Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Options
Replies
-
how do you all feel about this:
For a period of time in my step-daughter's life, she decided she didn't want to eat beef. It began when she met a neighbor's cow, and continued for a period of about ten years. During that time, she never (knowingly) ate beef.
She has four siblings. There were times when the meat ingredient of dinner was beef. If it was a steak, it was easy enough to let her have extra veggies, make a PB sandwich, whatever. I never fought her on this or forced her to eat a steak.
But......I did lie to her. Anytime I made lasagna, I made it with ground beef. I seasoned it and browned it and crumbled it all up into the sauce. And then I told her it was made of italian sausage (pork).
Why? Because catering to her wishes while feeding seven people wasn't always doable. And lying to her was easier than trying to change her mind. Because I thought it was silly to eliminate beef just because our neighbors had a cow that was cute.
So......am I a monster? Going straight to hell?
(if it matters.....total number of occurrences......maybe 4)
I'm about to go work out but I look forward to your thoughts..................:drinker:
I understand the practicality of feeding a family, but as a vegetarian, I would feel betrayed if someone gave me meat without my knowledge and lied about it. I'm not sure about your step-daughter's rejection of beef, while eating pork, etc. It's sort of a half-baked ethical stance, but I think I would have honored it.
While I am not a vegetarian myself, I agree with all of this. People have made fun of me my entire life for not eating rabbit, because I absolutely refuse, and while I'll concede that it is a "half-baked ethical stance," it's still my wishes not to ever eat a rabbit. I'd feel really, really pissed if someone did give me something, told me it's one thing, and then come to find it's a rabbit.0 -
I'm pretty sure what puts us at the top is our intellect. :huh:You're at the top of the food chain in front of a lion, tiger, alligator, etc., only if you happen to have a weapon in your hand.
Just sayin'.
So if you're out on the African savannah without a gun and a lion comes around, you're going to talk it to death?
Our intellect allows us to create and use weapons to make up for our physical shortcomings. But without that weapon, you are not at the top of the chain.
We are at the top of the food chain because we are a species that is not hunted for food and are not a food source of another species. We do however hunt and survive on nearly any animal species.
The African savannah is a stretch... a spider could kill me but I'm still higher up on the food chain.
We would be hunted if we lived in the wild like the rest of the animal kindgdom.
We are not naturally at the top of the food chain.
ETA; If any organism is at the top of the food chain, it's bacteria.
You are welcome to take your place with the rest of the animal kingdom. In the meantime, I will take mine on top of the food chain.
0 -
The disciples of Jesus did not “believe he was a ghost.” Some of their initial reaction was to think he was a spirit but Jesus directly countered that by pointing to the reality of his flesh.
****************
Yes, their initial reaction was to think he was a ghost. What I said,
****************
And, yes, I know about Marcion and the Gnostics but I also know about those who refuted them and showed their teachings were fundamentally opposed to the New Testament writings (e.g., Irenaeus, Justin Marytr).
***************
Do you understand what the Council of Nicea was? The Emperor brought together the leaders of the biggest, but by not means not the only Christian Church, and put them in a big room and gave them an ultimatum: come out with a unified doctrine, and then you will get food. They did so pretty quickly. However, the "Church Fathers" did not include "Church Mothers" - yes, in the Gnostic Church women held positions. Contrary to what you said, they didn't refute them, they just declared them heretics and burnt them. The last Gnostics were burned in the Albegensian crusade in 1255. And yes, the Albegensians were vegetarian,
**************
Even Marcion rejected much of the New Testament as well as all of the Old Testament arising from his mythology of many gods, the Old Testament god being the virgin-born son of a goddess named Sophia, etc., etc.
*************
Being born of a Virgin was very commonly ascribed to gods and great men, Mithra, for example was virgin born, long before Christ. And many of the things that happened to Christ happened to Mithra,
****************
If you want to believe such things, go right ahead but we are no longer having a conversation about the Bible in that case since Marcionism and Gnosticism in general are simply contrary to the Bible. If you want to say that the Council of Nicea was a perversion of the New Testament sources that preceded the council, it will not be very helpful to appeal to Gnosticism (since that movement, by its own admission, was contrary to the biblical texts).
