Well, no-on does that!I agree. But drinking (human) blood and eating (human) flesh is a bit too much.
Well, no-on does that!I agree. But drinking (human) blood and eating (human) flesh is a bit too much.
I believe that nonsense was built up by the young church. Although the gospels do include Jesus in that primitive tradition I believe that this was written in to his story 'after the fact'.I agree. But drinking (human) blood and eating (human) flesh is a bit too much.
That's a personal conviction, I'm assuming?I believe that this was written in to his story 'after the fact'.
Study of the gospels over time leading to such decisions.That's a personal conviction, I'm assuming?
Did anything specifically lead you there?
I have no theory as to whether they were lying, exaggerating, gossiping, or anything else.When your enemies criticise you, this doesn't automatically mean that they are lying, you know.
Well theories of the Eucharist make it seem as if they do on some levelWell, no-on does that!
Fair enough!I have no theory as to whether they were lying, exaggerating, gossiping, or anything else.
At some level, yes, but not at the corporeal level ... if we were eating His flesh, or drinking His blood, then that body would have been used up millennia ago!Well theories of the Eucharist make it seem as if they do on some level
Well but if it is miraculous...At some level, yes, but not at the corporeal level ... if we were eating His flesh, or drinking His blood, then that body would have been used up millennia ago!
I think it would be interesting. It may or may not be off topic given that it does refer to drinking wine, but perhaps it needs a new thread.LOL ... again, the Eucharist is way off topic here ... If you wanna discuss, we can go ahead ...
Done, a shortened version of a much longer pieceI think it would be interesting. It may or may not be off topic given that it does refer to drinking wine, but perhaps it needs a new thread.
Hello!If some would be wise, they would understanding it as a well meant, but not really wise transported meaning, which simply explains the truth of goodness (via a "banal" simile, since most regard body as own, self, would be incapable to understand "good" beyound just goods), dependence, debt. What ever provided as "food", bodily, mental, requires others sacrifices, pain. It's common to just "eat off the/a teacher, giver" without ever getting a sense of debt and urgent to use it for overcoming dependency, even if the giver wasn't really all that pure.
People with wrong view, thinking they have inherent rights, consumer, don't understand and see debts, don't see sacrifices, and only seek out for intoxications to bear their hopeless ways further on, awaiting just the next occasion of using off own and others goodness, sacrifices and past and present burdens.
No need to ask of whom would only think about being willing to nurish on a person of goodness by bodily feed... and take on such.
Take care! (in the very sense of the words, not just as meaningless saying)
Buddha said 'Take the Middle path'. Within limit, IMHO, it is OK. 'Ati sarvatra varjayet'Take care! (in the very sense of the words, not just as meaningless saying)
Where is there any joy in such a life?The middlepath means also, right after right view, right after right resolve (which has abstaining from any sensual pleasure as 1. factor) ...........
No, I have never been against sensual pleasures, only that they should be in limits. Drugs, IMV, are outside that limit.The middlepath means also, right after right view, right after right resolve (which has abstaining from any sensual pleasure as 1. factor) abstaining from taking intoxication, drinking, and no, absolutely no, good teaching will tolerate drinking as something minor fault. The Sublime Buddha taught the middle path, and sure never told anybody to go after what's one's opinion of well and fine.
If wishing to do hopeless favors, that's fine, but one should be assured that one cuts off any way for good for oneself and those done a favor by cherish defilments.
Again, Atma doesn't find it of any use to contribute anything in a "turn religions toward desires of Marx children and hopeless"-board, who are incapable to act responsible and with care. No need to speak about Jains who think they are wise when trying to use the Gems to serve their defilements.
Beings gather together by an element, drinker with drinker, cheater with cheater... on and on. Unless not changing habits, there isn't any access upwardly, not to speak about relation toward wise.
Even if one "just" desires heavens, the Brahmas, such would be of need, eg. virtue.
So pharmaceutical drugs are outside the limit despite saving lives, easing pain, lowering blood pressure or mitigating mental issues?No, I have never been against sensual pleasures, only that they should be in limits. Drugs, IMV, are outside that limit.