Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Take it as you please. I am curious to know how you came to this particular conclusion, though. Or rather: what is your stance on the value of myth?
Myth is an escape from reality. Ultimately it is harmful.
See it's easy to provide straight-forward answers. Posters like you and GB seem more intent on reveling in the "cleverness" of vacuous posts rather than engaging in discussion. Perhaps it's because there is no "there" there.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Myth is an escape from reality. Ultimately it is harmful.
See it's easy to provide straight-forward answers. Posters like you and GB seem more intent on reveling in the "cleverness" of vacuous posts rather than engaging in discussion. Perhaps it's because there is no "there" there.
Myth is part of reality. You lack the capacity to experience it.
Now when Jesus refers to the Kingdom of God, what is he talking about?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne [b]Myth is part of reality. You lack the capacity to experience it.
Please elaborate on this.[/b]
Ok. Let's treat Che Guevara as a myth. You regard Che as an ideal type of modern hero. By emulating his deeds, modelling your behaviour on him. At some point, you become Che, bathed in Guevaratude. You have become Other than you have been hitherto.
Of course, Mythos and Logos don't talk the same language. That is why statements like 'To state that God exists is to deny God' are dismissed as nonsense by logomaniacs, one of which I tend to think of you as being.
That's my best shot for today. Could you please answer my question now?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Ok. Let's treat Che Guevara as a myth. You regard Che as an ideal type of modern hero. By emulating his deeds, modelling your behaviour on him. At some point, you become Che, bathed in Guevaratude. You have become Other than you have been hitherto.
Of course, Mythos and Logos don't talk the same language. That is why statements like 'To stat ...[text shortened]... of you as being.
That's my best shot for today. Could you please answer my question now?
Ok. Let's treat Che Guevara as a myth. You regard Che as an ideal type of modern hero. By emulating his deeds, modelling your behaviour on him. At some point, you become Che, bathed in Guevaratude. You have become Other than you have been hitherto.
Is this supposed to address the first statement? Seems much more like an escape from reality.
Of course, Mythos and Logos don't talk the same language. That is why statements like 'To state that God exists is to deny God' are dismissed as nonsense by logomaniacs, one of which I tend to think of you as being.
Is this supposed to address the second statement? Seems likely a part of a rationalization - those who don't share your view "lack the capacity to experience it" because they are "logomaniacs" - to enable you to keep hold of an irrational view.
Does the above really capture the essense of your position?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne [b]Ok. Let's treat Che Guevara as a myth. You regard Che as an ideal type of modern hero. By emulating his deeds, modelling your behaviour on him. At some point, you become Che, bathed in Guevaratude. You have become Other than you have been hitherto.
Is this supposed to address the first statement? Seems much more like an escape from realit ...[text shortened]... d of an irrational view.
Does the above really capture the essense of your position?[/b]
Ok, I'm an irrationalist in full flight from reality. Now talk to me about the Kingdom of God.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Ok, I'm an irrationalist in full flight from reality. Now talk to me about the Kingdom of God.
Ok, I'm an irrationalist in full flight from reality. Somehow this doesn't seem a sincere admission. First a half-hearted non-explanation only to be followed by insincerity.
Given that, why would you expect a sincere answer to your question in return?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne [b]Ok, I'm an irrationalist in full flight from reality. Somehow this doesn't seem a sincere admission. First a half-hearted non-explanation only to be followed by insincerity.
Given that, why would you expect a sincere response in return?[/b]
Oh, touché! My 'insincerity' absolves you of having to answer a perfectly straightforward question. You are a master spinner. Will anyone ever discover what you really think? Will anyone ever demonstrate sufficient sincerity and 'intellectual honesty?
But I don't think it matters who asks the question when the respondent is such a paragon of intellectual honesty as yourself. In my cloud of unknowing, I am ready to be touched by your awesome insight. What do you think Jesus meant by the Kingdom of God?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Oh, touché! My 'insincerity' absolves you of having to answer a perfectly straightforward question. You are a master spinner. Will anyone ever discover what you really think? Will anyone ever demonstrate sufficient sincerity and 'intellectual honesty?
But I don't think it matters who asks the question when the respondent is such a paragon of intell ...[text shortened]... to be touched by your awesome insight. What do you think Jesus meant by the Kingdom of God?
Seems you missed the point which was for you to actually provide a sincere response. Instead of providing one, evidently you've chosen to respond by "playing the victim" and with even more insincerity.
Tell you what. Since you seem unable or unwilling to provide a sincere response to my request, I'll still be willing to give you a sincere response to your question provided you provide one first.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Seems you missed the point which was for you to actually provide a sincere response. Instead of providing one, evidently you've chosen to respond by "playing the victim" and with even more insincerity.
Tell you what. Since you seem unable or unwilling to provide a sincere response to my request, I'll still be willing to give you a sincere response to your question provided you provide one first.
Intellectual Honesty from a Christian
27 Mar '12 06:18
Back to Top