Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Replies
-
We're in a debate with "ethical" vegans and vegetarians. I think it's quite reasonable to think religion may come up when someone is speaking of ethics, morals, murders, etc.Does every Debate here have to digress to Religion?0 -
Our discussion has much to do with whether or not Jesus ate meat. Roaddog knows he's welcome to ignore our posts.Actually I thought I was having a semi-private conversation with MacPatti, but I welcome others to the religion topic. Bear in mind that MacPatti and I are very knowledgeable about the time period under discussion although we seem to disagree on just about everything. Nonetheless, I do not wish to monopolize the group. You are probably right and maybe we should relocate this discussion to a different group.0 -
Does every Debate here have to digress to Religion?
And by the way, "forcing" your child to be a vegetarian? What is wrong with eating healthy? If that is the way the parents' eat, then it would be natural that the children are being brought up that way. I don't consider it "forced". It shows a lot more care on the parents' part than driving through McDonalds for convenience.
Actually I thought I was having a semi-private conversation with MacPatti, but I welcome others to the religion topic. Bear in mind that MacPatti and I are very knowledgeable about the time period under discussion although we seem to disagree on just about everything. Nonetheless, I do not wish to monopolize the group. You are probably right and maybe we should relocate this discussion to a different group.
Eh. Discussions evolve the way they evolve. Religion is a part of everyone's life, whether you believe in God or are an avowed Atheist. It is all over society. I think it's a natural progression for a lot of discussions to head in that direction. Not to mention that religion has dominated our history and the reasons behind nearly everything that happens can be traced to it.0 -
Well, the literalism in the Bible would imply that the Earth cannot be older than that by counting the years and lifespans of all of the people mentioned in the Old Testament. I think you are then confusing heresy and vegetarianism. I believe the power consolidation that led to the persecution/destruction of the heretical groups was not motivated by the fact that they were vegetarianism but rather by the fact that they were not beholden to the Roman Church. The fact that some of the groups were vegetarian is a coincidence .
All I can say is that having studied early Church history and Ancient History quite extensively is that I disagree. Vegetarianism was a BIG DEAL.
Well, in studying for my degree in Philosophy and Religion, there was very little focus on the diets of those that were considered heretics. I also see that some of the Saints were vegetarians. I think you are assigning your worldview to your research.0 -
Well, the literalism in the Bible would imply that the Earth cannot be older than that by counting the years and lifespans of all of the people mentioned in the Old Testament. I think you are then confusing heresy and vegetarianism. I believe the power consolidation that led to the persecution/destruction of the heretical groups was not motivated by the fact that they were vegetarianism but rather by the fact that they were not beholden to the Roman Church. The fact that some of the groups were vegetarian is a coincidence .
All I can say is that having studied early Church history and Ancient History quite extensively is that I disagree. Vegetarianism was a BIG DEAL.
Well, in studying for my degree in Philosophy and Religion, there was very little focus on the diets of those that were considered heretics. I also see that some of the Saints were vegetarians. I think you are assigning your worldview to your research.
I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy (U. of Pennsylvania) and we never discussed this topic either. But then, why would we? Vegetarianism is not considered a rigorous philosophy, nor is it considered a religion.0 -
What was the reasoning for the early church to stamp out vegetarianism? Was it some kind of threat?
Someone else answered this, but it reminded me of something. A friend of mine from high school was a super liberal atheist for most of her younger years and has become a Bible-thumping, ultra-conservative Southern Baptist (though she's mellowed a bit since she first went in that direction).
She has made the argument that a person cannot be a Christian if that person doesn't eat meat or wear animal skins (leather and fur). Her reasoning is the line in Genesis about God giving dominion to man over the animals.
I feel that the word "dominion" tends to be up to interpretation. Does dominion mean to dominate at all costs, or does it imply stewardship? Technically, parents have "dominion" over their children, but it's generally frowned upon to eat them.0 -
Does every Debate here have to digress to Religion?
And by the way, "forcing" your child to be a vegetarian? What is wrong with eating healthy? If that is the way the parents' eat, then it would be natural that the children are being brought up that way. I don't consider it "forced". It shows a lot more care on the parents' part than driving through McDonalds for convenience.
Actually I thought I was having a semi-private conversation with MacPatti, but I welcome others to the religion topic. Bear in mind that MacPatti and I are very knowledgeable about the time period under discussion although we seem to disagree on just about everything. Nonetheless, I do not wish to monopolize the group. You are probably right and maybe we should relocate this discussion to a different group.
Eh. Discussions evolve the way they evolve. Religion is a part of everyone's life, whether you believe in God or are an avowed Atheist. It is all over society. I think it's a natural progression for a lot of discussions to head in that direction. Not to mention that religion has dominated our history and the reasons behind nearly everything that happens can be traced to it.
I disagree. Religion is not a part of everone's life. Except for in this forum. it is not part of my life at all. I prefer not to discuss it and would rather just debate the highlighted issue without hearing about the religious aspects.
