Frank\'s Theology (General)

by dhw, Thursday, November 26, 2009, 18:36 (5474 days ago)

Part One-
In order to tidy up the threads, I'm separating this discussion from the one on "Nothing". This response is to Frank's posts under "Problems with this section; for Frank" on Thursday 26 November at 00.18, 02.59, and 03.41.-Frank: One thing I've noticed is that you're extremely fond of sifting through past posts of mine and quoting what I've said verbatim, diligently looking for contradictions. This requires a lot of thought and a high degree of intelligence. At my senile old age, I'm no longer good at thinking and am no longer very intelligent. Therefore, frankly, I'm not the least bit interested in what I wrote ten minutes ago let alone yesterday for heaven's sake.-Then are we both wasting our time? What is the point of responding to an argument that is of no interest to its proponent ten minutes later? As for my being "extremely fond of sifting" etc., if you think my object has been to look for contradictions, you have totally misconstrued the very nature of this forum, not to mention my own nature. You entered into our discussions with some pretty startling ideas. I've now spent a month trying to make sense of the inconsistencies that I keep finding in those ideas, because I felt that you had a great deal to offer if only I could get to the bottom of what you were thinking. In fact I still believe this, particularly in view of the common ground between you, BBella and David, and I've not only looked forward to your responses but have also followed your other discussions with great interest. No, Frank, I'm not looking for contradictions, and I only search and quote verbatim so that I can't be accused of misrepresentation. I'm looking for coherent explanations, but I can't get them unless we iron out the inconsistencies. My hope has been that this exercise might be beneficial for both of us.-With this hope still in mind, I would like to continue our discussion. The fact that you go to so much trouble to explain your ideas ... for which I and others have many times expressed our appreciation ... encourages me to do so, but if by the time you read this you genuinely aren't interested in the arguments I'm responding to, then we should end the discussion.-I wrote, in relation to individual identity, that "there's a fundamental core which is my individuality." You responded: "You would feel that you are you even if you experienced total amnesia. Even a schizophrenic jumps from persona to persona, always sensing that he is he. That sort of suggests that the consciousness itself stems from something more primordial than a past history, which is what I've been saying all along." -You have indeed. You have said on more than one occasion that the consciousness stems from God, and that it "runs through" the brain until the brain dies. I have maintained that individual identity is tied to consciousness, and you have said that individual identity is the illusion of separateness. Allow me once more to link these two items and, since I keep misinterpreting your statements, ask you please to explain: a) what you mean by God's consciousness "running through" the brain, b) the illusion of separateness from what? And c) since you believe your consciousness and my consciousness are actually God's, and our separateness is an illusion, what makes you think differently from me?-The schizophrenic conundrum is a corny joke I remember from my schooldays:
PRIEST (to schizophrenic): Don't worry, you'll be fine in the afterlife.
SCHIZOPHRENIC: Will we? -And yes, of course I'm acting the devil's advocate. I have stressed that these are ideas and not beliefs. As for schizophrenia, it's only one of many unanswered questions associated with the concept of an afterlife, but there are unanswered questions associated with every belief and non-belief.-When I wrote that God is "aware of every single creature (since he loves them all)", I meant that I was basing the claim of awareness on your statement ... which you have repeated ... that God loves every individual. He can't love them if he isn't aware of them. Sorry for the ambiguity.-My response continues in Part Two.