders" is the standard reply of soldiers that doesn't imply they are mindless automatons. It means that they are not willing to open up to an instance they do not consider legitimate.
Those same soldiers would probably speak quite differently when in a court whose legitimacy they acknowledge.
I think most people are like that anyway, and it is the sane thing to do.



When the Nazis were trialed, the judges, too, "were just following the orders of their culture."

I suppose I am also saying: just because their is a rational and perhaps a denial, does this mean I must take this as objective or off limits to notice and criticize?

What would you like to accomplish with this noticing and criticism?

Let's say you have a cult that thinks if it commits suicide it will end up on flying saucers. (real cult) A neophyte or outsider questions this, perhaps after a time. Perhaps based purely on intuition.

I don't think such a person is being stupid.

But he is not a member either, and won't enjoy whatever benefits members enjoy.

Your position - if it is your position - seems to make every religion objective in its little region.

Which is precisely what each religion or other social group thinks.

But insights may be arriving, perhaps even from God, via outsiders.

And they are still filtered through the existing doctrines: not every insight is accepted.

In other words I cannot see the neophyte or outsider critics being ruled out categorically.

Ruled out by whom, in relation to what?

This does not mean that the outsider or the neophyte must be taken as right or has the right to demolish the sect. I cannot by category make either side, if they are on sides, objectively right and one not to be questioned challenged.

Again: What do you hope to accomplish by challenging them?


My assumption is that when one challenges a group that one does not belong to, it is for the purpose of one's own safety (as one presumes said group to be threatening to one's own safety, in one way or another, materially or psychologically); or for the purpose to act in line with one's expansive nature, the desire to control others as such.

I think there is organizational practice in a number of religions - at least formally - to allow doubt, ciriticism, objections even to be raised as part of one on one encounters with religious leaders.

Sure. But I have gotten the impression that those are actually merely Q&A sessions in order to teach and learn the doctrine right.

Just the other day I've seen a book about doubts about Jesus and God, and it is in an Q&A format.

 

[Pineal]

From the insider perspective, they certainly are.

But does that become your perspective automatically for all religions and organizations?

Yes. (Although the insider doesn't consider their culture to be a sub-culture.)

But what I meant here was for you they are one amongst many. Must you adopt insider perspective when judging neophytes and critics?

What it means to "act rationally, morally or with intuitive skill" depends on the particular group that the speaker belongs to.

So one cannot judge anyone not in one's group or decide that the groups sense of what must be good for you - if the group universalizes, which most, but not all do - is what is good for you?

You seem to be assuming there is such a thing as group-independent thinking, but I don't think there is much of that, even theoretically possible, and whatever there is, is limited to some immediate experiences.

If there isn't group independent thinking, then you have a group and judge from the perspective of that group, and thus you can judge the rules and mores and practices of other groups. If you have group-independent thinking then you could also have this in relation to those groups, even when you explore one of them.

This is an oft-cited example that doesn't show anything other than that the judges (and those who side with them) presume themselves to be right, to be morally superior, to be acting rationally, morally or with intuitive skill that is objective and in no way group-dependent.

So is not judging an attempt to be independent of group thinking?

Even if one doesn't belong to a particular party, clique, nation or any other kind of social group, this does not do away with the fact that humans are communal beings and their cognition is defined by the society they live in. Even if this society is pluralistic, with incoherent beliefs etc.

Then, again, you will have these beliefs and as much right to judge, or lack therein, others, other groups and their ideas.

Why the rule that once one is a beginner or a neophyte one must give this up? And isn't this, therefore, an idea that is group dependent? Once you state this as the case, generalizing, aren't you now judging all neophytes and beginners and outsiders who dare to question a group's ideas from your group perspective, whatever that is?

Why is that OK?

Moreover, that Nazi answer needs to be seen in context of what the after-war courts were seen as by the Nazis: the Nazis didn't see those courts as legitimate. So why would they open up to them, acknowledge them?

To justify one's actions on the witness stand is to legitimate a proceeding.

"I was just following orders" is the standard reply of soldiers that doesn't imply they are mindless automatons. It means that they are not willing to open up to an instance they do not consider legitimate.
Those same soldiers would probably speak quite differently when in a court whose legitimacy they acknowledge.
I think most people are like that anyway, and it is the sane thing to do.

