2 Answers

  1. I object to the combination of “spiritual” and ” lending.” These two terms come from completely different spheres of life.

    “Spiritual” is an insatiable need of a higher order, which moves a person to the knowledge of categories that do not directly affect life and living. A person wants to understand the meaning of his own existence, the meaning of humanity, the reasons for the appearance of the world around him, the ultimate goals-to build a holistic worldview that does not have internal contradictions.

    “Crediting” is, after all, a household phenomenon. You take so much, and you return so much. Any questions can be clarified to the end, and the very number of questions is of course, disputes can be resolved by the court.

    Therefore, “spiritual lending” is too loose a term, the justified introduction of which is highly questionable.

    However, currently there are enough people who commercialize everything, including spiritual needs. They can introduce not only “spiritual lending”, but also any other phenomenon, if they feel the profit behind it. It is not difficult to meet such gurus of various spiritual practices, who for a “small bribe” will introduce anyone to the “highest secrets of the Universe”))

  2. A loan is a purely material act. You tell me,I'll give you interest. That's why the phrase itself makes me feel idiosyncratic. Type- ” Father, you either remove the cross or put on your underpants!”)))

Leave a Reply