Is it possible for people to freely "behave in a Godly manner"?

No, but that many theists have very little epistemological awareness of their own stances.

that is a given..
very few ppl realize the how/why of what they believe (both atheist and theist), it tends to be an emotional decision or a 'common' belief(indoctrination) and as such doesn't require logic.
 
And all the epistemology I tried to tell you is as distant to you as the moon ...

As distant as logic is to you. The concept, the ideology upon which you dwell, clearly describes the spirit as an entity.
 
No, but that many theists have very little epistemological awareness of their own stances.

This is so patronizing.

The cause of my stance is experience (interaction with the entity itself), not language.
 
The two seem to be much intertwined.
how so?
does desire = success?

Or can desire exist quite distinctly from success?

If a person sees little reason to believe they can succeed, then their desire to do it will be low as well.

"Behaving in a godly manner" seems to me to be such a complex issue that it is beyond the application of free will.

Perhaps there are people who are so well trained in both godliness as well as ungodliness that they can decide, in a simple analytical manner, to behave either godly or ungodly, but I am not one of them.

If we take someone whom we perceive to be poetic and inquire of them how they have come to be poetic, the person may give us a list of numerous activities which they have performed over a course of time. Whereby no single instance of none of those activities is sufficient to become poetic; it might even have nothing directly to do with being poetic at all.
Core decisions probably involved putting pen to paper and somehow getting the manuscript to a publisher ;)
We might do something with the intention to become poetic, but there is no guarantee that our efforts will lead to that.
(Some schools of creative writing are notorious for producing authors who write utterly boring and pompous stuff...)
Doesn't matter.
The desire still exists distinctly from accredited success in the field.

There is even a category for it - amateur or self published poetry
:shrug:




Sure. But one probably won't make that decision to begin with unless one is first sure that one has socks to wear.
So sockless people with cold feet never experience (via free will) the desire to have a pair?
 
Is it possible for people to freely "behave in a Godly manner"?

Is it possible that people "behave in a Godly manner" only when they don't have free will?


Provide reasoning and/or evidence (scriptural or other) for or against.


i guess no possibility for this, we are born with freedom, this is the essence of life.
 
how so?
does desire = success?

Or can desire exist quite distinctly from success?

Like I said:

"If a person sees little reason to believe they can succeed, then their desire to do it will be low as well."



So sockless people with cold feet never experience (via free will) the desire to have a pair?

Can you desire something that you don't think is possible?

If you don't have any socks, see no way to acquire socks, and have cold feet - how strong will your desire to get socks be?
 
This is so patronizing.

The cause of my stance is experience (interaction with the entity itself), not language.

Really? You don't think in language - not before the experience of the interaction with the entity itself, and not afterwards?
You are not using words now, right?
This is all direct, non-verbal experience, but which is nonetheless analytically correct and can be adequately enough verbalized.

Welcome to parapyschology! :rolleyes:
I guess fideism is a branch of parapsychology ...
 
Like I said:

"If a person sees little reason to believe they can succeed, then their desire to do it will be low as well."
So you concede that desire can exist independently from anticipated success levels?





Can you desire something that you don't think is possible?

If you don't have any socks, see no way to acquire socks, and have cold feet - how strong will your desire to get socks be?

If it was really that simple surmounting desire would be as easy as making the subject difficult or impossible to attain
:shrug:
 
Really? You don't think in language - not before the experience of the interaction with the entity itself, and not afterwards?
You are not using words now, right?
This is all direct, non-verbal experience, but which is nonetheless analytically correct and can be adequately enough verbalized.

Welcome to parapyschology! :rolleyes:
I guess fideism is a branch of parapsychology ...

i really don't know what your point is anymore signal. a spirit is an entity with real attributes and characteristics that can be observed regardless of what language you might use, if any, to describe them. the most primitive of people have had spiritual experiences (which i'm sure you have cited in other threads while talking out of the other side of your mouth), and have described those spirits and experiences in a variety of languages, including pictures, clicks, and grunts i'm sure. so again, what is your point?

what is important about the spirit is not YOUR ideology about it and how you express that ideology through thought or language. what is important about the spirit is what IT accomplishes.

