christopher::: wrote:As for responding to your criticisms there are many things we simply seem to disagree on. I don't respond to you sometimes because of the insults you throw out constantly (e.g., god-thingy, brackish water),the aggressive way (imo) in which you challenge and criticize.
That reads as an excuse not to respond to the criticism of your views. You do not respond to Craig, either. You have repeatedly, no matter what language has been used, avoided responding to any criticism of your point of view.
If i were to agree to respond to every point or criticism you raise we'd be here for weeks, for months-- our minds spinning in dukkha circles. I would become (and have become) contentious and aggressive too, and our conversations/battles would be endless.
So, your views should not be questioned?
Our views are simply too far apart, it seems to me.
Not at all, and even so, by not responding, you make my point that your views carry no weight. By not engaging, it looks like a lack of interest in dialogue, a lack of interest in anything but your own point of view.
I've mentioned several times that this approach (of disengagement from arguements concerning views) is actively encouraged in Zen Buddhism, but that answer has not satisfied you.
Of course having seen how Zen Buddhists argue, at length and in detail, on ZFI and elsewhere, what you have just said is hardly convincing. Also, you again are making an excuse for you trying to present your point of view and not having to respond to any criticism of it.
What more can I do?
Actually, all you need to do is to try to engage in a dialogue; otherwise you look like you here are to preach.
Now, I'll clean up my language, and since you are a bit sensitive, I'll be less "aggressive" in my response. All of that will take away your above excuse not to respond to criticisms of your presentations here. Also, I have yet to see that you are trying to tie any of what you say to Theravada. And given that is is a Theravadin forum, that is kind of important. You do not have to be Theravadin or agree with the Theravada to participate here, but it would go a long way if you were actually try to show that you are interested in learning about the Theravada and showing that your point of has some relevance for Theravadins, something you simply have not done at all to date.
One thing you also have not shown here is an an actual, active interest in learning about the Theravada. What I have seen here is that you are promoting your particular take on the efficacy of a non-Buddhist god/godhead point of view. Okay, you believe that, but what does it have to do with the Theravada? Why should we care? You have not shown any attempt to engage Theravadins from a place of attempted understanding and dialogue. If you do not do that, you are here to preach, and the response to that will be a bit negative.
