Greta
Ironically, I only started engaging you on this forum because you were bad mouthing me behind my back on this forum for MONTHS after we had differences on another forum. "Talking about persons" ..
No. You made accusations against me. When I asked for explanations and proof you refused since it was a lie. When you accuse, you have the obligation to prove. If you cannot, it is a lie.
Besides, I don't find you to be nearly as interested in ideas than many here, and you are very quick to make unprovoked personal attacks. Look at your thread here - just demonising "secular progressives". Once again: "talking about persons".
No. You accuse people like those you imagine to be Christians. I have criticized a philosophical agenda I believe to be harmful to the essence of Man since it is a philosophy which denies what is essential for the development of the inner man.
On the rare occasion when you have managed to post about ideas without "talking about persons" (very much) I have engaged. You are simply too blinkered to understand that I am obviously interested in spirituality without being a believer in anything, and will probe and test anyone with that interest to better understand where they are coming from. Even you, with your crazy ego and closet megalomania, come across some interesting material, but when I try to engage seriously with you, you keep replying by simply attacking my character and claiming I don't understand, without ever explaining why. Talking about persons ...
No. It is normal in the secular world to throw around words like spiritual, art, love, God, and other similar ideas without any sense of either scale or relativity. Would you have any idea of the difference between the energy of the spirit descending from above and heightened emotional energy arising from below? People call reactions to both spiritual making the word meaningless.
You are caught up with agendas that do not let you impartially experience both sides. Could you for example explain both sides of the question which compares women’s rights with women’s obligations in regards to sustaining a free society? No, you will argue your agenda. If you cannot impartially witness both sides of a given polarity, how can you be open to philosophy the goal of which is wisdom as opposed to egoistic victory?