Is it wisdom saying "My religion is the only way for all?"

[stvdv]

(Hesitantly) Voted number 6, "Only Atheism is the right way". If there is only one reality, there is therefore only one truth. No matter how many interpretations or perspectives we may have, they all come from the same source. If that reality is one in which everything has a materialist/naturalistic cause (and therefore no supernatural causes), it follows that only atheism is the right way. That's debatable and I'm not 100% in agreement with it, but I think you can see where I'm coming from.

p.s. I'm more than happy to concede that religions contain things which are true (to one extent or another), but due to flaws in their methodology of relying on unreliable sources for knowledge (revelation, introspection, authority, etc), they are less likely to gain knowledge of the material world as a basis for spiritual growth and wisdom.

How you phrased it, it made me smile. I cannot object as a Theist. Because the context contained a big "in my opinion" and "honesty and respect"

 

[stvdv]

(Hesitantly) Voted number 6, "Only Atheism is the right way"

Select an item only if you can state "this is true, and I know this for a fact". If you don't know or think it is false (for a fact) then skip that item. So the Poll is about "what we know to be True", not "what we know to be false", or "what we do not know".

So according to the OP your (Hesistantly) kind of disqualifies your vote.

Note: I don't know much about Atheism (just started reading about it 8 month ago on RF), so still trying to get my definitions straight.

Seems quite good how you explain it below. Only the definition of Atheism does not quite fit into this (but probably my misunderstanding)

(Hesitantly) Voted number 6, "Only Atheism is the right way". If there is only one reality, there is therefore only one truth. No matter how many interpretations or perspectives we may have, they all come from the same source. If that reality is one in which everything has a materialist/naturalistic cause (and therefore no supernatural causes), it follows that only atheism is the right way.

What I hear on RF as a definition of Atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
So if you say "Only Atheism is the right way". I need some help here, to understand you. The definition suggest "Atheism is just lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". As per definition Atheism is not a professional system to understand anything (also not about the Universe). No handbook like Bible, Koran, Upanishads etc. Vedas (Indian spirituality) contains a huge treasure of science. Or does Atheism per definition include "handbook is science"?
"Only Atheism is the right way" IMO can not be true
"Only Atheistic science is the right way" that might be a true option as to how you tried to defend your vote above.

That's debatable and I'm not 100% in agreement with it, but I think you can see where I'm coming from.

Agreed this is debatable, but I see where you come from. With all the IF's and assumptions it is quite hypothetical [IF 1 reality, then 1 truth, so 1 source having materialist/naturalist cause (not supernatural = devoid of Gods).] ... so not yet a fact, correct? So in a way Atheists know the same as Theists about the "cause" ... ZIP ... just some guesswork. Theist call it God(s), Atheists call it naturalistic. Theist add a lot of imaginative things to it like "whales swallowing fishermen" giving Atheist some bait. But at the same time Atheists still also don't know anything for sure about how it all originated (at least not as a definite FACT; still all guesses).

p.s. I'm more than happy to concede that religions contain things which are true (to one extent or another), but due to flaws in their methodology of relying on unreliable sources for knowledge (revelation, introspection, authority, etc), they are less likely to gain knowledge of the material world as a basis for spiritual growth and wisdom.

You speak with authority on "religion contains flaws in their methodology of relying on unreliable sources for knowledge (revelation, introspection, authority)". Do you have any personal experience with "revelations, introspection" as to be able to call them "flaws"? Without real knowledge (meaning personal experience to be able to prove them wrong) about this it's not really scientific to dismiss them as flaws.

You say "they are less likely to gain knowledge of the material world as a basis for spiritual growth and wisdom"
That is intriguing. Do you imply that an Atheist is more likely to gain knowledge of the material world as a basis for spiritual growth and wisdom
So Atheism does not exclude spiritual growth and wisdom, just the God(s) and/or Religions associated with it?

 

[stvdv]

None of the options reflect my opinion

Just curious why you have a problem with Love (Religion and God I can understand, as it has been the source of violence for thousands of years)

That has a lot to do with secular influences on religion, such as politics.

My question was specific addressed to just @The Reverend Bob so I am curious if your intuition is correct

In general I think it has a lot to do with the discrepancy and hypocrisy we see in Religion for already so many centuries.