It may be part of your everyday life and, while I respect that, I don't want to relate every issue to God. I am passionate about Motorcycles, Soccer and Cooking. I could probably relate vegetarianism to soccer somehow, but who really cares?
When I want to talk Soccer, I discuss it with my team mates.
When I want to talk motorcycles, I discuss with the guys I ride with.
Cooking may be applicable here.0 -
Does every Debate here have to digress to Religion?
And by the way, "forcing" your child to be a vegetarian? What is wrong with eating healthy? If that is the way the parents' eat, then it would be natural that the children are being brought up that way. I don't consider it "forced". It shows a lot more care on the parents' part than driving through McDonalds for convenience.
Actually I thought I was having a semi-private conversation with MacPatti, but I welcome others to the religion topic. Bear in mind that MacPatti and I are very knowledgeable about the time period under discussion although we seem to disagree on just about everything. Nonetheless, I do not wish to monopolize the group. You are probably right and maybe we should relocate this discussion to a different group.
Eh. Discussions evolve the way they evolve. Religion is a part of everyone's life, whether you believe in God or are an avowed Atheist. It is all over society. I think it's a natural progression for a lot of discussions to head in that direction. Not to mention that religion has dominated our history and the reasons behind nearly everything that happens can be traced to it.
I disagree. Religion is not a part of everone's life. Except for in this forum. it is not part of my life at all. I prefer not to discuss it and would rather just debate the highlighted issue without hearing about the religious aspects.
It may be part of your everyday life and, while I respect that, I don't want to relate every issue to God. I am passionate about Motorcycles, Soccer and Cooking. I could probably relate vegetarianism to soccer somehow, but who really cares?
When I want to talk Soccer, I discuss it with my team mates.
When I want to talk motorcycles, I discuss with the guys I ride with.
Cooking may be applicable here.
You just proved my point, though. You are so turned off by it that you try to avoid it, which makes it a part of your life.
As I said, whether you believe and practice or are exactly opposite, it is part of you. Because you either seek it or avoid it. If it really didn't matter to you, you would overlook the side discussion or leave the thread quietly when it turned to that. But it's important and bothersome enough to you that you had to comment.
No, I am not a religious person. But religion has shaped world history since humans first crawled out of the ooze.0 -
I feel that the word "dominion" tends to be up to interpretation. Does dominion mean to dominate at all costs, or does it imply stewardship? Technically, parents have "dominion" over their children, but it's generally frowned upon to eat them.
Clearly, you never read A Modest Proposal! ;-)0 -
Surely you understand how it enters into some of our topics on here, though. That's why we have this group; so we can discuss things like religion and politics that cannot be discussed in the public forums. You're free to start a "Non-Religous Motorcycle, Soccer, and Cooking" group. As the moderator of the group, you can even make it "against the rules" to discuss religion.I disagree. Religion is not a part of everone's life. Except for in this forum. it is not part of my life at all. I prefer not to discuss it and would rather just debate the highlighted issue without hearing about the religious aspects.
It may be part of your everyday life and, while I respect that, I don't want to relate every issue to God. I am passionate about Motorcycles, Soccer and Cooking. I could probably relate vegetarianism to soccer somehow, but who really cares?
When I want to talk Soccer, I discuss it with my team mates.
When I want to talk motorcycles, I discuss with the guys I ride with.Cooking may be applicable here.0 -
Does every Debate here have to digress to Religion?
And by the way, "forcing" your child to be a vegetarian? What is wrong with eating healthy? If that is the way the parents' eat, then it would be natural that the children are being brought up that way. I don't consider it "forced". It shows a lot more care on the parents' part than driving through McDonalds for convenience.
Actually I thought I was having a semi-private conversation with MacPatti, but I welcome others to the religion topic. Bear in mind that MacPatti and I are very knowledgeable about the time period under discussion although we seem to disagree on just about everything. Nonetheless, I do not wish to monopolize the group. You are probably right and maybe we should relocate this discussion to a different group.
Eh. Discussions evolve the way they evolve. Religion is a part of everyone's life, whether you believe in God or are an avowed Atheist. It is all over society. I think it's a natural progression for a lot of discussions to head in that direction. Not to mention that religion has dominated our history and the reasons behind nearly everything that happens can be traced to it.
I disagree. Religion is not a part of everone's life. Except for in this forum. it is not part of my life at all. I prefer not to discuss it and would rather just debate the highlighted issue without hearing about the religious aspects.
It may be part of your everyday life and, while I respect that, I don't want to relate every issue to God. I am passionate about Motorcycles, Soccer and Cooking. I could probably relate vegetarianism to soccer somehow, but who really cares?
When I want to talk Soccer, I discuss it with my team mates.
When I want to talk motorcycles, I discuss with the guys I ride with.
Cooking may be applicable here.
You just proved my point, though. You are so turned off by it that you try to avoid it, which makes it a part of your life.
As I said, whether you believe and practice or are exactly opposite, it is part of you. Because you either seek it or avoid it. If it really didn't matter to you, you would overlook the side discussion or leave the thread quietly when it turned to that. But it's important and bothersome enough to you that you had to comment.
