Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Replies
-
Here is Liddell and Scott:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)ya/rion0 -
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.
Yes, he’s making a point about the number “five,” as part of his interpretation of the meaning of that number. “Two” fish didn’t fit in with his point and therefore he left it out. On the other hand, perhaps some ancient Nazarenes or Gnostic Ebionites got ahold of Irenaeus’ text and took out his references to the fish?
0 -
Piece 4
Me
For a scholarly analysis of this issue, see Eisler, "The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist.
MacPatti
Concerning John the Baptist, the context in the Gospels makes the association with Elijah and his eating habits.
Me
From the Slavonic Josephus - Antiquities
8. And when he had been brought to Archelaus and the doctors of the Law had assembled, they asked him who he is and where he has been until then. 9. And to this he made answer and spake: "I am pure; [for] the Spirit of God hath led me on, and [I live on] cane and roots and tree-food.2 10. But when they threatened to put him to torture if he would not cease from those words and deeds, he nevertheless said: "It is meet for you [rather] to cease from your heinous works and cleave unto the Lord your God."
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm0 -
You know I didn't know either of these were on line. I have older versions, and I suggest if you are really that interested, go to a LIBRARY and look this up. The versions I have date from before the INTERNET existed.0 -
Liddel and Scott, although a lexicon that includes all classical Greek literature in its range of usages of terms, identifies “fish” as the first definition of the word and cites John’s Gospel as an example. No support there for “relish,” especially when you consider that the Synoptic narratives of the same event use the indisputable word for fish, “ichthus.”Here is Liddell and Scott
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)ya/rion0 -
PIece 6
Me
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?
MacPatti
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/
I think the evidence is quite different from your representation of it.
Me
From On Line Britannica :
Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Tur.). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates.0 -
Liddel and Scott, although a lexicon that includes all classical Greek literature in its range of usages of terms, identifies “fish” as the first definition of the word and cites John’s Gospel as an example. No support there for “relish,” especially when you consider that the Synoptic narratives of the same event use the indisputable word for fish, “ichthus.”Here is Liddell and Scott
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)ya/rion
Do you have an actual hard copy? How old?
Did you look up Strong's as I suggested (the real one not on line.)0 -
Liddel and Scott, although a lexicon that includes all classical Greek literature in its range of usages of terms, identifies “fish” as the first definition of the word and cites John’s Gospel as an example. No support there for “relish,” especially when you consider that the Synoptic narratives of the same event use the indisputable word for fish, “ichthus.”Here is Liddell and Scott
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=o)ya/rion
Do you have an actual hard copy? How old?
Did you look up Strong's as I suggested (the real one not on line.)
What is the difference between the online and text version? I see that it describes relish as something served with bread (specifically fish.).0 -
The Slavonic version of Josephus is well-known to have significant differences (both additions and subtractions) from the standard Greek versions. The general consensus, as far as I can tell, is that these variations are best explained by the conclusion that the Slavonic version is a medieval production. I certainly see no reason to take it as an earlier version that was later corrupted; the opposite appears to be the case.0
-
Yes, and the data there fits my position quite well.Did you look up Strong's as I suggested (the real one not on line.)0 -
Piece 7
QUOTE:
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.
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.
No, of course not. You also believe that Louis Caroll explains the difference between Mithaism and Christianity.0 -
I found a bunny I think I'd actually eat.
0 -
I found a bunny I think I'd actually eat.
There you go, Kimmy!0 -
Piece 8
Me
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?
MacPatti
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.
Me
It has plenty of bearing. If the head of the Church had been Peter, they would not have come to James to resolve the issue.
Also, if you read Romans where Paul greets every leader of the Church in Rome, the name of Peter is conspicuously absent. This is not an accident. Paul had no reason to greet a person who was not in Rome and NEVER WAS.0 -
Piece 9
Me
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.
MacPatti
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.
Me
Already covered this by explaining that there were multiple authors to each of the Gospels and no one has ANY idea when the last editing took place. Irenaeus very likely referred to the Gospels that were available to him when he wrote, and those Gospels largely support my version.0 -
Piece 8 (?)
Me
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."
MadPatti
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.
If you read carefully what I said, it has absolutely nothing to do with your response. Are you getting tired?
I will give you another chance. Is there anything above in my paragraph that you disagree with. Are you again dancing around something you don't want to confront, such as the fact that a Pope ordered the death of over a million people, and made a butcher named Dominic a Saint because he was good at slaughter? That Dear MacPatti is the Catholic Church you love so much.0 -
I referred to C. S. Lewis, not Louis Carroll. I have no knowledge of Louis Carroll’s reflections on Mithraism.No, of course not. You also believe that Louis Caroll explains the difference between Mithaism and Christianity.0 -
The Slavonic version of Josephus is well-known to have significant differences (both additions and subtractions) from the standard Greek versions. The general consensus, as far as I can tell, is that these variations are best explained by the conclusion that the Slavonic version is a medieval production. I certainly see no reason to take it as an earlier version that was later corrupted; the opposite appears to be the case.
