Ship of Fools: Know (About)

Thread: Know (About) Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020446

Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :

When in your opinion does one move from ‘Knowing About” someone, to “Knowing’ someone?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
When in your opinion does one move from ‘Knowing About” someone, to “Knowing’ someone?

I think you need to define each of those a bit more clearly.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
When in your opinion does one move from ‘Knowing About” someone, to “Knowing’ someone?

In the biblical sense? [Two face]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
When in your opinion does one move from ‘Knowing About” someone, to “Knowing’ someone?

When you meet them in person.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I teach my students that "know about" means you have at least been told about them, but stop short of having met them. If you've been formally introduced, and especially if you would remember each others' names upon meeting again, then you know them.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Oh, and "formally introduced" in my last post is more a figure of speech. You can meet them on your own volition, and still be said to know them.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

I use it as more than having met someone. I have met many people for whom I would say, awkwardly, "I don't really know them."

I'd expect to know a bit about them, maybe 2 or 3 things, before I say I know them. Not sure where the line is for me. Needs some thought.

Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :

So yes my OP was short on detail but then I didn’t want to be to specific - sorry.

If need be though I guess my premise was formed out of dealing with the Christian position that we can ‘Know” Jesus. But it feels to me that at least in my case all I could truly say is that I ‘Know about’ Jesus.

When does the latter become the former?

Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
When in your opinion does one move from ‘Knowing About” someone, to “Knowing’ someone?
I think you need to define each of those a bit more clearly.

Sorry but that is where I come up short.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
So yes my OP was short on detail but then I didn’t want to be to specific - sorry.

If need be though I guess my premise was formed out of dealing with the Christian position that we can ‘Know” Jesus. But it feels to me that at least in my case all I could truly say is that I ‘Know about’ Jesus.

When does the latter become the former?

OK, I did not think it as simple as not introduced v. introduced.
I'll start with people.
To truly know a person, You have to know their character. Have an idea of how they will react to a situation you have not seen them encounter. Not that this can ever be 100%, but if you can do significantly better than a guess, IMO you could be said to know a person. With someone who is not physically present, it is more difficult. Given that two people can read the same text, claim the same inspiration and still have different conclusions as what Jesus would do makes this a bit of a quandary.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

To say you 'know' Jesus is completely different. That is the language of some religious people. It is a metaphor for a Christian religious concept.

Unum Solum, I name you a naughty and tricksy person.

Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
To say you 'know' Jesus is completely different. That is the language of some religious people. It is a metaphor for a Christian religious concept.

Unum Solum, I name you a naughty and tricksy person.

Certainly not trying to be, but while it may be the language of some religious people there are a lot of them. It is language that can generate a sense of guilt or failure, certainly of being ‘outside’. I know it is not the language that many here would use, but then that is probably why they are here.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
To say you 'know' Jesus is completely different. That is the language of some religious people. It is a metaphor for a Christian religious concept.

Unum Solum, I name you a naughty and tricksy person.
Certainly not trying to be, but while it may be the language of some religious people there are a lot of them. It is language that can generate a sense of guilt or failure, certainly of being ‘outside’. I know it is not the language that many here would use, but then that is probably why they are here.

I think you're bang on the money. Cf. "personal relationship with Jesus"

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Many years ago, I put a question in a newsletter to say I'd joined a year ago, did anyone have any good reason why I should renew my subscription?! I had a letter from a woman who enthused why, whose use of words was superb and whose text was a joy to read. We corresponded and we arranged for her and her two sons to visit me and my two. When I opened the door to greet her, she was so totally different in colouring, stature, and physical appearance from what I had imagined, that I was hard pushed not to show my surprise. Moral: I had learnt the beauty of the inside person before I met the outside. We remained good friends until she died at too young an age.

[ 23. January 2018, 06:46: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Post script to previous post: It was a sobering thought that I might well have missed her friendship if I had met her first. It was a lesson well learnt.

Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Many years ago, I put a question in a newsletter to say I'd joined a year ago, did anyone have any good reason why I should renew my subscription?! I had a letter from a woman who enthused why, whose use of words was superb and whose text was a joy to read. We corresponded and we arranged for her and her two sons to visit me and my two. When I opened the door to greet her, she was so totally different in colouring, stature, and physical appearance from what I had imagined, that I was hard pushed not to show my surprise. Moral: I had learnt the beauty of the inside person before I met the outside. We remained good friends until she died at too young an age.

