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

SciWriter

07-14-11, 01:17 PM

GOD: THE NON ROLE MODEL

‘Tis lucky for us that God doesn’t exist, for in breaking the rules he’d ever persist. Even his own Commandments wouldn’t be sacred since he’d murder his own forms created. Well, this would be goof, big time—a mistake, so then a joyous rainbow he might make, to show he’d no more make a worldly lake, but, he could still destroy us all by Earthquake!

He’d slay by flame and flood excruciate; he’d entrap; he’d blame us for his mistake; he’d hold grudges for our ancestors’ sins; he’d throw tantrums and fits—his name, God’s sake! Other loves would not allowed by this jealous one, for he’d want to be the only one to enjoy the fun. For his low esteem our adoration would be required, this request being much like singing to the choir.

Would he have to sleep or rest on the 7th day, after working 24-6 on making the universal hay? Or would he have boundless energy reserves, such that he could do it all through an instant blurb? Would God’s last name be known as ‘Dammit’, with ‘Harold’ his name on Earth’s planet, and would He be ‘Art’ named—when up in Heaven? Would we swearest in vain these names never taken?

We’d have to be really lazy on the Sabbath day, not even lifting up a finger or even wave a bug away, keeping holy and wholly the laundry on Sunday, even avoiding football, as the Pope might say. Cripes, he’d have been in the right place at the right time, not ever having been made, not even costing a dime. What luck to be unborn with so much talent; never having earned his spot with any effort spent. Well, we’d still humour our dear parents, not telling them where we’d been apparent: honoring her offer, on her and off her; yet, we’d soon learn what’s what, via human nature.

If this non God we’d emulate, we could kill those who solicitate—with our free will, even time, spouses, bugs, microbes and other swill, and, of course, outlaws, and, especially, in-laws. Ah, but the concept of reward and punishment handed out by this omnipotent, omniscient God, is but derivative of family experience—the child and parent—a conception of our world.

So, if God’s a good role model, a leader, someone that we would follow, imitate, emulate, be like, adore, or follow, then what else would his fine example allow? We could jail people for the sins of their ancestors, exterminate humanity, allow known evil to exist and tempt, and devise devious entrapment plans. We could have temper tantrums and outbursts, envy, or not permit competitors, grant free will only it matched our own, and covet worship, adoration, and praise. The Christian God is vengeful, demands of, and tortures us with threats of hellish shove. Well, if I were a God and ruled above, you could remove all my powers but love.

Now, back to the Commandments sultry: yes, we should surely admit adultery. But, why banish all thoughts impure, those that are simply our human nature? Now, if he’d wanted us not to be naked, say, then surely we’d have been born that way! as for padding, that would false witness be, so, please, please keep a breast of reality. And no loving thy neighbors much too much, by coveting their Heavenly bodies such, but, thy own ass do covet—as it’s not free; follow Moses, by always tying it to a tree. There are stealers about, another shalt not, who take office supplies home a lot, and take various and sundry restaurant items, as well as keeping every pen, never buying them. Now, really, always do one to others, too, before they can do the same to you, and never lie in court; no, not you—just let your lawyer do it for you!

Now, walking on water is very much out, unless there is solid ice—winter, no doubt, and never know that sin is fun’s evil twin, and ever enter that evil sin-a-God. So, what more would this invented God be, the one with neither paternity nor maternity? Would we then be made so specially that we’d be rewarded for all eternity? If we’d worship him from fear of Hell, then he’d rightly cast us into it; if we’d worship him from a desire for paradise, then he’d deny us entrance into it. He’d say to Adam and Eve in Eden: “Do what you like, but don’t eat the apple”. Well, we know that when you tell children not to touch something, they certainly will! Only a fool would blame his own creations for the flaws therein, for his poor craftsmanship, so rejoice, there’s no maker of man—these ‘flaws’ provide for many, interesting character types!

Well, He’s still on prozac, so they say, for he works in mysterious [insane] ways. The free will to us given is ever free, unless it doesn’t match his own entirely. So, we’d still think that sins, or ills, of a mental nature are caused by the Devil, an evil tempting spirit; however, now we know of brain chemistry gone astray. He’d still detest evil so totally completely, that he’d allow the Devil to tempt us mercilessly. And sins, even the most horrible ones, well, no big deal; we’d just repent them to avoid Hell.

Rigged & jigged, God’s perfect plans would be done, but he’d long for some surprises yet to come, so he might even roll the dice, it being random; “Darn!” he’d say, I already knew the outcome!” One-night stands with engaged young virgins would be OK, but those are not good urgin’s; and no fighting, especially if you are weak; so, when one kisses your ass, turn the other cheek! Thus, a God-who-is-a-being would, like us, be dependent on, and exist after, the ground of ultimate reality, and so could not, in himself, be his own cause. The Diviner would just sit around, with nothing else to do, his mind already full with what would become as new. He couldn’t play dice, scrambling the forecast, For he would know all of which the die was cast.

Now, hail the real all and the one, omnipresent, for it’s eternal, too, and can neither be created nor destroyed, being its own cause, and the ground of all—it’s positive/negative energy!

Lori_7

07-14-11, 04:44 PM

I am, and although we are going through the end of the age of cheap energy, and times will be difficult, it will not be the ultimate culmination of war, famine, death and destruction as Christians desire. It will be hard, but life will go on for billions more years.

that's weird, because when i look around i see plenty of war, famine, death, and destruction, and it's obvious that it's going to get much much worse. what are you looking at?

also, the bible does say that life will go on. that's kind of the whole point. just not all fucked up like it is now.

NMSquirrel

07-14-11, 06:27 PM

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

you are asking if we have free will..
that thread is already here..

lightgigantic

07-14-11, 08:44 PM

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.

If it is possible for people to freely "behave in an unGodly manner", why wouldn't it be possible to do the same in a godly fashion?

wynn

07-14-11, 10:35 PM

Cifo -

If it is possible for people to freely "behave in an unGodly manner", why wouldn't it be possible to do the same in a godly fashion?

I'd like to see your reply to this.

LIGHTBEING

07-15-11, 09:31 AM

that's weird, because when i look around i see plenty of war, famine, death, and destruction, and it's obvious that it's going to get much much worse. what are you looking at?

also, the bible does say that life will go on. that's kind of the whole point. just not all fucked up like it is now.

Yes, and there has been just the same throughout entire history. The only reason you have this perception is because you happen to believe in the Bible literally and happen to be living in the 21st century. Lori7 of the 2nd century came to the same conclusion. Lori7 of the 8th century saw about 15% of the world population die due to war. Lori7 of the 14th century was beside herself as she watched 75 million people die due to a plague. Lori7 of the 19th century saw 2 million people die in a flood. Each version of Lori7 invoked God and claimed that the apocolypse was upon us.

However, it's become apparent that Lori7 and the like are/were incorrect. It's more and more evident that something is motivating your desires and perception of reality.

Here in the 21st century we are birthing a kingdom of logic and reason. Please join us.

~LB

Lori_7

07-15-11, 09:49 AM

Yes, and there has been just the same throughout entire history. The only reason you have this perception is because you happen to believe in the Bible literally and happen to be living in the 21st century. Lori7 of the 2nd century came to the same conclusion. Lori7 of the 8th century saw about 15% of the world population die due to war. Lori7 of the 14th century was beside herself as she watched 75 million people die due to a plague. Lori7 of the 19th century saw 2 million people die in a flood. Each version of Lori7 invoked God and claimed that the apocolypse was upon us.

However, it's become apparent that Lori7 and the like are/were incorrect. It's more and more evident that something is motivating your desires and perception of reality.

Here in the 21st century we are birthing a kingdom of logic and reason. Please join us.

~LB

the fact that i'm birthing a kingdom has plenty to do with my perception. what do you think has to happen for this kingdom of love and truth to manifest, rule, and proliferate?

your naivety doesn't seem logical or reasonable. never before has our planet been so toxic and polluted. never before has our means of survival been entirely handed over to corrupt and near defunct institutions. never before have we had biological and nuclear weapons. and let's not forget that an asteroid or meteor could come crashing into the planet at any time (as it has before) and wipe out damn near everything and everyone.

spidergoat

07-15-11, 11:25 AM

Your birthing awhat now?