It also had to do with closet atheists within religion. If the average atheist had his way, he would get rid of religion. In olden times, where atheism was not allowed, this did not mean that atheist did not exist. To avoid persecution for being an atheist, they might pretend to be religious, and may even do it very well, to where they gain positions of power and trust. From this platform they could sabotage or make changes to open the closet.

Thanks I was not aware of these facts. So the Atheist was in the closet like gay people now coming out of the closet. Vaguely I remember this a bit. But now I can totally understand there is quite a grudge of Atheists towards Religion, because the major religions still belittle and use a Voodoo kind of practice on gay people.

 

[Iwuz Madenew]

Thanks again. I have seen two, and I have liked two. They are really good.

Glad you’re liking the videos. Here’s the next instalment in the series. : )
“The Reality of the Moral Law”

Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.”

I know this verse but I’ve yet to fully understand what it means. Any insights?

 

[Jim]

@stvdv Does this have to do with some kind of yearning or anxiety about knowing what’s true and what isn’t? If so, I don’t think it can ever be satisfied, but there are ways to be freed from its adverse effects, without losing the benefits of doubting and questioning, and without being anyone’s fool.

Is it about what religions sometimes claim to offer, or what people sometimes claim to have found, that they call “supreme” or “ultimate” truth, or the best or most important thing for anyone to know? It looks to me like the people who know what they mean by that are talking about something that happens that frees a person from some limiting and disabling illusions and attachments, and opens up a vast new world of possibilities. I don’t think that requires any beliefs of any kind. I think that beliefs mostly distract and divert and even repel people away from that. I think that there are possibilities in some different religions for that to happen to a person, but those possibilities are not in any of the beliefs. They’re in some kinds of work that people do over a long period of time, usually with the help of people who have been transformed that way. It might be possible without that help, but I’m not sure of that.

 

[Martin]

None of the above!

 

[Laika]

How you phrased it, it made me smile. I cannot object as a Theist. Because the context contained a big "in my opinion" and "honesty and respect"

Thanks.

So according to the OP your (Hesistantly) kind of disqualifies your vote.

Note: I don't know much about Atheism (just started reading about it 8 month ago on RF), so still trying to get my definitions straight.

Seems quite good how you explain it below. Only the definition of Atheism does not quite fit into this (but probably my misunderstanding)

What I hear on RF as a definition of Atheism = disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
So if you say "Only Atheism is the right way". I need some help here, to understand you. The definition suggest "Atheism is just lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". As per definition Atheism is not a professional system to understand anything (also not about the Universe). No handbook like Bible, Koran, Upanishads etc. Vedas (Indian spirituality) contains a huge treasure of science. Or does Atheism per definition include "handbook is science"?
"Only Atheism is the right way" IMO can not be true
"Only Atheistic science is the right way" that might be a true option as to how you tried to defend your vote above.

I have been a communist and took a deep interest in dialectical and historical materialism. My understanding of atheism is shaped by that and includes the possibility that atheism is a statement of fact or knowledge affecting all belief in the supernatural, rather than an individual opinion affecting only one god or religion.

In this case, the non-existence of a deity has a direct effect on the non-existence of the supernatural in general and entails a philosophical worldview. I was never 100% sold that marxist-atheism was a science (hence the hesitation), but I’ve also borrowed from Social Darwinist atheism because “no god=no morality”.

This is not a common or popular view and most atheists you meet on RF will be of the agnostic atheist variety (“lack of belief” due to an absence of evidence).

Agreed this is debatable, but I see where you come from. With all the IF's and assumptions it is quite hypothetical [IF 1 reality, then 1 truth, so 1 source having materialist/naturalist cause (not supernatural = devoid of Gods).] ... so not yet a fact, correct? So in a way Atheists know the same as Theists about the "cause" ... ZIP ... just some guesswork. Theist call it God(s), Atheists call it naturalistic. Theist add a lot of imaginative things to it like "whales swallowing fishermen" giving Atheist some bait. But at the same time Atheists still also don't know anything for sure about how it all originated (at least not as a definite FACT; still all guesses).

There’s a philosophical problem that makes it hard to be certain atheism is a fact. Man is not god and is not absolute, therefore man cannot be omniscient and claim to be all-knowing with an absolute understanding of the universe. All knowledge is to a degree uncertian.