No, I am not a religious person. But religion has shaped world history since humans first crawled out of the ooze.
I don't make a conscious effort to avoid it. It's a non-issue.0 -
Surely you understand how it enters into some of our topics on here, though. That's why we have this group; so we can discuss things like religion and politics that cannot be discussed in the public forums. You're free to start a "Non-Religous Motorcycle, Soccer, and Cooking" group. As the moderator of the group, you can even make it "against the rules" to discuss religion.I disagree. Religion is not a part of everone's life. Except for in this forum. it is not part of my life at all. I prefer not to discuss it and would rather just debate the highlighted issue without hearing about the religious aspects.
It may be part of your everyday life and, while I respect that, I don't want to relate every issue to God. I am passionate about Motorcycles, Soccer and Cooking. I could probably relate vegetarianism to soccer somehow, but who really cares?
When I want to talk Soccer, I discuss it with my team mates.
When I want to talk motorcycles, I discuss with the guys I ride with.Cooking may be applicable here.
I don't want to start my own group and I don't intend to stifle you.
I should listen to the advice I give my family. "No one consulted you about the rules. You have two choices. Play or not play."
I won't play anymore. You may proceed without me. No hard feelings.0 -
Warning: Long reply that involves religion~
Your comments regarding the Greek word is a prime example of conspiracy theory thinking. No further comment is needed.Of course Christian Greek dictionaries will give the meaning of oψαρῖον as fish. That is how they want that word translated. Use a secular dictionary, and although fish will be given as one of the meanings, bear in mind that it is the tail wagging the dog. That word has been force translated as fish for 1,600 years on pain of death.
Your logic in this paragraph is faulty as well. You infer from Irenaeus’ quick reference to the miracle of the loaves and fishes how the story was passed to the “Gentiles” while conveniently leaving out the more primary, older sources of the Synoptic Gospels. This is a classic case of “argument from silence.” There are perfectly reasonable explanations that do not require undermining the primary sources.Irenaeus twice mentions this in Against Heresies: (If you are using the Ante Nicene Fathers Book 2 Chapter 22, pages 391 and 395. )Neither time does he mention fish. This strongly suggests that in the original tradition passed on to the Gentiles, fish was not part of the menu. Irenaeus was born less than 100 years after Jesus' death.
This statement is seriously suspect. I can’t even look at the primary source used for this claim?! I've tried.According to Epiphanius, Jesus had the same faith as the Nazarenes, and refused to eat flesh. Of course, you won't accept my source for this, The Vegetarian Way, published 1977 p.12. It was also mentioned in the Penn Ph,D, thesis I cited previously (Koch, p.198 published 1976.) Where either of these sources found this text is unknown to me but the fact that it was found by two different sources has some probative value,)
Concerning John the Baptist, the context in the Gospels makes the association with Elijah and his eating habits.For a scholarly analysis of this issue, see Eisler, "The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist.
Take a look at the summary of the data from the early Church found at http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/the-role-of-the-bishop-of-rome-in-the-communion-of-the-church-in-the-first-millennium/Head among equals? Surely you are not suggesting that at the time of the Council of Nicea (325 AD) the Bishop of Rome had any special status? If memory serves, he wasn't even at the Council, his assistant was. Surely a conference on faith and morals and true doctrine could not take place without the Vicar of Christ on Earth present?
I think the evidence is quite different from your representation of it.
Since I accept the Catholic version of dogma, tradition and history I don’t think the task of arguing against it is nearly as easy as you do.Please understand, it is not my purpose to argue against Catholic dogma, tradition or version of history. That is just too easy. What I want to discuss is what Christ really said and did.
Your facts are wrong on the Peter/Paul/James issue. Because Peter was a missionary and traveling about, James had the role of leader in the Jerusalem Church. Paul did confront Peter for his inconsistency. This has no bearing on the issue of papal authority. Popes have frequently been guilty of inconsistency, hypocrisy or whatever. What the Church teaches about the office the pope is not undermined by those facts.Again,I regard this as a side issue. In Acts when Paul has a disagreement with, I think Peter, (I am lying on the couch and don't want to get up to find the exact passage - but I will if you insist) who do they go to to resolve the problem - James, Jesus' brother. And why wouldn't Jesus' brother take over the family business?
Irenaeus did not predate any of the biblical Gospels. It is recognized by nearly all nowadays that all the canonical Gospels were written before the end of the first century and Ireaneus is well into the second century. He certainly predated some of the Gnostic Gospels but that is a different story.Simply not true. Irenaeus for example predated some Gospels. Again, I am too lazy to get up right now and give you the correct dates. But I am pretty sure I am right.
