Forum

Ariputra, everything you've stated doesn't hold up under factual scrutiny. You're trying to present yourself as a thinker (as if you were gathering information and drawing conclusions), but in reality, you're a fanatic, and likely suffering from severe mental illness. Every single one of your arguments is either a copy or a direct quote from someone else's text, which is easily verified with a simple search. You are a walking advertisement against a healthy lifestyle; you'd be better off drinking and smoking, or using methamphetamines. Now, let's look at the facts: ritual sacrifices were typically practiced by uncivilized, low-culture, and intellectually underdeveloped peoples. For example, animistic cults in Africa, followers of the goddess Kali in India, and primitive societies. Sacrifice is nothing more than a "commodity-money-commodity" relationship, where the "money" is "innocent souls," and the "commodity" is what the tribe expects to receive in exchange for the sacrifice – good weather, healing from diseases. Jewish communities were too developed by the 11th century and beyond to seriously believe in the possibility of such rituals. It's important to note that the people who testified about "alleged killings" were always poorly educated, ignorant, and sometimes simply worthless. There are no such "witnesses" among scholars (Martin Luther was probably just settling scores) or prominent figures. So, here's what I've verified: Dr. Arnold Leese. In this case, "doctor" should be taken literally – he was a veterinarian, a specialist in camels, who wrote a number of monographs on camel diseases. Later, he became one of the inspirers of the British fascist party and served two prison sentences. He promoted fascism and racist theories. This alone shows the level of these "testimonies." Let's move on to Catholics. It should be noted that the so-called "holy child martyrs" appeared around the same time as the Inquisition. To manipulate public opinion, fetishes were invented – ritual sacrifices of children. Whether this actually happened is debatable, but what the Inquisition is known for is well-known to anyone interested: mass executions (often public), torture, and crusades. The "saints" canonized during this time were mostly famous for their activities in exterminating their fellow citizens (for example, look at the history of Bernard of Clairvaux). Is it worth trusting these testimonies? Then there was the reference to the monk of Monmouth. Unfortunately, ordinary people – the kind who are the target audience for Ariputra – have little understanding of what a medieval Catholic monk was like. For example, they were forbidden to wash. A monk's holiness was often measured by how long he had gone without touching water. Lice were called "God's pearls." Given the lack of quality toilet paper, combined with a reclusive lifestyle, you can imagine what these "saints" really looked like, smelled like, and what their overall appearance was. I don't know if Jews practiced ritual killings, but the fact that Catholics burned women who weighed less than 48 kg (because they could fly) is a fact supported by textual evidence. I also reviewed the work of Antiochus of Caesarea. It didn't mention the sacrifice of children; it only spoke of Jews killing adult Christians in the captured Jerusalem. In general, this person also writes in the style of his time, filling his story with a lot of nonsense. In general, it can be concluded that Ariputra, with his fervent defense of elephants in orbit, the Kshatriyas who killed 1,000 warriors single-handedly, and the Jews as murderers, is all cut from the same cloth. This person shouldn't be banned; he's a very interesting psychiatric case. He should be kept for posterity