Posted on 10/10/2001 10:57:30 AM PDT by malakhi
My interests are quite diverse and frequently range far and wide.
Friday nights is usually pottery. I have a loom by my computer and usually do something else while on the computer or watching TV.
I've had some obsessions, but The Bible Codes are not one.
I just set a goal of trying to comment/reply/respond to all who cared to respond more or less quickly in the time I had at hand to tune in to such. It was interesting how that evolved and the time it stretched into. An interesting experience. I don't really regret it. I have time enough left in this 4 day weekend to get to my grading.
It hasn't cost me anything serious and it's been fun and educational as well as recreational. It may have even done The Kingdom some good in yet unknown ways. I'm satisfied.
"Avoid foolish and ignorant debates for you know they breed quarrels. [further] A slave of the Lord should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness."It says not to avoid foolish questions, but avoid foolish debates. A foolish debate would be one where your debator was not joining you in a common search for knowledge and truth; a foolish debate would be one with someone with whom you could not find a common means of communication, with someone who could not communicate well or control his anger or fear; a foolish debate would be in which your goal was to harm another.
Questioning used in teaching and learning, done with tolerance, courtesy, respect and kindness is not prohibited by this scripture, it is encouraged by it.
If we believe our faith is true, then we have nothing but gain in learning how to better explore and discover and discuss the truth. Questions used in this manner of such value from ancient times. "Lord, if there were ten righteous men…?"
I stress this - and I hope you will now understand better as a result of your question - in this forum that we discuss these topics with each other with passion but also with tolerance, respect, gentleness, courtesy and kindness.
Which identity is you; which identity can be lost?
I really don't know, don't think I can know fully in a finite consciousness. Here's as close as I am allowed to think I can come now: There is one something going on; One. All that is finite arises from spirit (in the unity of opposites). All finite things are forever changing form. We have a finite aspect, we have a consciousness that recognizes time (relative to the occurance of events). Time without that consciousness does not exist, rather is one time, eternal.
Without the finite space and time - events and objects, there is nothing remaining that we list now as "self."
The self that we do now recognize is an artificial distinction; like a leaf of a tree thinking: I'm a leaf, not a tree.
But, in reality, it is all of a piece. Spiritual growth, IMHO, leads to conscious realization of our "self" as connected to more and more of the one thing going on.
And at our death, the finite aspect loses our "self"; our conscious realization…
There is no logical reason that finite things must change form. That is more a function of existence in time than it is an essential part of finite being.
Both Jews and Christians believe in the resurrection of the body. So we will exist in a sort of "space-time", albeit one far different than that which we now inhabit. There is more than one type of eternal time.
It is important to remember that eternity can also mean without time, thus drawing some interesting considerations about relative time in finite consciousness and afterward.
I was,however, most drawn to your view that "that finite things must change form."
Of course "form" is a fuzzy concept; have I changed form when I am old from when I am young, certainly when I am worm nourishment we would agree my form has changed. In general, all finite things are in a state of constant, becoming something else. Try to name something finite that is unchanging: it would then be perfect/infinite.
As to "personality" that too becomes a problematic definition; at least as much as self.
What I was pointing to was the question of whether "self" survives must explore thoroughly what "self" is.
I argue that our concept of what we think is our self is in constant change (growing more inclusive hopefully - e.g. "our neighbor as our self). This does not necessarily mean nothing remains, or rather nothing changes in eternity for our having existed in this finite incarnation. It does suggest that what we know as "self" in finite form will likely not be identical with "who" we are in eternity.
And this will conclude with a repition of a general definition of what knowledge religion(s) rightly explore to discover: Who we really are and our relationship to the kosmos.
Finite things are in constant change, that is part of the definitive characteristics/qualities of finite things.
Of course, everything physically existing in our spacetime is constantly changing. But I have no difficulty conceiving of a universe where this rule does not hold. Constant physical change may be a property of objects in this universe, but I don't think that it is a logically required property of finitude. Consider the resurrection body. It is a physical resurrection, because we are physical beings, and our bodies are part of our identity. It is a perfected body, in that it will not age or suffer illness, and it is free of other restrictions we have in this world. But it is still physical. Presumably, this body will be unchanging. Our minds, I would suggest, will be capable of change and growth--we could continue to learn. But our bodies will remain unchanging (unless, perhaps, we choose of our own volition to change them).
Our concept of "self" does change as we age. But this changing self is connected by the chain of memory. I propose a threefold definition of what it means to be a "self":
1. A single, autonomous, conscious being, distinct from others. (i.e., no "group mind" or consciousness).
2. An awareness of ourselves as being what is described in #1.
3. Memory of what we have experienced.
If, in the afterlife, I were to lose all memory of what I experienced on Earth, then I would no longer be "me". The same is true if I lost my distinctness or my awareness of my distinctness as an individual being.
Living is the process of dying. What is changing, growing is the burning of the fuel of life that becomes the residue of death. I think it would be logical impossible to have a finite unchanging body, unless it would be perfectly preserved chemical/molecules.
Resurection of the "body" IMO is not the same "body" we consider it to be now.
The only way not to die is not to be living.
I propose a threefold definition of what it means to be a "self":Which process of the universe are you not part of? How many non-autonomous (of yours) occurred in order for you to be born, nutured, clothed, educated, speak, work, think and effect others in turn? What physical, mental or spiritual aspect of you is not interconnected with the kosmos? Which parts of your consciousness are distinct or unconnected/determined from your nation, culture, religion, family, language, shared history? Which of those could be disappeared and your "self" still exist. In which of these does the complete, distinct, essence of your "self" exist? How can you create an organism wholely distinct and autonomous? What would it breathe, eat, think and feel; what experience would it have solely of its own?1. A single, autonomous, conscious being, distinct from others. (i.e., no "group mind" or consciousness).
2. An awareness of ourselves as being what is described in #1.
Who is it that is aware of your "self"? 3. Memory of what we have experienced.
If you lost all your memory of what you have experienced up to now, would you cease to exist? Would there be no "self" then remaining?
I don't deny our interdependence, D, but if you think you are one with your toaster oven, you've got real problems. ;o) I'm in relationship with things outside myself, but there is a distinct difference between not-me (outside my skin) and ME (inside my skin).
Who is it that is aware of your "self"?
"I" am self-aware. If you deny the existence of a "self", who is doing the denying?
If you lost all your memory of what you have experienced up to now, would you cease to exist?
Yes and no and yes. Physically, I would appear the same. But on the level of "mind" I would not be "me". Consider the case of the alzheimer's patient who has progressed to the point of catatonia. They have lost all sense of identity. Ultimately, though, on the level of "soul", we are still the same. After death, the alzheimer's patient is restored in mind and body.
These have been addressed ad nauseam. They do not contradict Scripture. Simply neo-Christian straw men used to validate their beliefs.
BTW I can find no dictionary describes tradition as static, dead or fixed. Rather, it is commonly described as (in regard to Christians) “the unwritten teachings regarded as handed down from Jesus and the Apostles.” This is one definition I found in Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language published in 1957
kings is here at my invitation, I met him on another thread where he had commented that he wanted to debate. We haven't had anyone on here that I know of who doesn't believe in God, thought he might give us some new material:)
Becky
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.