I don’t normally post on the weekend, but I had a few thoughts that might be worth pondering for a day or two. Consider it a white flag of truce, a ceasefire, or an olive branch.
Here I am compelled to reflect upon rather than interpret what Boman says. He points out that a major reason the Hebrews consider the earth so dynamic is that God made it and can change it dramatically at His whim. It’s substance and structure depends wholly and by the moment upon God holding it all together. This has always been a major difference between the ANE versus the West. The latter places a great trust in what they can perceive and use, and mountains look pretty solid in the flesh. Western minds put an awful lot of faith in such things. In the Hebrew mind, the confidence is in the God who made them.
One of the things I find really odd with Radix Fidem and its supporters is that they have difficulty imagining a person who is both rational and mystical at the same time. I do not, and never have, asserted that only the mind matters and that the heart should be ignored. I have consistently said one must love God with their whole, inseparable self.
Those in that community—not just Ed—are simply unable (or unwilling?) to interact with me on those terms, as if the two must be in diametric opposition as some sort of universal law.
They rarely bother to interact with me at all, let alone asking me to clarify what I believe. Once one of their members fully attempted it, following up with a useless and counterproductive ad hominem (including numerous personal attacks and false claims) that ended all dialogue. It was disappointing.
Hurst takes pains to create a strictly binary, dogmatic, static and non-dynamic distinction between the Ancient Near East and the West, as if it is all-or-nothing with no overlap or nuance. That’s quite the abstraction, and like all abstractions—as Bruce Charlton likes to say—it isn’t truly real. One might say that it is a very Western thing to do.
Many, many years ago, on September 17, 2016, I published “Miracles Don’t Contradict the Laws of Science.” I don’t know if anyone besides me has ever read it. In it I made a very simple observation:
The laws of nature are not violated when God acts upon them.
And that’s it.
When Ed Hurst says…
…he says the same thing that I said.
We agree. We often agree. This is not the only time, and it won’t be the last. The problem is not with our agreement. It’s with that pesky assumption that you can’t (or shouldn’t) be both rational and mystical.
Thus, the mountains are pretty solid, and my faith in that is on a firm foundation. But God can also move them, and my faith in God’s dynamic power over his creation is a cornerstone of my belief. There is no conflict here.
One could—and should—say that the mountains are pretty solid because God made them.
I honestly have not run across anyone who has published a preference for the Hebrew epistemology. It’s been pretty lonely.
I have!
I don’t know what he means regarding the loaded and/or ambiguous statement “Hebrew epistemology”, but I’ve always been partial to the Old Testament. On December 7, 2017, I published “Is the New Testament Relevant?” a somewhat tongue-in-cheek article that suggested that the way that Christianity should be understood is in the frame of reference of the Old Testament (which is mostly written in Hebrew by Hebrews).
In other places, I’ve written against Hellenistic assumptions that Christians imported onto the New Testament writers and on Christianity. It was one of my focuses before I started a blog. In fact, one of my most common criticisms of Radix Fidem is that their teachings are too strongly influenced by Greek philosophy (e.g. here).
You could say that Ed Hurst is the only one I’ve ever run across who shares my preference for “Hebrew epistemology” (whatever it might be…). Has it never occurred to anyone that this is why I’ve remained so interested in Radix Fidem over the years? It’s just like how Catacomb Resident answered his own question.
I’ve been blogging for around 8 years. My comment section has been open the entire time. I even publish my private email for people who prefer fellowship over email. I’ve even offered to meet up with people in meatspace!
I don’t mean this as an attack, but that loneliness might be self-inflicted.
Hurst takes pains to create a strictly binary, dogmatic, static and non-dynamic distinction between the Ancient Near East and the West, as if it is all-or-nothing with no overlap or nuance. That’s quite the abstraction, and like all abstractions—as Bruce Charlton likes to say—it isn’t truly real. One might say that it is a very Western thing to do.
Many, many years ago, on September 17, 2016, I published “Miracles Don’t Contradict the Laws of Science.” I don’t know if anyone besides me has ever read it. In it I made a very simple observation:
The laws of nature are not violated when God acts upon them.
And that’s it.