Indeed I think correspondence can draw people together who have never met, who come to ‘know’ one another. I have experienced this. The correspondence may start simply, but evolves and changes, questions asked and answered, expand and deepen as trust and vulnerability is created and embraced. It can move fast or slow, ebbing and flowing as personal circumstances change over time and through events external to the relationship.

I don’t understand how this can happen when only one party is writing ‘new’ things every day and what they get in return has been in print for 2000 years. I want to, but I don’t.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

So the "Knowing Jesus" is an interesting and (IMO) valid part of this.

To me it is about relationship. I can know information about someone. I can meet someone at a party, and be introduced to them, and find out some things about them. And probably never meet them again, or at least not until the next party.

But someone I meet more often, who I trust with more details about myself - that is a relationship, at least the start of one. Someone you would feel you could contact in case of a problem.

A relationship with Jesus is supposed to be on that level, I think. The divine in human form, who we trust and can talk to about anything.

FWIW, this is where I think WBC struggles. They know a lot about what the Bible sort of says on one subject, they know all about what their church teaches on one subject (it only has one, of course), but they don't know the reality, the presence of the divine. From what I have seen at least.

Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
So the "Knowing Jesus" is an interesting and (IMO) valid part of this.

———-

A relationship with Jesus is supposed to be on that level, I think. The divine in human form, who we trust and can talk to about anything.

———-.

Whom we can trust to (do what)? We can talk to about anything, after all He already knows it all so we are not going to shock Him, but if there is no Knowing (response) then it is much like keeping a diary/journal. It is a release for all the thoughts rumbling around in our heads, and not much else.

Sorry but what is WBC, it’s not something I am familiar with?

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
... Sorry but what is WBC, it’s not something I am familiar with?

No. I don't either. When I googled it, I got World Boxing Council.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

The few facts I know about someone are rather inert. They don’t have much effect on me. But when I meet someone and share time and activity with them, then we don’t just pass information, we each perform for the other, accommodate to the other, feel for the other, suppress aspects of ourselves, learn how to be with the other, and discover how it feels to be in their company. We are like stars circling, exchanging matter, not only in a common orbit, but affecting each other’s shape, rotation and brightness. We see that the reality of human personhood is located in the zones between us, not inside our lonely heads.

Can you do this with Jesus? It’s not the same, but the personality of Jesus doesn’t mainly come to me off the page, but through the medium of other people. I react to one person, preacher or scholar’s Jesus differently from another’s. They have different feels or personalities. Indeed, even the written Jesus comes with Matthew or John’s concerns and ideas all over him. So Jesus meets me with a human setting.

And, it’s a bit of a stretch, but I have an influence on him as well as him on me. My understanding of him changes over time. Aspects of his story and style become important to me at different stages of my life and I notice things about him that weren’t there for me before, so there is something like an interaction between us. He mainly changes for me in my relationship with him, but of course I affect others in the church and world around, so my developing relationship with Jesus marginally nudges that of others.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

I think WBC is an annoying use of an acronym to save time that actually takes more time because it creates confusion and requires explanation. And Westborough Baptist Church, the God hates Fags church in America that is a handy stand in for aggressive fundamentalism and anti-smoking campaigns.

Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :

WBC when used on the ship generally refers to Westboro Baptist Church

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I think it takes more than having met someone to actually know them.

To wit: I occupy quite a visible role in my church. Seeing me all the time leads people to think they know me. They don’t. Some of them don’t even know much about me.

Fun story of the weekend: two ladies sitting near the back, overheard saying, “Have you seen? la vie en rouge is pregnant. Did you know she was married?” (Subtext: maybe she isn’t, and we have some salacious evangelical gossip to be scandalised about). This was cheerfully reported to me by… my husband who was sitting in the row in front [Snigger]

They found out the truth of the matter shortly after, when someone who actually knows us came up to my husband and congratulated him quite loudly. You don’t know me, lady. (To be clear, I am not at all offended and think this is hilarious.)

Anyway, to say you really know someone, I think you have to spent some time with them, finding about them, what they’re like, what they’re interested in, and so on.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I can tell you all about my next door neighbour, but until you spend some time with him you won't get to know him in relationship. The Bible tells us about Jesus but we won't get to know him in relationship until we spend time with him in prayer, and follow his teaching and example.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

I find this question very interesting.