*************
Gnosticism had every claim to be just as true as the official version. They just didn't have the bigger army.
***************0 -
I will gladly reply to this convoluted nonsense when I get home tonight.0
-
how do you all feel about this:
For a period of time in my step-daughter's life, she decided she didn't want to eat beef. It began when she met a neighbor's cow, and continued for a period of about ten years. During that time, she never (knowingly) ate beef.
She has four siblings. There were times when the meat ingredient of dinner was beef. If it was a steak, it was easy enough to let her have extra veggies, make a PB sandwich, whatever. I never fought her on this or forced her to eat a steak.
But......I did lie to her. Anytime I made lasagna, I made it with ground beef. I seasoned it and browned it and crumbled it all up into the sauce. And then I told her it was made of italian sausage (pork).
Why? Because catering to her wishes while feeding seven people wasn't always doable. And lying to her was easier than trying to change her mind. Because I thought it was silly to eliminate beef just because our neighbors had a cow that was cute.
So......am I a monster? Going straight to hell?
(if it matters.....total number of occurrences......maybe 4)
I'm about to go work out but I look forward to your thoughts..................:drinker:
I understand the practicality of feeding a family, but as a vegetarian, I would feel betrayed if someone gave me meat without my knowledge and lied about it. I'm not sure about your step-daughter's rejection of beef, while eating pork, etc. It's sort of a half-baked ethical stance, but I think I would have honored it.
While I am not a vegetarian myself, I agree with all of this. People have made fun of me my entire life for not eating rabbit, because I absolutely refuse, and while I'll concede that it is a "half-baked ethical stance," it's still my wishes not to ever eat a rabbit. I'd feel really, really pissed if someone did give me something, told me it's one thing, and then come to find it's a rabbit.
I apologize for my wording. Before I became a vegetarian, I rejected rabbit and chicken because I raised them as babies and couldn't bring myself to eat them. My kids are vegetarians, so I wouldn't serve them meat but I do sneak carrots and kale into the spaghetti sauce.
0 -
I will gladly reply to this convoluted nonsense when I get home tonight.
I can't wait.0 -
how do you all feel about this:
For a period of time in my step-daughter's life, she decided she didn't want to eat beef. It began when she met a neighbor's cow, and continued for a period of about ten years. During that time, she never (knowingly) ate beef.
She has four siblings. There were times when the meat ingredient of dinner was beef. If it was a steak, it was easy enough to let her have extra veggies, make a PB sandwich, whatever. I never fought her on this or forced her to eat a steak.
But......I did lie to her. Anytime I made lasagna, I made it with ground beef. I seasoned it and browned it and crumbled it all up into the sauce. And then I told her it was made of italian sausage (pork).
Why? Because catering to her wishes while feeding seven people wasn't always doable. And lying to her was easier than trying to change her mind. Because I thought it was silly to eliminate beef just because our neighbors had a cow that was cute.
So......am I a monster? Going straight to hell?
(if it matters.....total number of occurrences......maybe 4)
I'm about to go work out but I look forward to your thoughts..................:drinker:
I understand the practicality of feeding a family, but as a vegetarian, I would feel betrayed if someone gave me meat without my knowledge and lied about it. I'm not sure about your step-daughter's rejection of beef, while eating pork, etc. It's sort of a half-baked ethical stance, but I think I would have honored it.
While I am not a vegetarian myself, I agree with all of this. People have made fun of me my entire life for not eating rabbit, because I absolutely refuse, and while I'll concede that it is a "half-baked ethical stance," it's still my wishes not to ever eat a rabbit. I'd feel really, really pissed if someone did give me something, told me it's one thing, and then come to find it's a rabbit.
It is much easier to eliminate rabbit from one's diet than it is to eliminate beef.
I did it because it was easier than fixing separate food just for her. And while I was feeding a big herd, ground beef was a cheap and plentiful alternative to more expensive varieties of protein.
btw, it came about by accident. I had forgotten all about her anti-beef stance, and I made a lasagna for dinner. It was only after it was made and she asked what it was made of that I decided to lie.