When Ed Hurst says…
The earth so dynamic is that God made it and can change it dramatically at His whim. It’s substance and structure depends wholly and by the moment upon God holding it all together.
…he says the same thing that I said.
We agree. We often agree. This is not the only time, and it won’t be the last. The problem is not with our agreement. It’s with that pesky assumption that you can’t (or shouldn’t) be both rational and mystical.
Thus, the mountains are pretty solid, and my faith in that is on a firm foundation. But God can also move them, and my faith in God’s dynamic power over his creation is a cornerstone of my belief. There is no conflict here.
This is similar to how that Z-MAN blogger pretty much explained GBFMS’s long-standing disagreement with grammar-nazis=communists in the sphere who strictly adhere to modern mores on spelling & ”Evangelical Christianity” such while at the same time insanely, contradictorily & as Jack likes to say confusingly – speaking of how modern sexual mores are evil & yet should be followed over what most grammar-nazis=communists said throughout history at the same time.Here is what Z-MAN said that applies to GBFMS’s longstanding war(disagreement) with insane, contradictorily & confused tradcons:
Probably the biggest challenge for Christianity is the modern Christian, who like the modern grammarian, refuses to evolve or kick it like GBFM always does. The grammarian clings to the rules of grammar as if they are timeless truths. Any thought of ignoring them for the sake of clarity is treated as a crime against humanity. The fact that most of what he clings to is a relative new invention(& NOT ancient like Masculinity incarnate AKA GBFM) is lost on him, because what matters most to him is wielding the blue pencil like nuns used to wield the ruler.
See how it also seems to apply to your & RFS disagreements?
Yes, I understand.
I often share this quote:
Many people view Christ primarily (or solely) as a moral teacher. Do this. Do that. Rules and regulations. These are… quantitative.
But when Christ spoke of commandments and obedience, he did so of love in the context of friendship/relationship. This is… qualitative.
I’ve met two analytically minded folks who refuse to believe in God if he didn’t make an old earth, but made it appear old instead. Both are smarter than me, so I don’t fully understand the objection. It sounds as if they are saying there could be a God who created all of it, but I would rather suffer His wrath because he didn’t make the earth in accordance with what are scientific tools say. IOW, I am more honest than He is, so I’m good turning my back to Him.
Would you think it’s out of God’s character to have created the earth recently? I’m becoming more okay with an old earth, if the death spoken of in Genesis refers to a soul death, or death of things with blood. I assume Adam and Eve stepped on germs and germs were dying before they sinned. Maybe even their stomach lining was being regenerated every few days like ours is, and their hair was growing, thus dying.
I’m not sure of the dates of the fossils with an animal in the stomach of another, but if those fossils pre-date man’s existence, then that’s troubling and makes it harder to understand what was meant by death entered the world via sin. Seems like it would narrow it down to a soul death, or separation, from God. An ability to be accountable.
Surfdumb,
I raised this question to my father when I was a child, and I never received a complete answer. I’ve been thinking about this for decades.
But it’s never bothered me as much as others because, contrary to Radix Fidem, I’ve never read Genesis from a “Western” point-of-view. See the Genesis account was written by Hebrews within a Hebrew frame-of-reference.
For example, the Genesis creation account isn’t history in the sense that we mean it. After all the seven days are structured in a A-B-C-A-B-C-D chiasmus, which more-or-less precludes it from being an actual literal seven days. It has a literary structure whose relevance is largely ignored.
To answer your questions requires altering your point-of-view. I can write more about the topic, if you are interested?
Peace,
DR
Hurst takes pains to create a strictly binary, dogmatic, static and non-dynamic distinction between the Ancient Near East and the West, as if it is all-or-nothing with no overlap or nuance. That’s quite the abstraction, and like all abstractions—as Bruce Charlton likes to say—it isn’t truly real. One might say that it is a very Western secret king thing to do.
Vox Day
1h
Follow
Never worry about that. Van Gogh never sold a single painting. Tolkien never won a single SF/F award. I consider myself to be extremely fortunate to have whatever recognition I have. And meanwhile, boys everywhere from Albania to Tahiti are calling themselves “Sigma males”.
