Posts by Melissa Stewart6

Daniel Castillo11 said:If that premise holds true, then I find myself standing firmly on the side of being explicitly against spirituality. 🙂

It seems to me that we simply cannot transcend our fundamental biological essence. If we are talking about those raw, "animalistic" impulses that spirituality and organized religion tend to look down upon, I don't believe we can just scrub away millions of years of evolution overnight—not unless we are living inside some utopian, transhumanist science fiction novel.

Besides, we shouldn't even try. Instead of attempting a total erasure, perhaps the goal should be to broaden the scope of what we are and what we acknowledge; we should aim to act through all those various facets of ourselves without resorting to denial or repression.

Actually, I think that very urge to transcend our own nature is what makes us human.
Nietzsche spoke about becoming the Superman.

Of course, some people view that kind of striving as nothing more than a restriction on freedom (or the expression of our raw impulses).

Daniel Castillo11 said:The ego is essentially everything we are. It encompasses our entire identity—our preferences, our history, that whole complex collection of traits that makes us unique, stretching from our most primal instincts to those subtle artistic sensibilities or abstract cognitive capacities.

When someone attempts to deny or suppress the ego, they are effectively trying to forcibly strip away the parts of their own nature—or perhaps even their very humanity—that they find inconvenient.

That whole "I am who I am" sentiment only truly holds water when you view a person as a complete entity, warts and all; it loses its meaning if you only focus on some "spiritual," abstract, or idealized mental construct where personality is expected to die off or be humbled.

This is why I’ve always found that non-dualistic rhetoric that Western spiritualists have been peddling for ages to be somewhat hollow. Their concept of "the absolute" or total unity feels strangely exclusive, almost fascist in its own way, because it seems to embrace nothing but emptiness while showing zero tolerance for diversity or our fundamental human nature. To many practitioners, this "unity" represents a state of mind where all differences are extinguished—a place of pure stasis and stillness. It’s a sort of comfortable numbness.

Spirituality often finds itself at odds with our basic nature. You rarely encounter spiritual literature that speaks positively about the ego, even in those schools of thought that claim to see personality or uniqueness as raw material for transformation. Even there, the ego is implicitly disapproved of, if not outright loathed; it's treated as something that simply needs to be discarded.

As the years go by, I don't just see how misguided and irrational this stance is, I also see the damaging fallout from such beliefs. For those chasing non-duality, suppressing personal struggles is incredibly convenient. It’s a seductive trap: the teaching suggests that your achievements, your feelings, or your earthly reality don't actually matter as much as the mere fact that you "ARE." As if that fact were ever up for debate or somehow insignificant. 🙂 However, forcing this mindset through the lens of "oneness" is deeply problematic. People struggling with various issues will often—consciously or not—leverage this potential for self-deception to deny their actual problems and avoid seeking help. In many ways, "unity" becomes a convenient code word for passive aggression.

That might be the case. It's all about overcoming those primal instincts.

Joseph Bailey41 said:Exactly. It’s like the response to thousands of years of women being conditioned to be submissive. We’ve just reached our limit, honestly. If you care so much about preserving that "virtue," maybe try being the humble ones for a change. ☕

It isn't about being Egoistic; it’s just pure burnout. We are done with the mansplaining, done with being treated as second-class citizens, and done with these gods who are really just projections of individual and collective egos. It's over. That's it.

You doing okay there?
I’m no official spokesperson for Omen, but I didn't get the impression he said, "Women have to be submissive while men don't."

Joseph Bailey41 said:You definitely caught onto the fact that it was mostly women making those comments. Have you ever stopped to wonder why that might be?

Not really. Maybe just a reaction to what people call mansplaining?

Jamie Davis9 said:I’m not entirely certain on the specifics, but if I recall correctly, there’s a significant number of registered Catholics in this part of the country, isn't there?

And look, I might come across as completely clueless here, but I don't even know where you're located.
In my neck of the woods, you can barely find seasonal workers, let alone someone who would swear an oath on Capital.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're citing the Bible. Do you actually know anyone who uses the Bible as their basis? Because if you say 9 out of 10 people do, I'd love to see the proof.

Jamie Davis9 said:That’s it. I really don't understand what part of this is escaping you.

True enough, but eighty to ninety percent of the population isn't going to cite some other book they've never even heard of.

Wait, ninety percent of people actually cite the Bible? Are you serious?

Gregory Carter67 said:Obviously it's an obstacle. An Egoistic person is just full of themselves—you know the type. To me, that’s easily the worst spiritual state you can be in, right behind being arrogant or refusing to be humble. Egoism and pride go hand in hand; they're basically two sides of the same coin. I feel for people stuck like that, and I feel even worse for those who actually think it's a good way to live. Honestly, I just try to stay far away from people like that—it's a major character red flag for me.

