The random philosophy thought thread

[StrawberryBoots]

I wonder what the relationship between "knowing someone" in the Biblical sense and the question of God's existence is.

To "know someone" Biblically means to have a sexual intimacy with that person, but I find it interesting that sexual intimacy leads to "knowing" someone.

In my opinion, the idiom or figure of speech you're referring to as "sexual intimacy" is a narrow misrepresentation of the meaning of Genesis 4:1, "Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived."

I understand, many of the English Bible translations for the word "know" (yada') is "sex," as it appears in Genesis 4:1, but after I studied Strong's Hebrew definition from the original Hebrew text, I've come to an alternate conclusion on the meaning of the word "know" (yada').

As is the case in English, the Hebrew word for "know" can indicate one is cognizant of something; however, in Old Testament Hebrew, the concept of knowing something or "knowing someone" takes on a particular meaning that has to do with relationships that are founded on the making of a covenant.

With that in mind, I think when Moses writes in Genesis that Adam "knew" (yada') Eve, he's talking about a monogamous, committed covenant-relationship, as in a marriage.

A physical relationship between a couple doesn't exhaust the meaning of the word "know" in the covenant sense. I think sexual intimacy in marriage is only a small part of God's plan for a couple to demonstrate love to each other.

And if that's the case, materialists/denialists who lack intimacy with God would have no knowledge of Him. With no knowledge of God comes no evidence of God.
And they wouldn't be lying from their view as they have no experience of God. In the same way, Photographs of your loved ones wouldn't be the evidence of (Storge) love. The evidence of (Storge) love would be in our daily lived experience of them.

In my experience, the evidence of God is the Fruit of the Spirit, made possible by God's covenant with us through Christ. It's life changing.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

In my opinion, the idiom or figure of speech you're referring to as "sexual intimacy" is a narrow misrepresentation of the meaning of Genesis 4:1, "Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived."

I normally consult the Church Fathers regarding these things because their phronema hadn’t yet been tainted by modern ideas. The Hebrew may be true, but to approach spiritual texts through the eyes of the nous seems to yield greater insights than to approach them scholastically, for me at least.

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. - Genesis 4:1

Since Adam had been blinded in the eyes of his soul and had fallen from the life imperishable, he began to look with his physical eyes. He turned the vision of his eyes on visible objects with affectionate desire and “knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain.” Such knowledge is in reality ignorance of all goodness, for had he not first fallen from the knowledge and contemplation of God he would not have been brought down to this knowledge.

- Symeon the New Theologian

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. - Genesis 4:1

"Now, Adam had intercourse with his wife Eve." Consider when this happened. After their disobedience, after their loss of the garden, then it was that the practice of intercourse had its beginning. You see, before their disobedience they followed a life like that of the angels, and there was no mention of intercourse. How could there be, when they were not subject to the needs of the body? So, at the outset and from the beginning the practice of virginity was in force, but when through their indifference disobedience came on the scene and the ways of sin were opened, virginity took its leave for the reason that they had proved unworthy of such a degree of good things, and in its place the practice of intercourse took over for the future. Accordingly, consider, I ask you, dearly beloved, how great the esteem of virginity, how elevated and important a thing it is, surpassing human nature and requiring assistance from on high. I mean, for proof that those who practice virginity with enthusiasm demonstrate in the body the characteristics of incorporeal powers, listen to the words of Christ to the Sadducees: when they were discussing the question of resurrection and wanted to learn his view, they asked, "Master, there were seven brothers of our acquaintance. The eldest married and died without children, leaving his wife to his brother. The second died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother; likewise with the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh. So at the resurrection to which of the seven will the wife belong? After all, she belonged to them all." So what reply did Christ make to them? "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God: at the resurrection, far from marrying or being given in marriage, they will be like angels." Do you see how those who have followed the vocation to virginity for the love of Christ imitate the life of angels through treading the earth and being clad in a body? I mean, the greater and more elevated the task, so much and even greater the laurels, the rewards and the good things promised to those who give evidence of the practice of good works along with this vocation.
"Now, Adam had intercourse with his wife Eve," the text says, "and she conceived and gave birth to Cain." Since sin had come on the scene through the act of disobedience, and the sentence had the effect of making them liable to death, for the future God in his inventiveness arranged for the continuance of the human race according to his wisdom by allowing for the propagation of the race through intercourse.
"She said, 'I have gained a human being, thanks to God.'" See how the imposition of the punishment brought the woman to her senses? She attributes the child she bore not to a natural process but to God, and displays her own gratitude. Do you see how the punishment proved an occasion of admonition to them? The text says, remember, "'I have gained a human being, thanks to God." ' It was not nature, she is saying, that presented me with the child; instead, grace from above has given him to me.