I realise I could be accused of some pedantry about the definitions of terms because we generally understand what is meant by ‘knowing someone’ in the sense that it’s being discussed here, but if you define ‘knowing’ more strictly, and as a real thing that differs in a black/white way from unknowing, the question becomes truly intriguing.

Does anyone know anybody? No, they do not, and nor do they really know themselves!

We may know people partially, but probably far, far less that we like to think we do. Rather than knowing them in any proper sense, I reckon we judge others to be what we think they are like, and this is entirely subjective and massively unreliable. Despite this, we are awfully fond of our opinions of others and commonly claim all kinds of certainty in our convictions, with often disastrous consequences.

My point here is that there are huge problems with the universal overestimation of the extent to which it is possible to ‘know’ anybody. I guess this also applies to knowing gods, whose alleged superpowers equip them uniquely to know people.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Very late in my game I'm just starting to realise that I can only hope to know Jesus more in, through, by the Spirit. The Power of Prayer thread drove me, I know not how... to my reformed, neo-orthodox former fellowship on-line and this to me astounding article, to which I alluded on the Prayer thread in my Uh Oh!

It's epitomized by this: "The Holy Spirit unbinds our wills and unscrambles our minds and refashions our affections so we can more fully respond with all that we are to all that God is.".

And as we know..., God is in Christ. And more.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Insightful post Yorick.

Unum Solum, I'm going to take it on faith for the moment that your inquiry is genuine.

In that spirit I suggest that the idea of "supposed to" is one of the most dangerous phrases in the human lexicon.

My knowing Jesus is supposed to - fill in the blank:

Bring me peace;
Feel "Real";
Be something I feel all the time;
Something I can comprehend,
even; Be recognizable.

Expectations of any of those thing, or anything even like them, is simply setting yourself up for failure.

If people are telling you that you should experience Jesus at a personal level as in "I can talk with Him and everything will come into focus and be OK", they are bullshitting you and themselves.

Expectations get in the way of experiencing reality. They keep us from recognizing what is because we keep looking for what we think reality should be. Yet, everybody does it all the time; including me.

The Bible references this at 1 Kings 19:11-13.

quote:
And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

Try dropping your expectations about what knowing Jesus should be like and be present. The still small voice will become recognizable once your mind gets mind gets out of the way.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Good points by Yorick. I think we can partially know someone, but which parts? And knowing myself is a damn difficult business, and probably harder in actual fact. I have often been surprised by my own life - where did that come from? Knowing Jesus - a blank.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
Indeed I think correspondence can draw people together who have never met, who come to ‘know’ one another. I have experienced this. The correspondence may start simply, but evolves and changes, questions asked and answered, expand and deepen as trust and vulnerability is created and embraced. It can move fast or slow, ebbing and flowing as personal circumstances change over time and through events external to the relationship.

I don’t understand how this can happen when only one party is writing ‘new’ things every day and what they get in return has been in print for 2000 years. I want to, but I don’t.

Since deciding to post a response to this post of yours, I have been out (to the gym actually!) and come back to read all the other thoughtful posts in between times. Martin60 mentions the Holy Spirit, but I, as an atheist, lack any belief in that as well as all the other concepts of God, living Christ, etc.
May I ask why it is that you want to understand? Have you followed your line of thought to its final conclusion and come to something that exists? I have to doubt it! Do you feel you are missing out on something? I would suggest that perhaps the missing part is the understanding, or acknowledgement that all gods, and the words and actions attributed to them, are from evolved human brains; with an absence of a god anywhere, any time. (I acknowledge that one may turn up one day of course.) For me, that is not only enough but entirely rational, reasonable and satisfying. I think it is a pity that, although Humanist groups hold regular meetings, they do not have a book of rousing songs and music to accompany the talks and discussions! 

I think Boogie has an interesting way of combining her quiet lack of belief with her attendance at church and being in that community.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think it is a pity that, although Humanist groups hold regular meetings, they do not have a book of rousing songs and music to accompany the talks and discussions!

There’s an opening for someone to write one!

A combination of a community choir and a WI meeting [Smile]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think it is a pity that, although Humanist groups hold regular meetings, they do not have a book of rousing songs and music to accompany the talks and discussions!

There’s an opening for someone to write one!

A combination of a community choir and a WI meeting

If only the Blessed ken was here: he could suggest a whole raft of hymns and carols with no Christian content whatsoever!