LIGHTBEING

07-15-11, 11:50 AM

the fact that i'm birthing a kingdom has plenty to do with my perception. what do you think has to happen for this kingdom of love and truth to manifest, rule, and proliferate?

Yes....it has to do with YOUR perception and nothing to do with reality.

your naivety doesn't seem logical or reasonable.

My points are valid....There will be another Lori7 in the 22nd century whether you agree or not.

never before has our planet been so toxic and polluted.

The Earth is resiliant, it will continue to sustain itself.

never before has our means of survival been entirely handed over to corrupt and near defunct institutions.

ok and?

never before have we had biological and nuclear weapons.

And that mean what exactly.......The human race just needs to move past their ideologies and practice sound logic and reason.

and let's not forget that an asteroid or meteor could come crashing into the planet at any time (as it has before) and wipe out damn near everything and everyone.

Who's forgeting that.....we live in the Universe that is chaotic. The Planet Earth is no exception to the rule. The only difference is that you would attribute this to a devine plan where I would attribute it to a natural phenomenon.

~LB

SciWriter

07-15-11, 10:08 PM

Me-Ki-Gal

07-16-11, 01:53 AM

Yes, and there has been just the same throughout entire history. The only reason you have this perception is because you happen to believe in the Bible literally and happen to be living in the 21st century. Lori7 of the 2nd century came to the same conclusion. Lori7 of the 8th century saw about 15% of the world population die due to war. Lori7 of the 14th century was beside herself as she watched 75 million people die due to a plague. Lori7 of the 19th century saw 2 million people die in a flood. Each version of Lori7 invoked God and claimed that the apocolypse was upon us.

However, it's become apparent that Lori7 and the like are/were incorrect. It's more and more evident that something is motivating your desires and perception of reality.

Here in the 21st century we are birthing a kingdom of logic and reason. Please join us.

~LB

See you are not that smart are you . Each time Lori 357 made it through a revolving history she got a better handle on what law should be. Just because Humans are still stupid animals today don't mean we will be in the future . You think Lori is not talking about Logic and reason . Your wrong . She has something in her " Soul " that is a cut above the norm . Most people are to delusional about them selves to see the real Lori cause they can't get past her Whimsical ways of Death Metal and Monkey Christ . She may struggle to find appropriate language to express her self , but let Me tell you she does it with a pure heart and for the good of the community right or wrong in your eyes . Right in mine , but her vulgarity does leave me speechless some times , Specially when prophesied to Me " Pluck Mother Fucker Pluck

Me-Ki-Gal

07-16-11, 02:04 AM

Ego is tripping up some who give such special importance to the self—its supposedly grandiose origin, meaning, and destiny. This self-importance notion leads them to claim that stuff itself is holy and divine and that they, great as they are, must be of God. They want Intelligence to be behind intelligence but then they place themselves at the dead end of not having INTELLIGENCE behind Intelligence, etc. They went to the complete wrong direction of having more complexity to be the answer for lessor complexity, rather than more simplicity, as even ever seen. These humans are vainglorious, their ego of special self meaning admitting no humility whatsoever.

I am trying to understand that Sci . Really I am . What ? I think " Special Self is important to the community as a whole . I believe in the development of specialty in every day people . Even if it is a goal to be the best lawn mower Man , or the best Scissor Hands. Make the best human meat pies what ever , Book covers out of people backs . It don't matter as long as you give it the old college try

Me-Ki-Gal

07-16-11, 02:12 AM

Your birthing awhat now?

She is birthing the kingdom of the Sun King bro and you ain't going to be killing any sun kings this time around . I can Guarantee that . Mikey don't play that , Talk to the Hand <<<

Me-Ki-Gal

07-16-11, 02:13 AM

What do you expect when Great is part of your name ?

LIGHTBEING

07-16-11, 02:01 PM

See you are not that smart are you . Each time Lori 357 made it through a revolving history she got a better handle on what law should be. Just because Humans are still stupid animals today don't mean we will be in the future . You think Lori is not talking about Logic and reason . Your wrong . She has something in her " Soul " that is a cut above the norm . Most people are to delusional about them selves to see the real Lori cause they can't get past her Whimsical ways of Death Metal and Monkey Christ . She may struggle to find appropriate language to express her self , but let Me tell you she does it with a pure heart and for the good of the community right or wrong in your eyes . Right in mine , but her vulgarity does leave me speechless some times , Specially when prophesied to Me " Pluck Mother Fucker Pluck

Lori7 is basing everything on ancient scripture and experience dictated to her based on the belief in that very same scripture. I see tons of wishful thinking at the expense of humanity which is nonsense. Whether it is Lori7 from the past, present or future, it's always the same underlying meaning.... There has been no evolution as far as I can see. If there has been, please identify it for me.

Good intentions, pure heart, strong soul etc does not validate anything she has offered. Fear Mongers will always disgust me even if they have a nice smile :)

Me-Ki-Gal

07-16-11, 02:43 PM

Lori7 is basing everything on ancient scripture and experience dictated to her based on the belief in that very same scripture. I see tons of wishful thinking at the expense of humanity which is nonsense. Whether it is Lori7 from the past, present or future, it's always the same underlying meaning.... There has been no evolution as far as I can see. If there has been, please identify it for me.

Good intentions, pure heart, strong soul etc does not validate anything she has offered. Fear Mongers will always disgust me even if they have a nice smile :)

It does for Me cause if you don't come to the new earth that way we might natural select that type to be mitigated from the earth . Breed you out of existence. Yeah that is slowly going on , but at last time is not on the scale of a human life . So take the barbarism of ancient Man and compare it to the Justin Beiber types of today . Can you say there has been no Micro evolution going on ? Has there been a goal to do so by the woman's natural selection of a Man. Lets take a little looksy at Ancient Man . Did he take a Woman when He felt like if he was strong enough to do so ? Can a Man do this now ? I think not . Does the Average Man wipe the thought out of his Mined cause He knows it is not right . Why Would He think this ? Were did it come from . I tend to think it was a slow process from primitive Man To Modern Man. Small Changes over time add up to big changes when the time increments are increased . Slowly but surely we find solid ground to stand on . Pure hearts are the way of the future and woman is in the process of breeding you out if you don't comply . Is this instinctive and something out of your personal control . I think the answer is Yes

LIGHTBEING

07-17-11, 09:19 AM

Me-Ki-Gal -

Of coarse, evolution is a fact. However, I was referring to ideology evolving, or better stated, believers evolving. It was in response to you saying that throughout history the Lori7's of the world got a better handle on what "Law" should be. How is that exactly?

That is not to say that believers of yesterday and believers of today are exactly the same in their walk of life, however when you talk about "Law" I would think that most believers of a certain faith follow (or try to follow) their basis delivered in their "Holy Book" - The same underlying facts remain....... including belief/desire for the apocalypse. I'm speaking in terms of evolving to more rational thoughts.

Lori_7

07-19-11, 12:23 PM

Lightbeing, I'm out of town right now and can not respond appropriately to posts from my phone, nor do I have the time at the moment, but let me be clear. DO NOT SPEAK FOR ME, as far as what I'm basing anything on, or anything else for that matter. You can keep your stereotypical self-indulgent bullshit to yourself. Thank you.

LIGHTBEING

07-19-11, 02:47 PM

Lori7 -

When did I speak for you?

~LB

Me-Ki-Gal

07-19-11, 02:59 PM

Lori7 -

When did I speak for you?

~LB

Maybe she means Me ? I did some speaking for her

LIGHTBEING

07-19-11, 02:59 PM

This an open forum to have conversations on certain topics. If you don't want me to acknowledge and respond to certain aspects of your faith(speaking for you according to you), DO NOT put it out there. What would be the point otherwise........

Once you have some time, please explain how my position is self-indulgent?????

LIGHTBEING

07-19-11, 03:00 PM

Maybe she means Me ? I did some speaking for her

LOL, that's what I was thinking but I didn't want to throw you under the bus.

Me-Ki-Gal

07-19-11, 03:13 PM

LOL, that's what I was thinking but I didn't want to throw you under the bus.

You are alright Lightbeing . No worries the "Magic Bus" runs My ass over daily . Them friggen Beatles did it. 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse I tell Ya. I love em anyway .

Lori_7

07-19-11, 04:29 PM

Lori7 -

When did I speak for you?