Also, she is never going to find out. These are among the things you don't tell your kids later. Why? Because there is no reason for her to mistrust me, and all it would do is agitate her now. No good would come of it.
Plus she's really proud of her "beef-free decade" and why would I want to ruin that for her? I guarantee my lasagna wasn't the only time she unknowingly consumed beef during those years.0 -
While I am not a vegetarian myself, I agree with all of this. People have made fun of me my entire life for not eating rabbit, because I absolutely refuse, and while I'll concede that it is a "half-baked ethical stance," it's still my wishes not to ever eat a rabbit. I'd feel really, really pissed if someone did give me something, told me it's one thing, and then come to find it's a rabbit.
Just was re-reading and wondering.....who are these people who eat rabbit so often that your refusal to do so would seem strange/worthy of comment?
I've never even seen rabbit offered in any restaurant or grocery store, unless it was in a specialty butcher shop.........0 -
We are not naturally at the top of the food chain.
Of course we are. The food chain isn't just who/what eats who/what. It's also about intelligence. Humans as a whole are smarter than other species.
Sources?
Sources for humans being more intelligent than other animals? Really? Isn't that a given? If not, here's a quick source:
The key differences between human and animal cognition arise in four areas:
The ability to recombine different types of knowledge and information to gain new understanding
The ability to generalise apply a “rule” or solution for a known problem to a new and different situation
The ability to create symbolic representations of sensory input and to easily understand them
The ability to detach raw sensory and perceptual input from modes of thought.
http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/why-humans-more-intelligent-animals.html
I would argue that it's subjective, not objective.
"If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid".
And, no, I don't think it's a given that humans are smarter. I would argue that we're a pretty dumb species, despite our 'intelligence'.0 -
I'm pretty sure what puts us at the top is our intellect. :huh:You're at the top of the food chain in front of a lion, tiger, alligator, etc., only if you happen to have a weapon in your hand.
Just sayin'.
So if you're out on the African savannah without a gun and a lion comes around, you're going to talk it to death?
Our intellect allows us to create and use weapons to make up for our physical shortcomings. But without that weapon, you are not at the top of the chain.
We are at the top of the food chain because we are a species that is not hunted for food and are not a food source of another species. We do however hunt and survive on nearly any animal species.
The African savannah is a stretch... a spider could kill me but I'm still higher up on the food chain.
We would be hunted if we lived in the wild like the rest of the animal kindgdom.
We are not naturally at the top of the food chain.
ETA; If any organism is at the top of the food chain, it's bacteria.
You are welcome to take your place with the rest of the animal kingdom. In the meantime, I will take mine on top of the food chain.
You're not very mature, are you?0 -
We are not naturally at the top of the food chain.
Of course we are. The food chain isn't just who/what eats who/what. It's also about intelligence. Humans as a whole are smarter than other species.
Sources?
Sources for humans being more intelligent than other animals? Really? Isn't that a given? If
hahahahaHA - no, Summertime, humans as the highest form of intelligence on this planet is not a given nor, I would argue, should it be. In fact, any time you think something should be a particular way because that is your inclination, know that is a big RED FLAG. This topic intrigues me so I'm going to start a new discussion on it as it doesn't really belong here. Let me just leave this little fun video from the Ellen show, where she regularly documents in a lighthearted way the superior intelligence of animals:
http://ellen.warnerbros.com/2011/04/animals_are_smarter_than_humans_0411.php
That's only for fun. There are serious deep arguments for the limitation of human intelligence - David Hume and Ben Franklin both were humbled by how much our species can truly never know.
-Debra
^:)0 -
how do you all feel about this:
For a period of time in my step-daughter's life, she decided she didn't want to eat beef. It began when she met a neighbor's cow, and continued for a period of about ten years. During that time, she never (knowingly) ate beef.
She has four siblings. There were times when the meat ingredient of dinner was beef. If it was a steak, it was easy enough to let her have extra veggies, make a PB sandwich, whatever. I never fought her on this or forced her to eat a steak.