The standard Josephus also has many disputed sections, such as Josephus' references to Jesus as a "man, if he be a man.."
The Slovonic version may well have had sections that were deleted in the Western Version, especially sections that relate to vegetarianism, as this one does.0 -
Let’s start with this. Please provide documentation on your claim that a “million Albigensians were murdered.” I’m interested in the primary source material for this claim.
0 -
I referred to C. S. Lewis, not Louis Carroll. I have no knowledge of Louis Carroll’s reflections on Mithraism.No, of course not. You also believe that Louis Caroll explains the difference between Mithaism and Christianity.
C.S. Lewis in any case fails to explain the difference convincingly, nor do you. Mystical Jungian shared subconscious is the last gasp for someone who has no credible explanation. This is a major point and your explanation is incredibly week. Be intellectually honest and admit you cannot explain it.0 -
I found a bunny I think I'd actually eat.
Those are adorable! But, I always start with the ears because they seem to do the least damage to the chocolate bunnies.
Apologies to the serious debaters here. I know when I'm outgunned, outclassed and outnumbered, so commenting on chocolate bunnies just seems like the right thing to do.
0 -
Let’s start with this. Please provide documentation on your claim that a “million Albigensians were murdered.” I’m interested in the primary source material for this claim.
Gladly:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Albigensian_Crusade
"When Innocent III's diplomatic and evangelical attempts to roll back Catharism met with limited success, he declared a crusade against Languedoc, offering lands belonging to the schismatics to any French nobleman willing to take up arms to defeat them. The violence led to France's acquisition of lands with closer cultural and linguistic ties to Catalonia than France. An estimated one million people died during the crusade."
They reference the primary source material.0 -
Very predictable. I'm able to refute all your points, including the claim that Jesus was a vegetarian, so you decide to attack the Catholic church because you know I'm a Catholic. I expected more from you. Oh well.That Dear MacPatti is the Catholic Church you love so much.0 -
Very predictable. I'm able to refute all your points, including the claim that Jesus was a vegetarian, so you decide to attack the Catholic church because you know I'm a Catholic. I expected more from you. Oh well.That Dear MacPatti is the Catholic Church you love so much.
MacPatti, you not only failed to refute the point I made that this leads back to, but you didn't even RESPOND to it. My point concerned the Albegensian Crusade and you talked about Ireaeus. Then you asked for sources on my claim that the Catholic crusade butchered a million people and I gave it to you. My point was that the Catholic Church has always been ruthless, and there is no reason to think they it has changed. You have to take that fact into consideration when you are interpreting ancient sources and the likelihood that the Catholic Church doctored them.0 -
I haven't even gotten home yet to look at your source. Don't fret; I do plan to respond. Just pointing out that it is very predictable once someone knows I'm Catholic to throw out pedophilia, crusades, etc. had your wife not told you I was Catholic, we may have continued the debate in whether or not Jesus was a vegetarian without getting where we are now. Not surprised, but I will be happy to reply later.MacPatti, you not only failed to refute the point I made that this leads back to, but you didn't even RESPOND to it. My point concerned the Albegensian Crusade and you talked about Ireaeus. Then you asked for sources on my claim that the Catholic crusade butchered a million people and I gave it to you. My point was that the Catholic Church has always been ruthless, and there is no reason to think they it has changed. You have to take that fact into consideration when you are interpreting ancient sources and the likelihood that the Catholic Church doctored them.0 -
I haven't even gotten home yet to look at your source. Don't fret; I do plan to respond. Just pointing out that it is very predictable once someone knows I'm Catholic to throw out pedophilia, crusades, etc. had your wife not told you I was Catholic, we may have continued the debate in whether or not Jesus was a vegetarian without getting where we are now. Not surprised, but I will be happy to reply later.MacPatti, you not only failed to refute the point I made that this leads back to, but you didn't even RESPOND to it. My point concerned the Albegensian Crusade and you talked about Ireaeus. Then you asked for sources on my claim that the Catholic crusade butchered a million people and I gave it to you. My point was that the Catholic Church has always been ruthless, and there is no reason to think they it has changed. You have to take that fact into consideration when you are interpreting ancient sources and the likelihood that the Catholic Church doctored them.
MacPatti, my wife didn't tell me you were Catholic. You did. When I knew your point of view, I knew you were either Catholic or Fundamentalist. Liberal Protestant you were not.