~LB

"Lori_7 is basing everything on ancient scripture..."

That's not true. That's an incorrect assumption.

phlogistician

07-20-11, 03:40 AM

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

We wouldn't have invented 'God' to make people behave if they were able to behave naturally.

LIGHTBEING

07-20-11, 08:24 AM

"Lori_7 is basing everything on ancient scripture..."

That's not true. That's an incorrect assumption.

Why did you only put part of my quote....there was more to it then that. If you don't believe in the scripture or your interpretation of the scripture how is it exactly that you subscribe to an end of the world prophecy i.e. The Apocalypse described in the Book of Revelation. Was this an original thought Lori or because it is written? I think it's pretty silly for you to be arguing that point and claim that I am making an assumption.

You also subscribe to Original Sin and the Noah Deluge, where did you happen to pick these up? It sounds vaguely familiar..................

I just ate a whole pizza pie with a smile on my face and I loved it but don't you dare assume for one second that I like pizza.

Lori_7

07-20-11, 09:52 AM

What I believe is based on my personal experience alone. Why don't you just speak for yourself going forward? I'll speak for myself. It makes more sense that way.

LIGHTBEING

07-20-11, 11:02 AM

Again, I never spoke for you. I think you are confused.

So direct question -

You DO NOT believe in the Bible scriptures? Second Coming, Original Sin and/or The Great Flood?

Lori_7

07-20-11, 11:51 AM

Again, I never spoke for you. I think you are confused.

So direct question -

You DO NOT believe in the Bible scriptures? Second Coming, Original Sin and/or The Great Flood?

Yes you did speak for me. I do not believe these things because they are written down. To reiterate, I believe what I do because of what I've experienced.

Me-Ki-Gal

07-20-11, 01:33 PM

Again, I never spoke for you. I think you are confused.

So direct question -

You DO NOT believe in the Bible scriptures? Second Coming, Original Sin and/or The Great Flood?
Lori7 has been touched by the holy spirit . No fucking lie . It is the truth . That is why she knows the Great House is her . The inner Sanctuary is another term for it . Only a few people understand the concept . The people that do look at life in a strange and wonderful way. They have a tendency to see the click of change as it unfolds . It is from climbing an imaginary ladder of time . The interpretation from scripture calls it the Ladder of Jacob. In Islamic poetry it is called climbing to the Moon , or Flying to the dark side of the moon in more modern lyrics in song . The concept is old , but still utilized by modern artists . Sorry for talking for you Lori 3, 5 and 7 , You know it is true . I saw you there last time I went there so don't try to deny it .

Lori_7

07-20-11, 02:21 PM

Lori7 has been touched by the holy spirit . No fucking lie . It is the truth . That is why she knows the Great House is her . The inner Sanctuary is another term for it . Only a few people understand the concept . The people that do look at life in a strange and wonderful way. They have a tendency to see the click of change as it unfolds . It is from climbing an imaginary ladder of time . The interpretation from scripture calls it the Ladder of Jacob. In Islamic poetry it is called climbing to the Moon , or Flying to the dark side of the moon in more modern lyrics in song . The concept is old , but still utilized by modern artists . Sorry for talking for you Lori 3, 5 and 7 , You know it is true . I saw you there last time I went there so don't try to deny it .

Lol. I get around, so I've been told.

LIGHTBEING

07-20-11, 03:51 PM

Yes you did speak for me. I do not believe these things because they are written down. To reiterate, I believe what I do because of what I've experienced.

No, no, I did not speak for you....I made a comment about you. There is a difference.

and really, you don't believe in the scripture? So why do you reference the Bible and give your interpretation in support of what is written then? The search button is your friend. Perhaps it is just a coincidence?

Lori_7

07-20-11, 03:59 PM

No, no, I did not speak for you....I made a comment about you. There is a difference.

and really, you don't believe in the scripture? So why do you reference the Bible and give your interpretation in support of what is written then? The search button is your friend. Perhaps it is just a coincidence?

Well the comment was wrong.

I understand and believe scripture because of what's happened to me. This really isn't difficult to understand so let's not drag it out. I'm on a phone here.

LIGHTBEING

07-20-11, 08:15 PM

murdoch

07-21-11, 07:54 AM

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 don't think anyone can freely behave in godly manner except they can always try to emulate him for nobody can get his ways of doing things probably for they simply cannot see the upcoming future of each and every happening. All they should try to do is serve the suffering humanity and nothing else. Else will follow itself.

Lori_7

07-21-11, 03:18 PM

Ummmmm, the comment is not wrong because you confirmed my point in your very next sentence. You do believe in scripture, I never made the attempt as to why you believe in it, I simply stated that you did. I do agree however, this has been dragging on and is a little off topic.

Ps. To be fair I responded to this on my phone :)

You said I based everything on scripture and I do not. I base everything on experience. Come on! Should I really have to tell you what you said?

LIGHTBEING

07-22-11, 10:17 AM

You said I based everything on scripture and I do not. I base everything on experience. Come on! Should I really have to tell you what you said?

I don't know why you are conveniently cutting my quote short.

Here it is again in black and white.

"Lori7 is basing everything on ancient scripture and experience dictated to her based on the belief in that very same scripture"

Can't we put this to bed already? You believe in the Bible, why are you having a difficult time admitting it?????? Odd.

LIGHTBEING

07-22-11, 10:21 AM

Also, if you are saying you base EVERYTHING on experience how is it that you have a conviction about certain ideals in the Bible, obviously written pre-Lori7.

IOW, for example, You experienced the Great Flood?

Lori_7

07-22-11, 01:35 PM

I don't know why you are conveniently cutting my quote short.

Here it is again in black and white.

"Lori7 is basing everything on ancient scripture and experience dictated to her based on the belief in that very same scripture"

Can't we put this to bed already? You believe in the Bible, why are you having a difficult time admitting it?????? Odd.

What does "experience dictated to her" mean? I don't understand how experience can be dictated.

I don't have a difficult time admitting it. The thing is, the scriptures were around and they had been dictated to me for a long time before my experience ever allowed me to understand and therefore believe. Also, I would still understand and believe what I do based on that experience regardless of the scripture.

Lori_7

07-22-11, 01:37 PM

LIGHTBEING

07-22-11, 04:47 PM

What does "experience dictated to her" mean? I don't understand how experience can be dictated.

I don't have a difficult time admitting it. The thing is, the scriptures were around and they had been dictated to me for a long time before my experience ever allowed me to understand and therefore believe. Also, I would still understand and believe what I do based on that experience regardless of the scripture.

What the heck....Lori, you are basically reiterating exactly what I said....what is the issue here??????? Let's move on already.......................................zzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

LIGHTBEING

07-22-11, 05:02 PM

Of course not. When have you ever heard me claiming to know of any flood?

You haven't(as far as I know) and more to my point, you could not have known (even if it was true ;) )

You say you base everything on experience is why I gave that as an example. You obviously did not experience Noah's Deluge but have an authoritive opinion on it.

That has lead me to say you must base everything on scripture and experience.

What is your beef????

Lori_7

07-22-11, 06:19 PM

You haven't(as far as I know) and more to my point, you could not have known (even if it was true ;) )

You say you base everything on experience is why I gave that as an example. You obviously did not experience Noah's Deluge but have an authoritive opinion on it.

That has lead me to say you must base everything on scripture and experience.

What is your beef????

my beef is, please cite where i have given an authoritative opinion on noah's flood. :confused:

Crunchy Cat

07-22-11, 08:54 PM

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.

Sure, look at Al Quaida or the Westborough Babptist Church. They don't get much more godly than that.

wynn

07-23-11, 12:56 AM

We wouldn't have invented 'God' to make people behave if they were able to behave naturally.

But if God is merely invented, then God is natural - and this implies people are able to behave naturally anyway.

wynn

07-23-11, 12:59 AM

What I believe is based on my personal experience alone.

It's not. What you believe is also based on countless experiences of other people, that have been conveyed to you through interacting with them in one way or another.

You can't take credit for your beliefs, nor for your experiences.
For that reason, you also can't really take responsibility for them.

wynn

07-23-11, 01:03 AM

If it is possible for people to freely "behave in an unGodly manner", why wouldn't it be possible to do the same in a godly fashion?

It's not clear how either is the case.

