If you are not a Christian, but you want to engage Christians in serious discussion or debate, don't refer to the Christian God as a "sky daddy." That is clearly meant to be an insult, and it's childish to behave that way. What you are communicating to me when you talk that way is that you have no interest in engaging with me in a serious discussion. You're just trolling, and you're being immature. If you want to be seen as an ill-mannered troll and not taken seriously, though, then have at it.
If you are a Christian, and somebody you are in conversation with behaves this way, I suggest ending the conversation. You are wasting your time. Continuing a conversation with somebody who behaves that way is precisely what Jesus meant about thowing your pearls before swine. Don't do it. Your time is better spent talking to somebody willing and able to have a civil adult conversation.
6 comments:
So, I know this is off topic, but I doubt you'll notice a response to a comment on a different website you made over a year ago: https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/02/dialogue-with-buddhist-philosopher.html
So, what logic does a Buddhist use? I would suspect if you say, "Buddhism is false" he would object, but in doing so he'd be affirming the law of non-contradiction. Was curious if you had any insight. Getting a firm grasp of eastern thought seems to be like getting hold of a stitch in Harry Potter, except when you ask the instructors what it is, they simply smile at you. Was curious if you had any further insight.
The teacher I mentioned was inconsistent in his denial of logic, which I guess is to be expected of somebody who reject logic. It is impossible for anybody to live in the world without using logic. You can't even speak coherently without presupposing the law of non-contradiction. So of course any Buddhist you run into will use logic. You just have to call them out on it.
I went round and round with my philosopher teacher about it back in the day. It can be frustrating.
If you ask a Mayahana Buddhist like my teacher what logic they use as opposed to "western logic," they will probably say that, "Whereas western logic is an either/or type of logic, eastern logic is a both/and type of logic." But they are inconsistent when applying their "logic."
Got it, so they don't have an alternative, they just are inconsistent. I haven't gone back and forth with a Buddhist, but I have tried to square what Buddhism says in my head, and it hurts. At one point I read someone say something along the lines of "this Buddhist has 7 years of experience in yoga" and broke down laughing at the contradiction (there was no one during those seven years to accrue experience, after all; everyday sentences just turn to gobbledygook).
Thanks, always nice to compare what's gained from books with first hand experience.
Buddhism is a diverse religion. You can't assume that something you heard about Buddhism applies to all Buddhists. About the only thing I can think of that would apply to all Buddhists is the four noble truths.
Up to and including the not-self doctrine? Both one of the books I've read and https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/#1.1 both refer to any groups that disagreed with it in the past tense (not that it grants me certainty). Though, in general I absolutely agree, different forms of Buddhism are different to the point that if you cleverly changed the names but not the concepts taught you could easily hide the fact that the different forms of Buddhisms were Buddhism. It is as vast as the Asian continent itself (and just as easy to get lost in).
I suppose I'll try and be a good guest and reply to your post.
The one exception I would make is if the swine in question would serve as a good example to others. If he's presenting the sorts of things other non-believers in the room/group/blog are thinking but aren't aggressive enough to say like he is, you could show how easy it is to respond to. It might also serve as a teachable moment for Christians. But one on one? Absolute waste of time. Going outside and staring at the sky or counting cars going by would both be a better use of time. Whoever you're talking to is only pausing long enough to work on his next response, doesn't matter what you say. It'll be obvious once the conversation becomes...familiar.
Then "no self" teaching may be another example of something that's common to all or most Buddhists. I don't know of any Buddhists who reject it, but then I'm not an expert on Buddhism.
I think you do make a good point about responding to rude and belligerent people.There is some value in it.
Post a Comment