I don't think this is the case. I think many saw that as a legitimate excuse for what they did. And sometimes, I think it is.

When the Nazis were trialed, the judges, too, "were just following the orders of their culture."

And when a neophyte or beginner or outsider questions the practices of a religion, are they not following their culture. If they are, then it can be OK for them. If not, then we are not necessarily bound.

What would you like to accomplish with this noticing and criticism?

I am arguing against notion, which seemed implicit, that the outsider, neophyte must, in interactions with a group, accept their rules for his or her own behavior and thinking?

But he is not a member either, and won't enjoy whatever benefits members enjoy.

Not necessarily. He may question, then come around. And yes, he may then later decide to leave the group and then whatever benefits he personally might have gained will be lost in this context. I am arguing against the rule that such a person has no grounds and must not question. Not that you have stated this last, but it seems like it might be implicit. The neophyte might not have gotten any benefits, there might not be any for him or her in the religion. This seems like most people would think that this is possible. IOW the Muslim would think that a neophyte Christian who has problems and expresses them to his pastor and eventually decides to shift to Islam was not being immoral or misusing a process, whatever said Muslim may think of someone doing the same thing as a neophyte Muslim. It seems like every group can imagine that some neophytes are correct to raise doubts, take them seriously in some contexts. Even if they universalize their own religion being right for everyone, in fact because they do. Those who feel there are best vehicles for individuals also accept this.

Which is precisely what each religion or other social group thinks.

Most think they are objective, period. And why does their thinking this mean I or you or outsiders must think this? Or does it?

And they are still filtered through the existing doctrines: not every insight is accepted.

But they are not categorically rejected. I am not saying that every group must change itself to fit outsiders or neophytes. I am rejecting what seemed like the position: neophytes must accept everything in the group thinking, including, generally the idea that if you have a problem with doctrine, you are or have the problem. There cannot be an illfit with the religion - it is not for you - it cannot be that the religion has a problem.

Ruled out by whom, in relation to what?

Ruled out by you. I am not sure if you believe what I am responding to, but it sounds like you are saying that neophytes and outsiders are in the wrong if they judge the tenets of any religion. And you would include yourself in this rule.

Again: What do you hope to accomplish by challenging them?

I am challenging the idea that one must go along with whatever group thinking one encounters. What do you hope to accomplish by criticising theists?

My assumption is that when one challenges a group that one does not belong to, it is for the purpose of one's own safety (as one presumes said group to be threatening to one's own safety, in one way or another, materially or psychologically); or for the purpose to act in line with one's expansive nature, the desire to control others as such.

Does this hold for your posts critical of theists?

Sure. But I have gotten the impression that those are actually merely Q&A sessions in order to teach and learn the doctrine right.

My doubts were my doubts. I think part of my motive was, indeed, to see if I could settle them, get with the program, but I could not know in advance that they would only end up being portions of pedagogical instances. They were doubts or problems with. I could not be objective about them and from this objective perspective assume the responses would settle me, then I would not have had doubts or problems with. My questions would have been mere curiousity. Which would have been fine. But they were doubts and problems with.

I have gone through such processes in a variety of contexts where my doubts have been met with what made it OK. I was shown something I had missed, was immature about, had assumed, etc. In those instance the doubts and problems with fell into the past and were part of learning experiences. But I never knew in advance. This has happened in relationships, taken in a broad sense, of various kinds.

I am resisting what seems like the rule that the neophyte must view themselves as resistant if they have doubts or problems with. Or that an outsider, coming in contact with a group, must accept, for example, the generalization that really that group's philosophy should be his or hers also, at least as long as the interaction is taking place.

I do not think the Christian or other group member or the entire group should bend to any neophyte's doubts or issues - though I do not rule out this perhaps being good for them to do. Most religions, it seems to me, are founded on split offs created by individuals who thought doctrine was wrong at least in part. IOW they all are basing their doctrines on those who questioned or changed doctrine. So their is implicit acknowledgement that resistence to and critique of doctrine can be good. But that is on a very high level.

On a more individual level, perhaps the priest, when meeting the doubts of a neophyte to Catholicism, realizes that he no longer wants to be a priest. That some of the issues reverberate for him, even, on a personal level. Perhaps he realizes that sex is something he wants and some of the questions by a fledgling priest, struggling with celibacy, lead to his own sense - this is not right for me. Perhaps other issues with another neophyte lead to him leaving Catholicism, because Protestantism comes to feel right during these meetings.