I see the ego primarily as a construct. If you perceive it that way, you don't even have to fight it because the whole concept feels unreal to you.
Looking at this thread, it seems a few users have teamed up to wage war against the very idea of humility.
They claim humility is twisted and perverse, arguing that we should always walk with our heads held high.
But since everything in life is dialectical and moves through opposites, it's possible to be truly proud only if you are also humble... otherwise, you're just left with egoism—nothing but empty noise and shouting.

Jamie Davis9 said:Oh, so "biblos" just means book now? 🙄 Is that how you're choosing to broaden the scope of this discussion, or am I just misreading your logic? 😁

You say people don't read the Bible, but I’d argue that most people just don't read much of anything these days.

Jamie Davis9 said:It really doesn't matter at all.

The truth is, ninety-nine percent of people haven't read it, and they certainly aren't going to.

You say people aren't reading. But think about this... most people don't read books at all.
Of those who do read, only a tiny fraction picks up anything substantial.
So, what’s the takeaway? If it doesn't matter what happens to the Bible because nobody reads it, then it shouldn't matter what happens to 99 percent of all other books either... since people aren't reading those, either.

Jamie Davis9 said:Honestly, props to you for having the patience and diplomacy of a saint.

But personally, I find it absolutely mind-blowing that nobody has ever bothered to actually translate the name of that damn YHWH—which basically translates to 'I am the one who IS'—as the most blatant, direct assertion of ego over everything else in existence.

The Bible is an incredibly wise book, provided you aren't an idiot.

Well then, tell me—what should we do with the Bible? Just toss it in the trash?

casualcanyon3 said:Truly humble individuals don't go around broadcasting contempt or belittling others. To express even a shred of either is fundamentally at odds with the very concept of humility we’re supposedly discussing here.

A person ought to walk through this life with their head held high, maintaining their dignity. Anything that attempts to strip that away by default feels—to me—utterly pathological. It is perversely sick and twisted. Even the ego, which is a perfectly healthy and necessary component of the human psyche just as much as our physical limbs are, will eventually find a way to breach those barriers of suppression. In the context of this specific thread, people do it in a particularly insidious, self-righteous, "messiah" sort of way.

The best course of action is simply to ignore it. 🙂

Joseph Bailey41, I'll circle back to some of your points more thoroughly once I'm back at my laptop. 👍

On one hand, there’s nothing wrong with having a sense of pride. You could say it's actually a good thing.
Putting yourself above everything else is a mistake. At least, that’s just my take on things.
And there we go again—what was the phrase? Learning from everyone? I have to wonder, though... is there actually anything to be learned from hollowpuma762, or is that just wishful thinking?
Is there really any value in learning exclusively from people who already agree with you?

casualcanyon3 said:Truly humble individuals don't go around broadcasting contempt or belittling others. To express even a shred of either is fundamentally at odds with the very concept of humility we’re supposedly discussing here.

A person ought to walk through this life with their head held high, maintaining their dignity. Anything that attempts to strip that away by default feels—to me—utterly pathological. It is perversely sick and twisted. Even the ego, which is a perfectly healthy and necessary component of the human psyche just as much as our physical limbs are, will eventually find a way to breach those barriers of suppression. In the context of this specific thread, people do it in a particularly insidious, self-righteous, "messiah" sort of way.

The best course of action is simply to ignore it. 🙂

Joseph Bailey41, I'll circle back to some of your points more thoroughly once I'm back at my laptop. 👍

Even if you choose to ignore them, those hollowpuma762 types and their opinions aren't going anywhere.

casualcanyon3 said:I’ve been spending some time reading through various threads regarding the concept of humility from a religious perspective. Some people argue that a truly humble individual should be willing to endure humiliation without complaint. Their logic is that since you already know exactly who you are deep down, nothing from the outside world—not even blatant disrespect—should have the power to shake your internal composure.

Then you have others, like a certain priest I read, who claim that humility is essentially just the realization that every good thing within us stems from God, while every single flaw is entirely our own fault.

Just think about that for a second. According to this, none of your virtues, none of your strength, and none of your drive to be a better person than some higher power is actually a credit to your own character; it’s all just a gift. Meanwhile, every mistake and every dark impulse? That’s all on you.

It is a profoundly perverse way to strip a human being of their dignity, regardless of which version of this ideology you subscribe to.

Humility doesn't have to mean groveling or throwing yourself at someone's feet.
It can simply mean surrender—surrendering to someone or something. To surrender means there is no resistance left; there is nothing left to defend.

"Perverse humiliation."
Sure, that might hold water if you are absolutely certain about what "God" or "something higher" actually means, and equally certain about what "self" means.
I suspect your interpretation might be off, because that "higher power" is also a part of the human experience... just as the "lower" parts are.
In other words, you could say all good things come from God if you don't view God as an external entity—some old man in the clouds or an imaginary friend.

The real question is: why is humility viewed as a bad thing? Why is it considered wrong to admit that something exists beyond our own limited selves?