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I don't know any of you. Just your posts.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

That could be said of all of us, of course.

FWIW, I love reading SusanDoris's posts. As an avowed atheist, she has a very gracious way of holding up a mirror to those of us who have some sort (however poorly expressed) of belief.

IJ

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't know any of you. Just your posts.

That’s true. And yet....

We are (presumably) hardwired to form opinions about others based on very little information, and we do this by various means of inference of the data we gather about one another. The data we may glean from the postings of anonymous others in this forum are extremely limited, and yet it remains common practice here for people to judge one another and form convinced opinions on such complicated and obscure things as their innermost character and motives, etc.

Human nature, I guess. Laughable really.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I don't know any of you. Just your posts.
That’s true. And yet....

We are (presumably) hardwired to form opinions about others based on very little information, and we do this by various means of inference of the data we gather about one another. The data we may glean from the postings of anonymous others in this forum are extremely limited, and yet it remains common practice here for people to judge one another and form convinced opinions on such complicated and obscure things as their innermost character and motives, etc.

Human nature, I guess. Laughable really.

It’s not just data. There is data, of course, but there is the saying and doing and responding. We quickly discover that our sense of humour doesn’t work with one person, or that another disarms us with their candour and we want to respond in kind, that the group we are new to feels cool towards us, or that someone new to our old group is full of surprises. The dynamics of relating are where we know people and know ourselves in new ways.

And we are laughable, but wonderful, too. I think there is evidence that we are very softly wired and highly adaptable.

We are not lonely homunculi each trapped in our own skulls. Our personhood is a nascent flower in the conversations and dances we make when we meet.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think it is a pity that, although Humanist groups hold regular meetings, they do not have a book of rousing songs and music to accompany the talks and discussions!

There’s an opening for someone to write one!

A combination of a community choir and a WI meeting

How about this for a start?! Sung to the ponderous tune (dirge?!) of 'Immortal, invisible, God only wise.'

Amazing, and glorious infinite sky,
Where products of modern technology fly,
the voyagers travel far out into space
While we live on blue planet, Earth, our own place.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
That could be said of all of us, of course.

FWIW, I love reading SusanDoris's posts. As an avowed atheist, she has a very gracious way of holding up a mirror to those of us who have some sort (however poorly expressed) of belief.

IJ

thank you for saying - much appreciated.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I apologise - I thought most shippies would recognise WBC.

And I think knowing Jesus is as much about changing to be more like him. Listening to him, and learning how to hear. It is different but similar to any other relationship - to learn more about the other. But for us, it is just us knowing more about God, who he is and how we can hear from him.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Couldn't he just pick up the phone? I'm weary of trying to hear God. I have a thousand voices in my head, a thousand thoughts. Could some of them be him? How would I know? I know, some will say it's because I've pretty much given up on prayer, but they've got cause and effect arse about face there. Or that I don't read the Bible, but so much I read in there about stoning and massacring and condemning people makes me lose interest in knowing this God. Sometimes I wonder if I'm just fooling myself.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

I would say that the idea of knowing (rather than simply knowing about) God is, like most of our language about God, metaphorical and analogical. It takes a familiar human concept and applies it to illumine something real about the way we can connect with/relate to God.

At the very least, it indicates that there is more to our connection with God than something simply propositional and cerebral. It affirms the possibility and importance of relating to God as ‘personal’. The idea is well and succinctly explored philosophically in Vincent Brümmer’s Speaking of a Personal God

Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :

Thanks you all for your responses.

Tortuf my question is genuine so rest assured. I seem to have to many questions and few answers, at least answers that seem to get through. Many of them make sense but maybe I am to obtuse to internalise them and see change.

SusanDoris why do I wish to understand? its just who I am, a need to know type of personality, one who seldom finds completion but always wants to look beyond. Maybe I am happier in some sad way being unsettled. I kind of know that God is unknowable but that doesn’t mean I don’t quest after such knowledge.

There is more I would like to say but I am rushing out to work so would just finish with this. I understand in some communities asking such questions may be seen as lacking faith or being unsettling to others and I have felt guilty about this. I have a couple of dear friends who have put up with a lot of my ‘seeking’ angst and at times I have withdrawn from contact aware of how annoying my questing could seem. So maybe I would like to get to ‘know’ God/Jesus because I figure he wont get tired of me?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I think that the continuing questions are necessary to help us to continue to go ever deeper in faith. Don't expect satisfactory answers, but more questions to ponder.