In order to recognize whether someone is behaving in a godly manner or not, we would first need to know what "godly" is.
Different theistic religions disagree on the point of what godly behavior is.

wynn

07-23-11, 01:04 AM

you are asking if we have free will..

No, I'm not asking that.

lightgigantic

07-23-11, 05:32 AM

It's not clear how either is the case.

In order to recognize whether someone is behaving in a godly manner or not, we would first need to know what "godly" is.
Different theistic religions disagree on the point of what godly behavior is.
Its not clear how different understandings of what constitutes godly behavior translates into equally different understandings about whether one can do so freely or not

Lori_7

07-23-11, 09:28 AM

It's not. What you believe is also based on countless experiences of other people, that have been conveyed to you through interacting with them in one way or another.

You can't take credit for your beliefs, nor for your experiences.
For that reason, you also can't really take responsibility for them.

you may be projecting, but no other human being is responsible for my experience with god. no human being could have possibly done what god has done to and for me. not even close. god is responsible for that, and all i did was ask. and no one asked for me.

LIGHTBEING

07-23-11, 10:25 AM

my beef is, please cite where i have given an authoritative opinion on noah's flood. :confused:

Do we really have to do this Lori. Geesh, it may be easier for me to concede and say, ok Lori you win, you don't believe in the Bible or don't base anything on the Bible. But heck, I got nothing to do right at this moment, just drinking my coffee and twiddling my thumbs. Again the search button is your friend. I was using The Flood as one example because it's one of the most famous stories in the Bible and certainly no one alive today could have experienced it.

Here you talk about Noah and how his bloodline is pure and you assert that God will do it again in the last days......How do you know this, were you there? Did you experience it? Or did you look to scripture????
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2071765&postcount=211

Here you assert that there was a near human extinction due to the Flood, you are talking like it's fact, giving an authoritive opinion based on scripture when there is clearly no evidence for a world wide flood. Did you experience this?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2334228&postcount=127

Here Noah built an Ark because God said so....did you witness this as well or did you perhaps read it somewhere?
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2712627&postcount=222

I've also heard your desires and wishful thinking that humanity will suffer the same fate as in the days of Noah - quite disturbing but more to my point, you would never have this revelation with out the Book of Revelation.

Please let's end this already.......................

wynn

07-23-11, 02:19 PM

you may be projecting, but no other human being is responsible for my experience with god. no human being could have possibly done what god has done to and for me. not even close. god is responsible for that, and all i did was ask. and no one asked for me.

You didn't even create the language (ie. English) you are using, you got it from other people.
The word "God", you have learned it from other people, too.

wynn

07-23-11, 05:03 PM

Its not clear how different understandings of what constitutes godly behavior translates into equally different understandings about whether one can do so freely or not

If godly behavior is part of our true nature, then godly behavior is not within the scope of free will, as we are bound to behave godly (at least eventually).

If godly behavior is not part of our true nature, then godly behavior is within the scope of free will, although then the question is why and how we would choose to behave in a manner other than that which is in line with our nature (any behavior that is contrary to our nature, we would experience as suffering).

If our true nature is empty or chaotic, then it is not clear how we can choose in any sensible way, so in that case, it would be absurd to talk about free will.

If we posit that currently, we are in a state where we are out of touch with our true nature (and so acting by what we consider our intution won't necessarily result in godly behavior), we need to have some kind of reason to believe and recognize that this or that particular behavior (as proposed by various religions) is godly while another is not.

But the idea that currently, we are in a state where we are out of touch with our true nature, also places us at the mercy of anything and anyone.

Lori_7

07-23-11, 05:14 PM

You didn't even create the language (ie. English) you are using, you got it from other people.
The word "God", you have learned it from other people, too.

It doesn't matter what language I use or what word I use if any at all, god would still exist, be exactly what it is, and do exactly what it does.

Lori_7

07-23-11, 08:01 PM

wynn

07-24-11, 02:43 AM

It doesn't matter what language I use or what word I use if any at all, god would still exist, be exactly what it is, and do exactly what it does.

But your understanding of it all would be different (and thus your actions), simply if you used a different language.

lightgigantic

07-24-11, 04:55 AM

If godly behavior is part of our true nature, then godly behavior is not within the scope of free will, as we are bound to behave godly (at least eventually).

If godly behavior is not part of our true nature, then godly behavior is within the scope of free will, although then the question is why and how we would choose to behave in a manner other than that which is in line with our nature (any behavior that is contrary to our nature, we would experience as suffering).

If our true nature is empty or chaotic, then it is not clear how we can choose in any sensible way, so in that case, it would be absurd to talk about free will.

If we posit that currently, we are in a state where we are out of touch with our true nature (and so acting by what we consider our intution won't necessarily result in godly behavior), we need to have some kind of reason to believe and recognize that this or that particular behavior (as proposed by various religions) is godly while another is not.

But the idea that currently, we are in a state where we are out of touch with our true nature, also places us at the mercy of anything and anyone.
then that is not so much a quibble about managing the scope of what constitutes godly behaviour but a question about whether we actually have free will or not

LIGHTBEING

07-24-11, 11:42 AM

LB,

You forgot to cite the thread where I brought up a theory about Noahs ark being a DNA lab.

Just because I discuss what's written doesn't mean anything but that. Atheists were discussing what was written too. Reiterating what is written is hardly claiming to be an authority or to have been there and experienced it.

Oh, I think I get it now. You only support and validate the Bible for argument sake and sake of the conversation?

Do I see parallels between the Noah story and Revelations? Yes. How could you not?

Of coarse you do because the writers of Revelations were intimately familiar with the book of Genesis.

But do I believe we're headed towards an apocalypse because it's written? He'll no. I believe that because of what I've experienced, and I would believe that regardless of what is written.

It just so happens that it is written.... coincidence I guess?

But just so you know, god has used many things including art, music, theater, other people to convey very strong messages to me.

You are not the first one to claim this and certainly will not be the last. Doesn't it strike you odd that these claimants have a variety of different messages, voices, understandings and beliefs? And that they all seems to be motivated by desires in one of the many ideologies?

I'm just saying that this isn't as cut and dry as you think it is. You're trying to put me in a box I don't fit in.

I don't think it's really cut and dry because I see people pick and choose all the time but if one had to classify someone that adheres to certain laws, rules and messages handed down by a certain belief system, then one can make a logical conclusion that they follow and believe the Holy Book acknowledged in that system ( perhaps not in it's entirety ).

Insert deity here

07-24-11, 02:45 PM

I really do not know why anyone would want to emulate the genocidal Bible God.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
— Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

Regards
DL

All one needs is to read the bible to get the idea of how brutal the Christian God fellow is.Which brings up the question, were we created in his image or he created in our image?

wynn

07-24-11, 03:06 PM

All one needs is to read the bible to get the idea of how brutal the Christian God fellow is.Which brings up the question, were we created in his image or he created in our image?

Given that there is such a mutual likeness between God and (some of) His creation, it sure is hard to answer your question.

wynn

07-24-11, 03:14 PM

then that is not so much a quibble about managing the scope of what constitutes godly behaviour but a question about whether we actually have free will or not

Sure. The two issues are related, though.

Also, your contempt - calling my comments "quibble" - is well noted.

Lori_7

07-24-11, 04:22 PM

But your understanding of it all would be different (and thus your actions), simply if you used a different language.

That's ridiculous. Different language is just different labels to describe the same things and convey the same knowledge, ideas, and feelings. Nothing can thwart god, and god is not dependent upon man, intellect, or language. The holy spirit is an entity, not a word.

lightgigantic

07-25-11, 05:22 AM

Sure. The two issues are related, though.

Also, your contempt - calling my comments "quibble" - is well noted.

How are they related?

For instance if I celebrate qualities X, Y and Z as godly (and therefore desirable) behavior, its hard to understand what would be the point of me talking about it as something existing outside of freewill, aside from quibbling?

wynn

07-25-11, 05:25 AM

That's ridiculous. Different language is just different labels to describe the same things and convey the same knowledge, ideas, and feelings. Nothing can thwart god, and god is not dependent upon man, intellect, or language. The holy spirit is an entity, not a word.

If you were born in Thailand in the 16th century and spoke only Thai, do you really think you would use terms like "the holy spirit", "God" and "Christ"?

