christopher::: wrote:Tilt, you wonder why I sometimes don't respond to you. It's because you seem to enjoy debating topics in this advesarial fashion.
I do not mind debating, but I prefer dialogue, but when an individual makes truth claims, and is unwilling to back them up with some sort of reasoned evidence and discussion, I can get a bit pushy to try to get at what is being said.
In trying to look at your views, you get angry when they are challenged, accusing me of being intolerant and disrespectful of other religions, but based upon what? Your eisegetical point of view which you are unwilling or unable to explain?
What is the purpose?
Better understanding of what is said, clearer understanding of the Dhamma, mutual understanding of differing points of view, but there needs to be at least dialogue, a willingness to explain one’s position, a willingness to be challenged.
It's quite tiring and I don't see how its helpful to your or my practice.
A clearer understanding of the Dhamma is always a good thing for
I have posted my views,
But you are unwilling to explain them, unwilling to explore how others see them, unwilling to allow them to be challenged.
I will leave it to others to debate you. It's just not worth the time, I think, yours or mine.
A better understanding of one’s own and the other’s position by explaining it, by being open to criticisms of it, by being willing to defend it, by being open to the possibility of it being wrong is always worthwhile and is well worth the time and energy put into it.
We see things quite differently, that is all.
It seems it might be a bit more than that.
But don't we have better things to do?
Than a better understanding of one’s own and another’s point of view? Probably not.