i view being humble as being receptive to input, whether it is constructive criticism or disparaging condemnation. being strong is what you do with that from there onwards.
No, because famously humble people were entirely unmoved by "input." Again, Jesus is considered to be the _most_ humble person in Western civilization, yet did he ever accept "input?" Never. Other archetypal humble figures like Gandhi and Lincoln were also famous for stubbornly persisting in their innate correctness despite "very strong constructive criticism."
hate to break it to you, but jesus is not a real person.
and really does the definition of humble apply to people who are decidedly NOT so? especially considering the definition covers a broad range of classification
1. not proud or arrogant; modest:
2. having a feeling of insignificance, inferiority, subservience, etc.:
3. low in rank, importance, status, quality, etc.; lowly: of humble origin;
4. courteously respectful:
those people could easily be humble by one definition and not by another. you have to take this kind of disposition with a grain of salt
"hate to break it to you, but jesus is not a real person"
Irrelevant. Jesus is the archetype for "humble," but your description doesn't fit your description of humble, so your description is incomplete.
You are saying that being "low in rank and importance" is humility? Complete nonsense. That only applies for people who ARE low in rank and importance. Does that describe the President? The rebel leader who defied the most powerful empire in the world? Some guy who started his own religion?
This is in no way a religious discussion. You're not addressing my idea, you're taking potshots at religion and repeating the self-critical nerdy sentiments I refuted in my hypothesis.
adapt and overcome, a good proposition to live by