Revived pig organs after death

[Shadow Wolf]

The quote mentioned that the pork was tainted, but there was no indication from his words that he understood the quote as he dropped the word tainted and claimed Buddha died when by accident "he ate meat of a swine".

In my opinion.

That's a rather unfair stretch as clearly the post acknowledged it as tainted pork. Not at first, but it was acknowledged.
If anything was to be corrected it should have been that Gautama knew he was eating it, and depending on the tradition it may have been bad mushrooms.

 

[Secret Chief]

Getting hard on him for not using a word you consider necessary. In my opinion, we should give people the benefit of the doubt, not the other way around. No matter. He will answer your complaint himself, and we will see if you are right about him or not. Perhaps I'm jumping into a discussion where it's not necessary for me to jump in. My apologies.

I think the word matters because, as @danieldemol said, simply eating a meal of pork won't kill anyone which is what @paarsurrey 's post is suggesting. It is only risky as a meal if it is "tainted", the same as any other meal. I would think @paarsurrey would appreciate the clarification (and possibly other readers): dropping the word from the quote changes the assertion.

 

[Secret Chief]

there are enough pigs to do both

Just to state the obvious: There are "enough" pigs only because they are bred by humans (and "delicious" is entirely subjective). Their numbers aren't due to anything but human intervention with the species. It isn't like excessive numbers of pigs are sitting around waiting for humans to find a use for them.

It is Western culture to love dogs, but you can still insult someone by calling them a dog

By comparison, "cat" is not used as an insult. I think that says something.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I suspect the real reason Christians are opposed to scientific attempts at resurrection of the dead are because it would make their Jesus redundant.

In my opinion.

What scientific attempts have there been, to resurrect the dead?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the word matters because, as @danieldemol said, simply eating a meal of pork won't kill anyone which is what @paarsurrey 's post is suggesting. It is only risky as a meal if it is "tainted", the same as any other meal. I would think @paarsurrey would appreciate the clarification, dropping the word from the quote changes the assertion.

This IS in the that post. What you're doing is no different that people cherry picking the Bible to make a point that misses what else was said the next line or two down.
And, yeah, there are other problems with that statement so if you're going to go after it like that you need to have something better than such low hanging fruit.

"Buddha Shakyamuni himself died of eating tainted pork that was offered to him in alms"

 

[Secret Chief]

This IS in the that post. What you're doing is no different that people cherry picking the Bible to make a point that misses what else was said the next line or two down.
And, yeah, there are other problems with that statement so if you're going to go after it like that you need to have something better than such low hanging fruit.

I know the word is in the quote, but he dropped it in his own wording. Maybe it was an accidental oversight, but the point is it does change the meaning. Jeez, I'm pointing out it is ok to eat pork, that's not a sentiment at the top of my list of things to achieve.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I know the word is in the quote, but he dropped it in his own wording. Maybe it was an accidental oversight, but the point is it does change the meaning. Jeez, I'm pointing out it is ok to eat pork, that's not a sentiment at the top of my list of things to achieve.

No, it's called nitpicking and missing a chance to explain the story. It may not have even been pork, and mushroom or pork he knew what he was eating. That last part wasn't even mentioned even though that was a part of Paarsurrey's question.
And let's look at it this way:

"Buddha Shakyamuni himself died of eating tainted pork that was offered to him in alms"

Wrong, he is alleged to have died from food poisoning from "tainted" pork meaning pork that was polluted or infected.

Here I have done the same thing and now it just looks really ugly.
And for such trivial bickerings, do remember we have many members here who do not speak English as a native language and have varying proficiency of it. Unless it's a question for clarification it's best just to leave such things alone.

 

[danieldemol]

What scientific attempts have there been, to resurrect the dead?

None so far, but I think that reviving pig organs after death is a good first step.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

No, it's called nitpicking and missing a chance to explain the story. It may not have even been pork, and mushroom or pork he knew what he was eating. That last part wasn't even mentioned even though that was a part of Paarsurrey's question.
And let's look at it this way:


Here I have done the same thing and now it just looks really ugly.
And for such trivial bickerings, do remember we have many members here who do not speak English as a native language and have varying proficiency of it. Unless it's a question for clarification it's best just to leave such things alone.

He raised a question, I see nothing wrong with answering it.

However there is a simple way to test whether his understanding matched what he quoted.

I propose we ask him was he proposing the following;

1. That we all become vegetarian.
2. That we abstain from all tainted meat including tainted beef and chicken.
3. That we stop eating all pork, but continue to eat beef etc.

If his answer is number 3 it is reasonably certain he didn't understand the quote until it was explained to him.

Agreed?

In my opinion.

 

[Secret Chief]

No, it's called nitpicking and missing a chance to explain the story. It may not have even been pork, and mushroom or pork he knew what he was eating. That last part wasn't even mentioned even though that was a part of Paarsurrey's question.
And let's look at it this way:


Here I have done the same thing and now it just looks really ugly.
And for such trivial bickerings, do remember we have many members here who do not speak English as a native language and have varying proficiency of it. Unless it's a question for clarification it's best just to leave such things alone.

I am aware it is not @paarsurrey 's first language, all the more reason to point out the change in meaning. I don't consider it bickering or nitpicking. Here endeth my interest in pork.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think the word matters because, as @danieldemol said, simply eating a meal of pork won't kill anyone which is what @paarsurrey 's post is suggesting. It is only risky as a meal if it is "tainted", the same as any other meal. I would think @paarsurrey would appreciate the clarification (and possibly other readers): dropping the word from the quote changes the assertion.

I'm out of this conversation now. Let @paarsurrey reply.