There were different groups called “Ebionites.” The earlier group were those insisting on strict obedience to the Law of Moses. These were not vegetarians for the obvious reason that the Old Testament does not teach vegetarianism (it actually prescribes eating meat in ritual ceremonies). There are a few references to a later Gnostic version of Ebionism that did practice vegetarianism. This group (and others like it) are so far removed from the basic sources of Christian faith and history that it is hard to take them as representing anything consistent with foundational Christian ideas. If someone wants to be a vegetarian, that is their business but making this the belief of original Christianity is about as unfounded as any claim I’ve heard. The principles that support vegetarian belief are not biblical ones and I don’t find anything in Jesus’ teachings that change this.Vegetarianism and circumcision were part of the Ebionite sect of Christianity, the branch to which arguably, Jesus and his Desciples belonged. The belief was that to be an Ebionite, you first had to be a Jew, then be circumcised then make vegetarianism your lifestyle. Paul correctly felt that if these were the requirements for being a Christian, the religion could not be exported to the pagan masses. Imagine telling a potential convert that to join us, you must first be circumcized, the study the Torah, then become vegetarian. It is highly likely that very few converts would have been made among the Gentiles.
All that is needed to refute much of your version of history is to pay careful attention to Irenaeus. He wrote his long work, “Against Heresies,” in the late second century. It is a detailed response to the countless versions of Gnosticism that had arisen and a defense of the public, orthodox faith of the Catholic Church. He specifically contrasts the esoteric, unhistorical brands of Gnosticism with the consistent, public faith of the Church. This writing was a well over a hundred years before Nicea. The writing you seem to trust disproves your whole theory that the post-Nicene Church was something radically different from what existed before the fourth century.For the established Church, i.e. the Church as it existed after 325 AD, people who did not accept Canonical Christianity as defined by the Council of Nicea were considered heretics and were, if they were lucky, exiled, and if they were not lucky, killed. The sects that believed in vegetarianism were heretics. This persisted through most of the history of the Catholic Church, and the last time there was a Papal Crusade against a vegetarian sect was the Albegensian Crusade of the 13th Century. The Albegensians were a Gnostic religion that practiced vegetarianism. To find out if you were secretly an Albegensian, the Priest or his Soldiers would ask you to eat meat. If you refused, you would be killed. The preferred way of killing Albegensians was to pour molten lead down their throats. Over a million Albegensians were murdered, and this is how St Dominic won his sainthood. One of his generals was famously quoted when people took refuge in a Catholic Church and the soldiers did not know whether or not they were heretics, as saying, " Kill them all. God will know his own."
Vegetarianism was the touchstone of heresy in the early church. Just like today, some Christian sects do not consider you Christian if you believe the earth is more than 6,000 years old. (I do.) It doesn't make sense, and it has nothing to do with Christianity per se, but for some it is the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian.0 -
Warning: Long reply that involves religion~
Your comments regarding the Greek word is a prime example of conspiracy theory thinking. No further comment is needed.Of course Christian Greek dictionaries will give the meaning of oψαρῖον as fish. That is how they want that word translated. Use a secular dictionary, and although fish will be given as one of the meanings, bear in mind that it is the tail wagging the dog. That word has been force translated as fish for 1,600 years on pain of death.
Your logic in this paragraph is faulty as well. You infer from Irenaeus’ quick reference to the miracle of the loaves and fishes how the story was passed to the “Gentiles” while conveniently leaving out the more primary, older sources of the Synoptic Gospels. This is a classic case of “argument from silence.” There are perfectly reasonable explanations that do not require undermining the primary sources.Irenaeus twice mentions this in Against Heresies: (If you are using the Ante Nicene Fathers Book 2 Chapter 22, pages 391 and 395. )Neither time does he mention fish. This strongly suggests that in the original tradition passed on to the Gentiles, fish was not part of the menu. Irenaeus was born less than 100 years after Jesus' death.
This statement is seriously suspect. I can’t even look at the primary source used for this claim?! I've tried.According to Epiphanius, Jesus had the same faith as the Nazarenes, and refused to eat flesh. Of course, you won't accept my source for this, The Vegetarian Way, published 1977 p.12. It was also mentioned in the Penn Ph,D, thesis I cited previously (Koch, p.198 published 1976.) Where either of these sources found this text is unknown to me but the fact that it was found by two different sources has some probative value,)
Concerning John the Baptist, the context in the Gospels makes the association with Elijah and his eating habits.For a scholarly analysis of this issue, see Eisler, "The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist.
Take a look at the summary of the data from the early Church found at http://eirenikon.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/the-role-of-the-bishop-of-rome-in-the-communion-of-the-church-in-the-first-millennium/Head among equals? Surely you are not suggesting that at the time of the Council of Nicea (325 AD) the Bishop of Rome had any special status? If memory serves, he wasn't even at the Council, his assistant was. Surely a conference on faith and morals and true doctrine could not take place without the Vicar of Christ on Earth present?
I think the evidence is quite different from your representation of it.
Since I accept the Catholic version of dogma, tradition and history I don’t think the task of arguing against it is nearly as easy as you do.Please understand, it is not my purpose to argue against Catholic dogma, tradition or version of history. That is just too easy. What I want to discuss is what Christ really said and did.