But......I did lie to her. Anytime I made lasagna, I made it with ground beef. I seasoned it and browned it and crumbled it all up into the sauce. And then I told her it was made of italian sausage (pork).
Why? Because catering to her wishes while feeding seven people wasn't always doable. And lying to her was easier than trying to change her mind. Because I thought it was silly to eliminate beef just because our neighbors had a cow that was cute.
So......am I a monster? Going straight to hell?
(if it matters.....total number of occurrences......maybe 4)
I'm about to go work out but I look forward to your thoughts..................:drinker:
I understand the practicality of feeding a family, but as a vegetarian, I would feel betrayed if someone gave me meat without my knowledge and lied about it. I'm not sure about your step-daughter's rejection of beef, while eating pork, etc. It's sort of a half-baked ethical stance, but I think I would have honored it.
While I am not a vegetarian myself, I agree with all of this. People have made fun of me my entire life for not eating rabbit, because I absolutely refuse, and while I'll concede that it is a "half-baked ethical stance," it's still my wishes not to ever eat a rabbit. I'd feel really, really pissed if someone did give me something, told me it's one thing, and then come to find it's a rabbit.
I apologize for my wording. Before I became a vegetarian, I rejected rabbit and chicken because I raised them as babies and couldn't bring myself to eat them. My kids are vegetarians, so I wouldn't serve them meat but I do sneak carrots and kale into the spaghetti sauce.
No need to apologize! I understood what you meant.
I fully admit to being hypocritical in that sense, that I eat other animals, but not rabbits (and certain others).
Lucky--I dated a guy for about 4 years once, and his dad's side of the family always had rabbit stew as their main course at dinner parties. They were all "hunting and fishing" type guys. One of them made a comment once to me, saying "Well if we hadn't told you what it was and served it to you, I bet you'd have eaten it just fine." I admit, since he and I broke up, I've had no one proposition me to eat rabbits. :laugh: But it definitely annoyed me back then. For about 2 years, I also didn't eat beef, simply because I didn't like it, and people used to give me crap for it. They had to have a better reason than "I don't like it." It annoyed/confused me.0 -
vegesaurusRex:
I will refrain from quoting since they're getting quite long.
In Matthew 15:36 the Greek word ichthus (fish) is used and Jesus, after giving thanks, gave the bread and fish to his disciples and they gave it to the crowds. In Luke 9:16 the same word is used in the context of multiplying the loaves and fish. In the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament (3rd edition) Greek Lexicon the Greek word you mentioned is defined simply as "fish" (my email doesn't allow the use of Greek characters, ospharion is the closest transliteration I can give). There may be subtle variations of meaning in various contexts but the meaning of ichthus is not disputed and that term controls the meaning in the narrative of the miracle we are discussing. Only someone trying to force the text into a preconceived set of assumptions could conclude fish was not included in the miracle. The word you used (ospharion) is found in John's account and there it has the meaning of "preserved fish." In the Synoptic Gospels, the word ichthus is used; a word that only has the meaning of "fish." See Bauer's standard Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 601.
Concerning Irenaeus, etc., on the story of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, the texts you reference are "quick" references to numerous stories from the Gospels. To argue from the silence of these texts is unfair. There are numerous details of these stories that are not mentioned. None of these texts deny that fish was present and, since these writers show familiarity with the biblical documents throughout their writings, the burden of proof rests on those who would argue that silence means denial. A quick reference to Jesus multiplying bread (in a list of a dozen or more stories) does not constitute denial of fish. Only a person with an agenda would suggest that it does.
On the Nazarenes, I see no evidence that Jesus is to be associated with that group. Also, concerning John the Baptist, his eating habits were more like those of Elijah (whom he was likened to) than any other sect.
