Introducing myself

[veeman]

I have been debating a "Jesus as a personal savior" on the one-on-one forum at Christianforums.net and my adversary has been shy of late. Prior to that I was a participant in multiparty debate on Christianforums.com's "Fundamentalist" forum until the moderators stopped us. The more recent one-on-one has been a fantastic experience. The competitive stimulus to learn apologetics has been intense. Desiring more practice, I am dipping my toe here. I am a born-again Christian. I currently attend a Presbyterian church.

[veeman]

"I readily accept that, with reference to you avowed saviour, you will write what you believe and believe what you write - just as the writers of the gospels wrote what they believed and believed what they wrote.

If you act as if these concepts reflect reality then, for all intents and purposes they are, for you, reality."

If "my" reality is entirely different from yours, how will we find enough terms in common to debate anything?

"The point, for me, is moot, however, as I know of no need or reason for, nor evidence of, any such god."

The need for a savior is what I proposed to debate. You seem to be talking in circles.

[bernee51]

While I have difficulty understanding how any being can claim to be loving (love being unconditional) yet condemn those he 'loves' to suffering for not fulfilling some specified demand - I am very aware of the hermenuetic gymanastics undertaken by believers in order to rationalise this dilemma.

What is of greater interest to me is the CAUSE of this apparent suffering?

Either of those are fine topics. You seem not to like how I phrase my propositions, why don't you make one?

It is not that I don't like your propositions - it is merely that to enter debate on these issues is moot for me.

Whether I see the fact that a believer claims his god to represent 'all love' is at odds with its supposed actions - condeming the objects of its love to eternal suffering for failing to meet his criteria - is not the issue. The issue rests around the very existence of ANY god - let alone your particular version of that god.

As to the 'cause of suffering'...

Proposal: Suffering results from the evolution of man to a level of consciousness which allows self-reflectivity. This ability to self reflect results in the construct of a sense of self which is the subject of suffering.

[veeman]

Proposal: Suffering results from the evolution of man to a level of consciousness which allows self-reflectivity. This ability to self reflect results in the construct of a sense of self which is the subject of suffering.

Can you help me out here -- what are "self-reflectivity" and "self-reflect"?

What is "the construct of a sense of self"?

What is a "subject of suffering"?

I feel I need to know if you are willing to accept that words and phrases are susceptible to clear meanings consistent over time.

[bernee51]

Proposal: Suffering results from the evolution of man to a level of consciousness which allows self-reflectivity. This ability to self reflect results in the construct of a sense of self which is the subject of suffering.

Can you help me out here -- what are "self-reflectivity" and "self-reflect"?

What is "the construct of a sense of self"?

What is a "subject of suffering"?

I feel I need to know if you are willing to accept that words and phrases are susceptible to clear meanings consistent over time.

Excellent - exactly my dilemma when you use words like 'saviour' or 'omnipotent' or 'substitutionary sacrifice' or 'sin and rebellion against god'.

Self-reflectivity: not only do we know but we know that we know.

Self-reflect: the ability to ask "Who am I?" - when this evolved so did the potential for the invention of the god concept.

The construct of a sense of self: in order to relate in the perceived universe there has to be something to relate with - our specific self reflective consiousness facilitates the construction of a sense of self based around our relationships. We define ourselves around relational statements such as "I am a man", "I am a husband", "I am a father", "I am a photographer"...and so on. Whenever we use the sentance "I am..." we are creating a subject/object relationship.

"subject of suffering": the "I" in the above. The self.

[veeman]

Hi bernee51,

I'm undecided whether debating you would serve any good purpose. Can you help me with a few more questions.

1. Please define "suffering" as you use the term in your head-to-head debate proposal.

2. Why do terms like "savior" and "rebellion against God" pose a difficulty or “dilemma� for you if you are (as you indicate elsewhere) familiar with the Christian Bible?

3. Does any person or thin, in your view, exist apart from “relating�, i.e. existing in it[her]self alone?

4. If I have built a wooden cabinet, is it conceivable to you that I now exist apart from the cabinet I built?

5. What is your opinion of the truth or falsity of cogito, ergo sum?

6. Assuming God might exist, can God exist apart from "relating", i.e. in Himself alone?

7. Is there logical inconsistency within the statement "I AM" (John 8:58, NIV)? If so, why is it inconsistent?

8. Is there logical inconsistency within the statement "I AM who I AM" (Exodus 3:14, NIV)? If so, why is it inconsistent?