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

quote:
If need be though I guess my premise was formed out of dealing with the Christian position that we can ‘Know” Jesus. But it feels to me that at least in my case all I could truly say is that I ‘Know about’ Jesus.

True indeed for anyone who is no longer physically with us on earth. We can only know about them unless we actually met and conversed with them while they were alive on earth. The idea that I could have a 'relationship' with Queen Victoria, or President Lincoln is absurd.

quote:
To say you 'know' Jesus is completely different. That is the language of some religious people. It is a metaphor for a Christian religious concept.

Agreed! It is a metaphor, describing the way understanding the teaching and life philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth resembles having a person to person relationship with him who taught and lived.

quote:
I don’t understand how this can happen when only one party is writing ‘new’ things every day and what they get in return has been in print for 2000 years. I want to, but I don’t.

Presumably if one should make concerted effort to live by the same philosophical precepts as a person long dead, one might equally meet with very similar experiences in social interaction, human nature having not changed that very much.

quote:
The Bible tells us about Jesus but we won't get to know him in relationship until we spend time with him in prayer, and follow his teaching and example.

Yes, that is how I see it too.

quote:
Does anyone know anybody? No, they do not, and nor do they really know themselves!

quote:
The dynamics of relating are where we know people and know ourselves in new ways.

Getting to 'know Jesus', is paradoxically becoming free of ourselves but becoming more aware of our selves and where our priorities lay. It is becoming less selfish and more Christlike in our relational style.

quote:
And I think knowing Jesus is as much about changing to be more like him. Listening to him, and learning how to hear. It is different but similar to any other relationship - to learn more about the other. But for us, it is just us knowing more about God, who he is and how we can hear from him.

quote:
I would say that the idea of knowing (rather than simply knowing about) God is, like most of our language about God, metaphorical and analogical.

Agreed!

But what has scripture to say on the matter:

Contrary to the belief of many, knowing in a Biblical way does not exclusively entail close and intimate contact of a procreational kind.

quote:
Ye have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you. Deut. 9:24

Moses certainly did not 'know' all of these rebellious people in the 'Biblical sense'. He knew them for what they were :- "Rebellious".

quote:
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matt. 7:23

Clearly Christ refuses to 'know' anyone who works iniquity. Just as we might say to an ex-Nazi death camp executioner or a terrorist bigot, 'I don't even want to know you'.

quote:
But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist. Mat. 17:12-13

It seems clear that 'Knowing John The Baptist' meant, for Jesus, hearing and doing the words John preached, not just having shared some socialising, conversational pick-nicks on locusts and wild honey with him.

quote:
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Mat.7:20

on recognising people by their deeds, rather than their words.

quote:
But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.

To Pharisees who opposed His Teaching.

quote:
And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

The mistake of assuming 'acquaintance knowing' is equivalent to 'knowledge knowing' or 'personal relationship'.

quote:
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Jn.14:7

'Knowing' what they could not see, became facilitated by studying the character, demeanour, attitudes, deeds and words of the person they HAD seen. If they had 'known Him' they had 'Known God'. see Jn. 14:1-14.

Posted by Unum Solum (# 18904) on :

What can I do to know you?

I can do nothing, for in my weakness and blindness I equate doing with effort, and effort is a different language to knowing, to relationship. This knowing, this relationship, is the language of being. Of being present, of being aware, of being patient, of being forgiving (usually with my self), of being quiet, of being loud, of being lost and found, of being, just being and accepting that it is enough. Being takes no account of effort, being is, and is cannot be quantified.

I cannot see you unless I am looking when you show yourself. I cannot hear you unless I am listening when you speak. To run to you is to run away from who I am, when who I am is who I was created to be. To run to you is to fail to understand that you were already near, already right here.

I don’t understand any of this, but then who understands love? No one! Love is not understood it can only be experienced, it is never lost nor found, it is not a thing to be purchased with doing, with effort. Love is a thing of being.

I don’t understand any of this!

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
To run to you is to run away from who I am, when who I am is who I was created to be. [QB]

’created’? You were born, a member of an unbroken line of life since life first began. If you think you were created, i.e. especially created, then by what? How?

quote:
[QB]I don’t understand any of this, but then who understands love? No one!