you may as well argue, what if we didn't have feet? or eyes? or fingers? or ears? or brains? we're human yes, and so we have developed the use of language. that development does not change what the spirit is. the spirit is still the same entity.
 
i really don't know what your point is anymore signal. a spirit is an entity with real attributes and characteristics that can be observed regardless of what language you might use, if any, to describe them. the most primitive of people have had spiritual experiences (which i'm sure you have cited in other threads while talking out of the other side of your mouth), and have described those spirits and experiences in a variety of languages, including pictures, clicks, and grunts i'm sure. so again, what is your point?

what is important about the spirit is not YOUR ideology about it and how you express that ideology through thought or language. what is important about the spirit is what IT accomplishes.

you may as well argue, what if we didn't have feet? or eyes? or fingers? or ears? or brains? we're human yes, and so we have developed the use of language. that development does not change what the spirit is. the spirit is still the same entity.

One of my points is that you are either unable or unwilling to place yourself in other people's shoes (in this case the shoes of atheists, non-Christians etc.), but nonetheless see yourself fit to judge them and expect them to take your judgment seriously.

Secondly, truisms prove nothing. Just because something seem to logically follow, it doesn't mean that it is true, or that we believe it.
"The spirit" may be the same entity regardless of what happens to us or what circumstances we are in; but how we relate to the spirit probably depends on what happens to us or what circumstances we are in.
 
"If a person sees little reason to believe they can succeed, then their desire to do it will be low as well."
So you concede that desire can exist independently from anticipated success levels?

How did you come to the conclusion that I conceded that??


Can you desire something that you don't think is possible?

If you don't have any socks, see no way to acquire socks, and have cold feet - how strong will your desire to get socks be?
If it was really that simple surmounting desire would be as easy as making the subject difficult or impossible to attain

The core principle of renunciation is to make the desired object difficult or impossible to attain.
Monastics, for example, do this in several ways:
By moving to a location where the desired object (esp. women) is difficult or impossible to attain (such as a monastery or forest).
By making oneself unappealing to the desired object. One function of monks shaving their heads (and eyebrows) is to cease or at least decrease to be sexually attractive to others; so by shaving their heads and eyebrows they fend off inappropriate advances from others - given that people normally find shaved hair and esp. shaved eyebrows unappealing. Another way to make oneself unappealing is to wear simple robes. So even if a monk were to make inappropriate adances toward a woman, because he previously made himself look so unappealing, the woman won't recipricate, thereby becoming difficult or impossible to attain, so his desire will remain unsatisfied. (This is so in principle, there are exceptions, of course. In modern times, we have also become desensitized to the point where we don't find a shaven head unappealing.)

As a further example, with a basic desire like hunger for food, infants lose the desire for food after they have been hungry for long enough (and this is long before they would die of starvation).
Normally, infants cry when they are hungry; but when their efforts don't result in receiving food, they eventually stop crying and become apathetic to food.

As a further example, desires that are less important (to the individual) cease when those that are more important are not met.
So, usually, for example, people lose the desire to go the cinema, when they haven't eaten or slept for days. Going to the cinema is difficult or impossible when one is exhausted.
 
Do you really think such a button is not possible?

actually they have it..but it comes with the $4000 shower system (including a cool light show)..but i only want the button..not the rest of that stuff..
 
One of my points is that you are either unable or unwilling to place yourself in other people's shoes (in this case the shoes of atheists, non-Christians etc.), but nonetheless see yourself fit to judge them and expect them to take your judgment seriously.

Secondly, truisms prove nothing. Just because something seem to logically follow, it doesn't mean that it is true, or that we believe it.
"The spirit" may be the same entity regardless of what happens to us or what circumstances we are in; but how we relate to the spirit probably depends on what happens to us or what circumstances we are in.

and you don't relate to it at all, and that doesn't have a damn thing to do with language or circumstances. that has to do with your desire. see, i'm able to put myself in your shoes just fine, to the point where it pisses you off i presume, since i don't buy your bullshit rationale de jour. i wasn't always a christian, but i'll tell you what signal...i was never as insincere as you are about my own intentions. i didn't want to know if god existed for what i thought were damn good reasons, and at least i was honest enough to admit that. i didn't go around making excuses and blaming other people like you do. i knew it was all me, and i know that about you too.
 
Back
Top