Your facts are wrong on the Peter/Paul/James issue. Because Peter was a missionary and traveling about, James had the role of leader in the Jerusalem Church. Paul did confront Peter for his inconsistency. This has no bearing on the issue of papal authority. Popes have frequently been guilty of inconsistency, hypocrisy or whatever. What the Church teaches about the office the pope is not undermined by those facts.Again,I regard this as a side issue. In Acts when Paul has a disagreement with, I think Peter, (I am lying on the couch and don't want to get up to find the exact passage - but I will if you insist) who do they go to to resolve the problem - James, Jesus' brother. And why wouldn't Jesus' brother take over the family business?
Irenaeus did not predate any of the biblical Gospels. It is recognized by nearly all nowadays that all the canonical Gospels were written before the end of the first century and Ireaneus is well into the second century. He certainly predated some of the Gnostic Gospels but that is a different story.Simply not true. Irenaeus for example predated some Gospels. Again, I am too lazy to get up right now and give you the correct dates. But I am pretty sure I am right.
There were different groups called “Ebionites.” The earlier group were those insisting on strict obedience to the Law of Moses. These were not vegetarians for the obvious reason that the Old Testament does not teach vegetarianism (it actually prescribes eating meat in ritual ceremonies). There are a few references to a later Gnostic version of Ebionism that did practice vegetarianism. This group (and others like it) are so far removed from the basic sources of Christian faith and history that it is hard to take them as representing anything consistent with foundational Christian ideas. If someone wants to be a vegetarian, that is their business but making this the belief of original Christianity is about as unfounded as any claim I’ve heard. The principles that support vegetarian belief are not biblical ones and I don’t find anything in Jesus’ teachings that change this.Vegetarianism and circumcision were part of the Ebionite sect of Christianity, the branch to which arguably, Jesus and his Desciples belonged. The belief was that to be an Ebionite, you first had to be a Jew, then be circumcised then make vegetarianism your lifestyle. Paul correctly felt that if these were the requirements for being a Christian, the religion could not be exported to the pagan masses. Imagine telling a potential convert that to join us, you must first be circumcized, the study the Torah, then become vegetarian. It is highly likely that very few converts would have been made among the Gentiles.
All that is needed to refute much of your version of history is to pay careful attention to Irenaeus. He wrote his long work, “Against Heresies,” in the late second century. It is a detailed response to the countless versions of Gnosticism that had arisen and a defense of the public, orthodox faith of the Catholic Church. He specifically contrasts the esoteric, unhistorical brands of Gnosticism with the consistent, public faith of the Church. This writing was a well over a hundred years before Nicea. The writing you seem to trust disproves your whole theory that the post-Nicene Church was something radically different from what existed before the fourth century.For the established Church, i.e. the Church as it existed after 325 AD, people who did not accept Canonical Christianity as defined by the Council of Nicea were considered heretics and were, if they were lucky, exiled, and if they were not lucky, killed. The sects that believed in vegetarianism were heretics. This persisted through most of the history of the Catholic Church, and the last time there was a Papal Crusade against a vegetarian sect was the Albegensian Crusade of the 13th Century. The Albegensians were a Gnostic religion that practiced vegetarianism. To find out if you were secretly an Albegensian, the Priest or his Soldiers would ask you to eat meat. If you refused, you would be killed. The preferred way of killing Albegensians was to pour molten lead down their throats. Over a million Albegensians were murdered, and this is how St Dominic won his sainthood. One of his generals was famously quoted when people took refuge in a Catholic Church and the soldiers did not know whether or not they were heretics, as saying, " Kill them all. God will know his own."
Vegetarianism was the touchstone of heresy in the early church. Just like today, some Christian sects do not consider you Christian if you believe the earth is more than 6,000 years old. (I do.) It doesn't make sense, and it has nothing to do with Christianity per se, but for some it is the dividing line between Christian and non-Christian.
MacPatti, I am getting quite busy at work and cannot spend time at the moment. However, I will respond in detail this afternoon. I only wanted to say now that you totally ignored my comments about Mithra. I have noticed that when you cannot seem to confront an issue you do tend to ignore it. I've let you get away with that up to this point, but something very critical to your thinking, such as the prior virgin birth of a messiah is something you are just going to have to deal with. Sorry.0 -
Oh, I can respond to your comments regarding Mithra and I'll work on that while you're getting some things done. If you read back over our correspondence, you'll find that you keep throwing various strands of arguments at me, I easily refute them, and instead of debating with me you'll throw out a new strand. That's fine, and I will try to do better at responding to all your points.MacPatti, I am getting quite busy at work and cannot spend time at the moment. However, I will respond in detail this afternoon. I only wanted to say now that you totally ignored my comments about Mithra. I have noticed that when you cannot seem to confront an issue you do tend to ignore it. I've let you get away with that up to this point, but something very critical to your thinking, such as the prior virgin birth of a messiah is something you are just going to have to deal with. Sorry.0 -
Oh, I can respond to your comments regarding Mithra and I'll work on that while you're getting some things done. If you read back over our correspondence, you'll find that you keep throwing various strands of arguments at me, I easily refute them, and instead of debating with me you'll throw out a new strand. That's fine, and I will try to do better at responding to all your points.MacPatti, I am getting quite busy at work and cannot spend time at the moment. However, I will respond in detail this afternoon. I only wanted to say now that you totally ignored my comments about Mithra. I have noticed that when you cannot seem to confront an issue you do tend to ignore it. I've let you get away with that up to this point, but something very critical to your thinking, such as the prior virgin birth of a messiah is something you are just going to have to deal with. Sorry.
