absolute identity, ego identities, lies, half truths, and absolute truths
 

The question, who am I? is a very important spiritual inquiry.

The following is my view of what we ARE.

Our divine identity and nature are absolute, eternal, and changeless.

Our bodily and ego identities are relative, temporary, and ever-changing.

ACIM says that an idea can be wholly false (a lie), partially true (a half truth), or wholly true (an absolute truth).

Take the question, is a golfer what Tiger Woods IS?

I feel that one correct answer is that it's PARTIALLY TRUE that Tiger Woods IS a golfer.

It's WHOLLY TRUE that he IS divine nature.

My point is to make the distinction between what is partially true and what is wholly true about what we are.

Btw some self-concepts are WHOLLY FALSE, such as the idea that we're 'sinners'. (I agree with the idea that there's no such thing as 'sin')

I would say T. Woods is not a Golfer but a Golf player.

Thanks for sharing that. It brings up another point that differentiates between what we DO and what we ARE. That's my interpretation of what you're saying. In other words, he PLAYS GOLF.

Everything we do, think, and experience is impermanent. I don't mean that it's temporary, but that it takes place in time, and is therefore a matter of past, present, and future.

I play the drums, but I'm not playing NOW. I HAVE in the past, and I WILL in the future, but right now I'm writing these words.

So the act of drumming is impermanent.

Yet my divine nature is ALWAYS there, it's doesn't come and go with time.

'Drummer' is not my true nature, it's not the essence of me - it's just something that I DO. But to say a drummer is what I AM because drumming is something I DO is to say that it's a part of my nature and essence in a way that it's not.

I'm saying that it's not really true that 'we are what we do'.

I agree we are not what we do, everything is in constant flux, impermanent, except our ' True Nature ' which I believe is static.

Which raises the question, how does that which is absolute, eternal and changeless express itself through the relative, temporary and ever-changing body/ego? How does something which is everywhere identify with a separate individual? How does formlessness identify with form?

Some would add a third component between the two aspects mentioned - Consciousness. This Consciousness is relatively permanent, if we can use such a term.

So the absolute eternal changeless divine nature individualises as Consciousness. Consciousness then expresses through the relative, temporary, ever-changing body/ego.

Some refer to this triplicity of Being/Consciousness/Form as Spirit/Soul/Personality.

Peace.

Not sure what you are saying here.
I have heard it expressed before.

I have taken it in the past that someone may just be resentful at Christianity and their use of it.

So I thought I would ask.

Why do you think this is a lie or wholly false?

This is a word translated from a Greek word that means to miss the mark to err.
If we never missed the mark there would be no need for any change.

ACIM uses error and I was just wondering if your okay with the word error.

It is all the same to me.

Hello.

Dancing. Dancer. Dance.

On dancing we become dancers portraying dance.

And so on.

petex

God separates so He can Love Another.

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts.

ImthatIm, I agree with the Course - 'sin' is just a false religious concept. And yes, it speaks of 'error' instead of sin. Thanks for bringing up that point.