Joseph Bailey41 said:A defining trait of most spiritual doctrines is the belief in their absolute truth. Following that logic, if you "choose to believe in something else," you’re deviating from the one True Path, and you'll end up with leukemia through your own fault. (I don't recall exactly how that principle was explained in Philosophy class, but it was something along the lines of childhood malignant diseases being the consequence of some kind of spiritual misalignment—whether it belonged to the child or the parents, I can't quite remember).

In that paradigm, your only salvation lies in believing exactly what hollowpuma762 believes (whatever that actually is; it occasionally smells like perennial philosophy to me, but after all these years of typing with him, I still can't say for sure). From his perspective, every one of those axioms is a reflection of an absolute truth that has nothing to do with our modern, tolerant understanding of the world. Over there, everything is binary—it either is or it isn't; it's black or it's white. There are no middle grounds, and linguistic definitions are treated as trivial, banal, or even maliciously inserted "viruses." That's why there’s no real dialogue here—we can't talk because we aren't even discussing the same things. This kind of obscurantism is actually preferred, since the goal isn't an exchange of ideas, but rather for you to adopt his views, which he considers the only correct ones.

He’s perfectly aware that some people think differently; he’s not slow. However, any opinion that differs from his is, by definition, wrong and not worth his time to even consider. So, this is a perfect example of the total lack of humility that Mars defined—and I somewhat agree with her—which is the realization that you aren't the smartest person in the room, that you have plenty to learn from others, that famous "I know that I know nothing" mindset. Though, personally, I think "modesty" might be a better word for it.

Well... at the end of the day, everyone is entitled to their own judgment of right and wrong. If hollowpuma762 decides you aren't right, he doesn't see much reason to respect your opinion—especially if you aren't willing to respect his.

wearyowl29 said:Yeah, exactly that guy.

I just don't see how the source of everything could be a single person without first being a consciousness that shapes all these different forms.

Consciousness usually finds its way through people.

wearyowl29 said:But why does He have to be personal at all?
If there's a way for it to be less personal, honestly, I think that works much better.

I mean, take a look at a clear summer night sky out in the Midwest. It doesn't exactly feel like someone sat down and signed their name in the stars.

So, when you say a personal God, you're actually referring to the Christian God, right?

He could be both personal and impersonal. Consciousness reveals itself through a person.

wearyowl29 said:I believe in the spirit, in Consciousness, and in the Source of us all.
There’s definitely something higher up there.😲

Why couldn't a personal God just be one specific manifestation of that spirit or consciousness?

wearyowl29 said:I just don't subscribe to the idea of a personal god handed down by organized religion.

So, what is it that you do believe in?

wearyowl29 said:Honestly, I haven't a clue.

Maybe they just deal with constant existential dread, or maybe they eventually get used to living in a world without any divine purpose at all.

Wait, aren't you an atheist?

wearyowl29 said:Maybe if we actually knew the truth, we wouldn't be able to stomach it anyway.😉

Since we’re just as psychologically fragile as kids, we’d much rather hug a lie than face the truth head-on.
Religion exists because we aren't perfect; we need way more than just food, water, and a roof over our heads to make it through life. We crave social connection, too! And when we lean on others, our psyche starts chasing these deep-seated impulses—mostly the desperate need for security and acceptance.

It all points to the fact that we need to identify with something bigger than ourselves. We hand over our trust to these systems because, honestly, we’re pretty unstable and insecure on our own.
That sense of identity gets tied to a specific group and is kept alive through rituals, ceremonies, rites, and these kinds of cyclical processes. It’s almost like how nature itself works in cycles, and we’re just trying to mimic that rhythm.

Religion essentially exploits our social nature and our need for a higher power. It takes our individuality and wraps it in this sense of belonging, offering us the safety of the pack and total acceptance.
It maintains the status quo through ceremony and provides a roadmap for living—all while keeping a healthy dose of fear in the mix. Without it, the individual basically ceases to exist, because back in the day, being cast out from your community was a death sentence.

Because of all this, religions ensure that individuals and groups don't rock the boat too much. They encourage everyone to just flow with the mainstream, because anything outside that circle is watched by the big bad wolf waiting to eat the strays. The real trouble for religious institutions starts when people finally wake up—when the consciousness of those who were peacefully grazing in the pen suddenly shifts.

Does that mean atheists are more mentally stable because they know the truth?

A lie isn't any more useful than the truth; you just have to prove which one is actually what you're looking at.

Sam Martinez9 said:But once they transition to atheism, they simply cease to be believers. My focus here isn't on that shift; rather, I am looking at the fundamental ways in which believers perceive the world versus how atheists do. It is an exploration of those core cognitive differences.

I am comparing the internal logic and perspectives of the atheist and the believer.

To be clear, I'm not discussing the journey of how a believer becomes an atheist, or vice versa. That is a massive, separate subject entirely—just as expansive as the question of *how believers and atheists actually conceptualize reality.*

One can also move from one faith to another.

You seem to think that being an atheist automatically makes someone more open-minded than a believer. But just because an atheist doesn't believe in God doesn't mean they aren't prone to believing in all sorts of other things or being narrow-minded in other ways.