But knowledge is only the set of ideas that correspond to reality. Reality is objective and- whilst our ideas may only express part of the nature of reality as we have limited experiences of it- it is absolute. Reality simply “is” whatever our interpretation of it may be and is the only possible source of knowledge. The degree to which atheism and the non-existence of the supernatural is true and corresponds to reality therefore depends on philosophical questions about the nature of knowledge (how much can we know? How certain can we be?) rather than proof or facts in isolation.

There is a balancing act between the absolute, objective nature of reality and our subjective, limited experience of it. So even when atheism is a fact, it does not mean our knowledge of the natural world, its properties and processes is fixed. The issue is how do we know we can exclude the supernatural from experience of reality.

Basically, I’ve never found a Marxist text that spelled out the exact case for atheism and so I’ve had to improvise. I know this position is possible and exists, but I don’t have the knowledge of philosophy to know exactly how they reached that conclusion.

You speak with authority on "religion contains flaws in their methodology of relying on unreliable sources for knowledge (revelation, introspection, authority)". Do you have any personal experience with "revelations, introspection" as to be able to call them "flaws"? Without real knowledge (meaning personal experience to be able to prove them wrong) about this it's not really scientific to dismiss them as flaws.

I have a long history of mental illness (depression and anxiety) and certainly have done a great deal of introspection. I’ve had to gain the self-knowledge to know why I feel this way to deal and improve the condition. I have certianly felt an “inner light” from time to time, but I don’t believe its god or a immaterial soul communicating with me. I’m receptive to and willing to listen and reason out strong emotions. Although I don’t believe in a soul, the altered states of knowing and feeling does resemble spirituality in a sense religious people would recognise.

You say "they are less likely to gain knowledge of the material world as a basis for spiritual growth and wisdom"
That is intriguing. Do you imply that an Atheist is more likely to gain knowledge of the material world as a basis for spiritual growth and wisdom
So Atheism does not exclude spiritual growth and wisdom, just the God(s) and/or Religions associated with it?

No, Atheism shouldn’t necessarily exclude spiritual wisdom. (Buddhism and existentialism are arguably examples). If man created god and religion, man also created spirituality and wisdom. It follows that this capacity for spiritual growth and wisdom is a property of man rather than being associated with a particular god or religion. We simply misattributed it to supernatural as opposed to natural causes. (There is a brand of Marxism that deals with this issue specifically called “God-Building”. It owes as much to Nietzsche as to Marx).

I would say that coming to realise the meaning of a world without god, without the supernatural and to face life and death knowing there is no afterlife is an intensely emotional and spiritual experience. If you realise that there is no god, no divine protector or judge of man’s deeds, no “insurance policy” for this life for when things go wrong- it does make you really feel differently from other people. At its darkest- If there is only power and no-one can stop us when we want it or abuse it- that invites an awareness of our own and others capacity for light and darkness that is going to be pretty intense. Being a communist and getting to know the nature of power, right and wrong, what power does to people and what people do with it-for good and evil- was easily one of the most spiritual experiences I’ve had. There is lots of light and darkness in wanting to build a better world and coming face to face with what monsters humanity can be trying to do so.

Without god, the only difference between right and wrong is us. The only source of justice is our own lives and decisions. The only thing we have is each other. All our ambitions and pretensions of significance melt away and we are left only as one part of our species in the great flow of history. That gives life a significance and purpose in learning to chose the right path and to know and trust yourself to know the evil and injustice in the world and in yourself without being seduced by it. Although I would not habitually describe it as such, I certainly understand the religious and spiritual dimensions of a believers experience and even a little about faith. Ironically, I tend to get along with religious believers than most atheists for this reason. [/QUOTE]

 

[stvdv]

@stvdv Does this have to do with some kind of yearning or anxiety about knowing what’s true and what isn’t? If so, I don’t think it can ever be satisfied, but there are ways to be freed from its adverse effects, without losing the benefits of doubting and questioning, and without being anyone’s fool.

Is it about what religions sometimes claim to offer, or what people sometimes claim to have found, that they call “supreme” or “ultimate” truth, or the best or most important thing for anyone to know? It looks to me like the people who know what they mean by that are talking about something that happens that frees a person from some limiting and disabling illusions and attachments, and opens up a vast new world of possibilities. I don’t think that requires any beliefs of any kind. I think that beliefs mostly distract and divert and even repel people away from that. I think that there are possibilities in some different religions for that to happen to a person, but those possibilities are not in any of the beliefs. They’re in some kinds of work that people do over a long period of time, usually with the help of people who have been transformed that way. It might be possible without that help, but I’m not sure of that.

this ?
Thanks for asking, not sure what you exactly are asking, but if you mean why I am on RF and posting what I post ... Then the answer is simple

I am on RF to practice certain things. How to express myself (and be precise, not beat around the bush), and get over some (suppressed) fears or other emotional blocks. Becoming more open to views of others, and while understanding where the other comes from AND seeing the unity (Love, respect, non arrogance) in diversity I am getting less irritable if people disagree or some people are totally irrational. RF gives a great chance to do some major introspection.

