>You've made a good point about how some of the other posters are feeling. I have difficulty coming up with another word I could have used to communicate what I meant that could have had a different effect. Even without using a strong word, people can be eager and are sometimes trained to perceive the slightest denigration against their choices.
I don't think it's that hard.
"I can agree with the spirit in which the monk made his choice. Personally, going so far as to include parts from another species in a key location in my body: that would make me really strongly consider that my intended lifespan is at its end" --- or whatever thinks you capture the meaning better.
People still might want to argue with you about it, for various reasons. But it lacks that visceral judgment.
In turn, you've received a lot of thoughtful replies and a few pieces of visceral judgment in return (delusional, etc). I don't know if you'd have gotten the harsher judgments if you'd avoided the charged language yourself.
> Given that my faith is generally seen in the present context with a high degree of disdain and contempt, I've grown pretty callous to needing to endure being treated with uncivility, particularly online, in order to speak. The only remedy for it I find is to cultivate a forgiveness of other people for their speech, even if I feel a need to challenge their speech's contents.
I don't believe I've been uncivil-- and I don't see anything too untoward here. Some other people are out of line with the "delusional" comment.
But, you're the one taking the hard moral stance and using language that invalidates other choice.
> where we can see in front of ourselves only a few "meters"
Well, if we can only see in front of ourselves slightly, perhaps it's time to be a little more forgiving that other people may see it completely differently from you.