I cannot rule this interaction out and say the less experienced were wrong to take their own doubts seriously and for raising them not simply as deviations to be righted pedagogically. That they consider this possible seems to fit the context, that they must assume this must be the case seems too much.

Note: again, I am not saying the insider must yield to the ideas of the neophyte and presume that they are correct (for the insider, in general). I reject the rule that the neophyte must view themselves as being a mere vessel for the doctrine before this feels and seems right to him or her. Likewise the outsider.

I don't walk up to Jehovah's Witnesses on the street and start to tell them why I think they are wrong. When they show up at my door I have gotten into discussions with them and basically presented my reactions to what they were presenting me with. I do not think this was wrong and neither did they for that matter. They certainly assumed I was wrong in my ideas that differed from theirs, but they did not think it was wrong that I presented them. I might have been just lucky with my JWs. I certainly wasn't trying to get them to leave the JWs.

 

[wynn]

From the insider perspective, they certainly are.
But does that become your perspective automatically for all religions and organizations?

Sure.

But what I meant here was for you they are one amongst many.

Sure, this is something that I see (and have a problem with), and something they don't see.

Must you adopt insider perspective when judging neophytes and critics?

I wasn't, I qualify my comments as to which direction they are coming from (emic or etic).

What it means to "act rationally, morally or with intuitive skill" depends on the particular group that the speaker belongs to.

So one cannot judge anyone not in one's group or decide that the groups sense of what must be good for you - if the group universalizes, which most, but not all do - is what is good for you?

Judge in what sense? To either accept or reject?

You seem to be assuming there is such a thing as group-independent thinking, but I don't think there is much of that, even theoretically possible, and whatever there is, is limited to some immediate experiences.

If there isn't group independent thinking, then you have a group and judge from the perspective of that group, and thus you can judge the rules and mores and practices of other groups. If you have group-independent thinking then you could also have this in relation to those groups, even when you explore one of them.

My default assumption is that it not possible to be outside of a social group.

One is always part of some social group, regardless of how incoherent, unstable this group may be.

This is an oft-cited example that doesn't show anything other than that the judges (and those who side with them) presume themselves to be right, to be morally superior, to be acting rationally, morally or with intuitive skill that is objective and in no way group-dependent.

So is not judging an attempt to be independent of group thinking?

I am sure some people think so.

Even if one doesn't belong to a particular party, clique, nation or any other kind of social group, this does not do away with the fact that humans are communal beings and their cognition is defined by the society they live in. Even if this society is pluralistic, with incoherent beliefs etc.

Then, again, you will have these beliefs and as much right to judge, or lack therein, others, other groups and their ideas.

Why the rule that once one is a beginner or a neophyte one must give this up?

It's not that the beginner must give this up: it's that the beginner does give it up. It's essential to being a member, even if in the beginning stages.

Moreover, that Nazi answer needs to be seen in context of what the after-war courts were seen as by the Nazis: the Nazis didn't see those courts as legitimate. So why would they open up to them, acknowledge them?

To justify one's actions on the witness stand is to legitimate a proceeding.

I don't think so.

If you are a hostage in a bank and the armed robber says to you "If I shoot these people here, it will be your fault" - do you believe him? Will you consider yourself guilty if he shoots them? Do you consider the robber to be a legitimate authority on what you are to think and feel and what your responsibilities are? Does your complying with the robber's request to open the bank safe mean that you believe this is the right thing to do, regardless of circumstances?
Probably not.

I don't think this is the case. I think many saw that as a legitimate excuse for what they did. And sometimes, I think it is.

Sometimes, it is, but not always. We can't see into people's minds.

I am arguing against notion, which seemed implicit, that the outsider, neophyte must, in interactions with a group, accept their rules for his or her own behavior and thinking?

The usual situation for neophytes or beginners is that they freely go to some location that is maintained by the members of a group.
It's not clear why a person would "keep doing their own thing" - while they physically place themselves, and freely at that, into a location where the people there strive to uphold particular standards that are different than the person's.