It sounds like you have bought into a great deal of conspiracy, revisionist history. I grew up listening to a version of that (what you are doing is so "elastic" that it can be used to support virtually any "version" of ancient Christian history). The process is quite predictable. You choose what you want to believe and then go back to the historical documents and search until you make a handful of texts say what you want them to say and then accuse all other texts of being "corruptions." All the while, your theory is contradicted on every hand. You earlier wanted to say that post-Nicene Christianity was a corruption of what existed before it but now you seem to be admitting that post-Nicene Christianity existed before but was only one of multiple versions of Christianity. Even with respect to Gnosticism you are quite selective (which you must be since there were countless versions of it). You claim Gnostics were favorable to woman holding positions. This sounds more like Elaine Pagels and than Gnostic writings, however. There are a number of famous texts in Gnostic writings that sound quite anti-women (consider the famous text at the end of the Gospel of Thomas).
Your description of the Council of Nicea sounds more like Dan Brown or some other fiction work than what the documents from the council reveal. I have them in front of me. Please cite a reference for your description of the council (e.g., no food until agreement).
Gnosticism did not have the same claim to be true Christianity as did orthodoxy. First, their major writings are known to be later than the New Testament (only fringe scholars try to suggest otherwise and even then they admit most of them are much later than the New Testament texts). Second, Gnosticism simply denies the historical context of the life of Jesus (the Hebrew Scriptures, etc.). Gnosticism must deny most of what we find in the New Testament and the New Testament is the most reliable collection of texts regarding Jesus and the early Christian Church. It is only an ideology that imposes itself on early Christian history that can take Gnosticism seriously as "original" Christianity.0 -
I'm pretty sure what puts us at the top is our intellect. :huh:You're at the top of the food chain in front of a lion, tiger, alligator, etc., only if you happen to have a weapon in your hand.
Just sayin'.
So if you're out on the African savannah without a gun and a lion comes around, you're going to talk it to death?
Our intellect allows us to create and use weapons to make up for our physical shortcomings. But without that weapon, you are not at the top of the chain.
We are at the top of the food chain because we are a species that is not hunted for food and are not a food source of another species. We do however hunt and survive on nearly any animal species.
The African savannah is a stretch... a spider could kill me but I'm still higher up on the food chain.
We would be hunted if we lived in the wild like the rest of the animal kindgdom.
We are not naturally at the top of the food chain.
ETA; If any organism is at the top of the food chain, it's bacteria.
You are welcome to take your place with the rest of the animal kingdom. In the meantime, I will take mine on top of the food chain.
I normally don't play hypotheticals but can't avoid this one. Diving in! :devil: To the people placing themselves at the top of the intelligence heap: Let's say alien life in the universe finds Planet Earth and quickly determines that they are vastly superior in intelligence to us, does that give them the right to herd, fatten, "humanely" kill, process and eat us?
-Debra0 -
"Immoral and evil" is what I'm focusing on here. What sources do you have that support that claim? Please know that I'm really serious here. I'm really interested in knowing why some people believe it's morally wrong to eat meat.
Yes. Isn't that the best person to ask this if I'm looking for a serious answer?Sigh. So, you're asking an ethical vegetarian why she is bothered by other people eating meat?
Well. I'm trying to be serious here, but come on. I believe it is disgusting, immoral and evil that we kill animals.
[/quote]
I'm picking this up from very early in this thread.
I don't believe eating meat is 'immoral.' Mores are normative and reflect accepted societal standards of right and wrong, so at least now in the US where meat-eating is considered a neutral behavior by the majority of people, I would say it's accurate to call meat-eating 'moral'. Whether eating meat is 'ethical' is another matter, since ethics aren't determined by popular conceptions of right and wrong. Ethics are held to the rules of logic and are the stuff of rigorous philosophical debate. For instance, at the time when slavery was prevalent in this country, owning slaves was consistent with the mores of the times--it was moral. But, I don't believe it was ever ethical.
The word 'evil' is way too loaded to apply to human behavior that is clearly in a gray zone. Meat-eating is widely accepted. Civilized people partake in it. I would NOT call the average person who eats meat, just like 98% of the population, 'evil.' I might FEEL he is wicked and evil if he eats meat and proudly displays insouciance for the animal suffering that went into his meal. To me, that's being insensitive to the feelings of ethical vegetarians and showing disrespect and lack of appreciation to the animal who died to provide him food. People who do this to vegetarians, even as a bad joke, are really being provocative. If my emotions run away with me, I might think they are being more than that, since the behavior is bedeviling.