Now see why Roissy=Heartiste & GBFM=GB4M= THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN (THE MAIN MEN that spread what others called ”red pill”) NEVER took credit for various f@ols calling themselves ”red pill”?
Vox, unlike Roissy and GBFM, knew that most don’t even know reality before or after calling themselves ”red pill,” so as Vox says, they ” never worry about that.”
Vox, unlike Roissy and GBFM, knew that most don’t even know reality before or after calling themselves ”red pill,” so as Vox says, they ” never worry about that.”
That’s why I avoid using blue pilled &betaized spelling programs as it change the following red-pilled & alphaized sentences:
Roissy and GBFM, unlike Vox, knew that most don’t even know reality before or after calling themselves ”red pill,” so as Vox says, they ” never worry about that.”
Into the typical & highly failurous ”genius” ”red pill” by ”leaders” gibberish nonsense one usually finds elsewhere in ”red pill” tradcon sites.
Oh yeah here is the context for that Vox comment above:
Why Men Don’t Like Women
It’s not exactly a mystery
Sep 08, 2024
A lot of women are surprised and disheartened to discover that men don’t like women very much, which is yet another indication of female solipsism and lack of empathy. They’re just noticing this now? If it takes you literal decades to notice that half the population is less than entirely enthusiastic about you, you very clearly are not paying any attention whatsoever to them or their feelings.
A few weeks ago Anne Helen Petersen wrote about what makes actor Glenn Powell so appealing and I have not been able to stop thinking about something she said.
What makes him so appealing? Obviously he’s no eye sore, but Peterson points out that it’s far more than that. She says the main thing that sets Glenn Powell apart from other actors is that he likes women.
But isn’t that pretty basic? Don’t most men like women?
You would think so wouldn’t you, but actually no.
The first thing to point out is that most actors do not have a normal sexual orientation. Glenn Powell might actually be straight, which is not at all the case for most Hollywood heartthrobs ever since the first talkies were introduced. The producer’s casting couch is as much a requirement for actors as it is for actresses, so it’s not really a profession that serves as a reasonable metric for the average man.
But that doesn’t mean the observation is incorrect. The explanation, however, is entirely false:
How is it that so few men like women?
It’s certainly disheartening how rare this quality is in men, but something I read recently in Liz Plank’s book For the Love of Men helps explain why it is that so few men like women.
Through hundreds of interviews she shows how men are penalized for not performing masculinity so early, so often and so intensely that to safely navigate the world, their unconscious north star becomes stuck on “be masculine.”
Kindergarten boys get made fun of at school for liking girly shows like My Little Pony, parents don’t allow their boys to leave the house in girly clothes, teenage boys are ridiculed for having a girly voice.
From the time boys are preschoolers on up through adulthood- the worst thing to be is like a girl. The worst way to run is like a girl, the worst music is girly music, the worst things to care about are the things girls care about, the worst way to act is like a girl.
You’d think that the obvious thing for the woman to do would be to simply ask a number of men why they don’t like women, but of course, even such an obvious solution is completely beyond the capacity of a solipsistic woman. Better for her to engage in an appeal to her own imagination; obviously that’s a much more reliable method of obtaining relevant information. And it’s really inexcusable, as even a modicum of empathy combined with observation would have provided her with the answer.
The reason so few men like women is because women treat most men very badly.
Now, I’m not one of those men; high-status men tend to like women because women behave very differently around us. And I’m not saying women are necessarily unjustified in doing so, I’m simply pointing out the observable reality.(1) For example, I can count on one hand the number of boys who treated me as badly as the average girl did until I turned 16. The first person who ever punched me in the face was a girl: Jodi Phythian clocked me one in first grade for no reason that I can recall. And while women almost uniformly treat me in a deferential manner now, to an extent that I consider almost embarrassingly servile(2), I’m not blind to the way they treat most of the other men around them. And it’s not as if I’ve forgotten the experiences of my formative years.