Not necessarily. He may question, then come around. And yes, he may then later decide to leave the group and then whatever benefits he personally might have gained will be lost in this context. I am arguing against the rule that such a person has no grounds and must not question. Not that you have stated this last, but it seems like it might be implicit. The neophyte might not have gotten any benefits, there might not be any for him or her in the religion. This seems like most people would think that this is possible. IOW the Muslim would think that a neophyte Christian who has problems and expresses them to his pastor and eventually decides to shift to Islam was not being immoral or misusing a process, whatever said Muslim may think of someone doing the same thing as a neophyte Muslim. It seems like every group can imagine that some neophytes are correct to raise doubts, take them seriously in some contexts. Even if they universalize their own religion being right for everyone, in fact because they do. Those who feel there are best vehicles for individuals also accept this.

I am proposing that when one is considering to join a religion that is new to one, one ought to be as rigorous and as cautious as possible.

Ideally, one should research said religion on one's own as much as possible, with the help of information available via libraries, bookstores, television, radio, the internet, presentations of said religion that are hosted by neutral, preferrably academic institutions.
One ought to plan one's first visit carefully, and ideally decide after the first visit whether this is the religion they wish to follow for the rest of their life.

Visiting a religious place for months or even years, in an effort to "see how things are there" and to "get some first-hand experience" is not feasible, nor does it make one a beginner or a neophyte - it just makes one a guest who is not aware he has overextended his stay.

Which is precisely what each religion or other social group thinks.

Most think they are objective, period. And why does their thinking this mean I or you or outsiders must think this? Or does it?

I think many people who are seekers and who are trying out new religions for themselves, do not realize how serious all this is. Many do not realize what kind of trouble they can easily get themselves in that way.

Ruled out by you. I am not sure if you believe what I am responding to, but it sounds like you are saying that neophytes and outsiders are in the wrong if they judge the tenets of any religion. And you would include yourself in this rule.

I think outsiders cannot meaningfully assess the tenets or practices of a religion.

Neophytes are in completely different category than outsiders; neophytes are technically already members.

My assumption is that when one challenges a group that one does not belong to, it is for the purpose of one's own safety (as one presumes said group to be threatening to one's own safety, in one way or another, materially or psychologically); or for the purpose to act in line with one's expansive nature, the desire to control others as such.

Does this hold for your posts critical of theists?

Yes, in both senses.

My doubts were my doubts. I think part of my motive was, indeed, to see if I could settle them, get with the program, but I could not know in advance that they would only end up being portions of pedagogical instances. They were doubts or problems with. I could not be objective about them and from this objective perspective assume the responses would settle me, then I would not have had doubts or problems with. My questions would have been mere curiousity. Which would have been fine. But they were doubts and problems with.

According to my categorization, you would be a visitor there, not a neophyte/beginner. There can be a lot of confusion around one's actual status in a religion.
I used to think that I was a beginner; but I don't think so anymore. I was a visitor, and a very confused and immature one at that.

Or that an outsider, coming in contact with a group, must accept, for example, the generalization that really that group's philosophy should be his or hers also, at least as long as the interaction is taking place.

I am generally not suggesting that. But if the outsider freely visits a group, then I think it is reasonable to expect that he will not question the group's philosophy while he is there; and that if does have doubts about said philosophy, not visit the group again.

 

[Pineal]

It's not that the beginner must give this up: it's that the beginner does give it up. It's essential to being a member, even if in the beginning stages.

I don't think they do, as a rule, give up their preconceptions, issues, problems, philosophical stances that differ from the religion's, tempermental ill-fits with the religious ideas and/or practices, etc. They may think they can and probably some religious groups and certainly many religious individuals think one can, but this is mistaken. I think this is why there is generally a period of acclimation before one officially joins or is initiated. For myself, I am not emptiable by intention like this. I am not infinitely malleable. So even upon entering religions when I had this notion - without really thinking it -that I would suppress any criticism or issues I might have, these bubbled up after a time and could not be ignored. Generally there was no way to even follow the ideas of the religion and keep suppressing them. I would not be honest or loving or in service or compassionate or whatever the reigning metaphors were. Some people can enter a religion and never look back, whether they are suppressing any possible issues they have or simply go through some transformation where they just dissappear (or never were in the first place). So I am not saying that one must or should have these. On the other hand I reject a rule that says one should deny or suppress these things.

I don't think so.