The practice of factory farming horrifies me and I do consider it evil. I condemn the practice, and not the consumer who buys into the practice. Factory farming is the mechanization of death, and denies animals even the simplest of comforts in their short lives. The motive for this practice is to provide cheap meat to a massive population wanting it. Greed and evil do seem to go hand in hand. I don't include people who are trapped in the industry in this judgment. In some cases, I even see them as victims-- particularly the slaughterhouse workers whose jobs are usually in the top 5 list of hazardous jobs.
I personally would like to see reform, but in the meantime, I would rather make the factory farming and slaughterhouse practices the bad guy, and not the people who are merely doing what has been traditionally accepted for a long time.0 -
I'm pretty sure what puts us at the top is our intellect. :huh:You're at the top of the food chain in front of a lion, tiger, alligator, etc., only if you happen to have a weapon in your hand.
Just sayin'.
So if you're out on the African savannah without a gun and a lion comes around, you're going to talk it to death?
Our intellect allows us to create and use weapons to make up for our physical shortcomings. But without that weapon, you are not at the top of the chain.
We are at the top of the food chain because we are a species that is not hunted for food and are not a food source of another species. We do however hunt and survive on nearly any animal species.
The African savannah is a stretch... a spider could kill me but I'm still higher up on the food chain.
We would be hunted if we lived in the wild like the rest of the animal kindgdom.
We are not naturally at the top of the food chain.
ETA; If any organism is at the top of the food chain, it's bacteria.
You are welcome to take your place with the rest of the animal kingdom. In the meantime, I will take mine on top of the food chain.
I normally don't play hypotheticals but can't avoid this one. Diving in! :devil: To the people placing themselves at the top of the intelligence heap: Let's say alien life in the universe finds Planet Earth and quickly determines that they are vastly superior in intelligence to us, does that give them the right to herd, fatten, "humanely" kill, process and eat us?
-Debra
Ha...I have thought of that now and again. It's a good question.0 -
vegesaurusRex:
I will refrain from quoting since they're getting quite long.
In Matthew 15:36 the Greek word ichthus (fish) is used and Jesus, after giving thanks, gave the bread and fish to his disciples and they gave it to the crowds. In Luke 9:16 the same word is used in the context of multiplying the loaves and fish. In the United Bible Society's Greek New Testament (3rd edition) Greek Lexicon the Greek word you mentioned is defined simply as "fish" (my email doesn't allow the use of Greek characters, ospharion is the closest transliteration I can give). There may be subtle variations of meaning in various contexts but the meaning of ichthus is not disputed and that term controls the meaning in the narrative of the miracle we are discussing. Only someone trying to force the text into a preconceived set of assumptions could conclude fish was not included in the miracle. The word you used (ospharion) is found in John's account and there it has the meaning of "preserved fish." In the Synoptic Gospels, the word ichthus is used; a word that only has the meaning of "fish." See Bauer's standard Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, p. 601.
Concerning Irenaeus, etc., on the story of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, the texts you reference are "quick" references to numerous stories from the Gospels. To argue from the silence of these texts is unfair. There are numerous details of these stories that are not mentioned. None of these texts deny that fish was present and, since these writers show familiarity with the biblical documents throughout their writings, the burden of proof rests on those who would argue that silence means denial. A quick reference to Jesus multiplying bread (in a list of a dozen or more stories) does not constitute denial of fish. Only a person with an agenda would suggest that it does.
On the Nazarenes, I see no evidence that Jesus is to be associated with that group. Also, concerning John the Baptist, his eating habits were more like those of Elijah (whom he was likened to) than any other sect.
It sounds like you have bought into a great deal of conspiracy, revisionist history. I grew up listening to a version of that (what you are doing is so "elastic" that it can be used to support virtually any "version" of ancient Christian history). The process is quite predictable. You choose what you want to believe and then go back to the historical documents and search until you make a handful of texts say what you want them to say and then accuse all other texts of being "corruptions." All the while, your theory is contradicted on every hand. You earlier wanted to say that post-Nicene Christianity was a corruption of what existed before it but now you seem to be admitting that post-Nicene Christianity existed before but was only one of multiple versions of Christianity. Even with respect to Gnosticism you are quite selective (which you must be since there were countless versions of it). You claim Gnostics were favorable to woman holding positions. This sounds more like Elaine Pagels and than Gnostic writings, however. There are a number of famous texts in Gnostic writings that sound quite anti-women (consider the famous text at the end of the Gospel of Thomas).
