4 ms·

I’m saying that people reach that “existing ideal” to the extent that their ego is shrunk, and you’re saying that people fail and thus religion does not moderat

I’m saying that people reach that “existing ideal” to the extent that their ego is shrunk, and you’re saying that people fail and thus religion does not moderate the ego, yes? I guess my theory fundamentally disagrees with yours. I’m basing what I’m saying on the article author’s line “the saints of all religions” implying that their “religious mindset” is limited to those considered saintly. Aaron perfectly represents Israel’s lack of fidelity; I think it’s safe to keep him, even Moses (it was his ego that kept him from the promised land), separate from sainthood. Ultimately, the author’s intended point in making the single statement you and I are talking about hinges on their idea of sainthood (and perhaps Jesus is Christianity’s only true saint). Since you bring up Catholicism, note that their literal “sainthood” excludes Moses, Aaron, David, etc. (not to mention excluding the other high priests you point out).

dragontamer 4y ago
> and you’re saying that people fail and thus religion does not moderate the ego I'm saying that in the Christian faith, there are numerous examples of holy people who have fallen prey to hubris. This doesn't detract from their holiness. > Since you bring up Catholicism, note that their literal “sainthood” excludes Moses, Aaron, David, etc. (not to mention excluding the other high priests you point out). First off, Moses, Aaron, David, etc. etc. are considered Saints in Catechism of the Catholic Church. So we can dispel that myth immediately. The Catholic definition of sainthood is simply someone who has been accepted into heaven. If a miracle has been performed in someone's name, then it is proof that God has accepted them (and for good measure, we wait for two miracles. The first miracle could have been a fluke after all). Since such a person has proof from God that they are holy, they are someone to emulate. They are roughly, the metric under which God deems worthy to accept into heaven. "Sainthood" is a technical term, meaning we've received proof on earth that someone is in heaven. The metric God uses is likely a lower bar. IE: there are probably "unknown saints", humble people who never became popular enough for people to later pray under their name and thereby get a miracle assigned to them. That's okay, because they're in heaven regardless. The sainthood system is itself an imperfect system by us Catholics. Ex: If you think your grandma is in heaven, she's probably a saint, but don't expect the Catholic Church to officially canonize her unless she was popular. Sainthood includes such storied figures as say, Saint Olga, who was well known for executing an entire village in her wrath. Not just once, but three times. She's not even the most "hubris" saint I can think of, she's just one that I've been studying recently due to this whole Ukrainian conflict thing. I understand that the Buddhist idea of "sainthood" (perhaps more accurately, Nirvanna in that religion) is quite different and incompatible with the Catholic / Christian idea. --------- In the Catholic / Christian viewpoint, people are full of sins and errors. It is the pursuit of holiness that is the goal, but even that pursuit itself can become corrupted by ego. Be it from Biblical stories (ie: Aaron from Exodus, or the Pharisees in Jesus's time), to even more modern saints and holy figures. Humility is a goal and is certainly a virtue. But unlike Buddhism, Catholicism doesn't necessarily expect saints to have the trait. You can enter into heaven despite imperfections. Exactly how many imperfections is up for debate, even within a major top/down scholarly religion like Catholicism. But nobody is perfect, not even the leaders of a religion or some of the holiest people we've studied in biblical or modern times. Some Christians even believe that "faith alone" can save you, even if you're grossly sinful. That's not the viewpoint of Catholics, but you can get the gist of the debate from how other Christians have written down their understanding of the faith. In all cases, there's the idea of God selecting those who are "better" than others, and humility is clearly one metric. But its not the only metric and not the only metric God will judge us by ----- In any case, Aaron is likely a saint, as he was a high-priest with Moses. His imperfection and weakness, causing him to worship the Golden Calf despite being saved from Egypt, is kind of the old / ancient trope of holy men falling and failing the challenges posed to them. But that's okay, God doesn't expect perfection from us. If Aaron is too much of a cornercase, then I can shift my argument to King David and/or Moses, who have plenty of well documented imperfections in their lives and are certainly considered to be in heaven (and therefore a saint).

dragontamer 4y ago

> and you’re saying that people fail and thus religion does not moderate the ego I'm saying that in the Christian faith, there are numerous examples of holy people who have fallen prey to hubris. This doesn't detract from their holiness. > Since you bring up Catholicism, note that their literal “sainthood” excludes Moses, Aaron, David, etc. (not to mention excluding the other high priests you point out). First off, Moses, Aaron, David, etc. etc. are considered Saints in Catechism of the Catholic Church. So we can dispel that myth immediately. The Catholic definition of sainthood is simply someone who has been accepted into heaven. If a miracle has been performed in someone's name, then it is proof that God has accepted them (and for good measure, we wait for two miracles. The first miracle could have been a fluke after all). Since such a person has proof from God that they are holy, they are someone to emulate. They are roughly, the metric under which God deems worthy to accept into heaven. "Sainthood" is a technical term, meaning we've received proof on earth that someone is in heaven. The metric God uses is likely a lower bar. IE: there are probably "unknown saints", humble people who never became popular enough for people to later pray under their name and thereby get a miracle assigned to them. That's okay, because they're in heaven regardless. The sainthood system is itself an imperfect system by us Catholics. Ex: If you think your grandma is in heaven, she's probably a saint, but don't expect the Catholic Church to officially canonize her unless she was popular. Sainthood includes such storied figures as say, Saint Olga, who was well known for executing an entire village in her wrath. Not just once, but three times. She's not even the most "hubris" saint I can think of, she's just one that I've been studying recently due to this whole Ukrainian conflict thing. I understand that the Buddhist idea of "sainthood" (perhaps more accurately, Nirvanna in that religion) is quite different and incompatible with the Catholic / Christian idea. --------- In the Catholic / Christian viewpoint, people are full of sins and errors. It is the pursuit of holiness that is the goal, but even that pursuit itself can become corrupted by ego. Be it from Biblical stories (ie: Aaron from Exodus, or the Pharisees in Jesus's time), to even more modern saints and holy figures. Humility is a goal and is certainly a virtue. But unlike Buddhism, Catholicism doesn't necessarily expect saints to have the trait. You can enter into heaven despite imperfections. Exactly how many imperfections is up for debate, even within a major top/down scholarly religion like Catholicism. But nobody is perfect, not even the leaders of a religion or some of the holiest people we've studied in biblical or modern times. Some Christians even believe that "faith alone" can save you, even if you're grossly sinful. That's not the viewpoint of Catholics, but you can get the gist of the debate from how other Christians have written down their understanding of the faith. In all cases, there's the idea of God selecting those who are "better" than others, and humility is clearly one metric. But its not the only metric and not the only metric God will judge us by ----- In any case, Aaron is likely a saint, as he was a high-priest with Moses. His imperfection and weakness, causing him to worship the Golden Calf despite being saved from Egypt, is kind of the old / ancient trope of holy men falling and failing the challenges posed to them. But that's okay, God doesn't expect perfection from us. If Aaron is too much of a cornercase, then I can shift my argument to King David and/or Moses, who have plenty of well documented imperfections in their lives and are certainly considered to be in heaven (and therefore a saint).