If I have ever done that, just remind me and keep me on point. When I leave an argument, it is usually because I think I have won it and I move on to the next one. You obviously do not share that perception so please advise me as to which arguments you would like to continue.0 -
I only wanted to say now that you totally ignored my comments about Mithra. I have noticed that when you cannot seem to confront an issue you do tend to ignore it. I've let you get away with that up to this point, but something very critical to your thinking, such as the prior virgin birth of a messiah is something you are just going to have to deal with. Sorry.
I will take C. S. Lewis’ approach to mythical stories that have parallels with biblical narrative accounts. The fact that God’s revelatory actions in history bear remarkable similarities with mythical stories only shows that God’s revelation corresponds to and answers the deepest longings of human beings. The countless stories, for instance, of death followed by new life, expressing the human desire for the triumph of life over death, find their fulfillment in Christ’s resurrection. In other words, mythical aspirations and longings because historical fact and reality in the acts of God in history. The birth of the Son of God evidenced by a virginal conception and birth may have similarities with prior stories but these do not negate the value or truth of the later story. Further, I would offer two cautions: (a) often there is no detectable connection between the origins of these stories and therefore one may be guilty of the “genetic fallacy” if he insists that similarity and chronological succession require the conclusion of historical dependence and (b) often the similarities between such stories do not arise from the same motivations or ideas. In other words, virgin birth for a Hebrew, first-century writer may mean something dramatically different than a virgin birth in some other religious system. Similarity does not require either origin or common meaning. Another, more critical issue, and I think this would particularly apply to Mithraism, is that the overlap between Christian origins and Mithraism, especially in Rome and elsewhere, makes it difficult to know how much Christianity influenced the sources of Mithraism. I remember going to the archaeological ruins below the Church of St. Clement in Rome. Apparently Clement’s house was next to a Mithraic temple and it was later transformed into a Christian Church. The triumph of Christianity over the popular cult of Mithra suggests some similarities as well as aspects of Christianity that were considered superior by those who abandoned Mithraism to embrace Christian faith. I’ll have to refresh my memory on the specifics, though.0 -
I only wanted to say now that you totally ignored my comments about Mithra. I have noticed that when you cannot seem to confront an issue you do tend to ignore it. I've let you get away with that up to this point, but something very critical to your thinking, such as the prior virgin birth of a messiah is something you are just going to have to deal with. Sorry.
I will take C. S. Lewis’ approach to mythical stories that have parallels with biblical narrative accounts. The fact that God’s revelatory actions in history bear remarkable similarities with mythical stories only shows that God’s revelation corresponds to and answers the deepest longings of human beings. The countless stories, for instance, of death followed by new life, expressing the human desire for the triumph of life over death, find their fulfillment in Christ’s resurrection. In other words, mythical aspirations and longings because historical fact and reality in the acts of God in history. The birth of the Son of God evidenced by a virginal conception and birth may have similarities with prior stories but these do not negate the value or truth of the later story. Further, I would offer two cautions: (a) often there is no detectable connection between the origins of these stories and therefore one may be guilty of the “genetic fallacy” if he insists that similarity and chronological succession require the conclusion of historical dependence and (b) often the similarities between such stories do not arise from the same motivations or ideas. In other words, virgin birth for a Hebrew, first-century writer may mean something dramatically different than a virgin birth in some other religious system. Similarity does not require either origin or common meaning. Another, more critical issue, and I think this would particularly apply to Mithraism, is that the overlap between Christian origins and Mithraism, especially in Rome and elsewhere, makes it difficult to know how much Christianity influenced the sources of Mithraism. I remember going to the archaeological ruins below the Church of St. Clement in Rome. Apparently Clement’s house was next to a Mithraic temple and it was later transformed into a Christian Church. . I’ll have to refresh my memory on the specifics, though.
Okay,kids, everyone who agrees with MacPatti on this one put up your hands.....Humm I don't see any hands. I really think you might have been better off here had you just said you have no explanation. And in the process of this imaginative, if nothing else, defense of fairy tales, MacPatti has also managed to make several major errors of fact. Let's start with those.
MacPatti states, " virgin birth for a Hebrew, first-century writer may mean something dramatically different than a virgin birth in some other religious system. " That is very true, and I wouldn't argue with one word of that. But the only problem is that no First Century Jewish writer ever wrote about Jesus' Virgin Birth. None. Not one. In fact the first mention of Virgin Birth in connection with Jesus didn't occur until more than 150 years after Jesus had died. It is arguably mentioned in the Old Testament, but obviously not in connection with Jesus. Anyone who disagrees with this is welcome to prove me wrong.
