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.
Is it possible for people to freely "behave in a Godly manner"?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
You don't speak many languages, do you?
and that practice is outside of free will?
:shrug:
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.
ditto above
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").
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.
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
Are you talking about desiring or succeeding?
Even the decision to wear socks requires that one successfully locate a pair.
Last edited:
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...)
Sure. But one probably won't make that decision to begin with unless one is first sure that one has socks to wear.
LIGHTBEING
Registered Senior Member
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?
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.
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?
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
Registered Senior Member
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?
They don't/didn't have a word for the "holy spirit" and such.
The phenomenon of untranslatability is real.
People born in other cultures/languages often cannot understand concepts that may be obvious to one.
Insert deity here
Registered Member
Darn it I posted this in the wrong thread T.T excuse moi
Last edited:
The spirit is not a concept; it is an entity!