My reason for coming back to the Catholic Church all the time is that you keep bringing up Catholic doctrine, and you keep ignoring the obvious problems, such as the so called Virgin Birth and the fact that it was copied from other mythologies. If you can get by the Fairy Tale part of the Christian religion we can have a serious discussion about what Divine Compassion and Grace include, and why animals must be included. I have no doubt whatsoever that Jesus was a Vegetarian, that he was a member of a radical Jewish Sect, that his chasing the money lenders out of the Temple was the first act of Animal-rights action in the Western Christian Roman world, and that Jesus has a vibrant message for the modern world. I am a Christian, but not in any sense you would likely relate to.0 -
Gladly:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Albigensian_Crusade
"When Innocent III's diplomatic and evangelical attempts to roll back Catharism met with limited success, he declared a crusade against Languedoc, offering lands belonging to the schismatics to any French nobleman willing to take up arms to defeat them. The violence led to France's acquisition of lands with closer cultural and linguistic ties to Catalonia than France. An estimated one million people died during the crusade."They reference the primary source material.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_hannam/dismissed.html
http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2011/11/pinker-tackles-albigensian-crusade.html
Please see the above articles for discussions of the details regarding the number of deaths in the Albigensian Crusade as well as the political factors that were involved. I encourage you and anyone interested in this discussion to read these links as well as do some research on your source, "The New World Encyclopedia." Apparently this is a source quite similar to and, often, dependent on Wikipedia. It is not an unbiased source, has unknown "editors" who manage material given to them, and has a stated philosophical agenda (you can see evidence of that as soon as you read the title on the page in looking at any of their articles). The reviews I read of this source emphasize that it is especially not to be trusted on religious matters. Your use of this source is yet another sign of your tendency to uncritically locate sources that support your position and simply dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your own biases.
That being said, I in no way wish to defend any evil that has been done in the name of Christianity, Catholicism, democracy, the United States, human beings in general, etc. (For instance, one source I read spoke of the treatment and slaughtering of Native Americans as the greatest slaughter in all of history. I'm not going to move out of the USA, though, because of the evils of our historical past.) We are capable of doing terrible things and I have no reason to deny anything wrong that has been done in the name of Christianity. Again, becoming a Christian does not make a person impeccable and no form of Christianity I would defend has ever said such a thing. I hope and pray that all Christians will become more and more consistent with the beliefs we profess and am saddened when we fail. What we are discussing is the problem of hypocrisy and inconsistency not what the Church formally teaches.0 -
Gladly:
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Albigensian_Crusade
"When Innocent III's diplomatic and evangelical attempts to roll back Catharism met with limited success, he declared a crusade against Languedoc, offering lands belonging to the schismatics to any French nobleman willing to take up arms to defeat them. The violence led to France's acquisition of lands with closer cultural and linguistic ties to Catalonia than France. An estimated one million people died during the crusade."They reference the primary source material.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_hannam/dismissed.html
http://bedejournal.blogspot.com/2011/11/pinker-tackles-albigensian-crusade.html
Please see the above articles for discussions of the details regarding the number of deaths in the Albigensian Crusade as well as the political factors that were involved. I encourage you and anyone interested in this discussion to read these links as well as do some research on your source, "The New World Encyclopedia." Apparently this is a source quite similar to and, often, dependent on Wikipedia. It is not an unbiased source, has unknown "editors" who manage material given to them, and has a stated philosophical agenda (you can see evidence of that as soon as you read the title on the page in looking at any of their articles). The reviews I read of this source emphasize that it is especially not to be trusted on religious matters. Your use of this source is yet another sign of your tendency to uncritically locate sources that support your position and simply dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your own biases.
That being said, I in no way wish to defend any evil that has been done in the name of Christianity, Catholicism, democracy, the United States, human beings in general, etc. (For instance, one source I read spoke of the treatment and slaughtering of Native Americans as the greatest slaughter in all of history. I'm not going to move out of the USA, though, because of the evils of our historical past.) We are capable of doing terrible things and I have no reason to deny anything wrong that has been done in the name of Christianity. Again, becoming a Christian does not make a person impeccable and no form of Christianity I would defend has ever said such a thing. I hope and pray that all Christians will become more and more consistent with the beliefs we profess and am saddened when we fail. What we are discussing is the problem of hypocrisy and inconsistency not what the Church formally teaches.