Lori_7

07-25-11, 05:27 AM

If you were born in Thailand in the 16th century and spoke only Thai, do you really think you would use terms like "the holy spirit", "God" and "Christ"?

no, but those things would still exist and still be exactly what they are regardless of some thai vs english label you choose to slap on them. sheesh, are you really this dense? :confused:

wynn

07-25-11, 05:35 AM

no, but those things would still exist and still be exactly what they are

As a 16th century Thai, you wouldn't know that.

Lori_7

07-25-11, 05:37 AM

As a 16th century Thai, you wouldn't know that.

why? is a tree not a tree because you call it something else? or is it still a tree? even in 16th century thai?

FUCKING DUH. :rolleyes:

wynn

07-25-11, 05:42 AM

How are they related?

For instance if I celebrate qualities X, Y and Z as godly (and therefore desirable) behavior, its hard to understand what would be the point of me talking about it as something existing outside of freewill, aside from quibbling?

If you already celebrate those qualities as godly, I don't see what would be the point of talking about those qualities as something within the scope of freewill.

I have never seen that, for example, the 26 qualities of a devotee would be talked about as something subject to free will and deliberate pursuit - but instead as something that develops, due to practice.
(E.g. reasoning like "If you think you're humble, you're not humble; if you try to be humble, you won't be humble.")

Further points:

For one, you celebrate them, but not every other (self-declared) theist does.

For two, it is not clear how you have come to celebrate those qualities as godly.
Perhaps you have arrived at celebrating them by a circular/self-referential way of reasoning; perhaps they never appeared to you as being a matter of choice to begin with.
The same may not be the case with everyone else.

wynn

07-25-11, 05:43 AM

why? is a tree not a tree because you call it something else? or is it still a tree? even in 16th century thai?

FUCKING DUH. :rolleyes:

You don't speak many languages, do you?

lightgigantic

07-25-11, 06:45 AM

If you already celebrate those qualities as godly, I don't see what would be the point of talking about those qualities as something within the scope of freewill.

I have never seen that, for example, the 26 qualities of a devotee would be talked about as something subject to free will and deliberate pursuit - but instead as something that develops, due to practice.
(E.g. reasoning like "If you think you're humble, you're not humble; if you try to be humble, you won't be humble.")
and that practice is outside of free will?
:shrug:

Further points:

For one, you celebrate them, but not every other (self-declared) theist does.
Doesn't matter.

If ANY behaviour is celebrated as desirable (from your local motor cycle gang to your monastery) , it can only hope to be meaningfully addressed if it falls within the parameters of free will.

For two, it is not clear how you have come to celebrate those qualities as godly.
Perhaps you have arrived at celebrating them by a circular/self-referential way of reasoning; perhaps they never appeared to you as being a matter of choice to begin with.
The same may not be the case with everyone else.
ditto above

wynn

07-25-11, 07:07 AM

and that practice is outside of free will?

Yes, unless you think that, for example, being humble or poetic is a matter of a simple analytical choice. Which I do not think it is.

For a further example, it's not a matter of free will for you to become a ballerina.

Free will can meaningfully apply only in situations that the agent-to-be perceives as doable and decidable in a simple analytical manner (ie. "I will do either this or that").

If ANY behaviour is celebrated as desirable (from your local motor cycle gang to your monastery) , it can only hope to be meaningfully addressed if it falls within the parameters of free will.

And yet you cannot decide to be humble, or poetic, or a ballerina, in the same manner as you can probably decide which of the two comparable pairs of socks to wear.

lightgigantic

07-25-11, 07:15 AM

Yes, unless you think that, for example, being humble or poetic is a matter of a simple analytical choice. Which I do not think it is.

For a further example, it's not a matter of free will for you to become a ballerina.

Free will can meaningfully apply only in situations that the agent-to-be perceives as doable and decidable in a simple analytical manner (ie. "I will do either this or that").
Kind of makes you wonder why there are dance schools or a plethora of books about what constitutes good poetry and such

Or why persons attempt to do such things when they fail

And yet you cannot decide to be humble, or poetic, or a ballerina, in the same manner as you can probably decide which of the two comparable pairs of socks to wear.
Are you talking about desiring or succeeding?
Even the decision to wear socks requires that one successfully locate a pair.

wynn

07-25-11, 07:49 AM

Are you talking about desiring or succeeding?

The two seem to be much intertwined.
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.

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...)

Even the decision to wear socks requires that one successfully locate a pair.

Sure. But one probably won't make that decision to begin with unless one is first sure that one has socks to wear.

LIGHTBEING

07-25-11, 11:49 AM

no, but those things would still exist and still be exactly what they are regardless of some thai vs english label you choose to slap on them. sheesh, are you really this dense? :confused:

It exists as an idea only so for example if some other culture or language in a different time did not recognize them, then to them, they would not exist. The thought of the Holy Spirit would never enter into their minds.

Lori_7

07-25-11, 12:49 PM

You don't speak many languages, do you?

i speak enough to know that in 16th century thailand they recognized trees even though that's not what they called them. how about you? still going to play retarded?

Lori_7

07-25-11, 12:52 PM

It exists as an idea only so for example if some other culture or language in a different time did not recognize them, then to them, they would not exist. The thought of the Holy Spirit would never enter into their minds.

no it does not exist as an idea only. it's a real thing. i'm not talking about the "thought" of the holy spirit entering their minds, i'm talking about the holy spirit itself entering their minds.

LIGHTBEING

07-25-11, 02:03 PM

no it does not exist as an idea only. it's a real thing. i'm not talking about the "thought" of the holy spirit entering their minds, i'm talking about the holy spirit itself entering their minds.

I know you feel it's a real thing but you can't prove it's a real thing. You are comparing a belief and a tree. You are insinuating that the alleged Holy Spirit is as real as a tree, eventhough you can't prove a Spirit but you can certainly prove a tree exists. Your feelings are irrelevant to whether the tree or Holy Spirit exists.

–verb (used without object)
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.

Lori_7

07-25-11, 02:51 PM

I know you feel it's a real thing but you can't prove it's a real thing. You are comparing a belief and a tree. You are insinuating that the alleged Holy Spirit is as real as a tree, eventhough you can't prove a Spirit but you can certainly prove a tree exists. Your feelings are irrelevant to whether the tree or Holy Spirit exists.

–verb (used without object)
1. to have actual being; be: The world exists, whether you like it or not.

Nobody's talking about proving the holy spirit is real. If we're going to discuss the spirit in this particular context then it's assumed it's real, although not a physical thing like a tree. It is presumed to be a real thing. An entity that influences people and causes real things to happen. Impresses it's existence upon people. It is not known by a name but by distinguishing characteristics that can be recognized by experience regardless of labels and language.

I mean, if the premise is that it doesn't exist why discuss it at all?

wynn

07-25-11, 03:12 PM

i speak enough to know that in 16th century thailand they recognized trees even though that's not what they called them. how about you? still going to play retarded?

They don't/didn't have a word for the "holy spirit" and such.

The phenomenon of untranslatability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untranslatability) is real.

People born in other cultures/languages often cannot understand concepts that may be obvious to one.

Insert deity here

07-25-11, 04:12 PM

Darn it I posted this in the wrong thread T.T excuse moi

Lori_7

07-25-11, 04:55 PM

They don't/didn't have a word for the "holy spirit" and such.

The phenomenon of untranslatability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untranslatability) is real.

People born in other cultures/languages often cannot understand concepts that may be obvious to one.

The spirit is not a concept; it is an entity!

wynn

07-26-11, 07:42 AM

The spirit is not a concept; it is an entity!

And all the epistemology I tried to tell you is as distant to you as the moon ...

NMSquirrel

07-26-11, 09:52 AM

The spirit is not a concept; it is an entity!And all the epistemology I tried to tell you is as distant to you as the moon ...

are you saying the spirit is not an entity?

wynn

07-26-11, 10:09 AM

are you saying the spirit is not an entity?

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

NMSquirrel

07-26-11, 10:16 AM

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.

Lori_7

07-26-11, 02:00 PM

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.

Lori_7

07-26-11, 02:07 PM

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.

lightgigantic

07-26-11, 06:55 PM

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?

juliet2011

07-26-11, 10:39 PM

kx000

07-27-11, 01:36 AM

What is a Godly manner?

wynn

07-27-11, 02:56 AM

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?

wynn

07-27-11, 03:00 AM

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 ...

lightgigantic

07-27-11, 09:13 AM

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:

Lori_7

07-27-11, 12:54 PM

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.