9. If I move a pencil on my desk five inches further away from me than previously, is it still the same pencil? Am I still veeman?

10. What distinguishes a word from the thing, idea, person, relation or idea that it denotes?

11. What distinguishes “the noosphere" from human literature and conversation?

12. What distinguishes “the noosphere" from human culture?

13. Are you still bernee51 after composing your reply to this post?

[veeman]

Hi bernee51,

I'm undecided whether debating you would serve any good purpose. Can you help me with a few more questions?

1. Please define "suffering" as you use the term in your head-to-head debate proposal.

2. Why do terms like "savior" and "rebellion against God" pose a “dilemma� for you if you are (as you indicate elsewhere) familiar with the Christian Bible? What is the dilemma?

3. Does any person or thing, in your view, exist apart from “relating�, i.e. exist in it/him/her self alone?

4. If I have built a wooden cabinet, is it conceivable to you that I now exist apart from the cabinet I built?

5. What is your opinion of the truth or falsity of cogito, ergo sum?

6. Assuming God might be the same thing as the universe, can God exist apart from "relating", i.e. in Himself alone?

7. Is there logical inconsistency within the statement "I AM" (John 8:58, NIV)? If so, why is it inconsistent?

8. Is there logical inconsistency within the statement "I AM who I AM" (Exodus 3:14, NIV)? If so, why is it inconsistent?

9. In your view, if I move a pencil on my desk five inches further away from me than previously, is it still the same pencil? Am I still veeman?

10. What distinguishes a word from the thing, idea, person, relation or idea that it denotes?

11. What distinguishes “the noosphere" from human literature and conversation?

12. What distinguishes “the noosphere" from human culture?

13. Are you still bernee51 after composing your reply to this post?

[veeman]

Proposal: Suffering results from the evolution of man to a level of consciousness which allows self-reflectivity. This ability to self reflect results in the construct of a sense of self which is the subject of suffering.


Hi bernee51,

Sorry for posting the same thing twice there. Can I ask a few more questions about your proposal?

14. What is “the evolution of man�? How did it happen?

15. If “suffering� results from “the evolution of man�, what produces or produced the evolution of man?

16. When did man achieve “a level of consciousness which allows self-reflectivity�? What was man like before that?

17. What is “the construct of a sense of self�?

[bernee51]

Hi bernee51,
I'm undecided whether debating you would serve any good purpose.

maybe not...

I also suspect that, with the exception of your belief in god and the need to be saved we would hold very similar view regarding the ‘right’ way to approach life and its issues.

Can you help me with a few more questions.

And very good questions they are - I hope my attempt at answers can do justice to them.

1. Please define "suffering" as you use the term in your head-to-head debate proposal.

Anything that diverts us from the true nature of our being.

What is our true nature of being? You have perhaps sensed the sheer joy when contemplating the feeling of being ‘saved’. The joy that manifests as ‘peak experiences’ (as Maslow called them). I often refer to them as ‘peak experiences’ because they are a glimpse of ‘the infinite’.-

2. Why do terms like "savior" and "rebellion against God" pose a difficulty or “dilemma� for you if you are (as you indicate elsewhere) familiar with the Christian Bible?

Christians themselves are not in complete agreement as to the meaning of these terms. The bible is interpreted in different way by different folks. Hermeneutics is lifeblood of apologists. Sure I am familiar with the bible...I am not familiar with your interpretation of it.

3. Does any person or thing, in your view, exist apart from “relating�, i.e. existing in it[her]self alone?

An advaita vedantic scholar by the name of Shankara once noted that “only that is real which does not change nor cease to exist�. Some theists may apply this to their god i.e. all existence is a manifestation of god.

I note that later questions include reference to the noosphere. I don’t recall mentioning it in this thread so you may have already seen the following...

I have a particular view of existence that sees it as layered.

In Ghost in the Machine Koestler coined the term ‘holon’ – a whole part. For example, the letter ‘a’ is a whole in and of itself. It is also part of another ‘whole’, known as a word – ‘am’. It is also part of a phrase “I am…� or a sentence, a paragraph, a book and so on. If you were to destroy the letter ‘a’ it would severely compromise those other ‘wholes’ which depend on the existence of ‘a’.

We tend to see ‘existence’ as a whole when it is really a holon, made up of other holons. As physical entities, we, our physical ‘selves’, are made up of atoms and molecules. These nuts and bolts of existence ‘inhabit’ what has been called the physiosphere. From the perspective of the physiosphere we are no different from any other ‘inhabitant’ made up of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen etc. We are ‘one with the universe’. According to one view of modern cosmology, the physiosphere started out as simple sub-atomic particles which over a long period of time underwent a ‘complexification’ – it evolved into more complex structures.