First of all MacPatti, the cites you give are NOT original sources which you demanded of me. These are OPINION PIECES based on guesstimates of what the population MIGHT have been and what REALLY happened. My sources were not limitied to the on-line source I gave you which by the way referenced the generally accepted figures that had been accepted for centuries. I have many sources, mostly books that give the same figures. To paraphrase what you said earlier, as you get further away in time from the source, how on earth do you expect to get more accurate? Second of all their main source seems to be Heresy Proceedings in the Languedoc in 1500, three hundred years AFTER the Albegensian Crusade. Every book and credible source I read on the subject gives the figure as 1,000,000 killed. You, as an apologist for the Roman Church seem to be trying to get the number down to a few hundred thousand, I guess to make the Catholic Church look better. You have said previously that you have done the same thing with the Inquisition. Well, I guess by your estimation, only 12 people died in the Thirty Years War, and these deaths were all accidental. Right?
Sorry but this is revisionist history at its worst. You are giving no new or original figures only opinions and your opinions are suspect at best, ridiculous at worst. The Roman Church has been doing this for centuries, downplaying the evil they have perpetrated, or even worse blaming the victims. Revisionist history is nothing new. The Communists did the same thing.
As you may have gathered I have studied vegetarian history extensively and have dozens, possibly a hundred books in my library on this topic. Indeed I probably know as much about this topic as anyone. The Catholic Church in general has exhibited a consistent pattern and practice of seeking to wipe out heresy since what could be called its inception. A chief heretical practice that it has focused on has been vegetarianism. The evidence is clear cut and convincing. Maybe I will write a book on this, since there seems to be an abysmal dearth of knowledge on the subject.
And no, I am not buying your opinions from organizations which likely have agendas (one of your sources is an Atheist's website for God's sake!) The web is full of crap and anyone can post an opinion. Read any standard history of these times and you will get the figure of one million people slaughtered by the Catholic Church during this crusade. And this is only one example of the Catholic Church killing vegetarians and others. Like I said there are many many more.
Vegetarianism is intrinsically linked to heresy in the Catholic Church. It ties into the notion of a superior ethic, and the Catholic Church cannot acknowledge any superior ethic. For this reason it has always found vegetarianism anathema. The idea of a compassion that exceeds their very limited version of compassion is hateful to them. The idea of Divine Grace actually being extended to fellow species is repugnant to Rome which has a history of opulence and indulgence (no pun intended.) Fortunately Rome no longer has any power and is a mere vestigial organ of its former self. If it had power, believe me, you would see evil manifest. As it is, they take great pains now to say and do the right thing, because they have no choice.
Okay, I have now responded to every point you made, at least to the best of my knowledge. The only argument raised where I consider my argument to have been deficient on has been the meaning of oψαρῖον. I will consult some experts on the ancient Greek language, of which I know several and I will find sources that are indisputable. I am 100% sure I am right, although I have not proven it yet.
Also I will attempt to contact the author of that Ph.D. thesis I cited to learn where he found his primary sources. Indubitably, the primary sources exist at the Penn library, but I do not live in Philadelphia, but rather Connecticut. Likely, the Yale or Trinity library would have such an obscure source.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.
Yes, he’s making a point about the number “five,” as part of his interpretation of the meaning of that number. “Two” fish didn’t fit in with his point and therefore he left it out. On the other hand, perhaps some ancient Nazarenes or Gnostic Ebionites got ahold of Irenaeus’ text and took out his references to the fish?
He did mentiion that there were a dozen baskets left over. And, as I said, he does this in more than one place.
0 -
PIece 6
Me
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?
MacPatti
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/
I think the evidence is quite different from your representation of it.
Me
From On Line Britannica :
Council of Nicaea, (325), the first ecumenical council of the Christian church, meeting in ancient Nicaea (now İznik, Tur.). It was called by the emperor Constantine I, an unbaptized catechumen, or neophyte, who presided over the opening session and took part in the discussions. He hoped a general council of the church would solve the problem created in the Eastern church by Arianism, a heresy first proposed by Arius of Alexandria that affirmed that Christ is not divine but a created being. Pope Sylvester I did not attend the council but was represented by legates.
And also on the subject of Popes, clearly one of the popes argued against the idea that there was a universal leader of Christians. Here is an exerpt from that famous letter of "Pope" Gregory I. I have read all the responses to it, so don't bother. As you yourself say, it is best to go to the primary source, and here it is:
"Therefore, dearly beloved brother, have humility with all your heart. It is that which inspires peace among the brethren...What will you say to Christ, Who is the Head of the universal Church - what will you say to Him at the last judgment - you, who by your title of universal, would bring all His members into subjection to yourself? Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?...But if anyone usurp in the Church a title which embraces all the faithful, the universal Church - O blasphemy! - will then fall with him, since he makes himself to be called the universal. May all Christians reject this blasphemous title - this title which takes the sacerdotal honor from every priest the moment it is insanely usurped by one."0