NMSquirrel

07-27-11, 01:37 PM

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

YES!
I desire a button for my shower, I push it and it turns on the water to a predetermined temp (which i can adjust)..

wynn

07-28-11, 09:17 AM

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.

wynn

07-28-11, 09:17 AM

YES!
I desire a button for my shower, I push it and it turns on the water to a predetermined temp (which i can adjust)..

Do you really think such a button is not possible?

wynn

07-28-11, 09:39 AM

"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.

NMSquirrel

07-28-11, 09:40 AM

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..

wynn

07-28-11, 09:58 AM

So it's not impossible?

Lori_7

07-28-11, 10:05 AM

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.

lightgigantic

07-28-11, 08:32 PM

How did you come to the conclusion that I conceded that??
You used the word "low" instead of "no"

The core principle of renunciation is to make the desired object difficult or impossible to attain.
Sounds like a sure way to fail in the quest for renunciation.

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.)
despite all this, if the mind is still attached to the sense object (an ability it has even in the complete absence of the before mentioned sense object ) then it is all futile

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.
why do you suppose the same isn't true of adults ?

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.
not sure what this has to do with your argument that an absence of sense objects equals an absence of desire

wynn

07-29-11, 04:28 AM

Sounds like a sure way to fail in the quest for renunciation.

Why?

despite all this, if the mind is still attached to the sense object (an ability it has even in the complete absence of the before mentioned sense object ) then it is all futile

Sure. But I contend that a prolonged inability to access the desired leads to a diminishing of the desire.

why do you suppose the same isn't true of adults ?

What makes you think I suppose that?

(I didn't want to make the list too long, so I didn't add examples of adults with eating disorders who are also apathetic to food.)

not sure what this has to do with your argument that an absence of sense objects equals an absence of desire

That desires cease in unfavorable circumstances, or that they transform/sublimate into other desires.

wynn

07-29-11, 04:30 AM

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.

Anything that makes you feel good about yourself, huh, Lori? Even if you have to demonize others.

That's why I say - spirituality is a dog fight

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~holsi20e/classweb/worldpolitics/images/dogfight2.jpg

lightgigantic

07-29-11, 07:45 AM

Why?
because the mind is naturally attracted to sense objects

Sure. But I contend that a prolonged inability to access the desired leads to a diminishing of the desire.
I doubt it

What makes you think I suppose that?

(I didn't want to make the list too long, so I didn't add examples of adults with eating disorders who are also apathetic to food.)
if thats true kind of makes you wonder why people bother to eat

That desires cease in unfavorable circumstances, or that they transform/sublimate into other desires.
I don't seethe evidence for desire ceasing in unfavorable circumstances.

Repression accomplishes absolutely nothing

wynn

07-29-11, 02:07 PM

because the mind is naturally attracted to sense objects

So?

What makes you think I suppose that?

(I didn't want to make the list too long, so I didn't add examples of adults with eating disorders who are also apathetic to food.)

if thats true kind of makes you wonder why people bother to eat

If what is true?
Usually, people tend to their desires, and this is what keeps the desires alive. Usually, people do not refrain from food to the point where they would become apathetic to food.

I don't seethe evidence for desire ceasing in unfavorable circumstances.

So you think it is common for people to desire to go to the cinema when they are starved and exhausted?

Repression accomplishes absolutely nothing

We probably have different ideas of repression.

I wasn't talking about a man tightening the metal cilice with inwardly-pointing spikes on his thigh while he is watching scantily clad women.

And it's tragicomical that it would be you, from your religious tradition, to talk about how repression accomplishes absolutely nothing. Sure, it's part of your doctrine. Gritting teeth and "just do it" indefinitely is also what is expected of outsiders/newcomers. This is when you people forget everything about how repression accomplishes absolutely nothing, eh.

Lori_7

07-29-11, 02:51 PM

Anything that makes you feel good about yourself, huh, Lori? Even if you have to demonize others.

That's why I say - spirituality is a dog fight

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~holsi20e/classweb/worldpolitics/images/dogfight2.jpg

You wish it was a dog fight, but since you recognize no spirituality, your opinion is vastly unqualified.

I'm sorry but IMO you're not as clever as you think you are.

wynn

07-30-11, 01:12 AM

You wish it was a dog fight, but since you recognize no spirituality, your opinion is vastly unqualified.

I'm sorry but IMO you're not as clever as you think you are.

I don't exist, right?

I am what you say that you are.

There is no me.

There is only what Lori says that I am.

And I am really obligated to believe that, or I am an evil person.

lightgigantic

07-30-11, 05:06 AM

So?
So its futile to attempt a permanent solution merely by fiddling with sense objects

If what is true?
Usually, people tend to their desires, and this is what keeps the desires alive. Usually, people do not refrain from food to the point where they would become apathetic to food.
Incorrect
If desires were kept alive merely by being tended there would be none to begin with

So you think it is common for people to desire to go to the cinema when they are starved and exhausted?
So you think that fatigue is a permanent solution to quelling the desire to go to the cinema?

We probably have different ideas of repression.

I wasn't talking about a man tightening the metal cilice with inwardly-pointing spikes on his thigh while he is watching scantily clad women.
neither was I

And it's tragicomical that it would be you, from your religious tradition, to talk about how repression accomplishes absolutely nothing. Sure, it's part of your doctrine. Gritting teeth and "just do it" indefinitely is also what is expected of outsiders/newcomers. This is when you people forget everything about how repression accomplishes absolutely nothing, eh.
Its tragicomical that you think that is a spiritual conclusion

BG 3.33 Even a man of knowledge acts according to his own nature, for everyone follows the nature he has acquired from the three modes. What can repression accomplish?

There's practically an entire chapter in the gita about how adopting the "teeth gritting" method is a recipe for hitting the deck

:shrug:

Lori_7

07-30-11, 10:31 AM

I don't exist, right?

I am what you say that you are.

There is no me.

There is only what Lori says that I am.

And I am really obligated to believe that, or I am an evil person.

no, that is what you say, over and over and over again in every thread, and that is what i argue with you about. remember? i'm the one who tells you it's always your responsibility, that it's all about you, and your personal relationship with god, and your perception, and your experience. and then you start throwing around the word solipsism. remember? it's because you insist upon remaining unaccountable and blaming others for what has to be your responsibility and yours alone. does this ring any bells?

wynn

07-30-11, 02:21 PM

no, that is what you say, over and over and over again in every thread, and that is what i argue with you about. remember? i'm the one who tells you it's always your responsibility, that it's all about you, and your personal relationship with god, and your perception, and your experience. and then you start throwing around the word solipsism. remember? it's because you insist upon remaining unaccountable and blaming others for what has to be your responsibility and yours alone. does this ring any bells?

You are denying where you're taking from, lady. :shrug:

Lori_7

07-30-11, 02:42 PM

You are denying where you're taking from, lady. :shrug:

Is that sentence grammatically correct?

Are you confused now about which side of your mouth you're speaking from? Tsk tsk, that's what happens when you're not honest.

Truth is, someone observing your behavior and arguments and calling you out does not make you disappear. You may wish it did sometimes.

wynn

07-30-11, 02:48 PM

So its futile to attempt a permanent solution merely by fiddling with sense objects

Blind faith and taking for granted that a particular spiritual/religious tradition is the one and only right one doesn't help.

The formula "abandon the bad, cultivate the good" sounds nice in theory, but is problematic in practice. It simply is not clear what the "good" is and how to develop it.

Incorrect
If desires were kept alive merely by being tended there would be none to begin with

A child is born hungry. It is fed. It gets used to finding pleasure in eating. It desires more food. It gets more food. Grows up, takes care on his own to get food.
Usually, once people start doing something and they find it pleasurable, they continue to have that desire to do it again.

But we each seem to be talking about two different kinds of desires: I'm talking about habitual/recurring ones, you about singular ones.

Indeed, the desire of a tourist from Munich to go to New York ceases once he sets foot on Times Square.
But the desires for food or sex are not like that.