At some point this complexification led to the emergence of ‘life’. Life brought about the emergence of the next holon – the biosphere. All living matter – or those aspects that make it ‘living’ are inhabitants of the biosphere. From the perspective of the biosphere we are no different from any other ‘inhabitant’ with a biomechanical system supporting it. Again we are ‘one with the universe’.

This biomechanical system evolved a neural network which laid the ground for the emergence of consciousness which on becoming more complex emerged as a self-awareness – a consciousness that not only knows but knows that it knows. Perhaps the very first question that arose on the emergence of this phenomenon was “Who am I?� This sphere of mental activity is the noosphere – from wiki… “For Teilhard [de Chandon], the noosphere is best described as a sort of 'collective consciousness' of human-beings. It emerges from the interaction of human minds. The noosphere has grown in step with the organization of the human mass in relation to itself as it populates the earth. As mankind organizes itself in more complex social networks, the higher the noosphere will grow in awareness.� Think of the connectivity of thought we have access to in comparison to our previous generations and it is easy to see the continued evolution of this sphere.

So to answer your question – all existence is in relationship. All we perceive of existence 'resides' in the noosphere and is illusion in that it is a mental construct which is in constant flux. It indeed is maya (illusion), like all concepts, maya exists in the noosphere.

4. If I have built a wooden cabinet, is it conceivable to you that I now exist apart from the cabinet I built?

You are physically distinct from the cabinet. What the cabinet ‘means’ to you however is not distinct from you.

5. What is your opinion of the truth or falsity of cogito, ergo sum?

I think it should read sum, ergo cogito

6. Assuming God might exist, can God exist apart from "relating", i.e. in Himself alone?

As soon as god is given attributes it is in relationship. The only way I can perceive of god existing is as a sum of all being.

7. Is there logical inconsistency within the statement "I AM" (John 8:58, NIV)? If so, why is it inconsistent?
8. Is there logical inconsistency within the statement "I AM who I AM" (Exodus 3:14, NIV)? If so, why is it inconsistent?

This is pure advaita Vedanta.

In Vedanta Brahman (consciousness as it expresses universally) and Atman (consciousness as it expresses individually) are one. The ‘I’ Jesus was referring to was not the small ‘s’ self that is a construct of relationship but the Self – pure consciousness – not the manifestation of that pure consciousness. Consciousness is the same in all sentient beings (how it manifests differs).

Schrodinger once asked “why is it that consciousness is only ever referred to in the singular?� I can heartily recommend his essay What is Life?

Or as the saying goes....in order to taste the ocean there is no need to drink it in its entirety, all that is needed is a drop.

9. If I move a pencil on my desk five inches further away from me than previously, is it still the same pencil? Am I still veeman?

If the pencil lost atoms or molecules in the movement – it is not the same pencil. If the meaning of the pencil to you changed in the act of movement then it is not the same pencil. The emergent being that consciousness is manifesting as veeman is still veeman.

But are you the same veeman that you were 20 years ago? Ten? Five? Where do you draw the line?

10. What distinguishes a word from the thing, idea, person, relation or idea that it denotes?

The relationship with the observer.

11. What distinguishes “the noosphere" from human literature and conversation?

The ideas, thoughts beliefs, etc expressed in literature or conversation are elements of the noosphere.

12. What distinguishes “the noosphere" from human culture?

Human culture – or at least what it ‘means’ is an element of the noosphere

13. Are you still bernee51 after composing your reply to this post?

See #9

14. What is “the evolution of man�? How did it happen?

15. If “suffering� results from “the evolution of man�, what produces or produced the evolution of man?

A huge question – on I am not going to even begin to answer, other than to offer the following.

These appear to be the same question. The Jesuit palaeontologist Teilhard de Chardon in this excellent Phenomenon of Man describes evolution as a process of ‘complexification’ – a moving toward the ‘third infinite�. The emergence of sentience in homo sapiens is the unavoidable and inevitable outcome of this process. He also hold that the process is on-going with the ultimate outcome being one of “Christofication�

16. When did man achieve “a level of consciousness which allows self-reflectivity�? What was man like before that?

When – I have no idea. What was man like before that? More ‘apelike’ than he is now.

17. What is “the construct of a sense of self�?

See post 24

[bernee51]

duplicate post deleted

[veeman]

OK.