If you are a hostage in a bank and the armed robber says to you "If I shoot these people here, it will be your fault" - do you believe him? Will you consider yourself guilty if he shoots them? Do you consider the robber to be a legitimate authority on what you are to think and feel and what your responsibilities are? Does your complying with the robber's request to open the bank safe mean that you believe this is the right thing to do, regardless of circumstances?
Probably not.

I am not sure how that example fits. I was thinking of situations where one has a long standing relationship with an authority and they give the orders that later are questioned on moral grounds. Here I think one can make a valid defense on the grounds that you were following orders, but not in all cases. It depends on what was done, the context, the relationships with the authority, how much information you had and so on.

Sometimes, it is, but not always. We can't see into people's minds.

Sometimes is enough.

The usual situation for neophytes or beginners is that they freely go to some location that is maintained by the members of a group.
It's not clear why a person would "keep doing their own thing" - while they physically place themselves, and freely at that, into a location where the people there strive to uphold particular standards that are different than the person's.

That's not what I am suggesting. I am saying that in their attempts to align themselves with the religion questions and problems may and do come up. I don't see why the neophyte should assume that they cannot take these seriously, share them with in-religion experts and see what happens next. I would do this in practical learning situations - carpenty -

when I do what you told me, my wrist hurts a lot

If I do that, the scaffolding leans onto the other workers

My cuts are not even if I do that.

Certainly some of this is allowed in religions, but given that religions is about self-relationships and interpersonal relationships including those to God or the leaders, etc., this cuts to very core issues.

I am suggesting two things: individuals should not have to assume their reactions should be suppressed - they might be useful to the process of being a part of the religion - which such questions are in relation to becoming a good carpenter.

and that it right for some individuals to do this regardless of whether it leads to them entering the religion fully in the end or not.

It seems to me that at least for some people, to act as if it is OK with everything in the beginning is a kind of lie that will catch up with them and the organization.

I am proposing that when one is considering to join a religion that is new to one, one ought to be as rigorous and as cautious as possible.

Ideally, one should research said religion on one's own as much as possible, with the help of information available via libraries, bookstores, television, radio, the internet, presentations of said religion that are hosted by neutral, preferrably academic institutions.
One ought to plan one's first visit carefully, and ideally decide after the first visit whether this is the religion they wish to follow for the rest of their life.

I don't disagree with your suggestions above, but I would not be able to tell and wasn't able to tell after first visits. Sometimes it took quite a while for me too learn. I need to experience some things for a while to learn the culture and practices. And this is true for all sorts of kinds of learning. My first few days on the guitar were not enough for me to decide.

Visiting a religious place for months or even years, in an effort to "see how things are there" and to "get some first-hand experience" is not feasible, nor does it make one a beginner or a neophyte - it just makes one a guest who is not aware he has overextended his stay.

Once it was clear, I left. There was nothing light about my stay. Those quotes do not fit my attitudes. Sometimes there was a delay before issues came to a head. Given the incredibly complicated nature of these things, I have been more patient with myself regarding these issues. I feel like other people trying to find out what is best for them also may need this and I see nothing wrong with it. I also find nothing effective in me demanding I marry a religion in advance of my understanding it or having sufficient (for me personally) experience of it. That I should decide on the first day or really that everyone should seems a harsh rule.

I think many people who are seekers and who are trying out new religions for themselves, do not realize how serious all this is. Many do not realize what kind of trouble they can easily get themselves in that way.

That doesn't answer the question. My respone to it is that this seems very judgmental. As if people who cannot decide, after doing research in advance, after one day's experience of a religion, that this is either right or not to them are not taking things seriously enough.

I think the idea that people must decide on forever with very little direct experience is not taking this issue seriously and can lead to all sorts of trouble. I also think it will lead to bitter divorces at least as much as the other way of getting married to a religion.

I think outsiders cannot meaningfully assess the tenets or practices of a religion.

That those tenets and practices are not for them? I think one can make this determination in many cases. There are religions I have never practiced - Satanism, certain kinds of extremely ascetic religions. They are not for me.

According to my categorization, you would be a visitor there, not a neophyte/beginner. There can be a lot of confusion around one's actual status in a religion.
I used to think that I was a beginner; but I don't think so anymore. I was a visitor, and a very confused and immature one at that.

Fine, but then, perhaps those who think they are neophytes and beginners are really visitors. I don't think that as a rule those who think they are neophytes are doing anyone a favor if they deny the issues they are having and do not make these part of their dialogue with the religion. This may work for some, but for others I don't think that is a good rule.