- St John Chrysostom

 

[The Cat]

Food for thought.

 

[Luminous]

The idea that virginity is spiritually superior is just utterly ridiculous.

 

[1487610420]

The idea that virginity is spiritually superior is just utterly ridiculous.

and dated. and sad. and pitiful.

 

[Lark]

I really like the Red Flag but its impossible to get a decent recording of it, either in the solemn or "jaunty" version, it seems to be way easier to get recordings of Joe Hill, either format of it too, although I'm always going to know it in the jaunty, jig or reel, variety as that was the version I heard sang first and most often.

 

[Tomb1]

Belief in God requires faith. Intelligence and faith are incompatible. Therefore, no intelligent argument can be made for God.

 

[The Cat]

Ugh.

 

[Lark]

Belief in God requires faith. Intelligence and faith are incompatible. Therefore, no intelligent argument can be made for God.

Do you think that Francis Bacon was intelligent?

 

[Tomb1]

Do you think that Francis Bacon was intelligent?

Yeah...what of it?

 

[The Cat]

 

[Lark]

Yeah...what of it?

A Little Philosophy Inclineth Mans Mind to Atheism; But Depth in Philosophy, Bringeth Mens Minds about to Religion - Francis Bacon

A Little Philosophy Inclineth Mans Mind to Atheism; But Depth in Philosophy, Bringeth Mens Minds about to Religion – Quote Investigator

 

[Tomb1]

A Little Philosophy Inclineth Mans Mind to Atheism; But Depth in Philosophy, Bringeth Mens Minds about to Religion - Francis Bacon

A Little Philosophy Inclineth Mans Mind to Atheism; But Depth in Philosophy, Bringeth Mens Minds about to Religion – Quote Investigator

Appeal To 16th Century Philosopher Fallacy.

"Religious people can be intelligent" and "There's no intelligent argument for God" are not mutually exclusive.

Present what you believe to be an intelligent argument for God.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Appeal To 16th Century Philosopher Fallacy.

"Religious people can be intellig

ent" and "There's no intelligent argument for God" are not mutually exclusive.
​

You can also be an atheist and defend lots of terrible, dipshit ideas, although you will probably get a pass from many people because of the dynamics of the culture war. You might even get held up as some kind of genius.​

 

[The Cat]

why does society demand we lie. From the time we're kids dealing with detention, and having to write lies over and over again, as though the punishment fits the "crime" we're all groomed from the time we're born. If we don’t respond to the carrot, there's always sticks and eventually stones. Society has all sorts of illusions for what "right" is. And an nigh endless list of who is "wrong" and I promise you, if you are truly honest with yourself, you'll find yourself on that list too. No matter how "right" you deceive yourself you are. So why is there not more mercy and compassion? Because society isn't about that. Society condemns those who are like that. Because people like that are harder to CONTROL. It all just keeps devouring its own tail. And the rest of us can either get with the program, and be "right" or we can be "real" and be ground up to lube the gears.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

why does society demand we lie. From the time we're kids dealing with detention, and having to write lies over and over again, as though the punishment fits the "crime" we're all groomed from the time we're born. If we don’t respond to the carrot, there's always sticks and eventually stones. Society has all sorts of illusions for what "right" is. And an nigh endless list of who is "wrong" and I promise you, if you are truly honest with yourself, you'll find yourself on that list too. No matter how "right" you deceive yourself you are. So why is there not more mercy and compassion? Because society isn't about that. Society condemns those who are like that. Because people like that are harder to CONTROL. It all just keeps devouring its own tail. And the rest of us can either get with the program, and be "right" or we can be "real" and be ground up to lube the gears.

The groundwork for this was laid down well before John Calvin, but his ideas are what under girds modern society and its notions of right and wrong. This whole podcast series is especially interesting, and this episode touches upon your concerns, perhaps. There is an idea inherent in Calvinism called: "The Elect" and the "Unregenerate." You can see examples of this in modern "pop Christianity." Movies like "Left Behind" and the notion of "The Rapture" are a product, albeit distorted and completely wrong, of puritanical Calvinism. And hey, guess what? Calvinism is making a comeback in the United States.