This thread specific was about being precise. Many people claim, as a fact, to be 100% sure their religion/faith/idea is "the best (so also for others)". I think different, so by asking I try to understand them better, so that communication will improve. I thought let's ask a simple but very precise question, just about this. I must say I am kind of surprised, that the people who usually express their "I know as a fact" now did not do so. At least I conclude "those who say they know for a fact, don't know".

So it seems that sometimes people say things in "1 way" and when asked specific they "do not say the same".
Just handy to know this. From now on I can take "I know for a fact" with quite a bunch of grains of salt.

To answer your question. No it does not have to do with "what is true and what is not". I have "seen" "what is true". No doubts in that area. Just working on myself by doing introspection. Wheel of karma (release of old emotions) is still turning. In the mean time I just do my things.

Be Happy. If there is a goal in life ... Be Happy ... is a good one for me. RF makes me smile quite a bit.

 

[Martin]

In my experience most people don't know enough about other religions to judge whether their current choice is best for THEM, let alone anyone else.

 

[stvdv]

Thanks.

Thank you so much for responding in such detail. I felt so much love/respect from your writing.

Before I liked Atheism and Atheists. But you gave Atheism and Atheists a totally new dimension I never heard/saw before.
Your profile does not say "male or female", but reading your reply I am 100% sure you are female. Or I must be really off today.

I would say that coming to realise the meaning of a world without god, without the supernatural and to face life and death knowing there is no afterlife is an intensely emotional and spiritual experience. If you realise that there is no god, no divine protector or judge of man’s deeds, no “insurance policy” for this life for when things go wrong- it does make you really feel differently from other people

No "divine judge" makes sense to me, although I do see action/reaction (Newton Law + Karma Law). I have experienced "insurance policy" (My Master told me I don't have to worry about dying [I have quite big health challenges], and I will only die if He wants). Being scientist I put this to the test. Being natural depressed my whole life, crossing the line is not that big a step for me (death intrigued me already at age 10), so I enjoy playing Russian Roulette with my Master, so I told Him mentally "I stop eating/drinking until I die or You intervene". He did twice.

Supernatural I experienced a lot. But if you are right and this does not exists, then it means the supernatural is just something that is "natural in stvdv", not something outside stvdv. Which makes perfect sense to me, and I believe this to be true.

Although I would not habitually describe it as such, I certainly understand the religious and spiritual dimensions of a believers experience and even a little about faith. Ironically, I tend to get along with religious believers than most atheists for this reason.

Some are "Anti Theist" you are not that at all, more the opposite IMO, hence you created a different reality. I feel love, reading your words. Love binds humans, so, naturally you get along better with others than atheists "who are less open" or even "anti" (goes the same with all the theists placing themselves on an island of "selected once ready to go to heaven").

We all create our own reality it seems to me..

Below some words that feel good to me. I have a feeling you will love these words too

Love, Peace and Blessings to you

 

[stvdv]

In my experience most people don't know enough about other religions to judge whether their current choice is best for THEM, let alone anyone else.

This is a fact.

 

[Laika]

Thank you so much for responding in such detail. I felt so much love/respect from your writing.

Before I liked Atheism and Atheists. But you gave Atheism and Atheists a totally new dimension I never heard/saw before.
Your profile does not say "male or female", but reading your reply I am 100% sure you are female. Or I must be really off today.

You're very welcome. Although I'm sorry to disappoint as last time I checked, I definitely have a penis.

To be fair, "Laika" is a girl's name but I didn't realise that until after I got my username changed. That has confused a couple of people. I chose it becase Laika was the First dog in space and it was one of the few achievements/bright spots in Soviet history (although Laika was also the first dog to die in space as well... so. ..dam ). But I stuck with the username as it has a kind of charm.