EDIT:

On a further note: There is a statement in a SB commentary to the effect that material pleasures are satisfying, while spiritual ones are not. This struck me as an awkward claim, and the rest of the commentary didn't seem to explain it either. My first thought when it comes to worldly pleasures is that they are unsatisfactory.
Later upon reading something else (http://www.worldblessings.com/addiction-and-spirituality.html), it occured to me that when material pleasures are engaged in for material reasons, then those activities may indeed be satisfying. But when people engage in material pleasures for the purpose of satisfying spiritual desires, this is when those material pleasures turn out to be so completely frustrating.

Obviously, our anaylsis of desires so far has been rather simplistic, and we would need to be more specific to gain clarity.

So you think that fatigue is a permanent solution to quelling the desire to go to the cinema?

Strawmen are ugly.

Its tragicomical that you think that is a spiritual conclusion

It is the reality that many a newcomer/outsider faces in your religious organization.
And it is a reality that you persistenly refuse to acknowledge.

BG 3.33 Even a man of knowledge acts according to his own nature, for everyone follows the nature he has acquired from the three modes. What can repression accomplish?

There's practically an entire chapter in the gita about how adopting the "teeth gritting" method is a recipe for hitting the deck

Then your founder acharya should listen to himself, instead of talking about how to kill all the mudhas.
To say nothing of the devotees and how kosher they find it to expect, even demand from people to just grit their teeth and do the practices and beliefs that your organization endorses.

wynn

07-30-11, 02:59 PM

You may wish it did sometimes.

It's that for you, from your perspective, I don't really exist.
There is no room for an Other in your world and reasoning.
You talk to me as if I were a figment of your imagination, as if I wouldn't be real, as if I wouldn't be a person, as if I wouldn't really exist.

You set yourself up as my God, as God to me - as someone whom I am unconditionally obligated to, someone who dictates reality to me and what I am supposed to think, feel, say and do.

This is how I don't exist for you. And the more I shout and scream, the more I punch around in an effort to make myself visible and tangible to you, the more you tighten your grip, the more you objectify me and infantilize me, the more you make an effort to dictate reality to me, trying to eradicate me, minimize me, make me irrelevant - so that you could prevail.

Lori_7

07-30-11, 03:20 PM

It's that for you, from your perspective, I don't really exist.
There is no room for an Other in your world and reasoning.
You talk to me as if I were a figment of your imagination, as if I wouldn't be real, as if I wouldn't be a person, as if I wouldn't really exist.

You set yourself up as my God, as God to me - as someone whom I am unconditionally obligated to, someone who dictates reality to me and what I am supposed to think, feel, say and do.

This is how I don't exist for you. And the more I shout and scream, the more I punch around in an effort to make myself visible and tangible to you, the more you tighten your grip, the more you objectify me and infantilize me, the more you make an effort to dictate reality to me, trying to eradicate me, minimize me, make me irrelevant - so that you could prevail.

Are you seriously going to deny that this is exactly what you repeatedly INSIST people do to you while I refuse and contend? Because I will dig up the post after post after post. It wasn't that long ago you were insisting on some guru. You can't even keep track of your own bullshit can you?

wynn

07-30-11, 03:23 PM

Are you seriously going to deny that this is exactly what you repeatedly INSIST people do to you while I refuse and contend? Because I will dig up the post after post after post. It wasn't that long ago you were insisting on some guru. You can't even keep track of your own bullshit can you?

Excellent attitude, Lori!

Lori_7

07-30-11, 03:40 PM

Excellent attitude, Lori!

It's called honesty! Dare you to try it sometime!

wynn

07-31-11, 12:14 AM

So you think that fatigue is a permanent solution to quelling the desire to go to the cinema?

Why are you strawmanning?

And no, this is not about the solution to quelling desire or going to the cinema.

You have lately strawmanned my points, ridiculed them.
Why?

wynn

07-31-11, 01:03 AM

It's called honesty! Dare you to try it sometime!

It's called guilt-tripping. Something you excell at.

lightgigantic

07-31-11, 06:41 AM

Blind faith and taking for granted that a particular spiritual/religious tradition is the one and only right one doesn't help.

The formula "abandon the bad, cultivate the good" sounds nice in theory, but is problematic in practice. It simply is not clear what the "good" is and how to develop it.
If you are talking about applying yourself to "teeth grinding" renunciation you have already made these decisions

A child is born hungry. It is fed. It gets used to finding pleasure in eating. It desires more food. It gets more food. Grows up, takes care on his own to get food.
Usually, once people start doing something and they find it pleasurable, they continue to have that desire to do it again.
they were already starting with not eating.
IOW desire is always a constant companion of the living entity

But we each seem to be talking about two different kinds of desires: I'm talking about habitual/recurring ones, you about singular ones.
I don't follow

Indeed, the desire of a tourist from Munich to go to New York ceases once he sets foot on Times Square.
But the desires for food or sex are not like that.
There are broader (recurring) issues that prompt travel, much like eating or anything else you would like to mention

EDIT:

On a further note: There is a statement in a SB commentary to the effect that material pleasures are satisfying, while spiritual ones are not. This struck me as an awkward claim, and the rest of the commentary didn't seem to explain it either. My first thought when it comes to worldly pleasures is that they are unsatisfactory.
I can't think of the statement you are referring to ... particularly since it seems diametrically opposed tot he wider body of work of the SB

Later upon reading something else (http://www.worldblessings.com/addiction-and-spirituality.html), it occured to me that when material pleasures are engaged in for material reasons, then those activities may indeed be satisfying. But when people engage in material pleasures for the purpose of satisfying spiritual desires, this is when those material pleasures turn out to be so completely frustrating.
I don't understand how you propose one goes about engaging in material pleasures to satisfy spiritual pleasure

Obviously, our anaylsis of desires so far has been rather simplistic, and we would need to be more specific to gain clarity.
Its not getting any clearer

Strawmen are ugly.
I don't think you understand which part of your argument I am contending

It is the reality that many a newcomer/outsider faces in your religious organization.
It is a reality that many aspiring spiritualists hit the deck because they misapply general precepts of renunciation

And it is a reality that you persistenly refuse to acknowledge.
Its quite simple.
BG says if you do act A you get result B and if you do act C you get result D.

Designations of newcomer or long term practitioner doesn't really mean anything in that context.

Kind of like if a person cuts their finger with a knife, it doesn't really matter whether they are a surgeon, master chef or spaced out toddler.
It bleeds the same.

Then your founder acharya should listen to himself, instead of talking about how to kill all the mudhas.
On the contrary, if the founder acharya suggests something yet one insists on it being a different way (since that is what the devotees "told" me) one is a mudha

To say nothing of the devotees and how kosher they find it to expect, even demand from people to just grit their teeth and do the practices and beliefs that your organization endorses.
:confused:

If you are ready to advocate that the best solution in pursuit of renunciation is to lock the sense objects in a trunk and throw away the key, its not clear what is the precise problem you have with grinding your teeth, even if we want to hypothetically accept it as the standard in chanting.

wynn

07-31-11, 09:32 AM

I am repeating:

So you think that fatigue is a permanent solution to quelling the desire to go to the cinema?

Why are you strawmanning?

And no, this is not about the solution to quelling desire or going to the cinema.

You have lately strawmanned my points, ridiculed them.
Why?

Lori_7

07-31-11, 10:09 AM

It's called guilt-tripping. Something you excell at.

no, it's really just calling it like i see it. if you happen to feel convicted, that's all you. :shrug:

lightgigantic

07-31-11, 08:39 PM

I am repeating:

Why are you strawmanning?

And no, this is not about the solution to quelling desire or going to the cinema.

You have lately strawmanned my points, ridiculed them.
Why?
Perhaps now is the time for you to recap on what part your cinema example plays on establishing the whole "teeth gritting/ throw the sense objects in a trunk" sort of renunciation you are advocating.

wynn

08-01-11, 01:22 AM

no, it's really just calling it like i see it.

But this is all it is: you calling it as you see it.
It's not objective reality. It's not the Bible. It's not authoritative.

Yet you want me to believe your words have this kind of authority.

wynn

08-01-11, 03:04 AM

Perhaps now is the time for you to recap on what part your cinema example plays on establishing the whole "teeth gritting/ throw the sense objects in a trunk" sort of renunciation you are advocating.

Your strawmanning is really hurtful.