Next, although rather minor, I don't know anyone who longs for a Virgin Birth. Ladies, is this truly your heart's disire?
Next MacPatti states,"often there is no detectable connection between the origins of these stories and therefore one may be guilty of the “genetic fallacy” if he insists that similarity and chronological succession require the conclusion of historical dependence." I really do not know where to begin here.
Mithraism was one of the top religions of the Roman Army. The Roman Army was everywhere in the ancient world including Judea. There is NO possibility that anyone in the Roman world of the First Century BC would have failed to have heard of the idea of a Virgin Birth. Not just Mithra, but Buddha, Krishna, Caesar, Virgil, Plato, and probably about two dozen gods from Roman and Greek Mythology had virgin births. It was kind of a way that the ancients honored great people. And Caesar was not only given a Virgin Birth, he was also made a god upon his death. Gotta love those Romans.
Undaunted, MacPatti continues, "Another, more critical issue, and I think this would particularly apply to Mithraism, is that the overlap between Christian origins and Mithraism, especially in Rome and elsewhere, makes it difficult to know how much Christianity influenced the sources of Mithraism." Well, let me see, Mithraism started 3,500 and Christianity started 2,100 years ago. Other than by use of a time machine, I think MacPatti needs to explain to us how Christianity influenced the origins of Mithraism. Good Luck on that one MacPatti.
Finally, MacPatti concludes, "The triumph of Christianity over the popular cult of Mithra suggests some similarities as well as aspects of Christianity that were considered superior by those who abandoned Mithraism to embrace Christian faith." Or maybe it was the fact that they would have been exiled or put to death if they didn't accept the new state religion.0 -
Looks like you're done debating with me and have turned to the masses for support. Nothing I have said here is inaccurate, but you're a conspiracy theorist, so you'll never see that. Thanks for the debate!0
-
Okay, since MacPatti has accused me of running away from arguments, I will take her entire argument piece by piece:
Piece No 1
Me:
Of course Christian Greek dictionaries will give the meaning of oψαρῖον as fish. That is how they want that word translated. Use a secular dictionary, and although fish will be given as one of the meanings, bear in mind that it is the tail wagging the dog. That word has been force translated as fish for 1,600 years on pain of death.
MacPatti:
Your comments regarding the Greek word is a prime example of conspiracy theory thinking. No further comment is needed.
Me
This is known as arguing ad hominem. Her argument goes, in essence, "you are a conspiracy theorist, and thus you will twist the anything to fit your conspiracy theory." Well, the problem with that is that making it fit my theory does not disprove what I said. I admit I am offering what I feel is the most logical explanation of why the primary meaning of a Greek word is given in a Christian Greek dictionary as "fish," and in a secular Greek dictionary as "relish." I admit I do not KNOW why the meanings are different, but I have offered a logical explanation, and one which I believe is correct. MacPatti cannot prove me wrong nor can she (nor has she) offered a better explanation.0 -
I have already addressed this, that's why I said no further discussion necessary. I also read a secular definition of the word. I've explained this more than once.This is known as arguing ad hominem. Her argument goes, in essence, "you are a conspiracy theorist, and thus you will twist the anything to fit your conspiracy theory." Well, the problem with that is that making it fit my theory does not disprove what I said. I admit I am offering what I feel is the most logical explanation of why the primary meaning of a Greek word is given in a Christian Greek dictionary as "fish," and in a secular Greek dictionary as "relish." I admit I do not KNOW why the meanings are different, but I have offered a logical explanation, and one which I believe is correct. MacPatti cannot prove me wrong nor can she (nor has she) offered a better explanation.0 -
I googled it and it only came up as Fish.0
-
Here are a few replies. Ironically, given your criticisms of my last reply, your latest reply was particularly weak on the factual front as well as the conceptual one.
I don’t know anyone who dates Matthew’s Gospel outside the first century AD and therefore your claim that a virgin birth of Jesus is not mentioned until “150 years after the death of Jesus” is simply false. At most, Matthew (see chp. 1) would have written his account 50 years after the death of Jesus and Luke about the same. I think the evidence supports an even earlier date but, in any case, your date is simply 100 years off-the-mark.
I didn’t say anyone longs for a virgin birth as such. My argument was that there is a longing in human history for the appearance of God or the divine in a recognizable way. Such an appearance would be heralded by some unique signs from the very beginning and a virgin birth, I think is rather unique and also speaks of the divine origin of the one born. Since it was commonly believed (esp. in the middle east) that a king is a kind of “son of God,” if a child were born without a human father this would immediately imply that a true Son of God is present.
Concerning Mithraism, you speak as if the data of the history of this well-known “secretive” religion is massive. It doesn’t take much looking around to see that details of this religion and its history are still under dispute. Second, the primary sources of information we have are artifacts that archaeologists often give varying interpretations of and a handful of writers during and after the time of Jesus! Mithraism was a syncretistic religion, borrowing elements of various religious systems. My point stands that we cannot determine with certainty what kinds of influence Christianity may have had on Mithraism in the first several centuries of the AD period.