I am generally not suggesting that. But if the outsider freely visits a group, then I think it is reasonable to expect that he will not question the group's philosophy while he is there; and that if does have doubts about said philosophy, not visit the group again.

I agree with the latter though perhaps not in such digital terms. It seems like in your version one should make these rather digital decisions and be able to make them fast. I have doubts, so no. I have no doubts, so yes. This may very well work for some people. For me I have had doubts, but also continued interest. Or perhaps some resistent feelings, but much attraction and only later could I verbalize or even be conscious of what these feelings were about.

The whole taking a vote to get out of bed in the morning applies to this issue as well.

I think it is gentler to allow us to make best guesses, see what comes next, reevaluate. For me this often led to growing issues.

It was precisely not the situation that I would come to a religion, have issues and start complaining at first meeting, trying to show them how they were wrong.

I often only slowly began to understand issues, or take my own reactions seriously. Remember most religions have explanations for various kinds of resistence, so one can find reasons to put stuff on hold for a while. Or I would ask questions related to these ambivalent feelings, get answers, nod and think, oh, well, Ok, that makes sense. And then later it didn't seem to.

I reject the idea that all seekers must give up as much as possible all critical or not positive reactions they have and also the idea that one must know what one wants very fast - with the implicit (seeming) digital nature of how we react. IOW as if we get these large YES or NO reactions.

Things take time with me and also I have found that if I don't raise my issues that's when I end up in places and relationships that do not work for me.

 

[wynn]

As if people who cannot decide, after doing research in advance, after one day's experience of a religion, that this is either right or not to them are not taking things seriously enough.

I think the idea that people must decide on forever with very little direct experience is not taking this issue seriously and can lead to all sorts of trouble. I also think it will lead to bitter divorces at least as much as the other way of getting married to a religion.

I have never experienced a religion where the members would tolerate investigation and doubt by visitors.

No, I was expected to decide, on the spot. The investigation and doubts may have been put up with by members, but it was clear what the conclusion to them should be: that said religion is the right one.

Fine, but then, perhaps those who think they are neophytes and beginners are really visitors. I don't think that as a rule those who think they are neophytes are doing anyone a favor if they deny the issues they are having and do not make these part of their dialogue with the religion. This may work for some, but for others I don't think that is a good rule.

You seem to think that religions are there to serve and help people. I do not think this is the case at all.
If a person furthers a (theistic) religion, they may get some benefits in return, but this is all.

I agree with the latter though perhaps not in such digital terms. It seems like in your version one should make these rather digital decisions and be able to make them fast. I have doubts, so no. I have no doubts, so yes.

Yes. My stance is essentially born out of precaution, though, not of judgmentalism.


At least in these modern, multicultural times, religion isn't about "finding yourself" or "making the most out of your life."
Especially today, it may be marketed under these slogans, but the reality is different.

 

[Pineal]

I have never experienced a religion where the members would tolerate investigation and doubt by visitors.

No, I was expected to decide, on the spot. The investigation and doubts may have been put up with by members, but it was clear what the conclusion to them should be: that said religion is the right one.

I have experienced a number of religious groups - I am not sure about whole religions - where it was assumed one could not decide right from the beginning. Generally they thought they were the best path if not the only right one, but there were exceptions to this. However it was taken for granted by at least most of the groups that it took time to make such a decision.

In any case, I think any group that thinks otherwise is being rather silly. Or they get the members they want this way, but they are certainly starting off on the wrong foot with many others.

You seem to think that religions are there to serve and help people.

This is certainly what a most groups said was part of what they were doing. The Buddhists were very clear about this, for the most part. The main Hindu group I was a part of had work (service) as part of being at the ashram so I certainly contributed. They expressed a number of times the hope that I stayed - in the beginning - and asked after needs, but then there was so much movement in and out and so many types and degrees of involvement, there was nothing organized about this.

I do not think this is the case at all.
If a person furthers a (theistic) religion, they may get some benefits in return, but this is all.

I have no idea if I furthered any of the religions. I did get benefits from my time in these groups.

Yes. My stance is essentially born out of precaution, though, not of judgmentalism.


At least in these modern, multicultural times, religion isn't about "finding yourself" or "making the most out of your life."
Especially today, it may be marketed under these slogans, but the reality is different.