Feel free to pull rank against me, if you want. I am not an ISKCON aspirant anymore, so your pulling rank (and claiming that your interpretation of my posts is correct) doesn't affect me nearly as much as it used to.

wynn

08-01-11, 03:16 AM

A child is born hungry. It is fed. It gets used to finding pleasure in eating. It desires more food. It gets more food. Grows up, takes care on his own to get food.
Usually, once people start doing something and they find it pleasurable, they continue to have that desire to do it again.

they were already starting with not eating.

I pointed our earlier that tending to desires is what can keep them alive. I didn't say anything about how desires come into existence to begin with.

IOW desire is always a constant companion of the living entity

Sure. Then you also need to rethink your formulations when you speak of "quelling desire" and "ceasing desire".

On a further note: There is a statement in a SB commentary to the effect that material pleasures are satisfying, while spiritual ones are not. This struck me as an awkward claim, and the rest of the commentary didn't seem to explain it either. My first thought when it comes to worldly pleasures is that they are unsatisfactory.

I can't think of the statement you are referring to ... particularly since it seems diametrically opposed tot he wider body of work of the SB

A good portion of the Vedas is devoted to instructions for enjoying material pleasures. E.g. if you want to have sons, do these practices and sacrifices, if you want the crops to yield, do that, etc. etc.
SB and BG often enough talk about people actually enjoying material pleasures.

Later upon reading something else, it occured to me that when material pleasures are engaged in for material reasons, then those activities may indeed be satisfying. But when people engage in material pleasures for the purpose of satisfying spiritual desires, this is when those material pleasures turn out to be so completely frustrating.

I don't understand how you propose one goes about engaging in material pleasures to satisfy spiritual pleasure

If you would read the link I provided, the phenomenon is explained in the first paragraphs:

There is a time and place in which the soul begins to seek a path of return to its lost home, and, finding the way blocked or invisible, yearns once again for the sense of peace and love that it remembers as having been part of its deepest longing. In that moment of time, when the soul turns toward the sun of its longing seeking remembrance and reunion, seeking the sense of peace and completion that it believes is possible, a significant step toward the light of Spirit is taken and the soul will never be the same again. At the same time, if the yearning for home is not realized by fulfillment, if the spiritual longing finds, instead, an emptiness of heart and a lack of response to its prayer for reunion, it can become disconsolate and greatly sorrowful, so much so that it gives up that which it has set its heart upon, and instead turns to other means by which to fulfill its desire for peace and for the essence of tranquility which can only be produced by the light.

These are the conditions under which addictive processes take place within the human psyche. They emerge from the condition of perceived separation from one's point of origin and spiritual home, and arise when the deeper longing of the soul still struggling to emerge within the human self, seeks its way back to the point of its Source and origin. They do not arise before this, because before this the embodied soul is fully engaged with life on the material plane. It is engaged both from the standpoint of seeking mastery and a sense of physical comfort and fulfillment, and in the sense of fascination with the many arenas of earthly learning and pleasure that are both sensory and spiritual - though the latter quality may be unknown to the self that pursues them. When the soul begins to find these pleasures and this mastery no longer sufficient to quiet the yearning that grows within the heart and the deeper levels of being, then the soul begins to lose hope that the life of the physical plane will be able to grant the satisfaction that it longs for. Instead, it may seek a substitute gratification that it hopes will steadfastly and surely be able to grant the kind of peace and soul-fulfillment that is desired.

Fundamentally, turning toward addiction is a spiritual act. However much it may be fueled by conditions of poverty, need, emotional instability, immaturity, or any other psychological variable, the replacement of the soul's yearning for completion and peace with a substitute is an act of spiritual seeking that has taken a turn away from its true destination toward an alternative destination. This is an act that is both an effort to resolve a spiritual dilemma, as well as an effort to grant immediate release from the pain of having to wait for a more authentic source of realization.

A similar content is stated in BG 4.10:

/.../Furthermore there are many persons who cannot understand spiritual existence at all. Being embarrassed by so many theories and by contradictions of various types of philosophical speculation, they become disgusted or angry and foolishly conclude that there is no supreme cause and that everything is ultimately void. Such people are in a diseased condition of life. Some people are too materially attached and therefore do not give attention to spiritual life, some of them want to merge into the supreme spiritual cause, and some of them disbelieve in everything, being angry at all sorts of spiritual speculation out of hopelessness. This last class of men take to the shelter of some kind of intoxication, and their affective hallucinations are sometimes accepted as spiritual vision.

Note that there are people who can have sex, and feel satisfaction from it. There are people who can consume alcohol, drugs, chocolate, meat, French novels etc. and they feel genuine satisfaction. They also have a sense of moderation in these activities. There are people who can drink a glass of wine or eat a few pieces of chocolate - and who can leave it at that, without feeling this requires any act of will or causes them disturbance.
These people are in it for the material pleasures and they enjoy them.

There is a characteristic other type of people who find engaging in those activities deeply dissatisfying, but who nonetheless engage in them. These are the addicts. They have never enough. They cannot stop on their own, at least not without feeling deep disturbance. These are the ones who try to satisfy a spiritual longing by material means. Of course, it doesn't work, and intuitively, they know it, but they do not know and/or are not able to satisfy their longing in any other way.

If you listen to people who have battled addiction, you can see this verified. "I have this void inside of me, it is unbearable, and nothing I do seems to fill it" is an idea frequently expressed.

Its not getting any clearer

You're not getting any nicer.

I don't think you understand which part of your argument I am contending

Then you need to restate yourself.

It is the reality that many a newcomer/outsider faces in your religious organization.
/.../
And it is a reality that you persistenly refuse to acknowledge.

Its quite simple.
BG says if you do act A you get result B and if you do act C you get result D.

Designations of newcomer or long term practitioner doesn't really mean anything in that context.

To a newcomer in your organization, "devotees told me" is everything, at least it better be or he or she will risk forfeiting their whole future in it.
At least at the beginner/entry level, ISKCON functions like a cult. What the scriptures say is, in effect, completely irrelevant. What matters is what the loudest/biggest/most influential/angriest devotees think and say about one.

You are not faced with this because you are over the hill, you are initiated and you don't have to worry about getting a recommendation and all the problems surrounding that.
Someone like me, on the other hand, faces public humiliation and criticizing for any act of standing up for myself and what I believe is right or for rejecting the advances of some devotee. And being publicly humiliated and critized by the devotees is a sure way to never get that recommendation.

On the whole, I think there are only two kinds of people in ISKCON and who can survive there:
1. those who are already convinced of its KC philosophy and practices and who have no significant doubts or questions anymore,
2. religious/spiritual addicts - people who are psychotically unwell and who take to religion/spirituality in a similar manner as a drug addict does to drugs: to fill an inner void, while at the same time being quite sure it cannot be filled.

In ISKCON, there is no room for people who are new to spirituality.
In and of itself, I don't think this is bad. I have nothing against even extreme exclusivism or elitism; on principle, I even believe that any worthy organization must make some claim to extreme exclusivism.
But when that same organization makes claims that everyone should do as it says, that they have The Solution to mankind's problems, that they know what is best for us all, or that anyone who is not a member is wrong or worthless - this is where my expectations of said organization will be as high and as extraordinary as their claims. Cultism cannot be accomodated within those expectations.

I don't know if ISKCON is the one and only path to God, or the truset or fastest, but to take part in it, I would have to take for granted that it is. I can't do that.
But without taking that for granted, the apparent maliciousness of devotees is impossible to bear.

It is a reality that many aspiring spiritualists hit the deck because they misapply general precepts of renunciation

Indeed. In ISKCON, properly applying the general precepts of renunciation is to renouce all sanity, reason, the sense of self-preservation, the sense of self-worth, the striving for logic, accuracy and justice.
Perhaps if I managed to make myself into a Stepford-like robot, then, in a few thousand kalpas, I might make spiritual advancement, right?

If you are ready to advocate that the best solution in pursuit of renunciation is to lock the sense objects in a trunk and throw away the key

I never advocated that; I never claimed that my presentation of the topic so far has been exhaustive.
I only pointed out that the core principle of renunciation is to make the desired object difficult or impossible to attain, one way or another. Even the regulative principles are formulated with the concept of refraining - ie. refraining from meat, illicit sex, intoxication, gambling.
I haven't said anything much about the whys and further hows of renunciation.