That is not scientifically true. Do you think there is doubt that love is a word for an emotion caused by chemical reactions etc? Every detail of this emotion may well not be understood, but the feeling is just as real; the feelings involved are equally meaningful whether scientifically understood or not. I would venture to say that perhaps they can be better appreciated by one who looks at the physical facts, but that is an opinion only.

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

quote:
Do you think there is doubt that love is a word for an emotion caused by chemical reactions etc?

Certainly I do.

You seem to be making the materialist mistake of assuming 'Love' to refer exclusively to 'natural biological urges to procreate'. That certainly has measurable chemical reactions associated with it, but it is not LOVE. It is merely animal desire driven by evolutionary inherited instinct.

An enchanting but sometimes disorienting and logic impairing experience, though briefly pleasurable, dissatisfying in the long term, unless enhanced by deeper and more meaningful communication and commitment.

LOVE is a whole lot more than a mere biological urge to copulate. If we think that monitoring our chemical responses will help us know whether we LOVE somebody or not, there is something sadly lacking in our comprehension of the meaning of the word LOVE.

The idea that the many different types of human 'Love' can be subjected to chemical analysis is delusional.

The Greeks had a better understanding of the many different types of human 'Love' and had at least three specific words to describe them. Unfortunately the English language suffers from trying to use just one word to describe a many faceted phenomenon. As a result the word, in English, has suffered severe meaning devaluation and no longer describes accurately any one of the three Greek types of love more specifically referred to in scripture.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't see why it's either/or. Love is a profound subjective experience, and love occurs when certain electro-chemical signalling in the brain kicks off. But then it's no different from other experiences, is it? Unless you believe there are experiences which are not generated in the brain.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Couldn't he just pick up the phone? I'm weary of trying to hear God. I have a thousand voices in my head, a thousand thoughts. Could some of them be him?

Good questions. Joan Osborne asked it musically with What if God was One of Us?.

"Nobody calling on the phone, 'cept for the pope maybe in Rome..." Though that's us calling God. God doesn't have a phone.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:

quote:
Do you think there is doubt that love is a word for an emotion caused by chemical reactions etc?
Certainly I do.
]You seem to be making the materialist mistake of assuming 'Love' to refer exclusively to 'natural biological urges to procreate'.

That is a totally wrong assumption and reads into my words something that was not there.

quote:
…but it is not LOVE.
LOVE is a whole lot more than a mere biological urge to copulate.

Of course it is, and I did not anywhere indicate otherwise.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't see why it's either/or. Love is a profound subjective experience, and love occurs when certain electro-chemical signalling in the brain kicks off. But then it's no different from other experiences, is it? Unless you believe there are experiences which are not generated in the brain.

I nod in agreement - well said.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Knowing God is rather tricky as we are all rather good at making God in our own image. Probably if we were ever to really meet God himself, the majority of us would be rather surprised.

And it's not enough to say Know Jesus instead - even his disciples, who presumably saw him daily, realised that he was full of surprises and therefore not very easy to pin down. How much harder for us, when there is a gap of 2,000 years and only limited writings?

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't see why it's either/or. Love is a profound subjective experience, and love occurs when certain electro-chemical signalling in the brain kicks off. But then it's no different from other experiences, is it? Unless you believe there are experiences which are not generated in the brain.

With one caveat, I’d agree. That caveat is the word “generated.” Plenty of experiences are not generated in the brain, but they are perceived and processed in or through the brain. It is our reactions and responses to those experiences that are generated in the brain.

That said, I also would say that understanding the neurological functions involved in the emotion we call “love” is not the same as saying we understand love.

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

quote:
And it's not enough to say Know Jesus instead - even his disciples, who presumably saw him daily, realised that he was full of surprises and therefore not very easy to pin down. How much harder for us, when there is a gap of 2,000 years and only limited writings?

According to the testimony of John, Jesus knew full well that his disciples had not really known him.

quote:
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

The inference seems to be that even his own disciples had not known him on earth, but that the possibility of 'knowing him' started, for disciples, at the Last Supper in the recollections of the disciples, enlightened by The Holy Spirit. So 'seeing' is only the beginning of 'knowing'.

So I guess Jesus would be very aware also of OUR difficulty, us having never even actually 'seen' him.

quote:
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Unum Solum:
What can I do to know you?

I can do nothing, for in my weakness and blindness I equate doing with effort, and effort is a different language to knowing, to relationship. . . .

I don’t understand any of this!

Let me highly recommend Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0