Christianity triumphed over Mithraism while Christianity was illegal. There was no threat of exile since Christians had no power to exile anyone!
Although you started your reply by ridiculing my proposal on similarities between Christianity and mythic notions but, besides your rhetoric and some ill-founded criticisms of some details, you did not refute the concept itself (by that I mean the concept of Christianity perfecting and historically embodying the desires of all nations).0 -
Piece 2
Me
Irenaeus twice mentions this in Against Heresies: (If you are using the Ante Nicene Fathers Book 2 Chapter 22, pages 391 and 395. )Neither time does he mention fish. This strongly suggests that in the original tradition passed on to the Gentiles, fish was not part of the menu. Irenaeus was born less than 100 years after Jesus' death.
MacPatti
Your logic in this paragraph is faulty as well. You infer from Irenaeus’ quick reference to the miracle of the loaves and fishes how the story was passed to the “Gentiles” while conveniently leaving out the more primary, older sources of the Synoptic Gospels. This is a classic case of “argument from silence.” There are perfectly reasonable explanations that do not require undermining the primary sources.
Me
First there is no way to date the Synoptic Gospels. The current best guesses range from 30 to around 70 AD and even later. The problem of course is that syntactic analysis indicates that MORE THAN ONE PERSON wrote each Gospel. I have seen estimates up to 4 or more. Assuming that the actual Apostles were at least one author of each Gospel named after them, then that would make 70 AD a reasonable estimate. However, we are pretty sure other authors had their hands in the cookie jar, and most likely the additions, subtractions and changes were made after the original authors were dead. Using John 20 and John 21 as an example, let's look at an obvious addition:
Okay, the last verse of John 20:
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Then Comes John 21
Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Galilee.[a] It happened this way: 2 Simon Peter, Thomas (also known as Didymus), Nathanael from Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two other disciples were together. 3 “I’m going out to fish,” Simon Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.” So they went out and got into the boat, but that night they caught nothing.
4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples did not realize that it was Jesus.
5 He called out to them, “Friends, haven’t you any fish?”
“No,” they answered.
6 He said, “Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you will find some.” When they did, they were unable to haul the net in because of the large number of fish.
7 Then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter, “It is the Lord!” As soon as Simon Peter heard him say, “It is the Lord,” he wrapped his outer garment around him (for he had taken it off) and jumped into the water. 8 The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.[c] 9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread.
10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. 14 This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead.
So after a beautiful ending (John 20), Jesus comes back and says, "Hey guys, let's go fishing!" (John 21)
MORE - Continued0 -
I googled it and it only came up as Fish.
Well, if that is what Google says, it must be true. My God, Strong's Concordance can't be right, nor could Liddell and Scott's Lexicon!0 -
Looks like you're done debating with me and have turned to the masses for support. Nothing I have said here is inaccurate, but you're a conspiracy theorist, so you'll never see that. Thanks for the debate!
MacPatti, nothing I said above is incorrect either. Trust me if you had some reference to Jesus' Virgin Birth in the first century you would have given it to me.
And like it or not, there is an audience.0 -
I googled it and it only came up as Fish.
Well, if that is what Google says, it must be true. My God, Strong's Concordance can't be right, nor could Liddell and Scott's Lexicon!
This is the first time I actually saw you present a source for this.0 -
Piece Two Continued
Also, I am sitting here with My Against Heresies open to page 395 (Ante-Nicene Fathers) where Irenaeus is giving a list of things related to the number 5:
"Sotor" ("Savior" Greek) contains five letters; Pater ("Father" Latin) too contains 5 letters; Agape ("love" Greek) too consists of five letters; and after blessing the five loaves, fed with them 5,000 men."
Clearly he did not say with 5 loaves and some fish he fed 5,000 men. And again on page 391, "... fed all that multitude with five loaves of bread and twelve baskets of fragments remained over and above."
Irenaeus was quite specific about how the multitude was fed. He was specific about how much was left over. No mention of fish whatsoever.
Now very clearly, Irenaeus read whatever Gospels were available to him. Let's assume all of them were. He wrote about 175 -180 AD. Why no fish? Perhaps all the Gospels available at that time had not yet been modified to include fish.0 -
0
-
Piece 3
Me
According to Epiphanius, Jesus had the same faith as the Nazarenes, and refused to eat flesh. Of course, you won't accept my source for this, The Vegetarian Way, published 1977 p.12. It was also mentioned in the Penn Ph,D, thesis I cited previously (Koch, p.198 published 1976.) Where either of these sources found this text is unknown to me but the fact that it was found by two different sources has some probative value,)
MacPatti
This statement is seriously suspect. I can’t even look at the primary source used for this claim?! I've tried.
Me:
Me too. Both secondary sources are available, but where their primary source lies remains a mystery. However, it is a mystery well worth solving, since if the primary material were found and authenticated, it would go a long way towards proving Jesus was a vegetarian.0
This discussion has been closed.