Women customarily treat the vast majority of the men they encounter with disrespect, disdain, and contempt. Even when they truly love a man, they will say terrible things to him from time to time that would end the relationship in an instant if he were to say them to her. They genuinely think men don’t notice all their passive-aggressive little digs, their little tee-hee-hee, I’m only joking insults, because men so seldom respond to that sort of thing in kind, or even at all. What I find amusing, being one of the very few men who genuinely doesn’t care what women think about him or anything else, is the way they invariably respond with wide-eyed shock when a man simply responds in a direct manner to their little verbal sallies.
When I was a teenager going through my Duran Duran bad boy phase, a middle-aged friend of my mother’s made one of those little comments about my two-toned hairstyle, ostensibly to me, but more for the benefit of the other women there. You should have seen her face when I looked at her, smiled, and said: “I’m hardly the only one in this room with dyed hair.”
This, by the way, is one of the reasons men don’t respect most women. It is because they don’t respect anyone, male or female, who will dish it out, but can’t take it in return. If you want the respect of men, then you have to earn it by their rules.
BHA
2 hrs ago
I’m glad you responded to this piece in such depth. The comments on that original substack post are gold and point out many if not all of the obvious flaws you’ve enumerated. Most however express agreement in very surface ways that play into the fallacies expressed.
Now here’s the depressing part of the story for me: I read slop like that, get to the bottom and see that the engagement is huge, sometimes orders of magnitude greater than what authors here who have genuinely changed my thinking get. And the worse the viewpoint, the more shallow the perspective, the more engagement. And the performative responses in comments… pathetic.
Like (2)
Reply (3)
Share
Qtto
25 mins ago
Oh, wise one, where is your altar(I fixed that as they had an e near the end there instead of an a) so we mere mortals may worship you?
author
Vox Day
1 hr ago
Author
Never worry about that. Van Gogh never sold a single painting. Tolkien never won a single SF/F award. I consider myself to be extremely fortunate to have whatever recognition I have. And meanwhile, boys everywhere from Albania to Tahiti are calling themselves “Sigma males”.
Soljin
39 mins ago
And mainstream media still refuses to credit you with inventing that designation. To the right kind of person, that’s as much a feather in the cap as any actual credit would be like ”white pill” to GBFM & EARL for one thing e.g. the term didn’t come out in 2017 BUT 2013/February ’14 f@ols!
TRUE TRADCON ALERT!!!-NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY THINK A NEW COOL THING WITH THE KIDZ(GAME AKA ”REDPILL” IN ”REDPILLERS” case)WILL MAKE THEM WIN WHEN THEY LOSE EVEN MORE AFTERWARDS THEY GO BACK TO THE OLD STUFF THAT ALWAYS FAILS WITH THE KIDZ:
Oscar says:
2024-09-08 at 11:19 pm
Sort of on topic:
https://mediaproxy.snopes.com/width/1200/https://media.snopes.com/2024/09/76_years_couple_featured.jpg
Photos Show Elderly Married Couple Celebrating 76 Years Together?
Users shared two images of a couple with the caption, “76 years together. She is 94 and he is 97. When something is real, it’s forever.”
Q:IF ”Oscar” believed in that so much why did he preach game/”redpill” for the last decade then?
A: Because he is a trendy grifty=parasitey tradcon and doesn’t really care about anything other than himself & his comfort(like tradcon god Elrushbo & every other trendy grifty=parasitey tradcon that will ever exist).
If listening to Duran Duran back in the 1980’s was a “bad boy” phase……..
Duran Duran was a decent pop band but their target audience was teenage girls. Pins, posters, every teen girl magazine “who is the cutest? Simon!” They were never taken “seriously” as a groundbreaking band. Their videos featured them in exotic locations and exuding their cute puppy-dog / pouting Emo looks of the day.
Most of their ticket sales from the 1980’s were indeed women. Look at any live concert footage. Young women. Even Princess Diana went to a Duran Duran concert.
This guy cares A LOT about what women think, what they like and what to talk about with them.
Duran Duran……..if he was really going through a “bad boy” phase he probably should have been listening to all the underground post-punk and going to shows getting the snot kicked out of him at “slam dances” (precursor to the mosh pit).
Like most teens at that time, he wasnt old enough to get in to some of these shows, never knew this music existed or figured “no girls there, and I want them to like me so I will two tone my hair, wear eyeliner, cause that’s-what-girls-like”