Thanks for answering.
Regarding 2, why doesn’t it interest you?
Regarding 4, you didn’t answer why you answer; you just pointed out the fact that you do indeed do so…
One more point: I didn’t see an easy way to find the answers on the site, since there are no detailed headings / no search option.

Regarding 2, why should it interest me? What I think is what I think. Labels won’t change that. Search here for the column “Am I a Heretic.”
Regarding 4, I explained my policy. If you don’t understand, then by your own approach it isn’t right to answer. You also didn’t explain why I shouldn’t answer. So when I see a question, I can try to answer it.
There is a very easy way. There’s a Google search on the site; see the top left of the main page.

Regarding 2, see columns 63 and 74. I saved you the search.

The label matters because it also helps clarify whether your view is coherent, since from what I understood you believe in the truth of the Oral Torah, and if by its criteria you are defined as a heretic / apostate, there would be contradictions and implications I’d need to sort out, and maybe I’d ask about that.
I didn’t ask to know what your policy is, but why that is your policy, and I don’t have some “approach” or opinion on the matter (if that was mistakenly understood from my message).
In any case, I’ll look at what you referred me to. Thanks for the technical explanation about the site.

Hello, I wanted to preface by saying that if my style is blunt, I apologize. I’m trying to ask substantively (and hope I’m succeeding), and as you wrote, you aren’t offended by substantive discussion.
Regarding column 74:
1. You argue that one can theoretically cancel prayer privately, or parts of it, since they contain a worldview about God’s involvement in the world and you disagree with that.
The reason you gave is that since without intention there is no prayer, this is a dispute about facts that affects practical conduct, and therefore there is legitimacy to cancel it that way.
(The Shulchan Aruch rules that one does not need to repeat the blessings if he did not manage to have proper intention—“because nowadays we do not have such concentration in prayer.” (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 98:2)
In the Jerusalem Talmud it is told of several amoraim who said about themselves that they too have difficulty concentrating in prayer. (Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot chapter 2, halakhah 4) Is there any instruction / practice to cancel prayer because of lack of intention?
Even if you distinguish and say that your lack of intention stems from a different reason, that is still an innovation, and no amount of learned dialectics can permit changing Jewish laws that are not in accordance with the rules of halakhic instruction and ruling (for example, a court greater in wisdom and number).
2. You wrote: “I am willing to drink wine from any Jew who sees the Torah as halakhically binding.” Are you issuing rulings on your own authority? After all, you argued earlier that one may disagree only on factual matters, but not change Jewish laws / customs.
3. A more general question: do you understand God’s conduct and attributes the way the rabbinic consensus understood them throughout history?
If not, how can one explain the fact that God lets us err so much, and on the other hand commands, “Do not deviate”?
In your view, is there no divine assistance to the Sages in halakhic ruling and theological thought (I’m talking about substantive mistakes)?
If not, what is the point of giving a true Torah and then letting people err?
Additionally, what value does the Written Torah have according to this? After all, without the Oral Torah there is no implementation or understanding of the Written Torah.

Nothing here is blunt. Everything is fine.

1. There is no connection between those two planes. When I don’t believe in the content of the words, that is not like failing to concentrate. When I don’t concentrate, there is implicit intention. If I say the words, apparently I intended them in the default sense (like an unspecified act being for its proper purpose). But if I do not believe those words, saying them has no meaning at all.
There is no innovation here. It’s a simple logical point, not pilpul. Far more far-reaching innovations in Jewish law were created on much weaker reasoning. By the way, it also has a source in Yoma regarding “the great, mighty, and awesome God,” where because the Holy One, blessed be He, has truth as His seal and hates falsehood spoken about Him, they omitted parts of the Amidah on that basis. Also, Rabbi Chaim on Maimonides writes that there is another kind of intention in prayer beyond that of all commandments, namely the intention of the words. That too follows from the same reasoning.
And finally, I didn’t cancel anything here, so there is no need for a court greater in wisdom and number. I simply cannot fulfill this enactment. We didn’t cancel offering sacrifices either. We simply cannot fulfill it.

2. I do indeed tend to issue rulings on my own authority. I also think that is how every person should act (if he is capable of it). This is not a change in Jewish laws or customs, but an interpretation of the existing laws.

3. I already wrote to you that I do not. Though of course there are different views among the sages, and some of them did indeed think that way (and an even larger number thought so without saying it explicitly). So the question about the Holy One, blessed be He, is difficult according to everyone. Moreover, all those who like to give a theological interpretation to history (the Holocaust happened because of Zionism or because of opposition to it)—I wondered in the second book of the trilogy how the Holy One, blessed be He, failed so badly in getting the message across.
According to my view, the Holy One, blessed be He, is not involved, and therefore He did not cause the failure and is not supposed to solve it. Nor did He prevent the Holocaust, which in my eyes is an even harder question.
I’ve explained more than once that there is value in autonomy, and the Holy One, blessed be He, expects us to act according to our understanding, even if it is mistaken. That is probably no less important to Him than the truth. And on this too there are sources that predate me.

1. If you have an example of an even more far-reaching innovation than canceling prayer, one that stems from an individual ruling, I’d be glad if you’d give it.
Regarding what you say—that you didn’t cancel it, but simply cannot fulfill it, and compare it to sacrifices—the comparison isn’t clear to me. The reason there are no sacrifices is because of a practical inability—there is no Temple. By contrast, you can practically pray; you just claim it doesn’t count as prayer since there is no intention. But despite that, I didn’t find any permission not to pray because of lack of intention (regardless of the reason).
(*Rabbi Chaim of Brisk says there are two laws of intention in prayer:
[A] that one stands in prayer before the Holy One, blessed be He [he should think as though “the Divine Presence is opposite him”]. [B] intention regarding the meaning of the words [to understand what he is saying].
According to this, the definition of intention is somewhat different. In any case, even if you disagree with the definition of intention and that leads to a halakhic ruling that changes something so essential—if you want to change an enactment of the Men of the Great Assembly, why wouldn’t you need a court greater in wisdom and number? (As above, I’d be glad for a parallel example of such a significant cancellation, based on an innovation / reasoning, done privately by a rabbi.)
2. Were you ordained as a rabbi?
Since this is so significant, one should proceed cautiously. Did you consult and discuss this with major rabbis?
In addition, your interpretation changes the Jewish laws and customs and also differs from the author’s intent.
3. If autonomy matters to God even at the cost of erasing truth in its essence, then why give the Torah?
After all, in that format we have no access whatsoever to truth.
(As for the earlier sources, that’s true—they just don’t make the claim in such a radical way, and therefore they still leave room for truth as well. About them one cannot ask what I asked about you.)

Just regarding 1: the omission of parts of the prayer there was specific and limited, and it was done in the format of a discussion among sages, not as an individual ruling without taking the others’ view into account.

As I said, this isn’t bluntness, but it definitely is just stubbornness and pointless rambling. So I’ll stop here.