I can't connect what I said to what you are saying religion is not. 'finding yourself' is often taken as a shallow phrase, though it is also fairly accurate as one way of looking at both the Buddhist and Hindu groups intentions.

It seems to me you are interpreting expressing doubts and having issues as being frivolous. That seems utterly absurd to me. To raise those doubts and issues was an act of trust on my part. I was wrestling with what for me were the deepest issues raised. Generally this was me hoping I could work out a way to stay, not me sitting in the back heckling speakers or annoyed that they made me clean toilets. I was trying to understand, see if I misunderstood, find out what was going on, find out the meaning of things, behavior, actions. I didn't know in advance whether they could explain things to me or make me feel better about this or that, such was the nature of the issues for me. And generally people responded to me NOT as if my raising issues was wrong. At the end with the Hindu group, I did get no response, but we were in the divorce stage then. Until then they responded and did not make me feel strange for raising issues. Occasionally a member would, but generally not those I aimed the questions at.

I really don't quite understand.

An outsider or a beginner cannot understand a religion.
Nevertheless they should be able to tell ideally in a single day whether they can make a lifetime committment to it. But during this day or whatever short period of time they are making this rather huge decision, they should not engage in a dialogue where what seem like potential problems or an ill-fit with the religion are brought up with leaders or other members in that religion.

That makes no sense to me.

I do think some people can make such decisions easier than others. I think it also depends on the degree of illfit or what characteristics of the religion one encounters quickly. With some religions I could decide quickly. With others, it took time. I am sure some could and have chosen very quickly in relation to some religions that took me a good deal of time. I think it depends on how well you know yourself at a certain time or how portions of a religion are attractive to you while others, perhaps not so obviously, are not or take time to arise.

It seems to me this is going to vary person to person.

If they had had a sign at the door telling me I was taking up their time and had to decide that day or in a week, that would be one thing, but I was never given such messages and I don't think such things are common. I did not break the conditions of any contract spoken or implicit, and frankly if any religion thinks everyone should decide quickly and keep quiet about any issues that arise for them, I am quite happy to be considered frivolous by them. They seem rather frivolous to me.

 

[wynn]

It seems to me you are interpreting expressing doubts and having issues as being frivolous.

From the perspective of many religious groups, expressing doubts and having issues equals being frivolous.
If one seeks to be a member of such a group, one has to consider one's questions and doubts to be - frivolous.

To raise those doubts and issues was an act of trust on my part. I was wrestling with what for me were the deepest issues raised. Generally this was me hoping I could work out a way to stay, not me sitting in the back heckling speakers or annoyed that they made me clean toilets. I was trying to understand, see if I misunderstood, find out what was going on, find out the meaning of things, behavior, actions.

This is how I was at first, too.

But I soon learned that in order to stay, I would have to not think, not feel, not speak.

An outsider or a beginner cannot understand a religion.
Nevertheless they should be able to tell ideally in a single day whether they can make a lifetime committment to it. But during this day or whatever short period of time they are making this rather huge decision, they should not engage in a dialogue where what seem like potential problems or an ill-fit with the religion are brought up with leaders or other members in that religion.
That makes no sense to me.

It does make perfect sense to some religious people. And if you want to be a member of their group, it better make sense to you too.

It seems to me this is going to vary person to person.

Sure.


On a more philosophical note -

I do think some people can make such decisions easier than others. I think it also depends on the degree of illfit or what characteristics of the religion one encounters quickly. With some religions I could decide quickly. With others, it took time. I am sure some could and have chosen very quickly in relation to some religions that took me a good deal of time. I think it depends on how well you know yourself at a certain time or how portions of a religion are attractive to you while others, perhaps not so obviously, are not or take time to arise.

If they had had a sign at the door telling me I was taking up their time and had to decide that day or in a week, that would be one thing, but I was never given such messages and I don't think such things are common. I did not break the conditions of any contract spoken or implicit, and frankly if any religion thinks everyone should decide quickly and keep quiet about any issues that arise for them, I am quite happy to be considered frivolous by them. They seem rather frivolous to me.

My stance is that religion/spirituality is so foreign to a person who was born and raised outside of it, that it is not possible for such a person to investigate (what to speak of joining) rationally or with conscious concern for one's welfare.
For such a person, becoming religious/spiritual requires an enormous leap of blind faith.