• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Speaking with Foxfire

Nikud

Nikud

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
Fireflies, anglerfish, and other creatures produce the chemicals luciferin pigment, which in presence of a catalyst called luciferase, react with Oxygen and create light which is known as Bioluminescence. However, a few species of Fungi show the bioluminescence and is called Foxfire. Most common such fungus is Honey mushroom, which belongs to genus Armillaria.

What's the point of that and how does it relate to Speaking with Foxfire.

Speaking with Foxfire is a reference from way back in the day. It's about speaking with authority about what those lights are because you've seen them from afar. It's about making authoritive statements on subjects you have limited knowledge if any about. It's about teaching your beleif that those lights are fairies because you saw those lights. When in actuality, they were fireflies or bioluminescent fungi.

If we make broad generalizations on a subject based off our own bias and speak as if it is authority, without knowing the how, why, or when then we're speaking with Foxfire.

I suggest that if we're going to speak on a subject we should have an understanding of it beyond I don't like it or other people who were paid by someone with a bias put this data out and it justifies my beleif. If we don't we run the risk of making apersonal doctrine out of Foxfire. That in itself is dangerous but not as much as when we try to force that Foxfire doctrine on others.
 
Last edited:
Love it. Without arguing (it can be both/and instead of either/or), I want to add that there are times when our own experience is the only real 'authority' we have, in the sense that we are the 'author' (first mover, originator) of anything. Consider a witness called to testify in a trial: That witness will be strictly limited to testimony regarding (a) personal eyewitness observations, "that which we have seen and heard", or (b) expert witness testimony, which requires first establishing the 'expert' credentials of the witness.

So if we're going to claim expert status, we should be able to back that up, or we should stick strictly to what we have seen and heard and avoid unfounded generalizations based on small data sets (often one data point...). I agree with you that the problem comes when we generalize from our limited experience without real expert credentials.
 
Cap said:
Guess the other thing would be, in any position how likely are you to change you view under torture.
Click to expand...
True and that does speaks to conviction of your beliefs, although those with training such as SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) would be at an advantage even if their conviction wasn't strong. Its still possible to hold strong convictions about a beleif that is not founded in scripture, expertise or reason.

Think of the Modern followers of Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676), an Ottoman Jew who claimed to be the Messiah, but then converted to Islam, who still beleive he was the Messiah or the followers of Moses of Crete, who in about 440–470 were persuaded to walk into the sea, as Moses had done, to return to Israel and died. Strenth of conviction though powerful is not always a good thing.

Just because someone beleives something unwavering and are willing to die for that beleif doesnt make it truth. In cases conviction combined Foxfire doctrines can lead to horrific cases of oversight. For example with Luther's antisemitic writings combined with an anti anabaptist veiw and the lack of knowledge of Romani culture lead to members of my family being burnt at the stake for being a radical Jewish sect of of Anabaptist who denied Christ. They were beleivers in Yeshua who followed a version of Torah and did not want to participate in the world. An Alsatian Luthern Minister saw what he wanted to see created a Foxfire doctrine that he the Habys and Tshirharts (the families that ended up spliting my families lands between them) used to whip up the locals into a frenzy and used to "Justify" murdering a Kumpania of 68, (mostly women and children) well 64 my Grandfathers ancestor and his 3 brothers escaped because they were delivering Pears and Pear brandy to a river barge. Luther congratulated the Minster and the good people for their conviction.

Speaking Foxfire can be dangerous add in conviction and you can get all sorts of evil.

BTW, if I ever make disparaging remarks about Luther or the Lutheran church this is my reason. I try not to because I don't blame Lutherans for this just Luther, that Minister and every Haby and Tshirhart.
 
Last edited:
Kevin said:
Fireflies, anglerfish, and other creatures produce the chemicals luciferin pigment, which in presence of a catalyst called luciferase, react with Oxygen and create light which is known as Bioluminescence. However, a few species of Fungi show the bioluminescence and is called Foxfire. Most common such fungus is Honey mushroom, which belongs to genus Armillaria.

What's the point of that and how does it relate to Speaking with Foxfire.

Speaking with Foxfire is a reference from way back in the day. It's about speaking with authority about what those lights are because you've seen them from afar. It's about making authoritive statements on subjects you have limited knowledge if any about. It's about teaching your beleif that those lights are fairies because you saw those lights. When in actuality, they were fireflies or bioluminescent fungi.

If we make broad generalizations on a subject based off our own bias and speak as if it is authority, without knowing the how, why, or when then we're speaking with Foxfire.

I suggest that if we're going to speak on a subject we should have an understanding of it beyond I don't like it or other people who were paid by someone with a bias put this data out and it justifies my beleif. If we don't we run the risk of making apersonal doctrine out of Foxfire. That in itself is dangerous but not as much as when we try to force that Foxfire doctrine on others.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I do agree. Thinking that we have all the answers on any particular subject is a dangerous place for oneself and those around them. But entertaining different beliefs, outside of true salvation, can lead to a better understanding on certain levels. But some people do have better understanding of some subjects and so if we take the appropriate opportunity to be both teacher and student on different matters things may go better. At least that's what I try to do.
 
Cap said:
Ok, I change my position, if you are not burned up or eaten by lions in your torture, then what you are saying COULD be true.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, If it's something were not willing to endure suffering and possible death for maybe we shouldn't be presenting it as authoritive because it hasn't been place as an absolute truth on our hearts. We just have to balance discernment with conviction.
 
Last edited:
Kevin said:
I was agreeing with you, I if it's something were not willing to endure suffering and possible death for maybe we shouldn't be presenting it as authoritive because he hasn't place it as an absolute truth on our hearts. We just have to balance discernment with conviction.
Click to expand...

Yep, all good. I had a feeling about what you were saying.
 
Foxfire played a role in one of the most beautiful memories of my life. It's kind of a thing around here, some of you may have heard of the Foxfire books and magazines. Windblown ran across some one night early in our dating relationship and it was an amazing moment.
 
:rolleyes::p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top