The Fall of Paradise VII: From Communion to Commonwealth in Puritan England - Paradise and Utopia | Ancient Faith Ministries

"Patriots" in the USA will claim that "'Merica is a Christian Nation" to which I would argue: No, it's a Calvinistic nation. The last great Christian Nation (empire) was the Byzantine Empire (Eastern Roman/Greek), to which it fell in 1453 to the Ottomans. The fleeing Byzantines brought ancient Greek thought with them to the West which kicked off the Renaissance period with the advent of Humanism. Humanism then gave birth to Rationalism, which eventually led to the Protestant Reformation, among which Calvin was very influential in. Calvinism then warred with Catholicism for many years competing on the world stage by placing colonies in newly discovered lands. The USA is one such Calvinistic colony. The USA is Secular by way of Calvinism as a result of the wars between Western Christianity which were traumatically remembered in relatively recent memory as more and more Western Europeans sought to disconnect the Church from the State. Orthodox/Catholics would never come up with the idea of "Secularism" which is why the Russian Empire was the last European imperial dynasty to fall to an outgrowth of Secularism called "Socialism" imported from the West.

 

[Tennessee Jed]

why does society demand we lie. From the time we're kids dealing with detention, and having to write lies over and over again, as though the punishment fits the "crime" we're all groomed from the time we're born. If we don’t respond to the carrot, there's always sticks and eventually stones. Society has all sorts of illusions for what "right" is. And an nigh endless list of who is "wrong" and I promise you, if you are truly honest with yourself, you'll find yourself on that list too. No matter how "right" you deceive yourself you are. So why is there not more mercy and compassion? Because society isn't about that. Society condemns those who are like that. Because people like that are harder to CONTROL. It all just keeps devouring its own tail. And the rest of us can either get with the program, and be "right" or we can be "real" and be ground up to lube the gears.

I look at it as a question of membership in ideological tribes.

Membership in ideological tribes requires wearing a straitjacket. Because at some point, ideologies always come into conflict with common sense. Tribes are exclusionary as much as inclusionary, and exclusionary/inclusionary boundaries demand black-and-white thinking at some point.

On the other hand, avoiding membership in ideological tribes can be equally problematic. Man is a tribal animal, and it gets lonely outside the tribes. There's also the problem of how you relate to members of tribes, who will try to hit you with either exclusionary (rejection) or inclusionary (recruitment) tactics, and so on.

My opinion: Smart people keep aloof from tribes but adopt protective coloring: Wear the grays of the non-participant when tribes conflict (for example, refuse to participate in political arguments by insisting that you're apolitical); or camouflage yourself as belonging to the predominant tribe when one tribe is in the ascendent (don't question the "truths" that prevail in a dominant culture).

An alternative is to maybe play the fool, the idiot, or the madman: For example, the comedian who does "edgy" stuff and crosses the line in comedy routines. That can be good camouflage when life puts you outside the bounds of the dominant tribe and there's nothing else you can do to hide your outsider status and deflect criticism.

 

[???]

Is everyone just a bot? Does it matter?

 

[Earl Grey]

Does anything have meaning? Does it matter?

 

[Tengri]

I look at it as a question of membership in ideological tribes.

Membership in ideological tribes requires wearing a straitjacket. Because at some point, ideologies always come into conflict with common sense. Tribes are exclusionary as much as inclusionary, and exclusionary/inclusionary boundaries demand black-and-white thinking at some point.

On the other hand, avoiding membership in ideological tribes can be equally problematic. Man is a tribal animal, and it gets lonely outside the tribes. There's also the problem of how you relate to members of tribes, who will try to hit you with either exclusionary (rejection) or inclusionary (recruitment) tactics, and so on.

My opinion: Smart people keep aloof from tribes but adopt protective coloring: Wear the grays of the non-participant when tribes conflict (for example, refuse to participate in political arguments by insisting that you're apolitical); or camouflage yourself as belonging to the predominant tribe when one tribe is in the ascendent (don't question the "truths" that prevail in a dominant culture).

An alternative is to maybe play the fool, the idiot, or the madman: For example, the comedian who does "edgy" stuff and crosses the line in comedy routines. That can be good camouflage when life puts you outside the bounds of the dominant tribe and there's nothing else you can do to hide your outsider status and deflect criticism.

Great insights. Reminds me of a deepfake comparison video put out by impressionist Jim Meskimen just this past week. This ties into your thoughts a bit