No "divine judge" makes sense to me, although I do see action/reaction (Newton Law + Karma Law). I have experienced "insurance policy" (My Master told me I don't have to worry about dying [I have quite big health challenges], and I will only die if He wants). Being scientist I put this to the test. Being natural depressed my whole life, crossing the line is not that big a step for me (death intrigued me already at age 10), so I enjoy playing Russian Roulette with my Master, so I told Him mentally "I stop eating/drinking until I die or You intervene". He did twice.

Supernatural I experienced a lot. But if you are right and this does not exists, then it means the supernatural is just something that is "natural in stvdv", not something outside stvdv. Which makes perfect sense to me, and I believe this to be true.

Some are "Anti Theist" you are not that at all, more the opposite IMO, hence you created a different reality. I feel love, reading your words. Love binds humans, so, naturally you get along better with others than atheists "who are less open" or even "anti" (goes the same with all the theists placing themselves on an island of "selected once ready to go to heaven").

We all create our own reality it seems to me..

Below some words that feel good to me. I have a feeling you will love these words too
View attachment 30780

Love, Peace and Blessings to you

Thanks. I liked the story btw.

I have certainly tried to learn how to love people and understand their point of view. And I do know what you mean about other's being "closed". I think you'll understand what I mean when I say that you can get people to look but that doesn't mean they "see". There is something internal, a receptivity that has to already be present for people to know it's there.

As a Communist I was also a "State Atheist" who thought you'd have to "eliminate" religion to make the world more "advanced". (It's almost funny now has ridiculous and arrogant that is if it wasn't so twisted). But I came to RF to try to understand what I might be destroying in the process. I've grown to like and respect many people on this forum, despite our differences of opinion. It has been hard to open up to people but it has also been very healthy in the long-run. I don't know as much about different religions or people as I want but there is always more to learn.

 

[stvdv]

You're very welcome. Although I'm sorry to disappoint as last time I checked, I definitely have a penis.

Big surprise, I was really off this time, it was not because of the name, but how you chose your words; more soft spoken and less "I know exactly how it works". At RF most Atheists seem less open towards spirituality and very opinionated and "seem" very confident. I can't remember hear them say something like you did below, full of humility. That was the main difference I felt.

There’s a philosophical problem that makes it hard to be certain atheism is a fact. Man is not god and is not absolute, therefore man cannot be omniscient and claim to be all-knowing with an absolute understanding of the universe. All knowledge is to a degree uncertian.

Thanks. I liked the story btw.

Good to hear. And good to know that I was not totally off today

I have certainly tried to learn how to love people and understand their point of view. And I do know what you mean about other's being "closed". I think you'll understand what I mean when I say that you can get people to look but that doesn't mean they "see"

Definitely. Some years ago, when going to a Baptist Church, I thought "when I explain my view, they will understand and not judge me". Wrong. they just did not get it. They were listening, but did not hear (now I know the priests really brainwashed them in not even a subtle way; priest told me once "all think exactly as I (tell them to think)". And that was so true ... only 4000 though, in that church (so far I have not met 1 exception)

There is something internal, a receptivity that has to already be present for people to know it's there.

That is 1 point. Another is, that whenever "spiritual ego" is developed in someone "I know what is the best, also for others" then arrogance is born, and with arrogance comes blindness. So far I can say this is true (I have not met even one admitting their view was wrong)

As a Communist I was also a "State Atheist" who thought you'd have to "eliminate" religion to make the world more "advanced"

Aha, so you were not that soft all your life. Sometimes I, even now, think "Peace on earth is only possible if all religions are gone" (those claiming "I know best, and also for you"). Because history gave plenty of proof that this attitude only leads to irritation and finally war.

But I came to RF to try to understand what I might be destroying in the process. I've grown to like and respect many people on this forum, despite our differences of opinion. It has been hard to open up to people but it has also been very healthy in the long-run. I don't know as much about different religions or people as I want but there is always more to learn.

I came to understand people better, and different religions (and as a bonus on RF "atheists and humanists" and like 100 other religions I never heard of before. I never knew there were so many denominations ... If someone had made me guess, I might have said "maybe 42 different kinds of religions". O my God ... more like 4200 I read just now.

 

[Laika]

Big surprise, I was really off this time, it was not because of the name, but how you chose your words; more soft spoken and less "I know exactly how it works". At RF most Atheists seem less open towards spirituality and very opinionated and "seem" very confident. I can't remember hear them say something like you did below, full of humility. That was the main difference I felt.

