I am who I am
I am who I am
Everybody is himself/herself so they can say I am who I am. Interestingly this phrase doesn't give more than any obvious information. I am wondering why people consider this as a definition of God.
Re: I am who I am
Before you could accurately wonder why people consider that as a definition of God, you would have to KNOW some people who consider that as a definition of God. So, to you, what people EXACTLY considers that as a definition of God?
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
not a big fan of wiki, but...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
I particularly like this interpretation: Who am I? I am who I am, and never you mind.
I particularly like this interpretation: Who am I? I am who I am, and never you mind.
Re: I am who I am
Re: I am who I am
Maybe you wonder because your quote is incorrect - it should say: I am THAT I am (and not: I am WHO I am).
When God was saying: "I am THAT I am" he told Moses that he is the fundamental/basic "I am" (and not an individual, not a being separate from existence, but rather this very existence itself)
It is as such an impersonal "I am", not a "WHO", which would point to a separate individual existence.
This is also why it says in Psalm 46: "Be still and know that I am (is) God."
Unfortunately the "is" is left out in many translations, which is a mistake, as it departs from the real message - it should read: "Be still and know that I am IS God"
Re: I am who I am
It is not a definition of God.
No, it’s merely another example of humans demonstrating their cluelessness as to what God actually is.
Proclaiming that God is “I AM” is no more a definition of what God truly is than saying that God is “LOVE,” or that God is “ONENESS,” or any other such nebulous nonsense.
Furthermore, based on the responses thus far, it would appear that asking us forum members to give our personal interpretation of what the Biblical phrase “I AM THAT I AM” means, is pretty much the equivalent of asking us to give our interpretation of one of Rorschach's inkblots:
I see two grizzly bears high-fiving each other as they rip open the chest of a hunter who tried to shoot them, and then use his blood to paw-paint on the walls of a cave.
What do you see?
_______
Last edited by seeds on Sun Jun 13, 2021 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: I am who I am
What do you see?
I see the inside of someone's beer virus mask after that someone has had a long night on the wrong side of town
I see the inside of someone's beer virus mask after that someone has had a long night on the wrong side of town
Re: I am who I am
One could say the same about many things... what is "consciousness", what is "self"... saying that God is "I AM" or "LOVE" is only nebulous if one doesn't know his/her own being - if one doesn't know what "I AM" points to then yes, it might sound nebulous...
Again, yes, but its the same for anything that is being asked. You can only offer your subjective interpretation - and that should be good enough - no one is asking for absolute truthseeds wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:55 pm Furthermore, based on the responses thus far, it would appear that asking us forum members to give our personal interpretation of what the Biblical phrase “I AM THAT I AM” means, is pretty much the equivalent of asking us to give our interpretation of one of Rorschach's inkblots
Re: I am who I am
Yes, one can know what the term “I AM” points to, but it offers absolutely nothing that would actually “describe” (ontologically) what the “I AM” truly is.
It’s like trying to describe the eye of the mind, or whatever it is that sits at the throne of our consciousness and wields the fabric of our thoughts and dreams.
_______
Re: I am who I am
Isn't that the same for all of experience?
One can describe the "taste of an apple", but this doesn't mean that the description is the direct experience of "taste of apple".
Its the same with "I AM" - we can describe it as pure, non-conceptual being, as undirected love/bliss/happiness, but this description is not the experience.
One can experience the pure, unconditioned "I AM" directly – meditation is one way of achieving this (just like biting into an apple is one way of experiencing "taste of apple").
Re: I am who I am
Earlier you said the following to bahman:AlexW wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:26 amIsn't that the same for all of experience?
One can describe the "taste of an apple", but this doesn't mean that the description is the direct experience of "taste of apple".
Its the same with "I AM" - we can describe it as pure, non-conceptual being, as undirected love/bliss/happiness...
In which case, in the way you explained it to bahman, you have managed to interpret the “I AM-ness” of God as having no more of a personal identity or self-awareness than that of the flavor of an apple.AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:08 am When God was saying: "I am THAT I am" he told Moses that he is the fundamental/basic "I am" (and not an individual, not a being separate from existence, but rather this very existence itself)
It is as such an impersonal "I am", not a "WHO", which would point to a separate individual existence.
Now with that in mind (while setting aside the fact that we are discussing mythology here),...
...are we supposed to assume that in the Biblical chapter of Exodus 3, that the rather lengthy conversation that allegedly took place between Moses and God as Moses gazed at the burning bush – a conversation which began as follows...
...was simply meant to imply that it was “undirected love/bliss/and happiness” that was somehow conveying the information stated in the chapter? And that it was “undirected love/bliss/and happiness” that Moses was afraid to look upon?the Bible wrote: And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.
And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.
And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God.
I mean, you are certainly free to suggest the possibility that Moses (in some kind of meditative stupor) may have “inferred” (imagined) all of those things while gazing at the bush, but clearly that is not how Exodus 3 presents the scenario.
The point is that when it comes to your personal interpretation of Biblical dogma and of the phrase “I AM THAT I AM,” you are doing precisely what my Rorschach example suggests of the human propensity to interpret such things so that they fit in with our personal beliefs and biases.
_______
Re: I am who I am
The Israelite tribal god, a primitive personal god, probably had little to nothing to do with pure nondualism. Similar words, very different meaning.
Strictly speaking, love/bliss/happiness also have little to do with pure nondualism. They are a psychological side effect that most people experience.
Strictly speaking, love/bliss/happiness also have little to do with pure nondualism. They are a psychological side effect that most people experience.
Re: I am who I am
God, via Moses demanding to now the name of God via the burning bush, simply said "i am that i am" - i.e. said in effect its none of your business Moses.
why he did not give his personal name - YHWH - is tied to the Judaic concept of the Tetragrammaton
its that simple.
Re: not a big fan of wiki, but...
exactly, none of your business Earthling.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:35 am https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
I particularly like this interpretation: Who am I? I am who I am, and never you mind.
this all ties into Judaistic Theology, and knowing the True Name (and why YHWH allowed Adam to give the True Name of all the animals in Genesis (to have domenion over them), then later in that book, Adem, ate of 1 of the 2 trees he should not have, and "fell"............... - even of God - allows others to have power over Him.
so YHWH told Moses - i aint going to tell you my True Name, and go pound sand.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Re: not a big fan of wiki, but...
and the whole it's none of your business what my name is schtick is in keepin' with god, in ecclesiastes, sayin' where were you when I laid the foundations of the world?...it's I'm God, and that's all you need to know about or worry yourself withgaffo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:50 pmexactly, none of your business Earthling.henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:35 am https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_that_I_Am
I particularly like this interpretation: Who am I? I am who I am, and never you mind.
this all ties into Judaistic Theology, and knowing the True Name (and why YHWH allowed Adam to give the True Name of all the animals in Genesis (to have domenion over them), then later in that book, Adem, ate of 1 of the 2 trees he should not have, and "fell"............... - even of God - allows others to have power over Him.
so YHWH told Moses - i aint going to tell you my True Name, and go pound sand.