I am a human.
I am a man.
I am a woman.
I am an atheist.
I am a theist.
I am a... Christian... Muslim... Jew... etc.
I am etc.
[IMAGE: https://steemitimages.com/DQmbUpigmJ5pUbrVWX9wpBn8EKFbongokbkgfpSTN2847Mz/iama.jpg]
I am a... You are a ... They are a ...
These terms can help to provide a quick reference to aspects of ourselves. But they can also be used to constrict and restrict an accurate understanding about ourselves. We can get sucked into these descriptive identification labels. They can bind our consciousness into a box where we live according to the definition of these descriptive labels.
We need to be mindful that just because someone doesn't believe the existence of something, doesn't mean they deny it either. Those who do believe in something, doesn't mean they belong to the same descriptive label as others who believe in something. Someone can believe in "God", yet that doesn't make them a Christian, they could be Muslim. Someone can not believe in "God", but that doesn't make them atheist either, they can simply acknowledge they don't know as an agnostic.
It's easy to hear someone describe themselves and immediately apply a label to their psychological framework. But that's only accurate if they adopt that descriptive label to define themselves. Then they adopt the ideas that the label construct puts forth. If one doesn't adopt a particular ideology or philosophy, one can share characteristics, properties, attributes, qualities or aspects of many other ideological constructs that have descriptive labels associated with them.
Sometimes a word can easily describe a simple part of us, like being human, etc., as well as more complex psychological aspects of ourselves. At other times a word might appear to reflect someone's psychological constructs from an outside view, but that word is only used as a quick reference from analogy or correspondence in order for us to attempt to understand more of what the person thinks. This can lead to false assumptions through the fallacy of blind correspondence as I call it. Just because a property of a philosophical construct, ideology, or belief is shared by someone, doesn't mean they ascribe or identify with that specific criteria.
I tend to stay away from identifying myself as being from ideological constructs or philosophical frameworks. Take the knowledge therein, don't just take everything -- nor at face value simply out of the mesmerizing effect of finding some truth in it somewhere and then blindly having faith, trust, loyalty and belief in it from buying into the belief being sold.
When we take certain ideological constructs into ourselves, we identify with them and merge them with parts of ourselves. We then identify with the descriptive labels that classify us according to someone else's definition. Identification with an idea or group can have us defend them group and ideas as if it were ourselves, even when the idea or group is wrong. We confine ourselves to prescribed definitions.
Sure descriptors help in general to communicate and understand more quickly, but we can get carried way too. Many who choose to identify with certain things don't see the flaws within that are based on incompatibility with principles of truth or moral truth. Many of us have -- and still do -- get carried away and become those descriptions and let them define who we are, keeping us locked into some state. But beyond those boxes there is potential for more, possibly more improvement and betterment that those boxes don't let us think outside of.
The ideas that have value and merit to be followed will stand on their own. The name or word given to them is for convenience. Don't get sucked into the group identification that can form around an idea, as it can limit our potential to excel beyond it.
Group-think, social conformity and the desire for attention and to belong can get us sucked into groups and ideas. Beware the power of consciousness ;)
Thank you for your time and attention! I appreciate the knowledge reaching more people. Take care. Peace.
Did I say god changes in the Bible? I said the idea of the Christian god is fragmented which I maintain is actually the case. Ask a Southern Baptist, a Catholic, a Protestant, a Eastern Orthodox Christian and a Mormon what god is and what he demands from you and you find a lot of differences. So when many Christians say god, there are big differences in what they imagine god is.
That's why I say saying the Christian God is almost as unspecific as using the generic term god as there are so many sects of Christianity all with their own contradicting interpretations.
As of your unrelated claim that God doesn't change in the Bible, I would actually disagree. One, God constantly contradicts himself in the Bible and there are serious differences in the way the god character acts in the Old and New Testaments.
For instance, God's stance on human sacrifice seems to change:
Exodus 22:29
> Thou shalt not delay [to offer] the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.
Leviticus 18:21
> And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD.
Examples of contradictions in the Bible are actually abundant. The ambiguity created by so many of them is actually one of the reasons that there can be so many radically different versions of Christianity as each sect picks and chooses different verses to follow and disregard based on different interpretations and external doctrines.
Funny... your post reminds me of sitting in a workshop at the Omega Institute a million years ago; we were in the middle of "identifying" ourselves... or figuring out what labels we had attachments to. It's a very clear memory... I could never feel comfortable with anything beyond "I AM." Any further qualifiers felt silly... weird.
I learned something interesting... evidently, when I meet people and say "Hi, my name is Peter" (which is true) it's a far less common salutation than saying "Hi, I am Peter." No I'm not... it's just a name.
The hidden messages in language fascinate me. We say so much without being aware that we're saying it.
Oddly enough, I love labels! Labels are awesome... AS LONG AS we just use them as what they are... "pieces of information." The problems begin when we start self-identifying with the labels.... and it seems that's pretty much what you're suggesting, as well.
It's a tricky business. Humans-- I feel-- are ultimately very "tribal" by nature... and labels help us find a sense of peer-group belonging; I'm an introvert, I'm Danish, I'm of Viking ancestry, I'm a MBTI INFJ... I'm all manners of "-ists." They are labels... but they are also invitations to connect.
Ramble over... just free-associating a bit, there...
@krnel | July 7, 2017, 3:53 p.m. | Votes: 0 | [
VOTE ]
Well I don't have a problem with "I am" or "I am a". I understand the basic "i am", but that is nothing but blank consciousness that is the similar basis for all human animal construction. We all share basic functionality and behavioral dynamics, but we are all individual, unique, and different in many way as well.
I am human. The word human exists to describe a specific type of animal, us. I am also not employed. I am many things. And they can accurately define me. I don't have apprehensions about describing myself.
LOL, yeah it's funny like you say, I have a name, given or chosen -- no I can't be a name, but that is part of my identity anyways. It identifies me from others. It's arbitrary compared to a word that actually defines a state of being. Names of personas don't define states of being ;) No categories of being in philosophical-metaphysics, so we can name ourselves anything hehe.
Indeed. The point is to remake, reconstruct and transform ourselves (alchemy) so that we learn to identify the false parts of who we think we are and learn to let go of them. Not to deny being able to say "I am" or "I am a", yet learn how we can fall for cognitive traps by limiting what we're seeing due to the restriction of labels or group identities, etc.
Labels are useful indeed, and they help us identify others on common or dissimilar grounds. Awareness of how we use them is how we can use them better hehe. Thanks for the feedback as usual ;)