If it is Humility, it is humility born of error, I can assure you.

Definitely. Some years ago, when going to a Baptist Church, I thought "when I explain my view, they will understand and not judge me". Wrong. they just did not get it. They were listening, but did not hear (now I know the priests really brainwashed them in not even a subtle way; priest told me once "all think exactly as I (tell them to think)". And that was so true ... only 4000 though, in that church (so far I have not met 1 exception)

Three years on RF did pretty much the same to me. It does force you to re-evaluate when you realise how resistant people are to new ideas. It at least stops you thinking your "special" for believing in something and forces you ask why you believe such-and-such and whether it is really true when faced with fierce debate.

That is 1 point. Another is, that whenever "spiritual ego" is developed in someone "I know what is the best, also for others" then arrogance is born, and with arrogance comes blindness. So far I can say this is true (I have not met even one admitting their view was wrong)

You can know what is best for others (to a point anyway), but generally it involves admitting its not always your choice (but theirs) and your liable to get it very, very wrong if you don't pay attention to the complexity of the situations they face and the experiences they bring to the situation.

Our put another way, you have to love them more than your own opinions.

Aha, so you were not that soft all your life. Sometimes I, even now, think "Peace on earth is only possible if all religions are gone" (those claiming "I know best, and also for you"). Because history gave plenty of proof that this attitude only leads to irritation and finally war.

A few years ago I learned that the Soviets developed the "Gas Van" in which they would use a pipe to put the fumes in to the van itself and kill any person locked inside. They'd arrest them, put them in the van, drive them to the burial site, and by the time they got there they would be dead and ready to bury. The Soviets did it first and the Nazis copied this idea.

Although I had long struggled with the implications of Communism, learning this was the point when I realised that the cause I had invested so much of myself in made me no different from being a Nazi. It was so horrible I actually cried.

There was a long process of coming to terms with "what my people had done", but I basically had to give up an belief in my own moral superiority. I found it made me very tolerant of other people (and their failings) as I knew I had honestly got involved in something so horrendous I was really in no position to judge. History is a very cruel and brutal teacher to say the least.

I came to understand people better, and different religions (and as a bonus on RF "atheists and humanists" and like 100 other religions I never heard of before. I never knew there were so many denominations ... If someone had made me guess, I might have said "maybe 42 different kinds of religions". O my God ... more like 4200 I read just now.

There's a monty python sketch satirising communist and religious groups that seems appropriate here.

 

[stvdv]

Three years on RF did pretty much the same to me. It does force you to re-evaluate when you realise how resistant people are to new ideas. It at least stops you thinking your "special" for believing in something and forces you ask why you believe such-and-such and whether it is really true when faced with fierce debate.

I came from zero confidence, so I first had to learn to put boundaries (stick to my belief, not let others belittle me)
In the process I learned, like you, that most are not open to other ideas. So not needed to share much, unless asked
On RF I can practice to just be humane, respectful, tell the truth etc. If I manage that, I consider my RF time successful.

You can know what is best for others (to a point anyway), but generally it involves admitting its not always your choice (but theirs) and your liable to get it very, very wrong if you don't pay attention to the complexity of the situations they face and the experiences they bring to the situation

I know lots about health and diet. But learned that diet change is problematic due to emotional unbalances. Better let them find out themselves

Our put another way, you have to love them more than your own opinions.

Although I had long struggled with the implications of Communism, learning this was the point when I realised that the cause I had invested so much of myself in made me no different from being a Nazi. It was so horrible I actually cried.

Aha, that was your big shift. Admitting I was wrong (quite a few times) was a very good and humbling experience. I was lucky I always was a big time pleaser, so I relatively hurt others less in this lifetime. Must be hard to admit huge mistakes (like killing or raping). Lucky you did not kill. But if reincarnation is true, we all have been killers and rapists. Not sure if it is true, but a good humbling concept ... makes it easier not to judge others

I basically had to give up an belief in my own moral superiority

Probably we all get this challenge one day "give up moral superiority" ... I got mine about 25 years ago (I call it spiritual ego). Toughest to give up

I found it made me very tolerant of other people (and their failings) as I knew I had honestly got involved in something so horrendous I was really in no position to judge. History is a very cruel and brutal teacher to say the least.

The best way to feel compassion and empathy is when I have done the same (stupid) thing. But certain things I rather learn by observing others making this mistakes