Your description of the Council of Nicea sounds more like Dan Brown or some other fiction work than what the documents from the council reveal. I have them in front of me. Please cite a reference for your description of the council (e.g., no food until agreement).
Gnosticism did not have the same claim to be true Christianity as did orthodoxy. First, their major writings are known to be later than the New Testament (only fringe scholars try to suggest otherwise and even then they admit most of them are much later than the New Testament texts). Second, Gnosticism simply denies the historical context of the life of Jesus (the Hebrew Scriptures, etc.). Gnosticism must deny most of what we find in the New Testament and the New Testament is the most reliable collection of texts regarding Jesus and the early Christian Church. It is only an ideology that imposes itself on early Christian history that can take Gnosticism seriously as "original" Christianity.
Macpatti, first let me say that both in terms of ability to argue on this subject (as well as philosophy) and substantive knowledge, you far exceed expectations on this board. Not to insult anyone else, but this is the type of discussion I always look to get into but am so frequently disappointed.
Second, let me say that I spend a good deal of time on this board yesterday and my work suffered. Until I get home from work today, I will not be able to take up this topic again, but be assured, I will be here.
Finally, let me just give you an overview of my position: First, you are quite right - it is a conspiracy theory. The early Christian Church was quite different from anything around today. One of the true exemplars of that Church was the Ebionite Church, the Jewish Christian Church. The leader of that church was James, Jesus' brother, not Peter, the so-called first Pope, for whom there is no evidence whatsoever that he ever was in Rome. The Council of Nicea was a political event, not a religious event, and was called by Constantine, a non-Christian for his own purposes. Constantine did not care himself what the Church doctrine so long as it was structure in a hierarchy that included respecting and obeying the emperor.
There were several groups with different opinions in the early Church, most notable for my purposes were the Pauline faction and the Jewish faction. The Jewish faction considered the Church a Jewish group and wanted adherence to Jewish Law, including circumcision. They were also vegetarians. The Pauline faction wanted to spread the teachings as widely and broadly as possible. To do this, Paul realized that the Church had to be more open and accepting of pagan beliefs, including the eating of meat and lack of circumcision. The two groups battled, with the Pauline faction eventually winning. But the Ebionite faction was actually that faction that was truer to the actual teachings of Christ, a Jew.
In the ensuing centuries, the recognized Church fought to exterminate the heretics. These included not merely the Jewish Christians but also the Gnostics, followers of Marcion, but others as well. There was a major battle to expunge the Sacred Texts of references to vegetarianism. Biblical texts were wantonly changed to make it seem like the early Christians ate meat. The last paragraphs in the Book of John constitutes an excellent example. The book clearly ended, and then additional material was added.
Anyway, I will respond later this afternoon, Right now I am off to the Gym to be in time for my 5:30 Spin Class,0 -
Finally, let me just give you an overview of my position: First, you are quite right - it is a conspiracy theory.
I understand what you are doing to the ancient sources. The reasoning you use is quite common amongst conspiracy theorists. I know at least a dozen such efforts to take the same groups you mention and make them say a host of things. Once you adopt the conspiracy theorist's methodology, any piece of historical data that is "inconvenient" for your theory is simply attributed to the evil forces of orthodoxy or some other "power." As such, your interpretation of history functions in an a priori fashion: you start with your conclusions and then make the data fit. I think this is simply backwards. If there is going to be any hope of understanding any history at all, we must proceed in an a posteriori fashion. That is, we consider the "correct" account of history the one that makes the best sense of all the data we have. You can easily use a kind of hermeneutic of suspicion and make anyone out to be evil. My reading of people like Irenaeus, Justin, Athanasius, Basil, etc., makes me think they were sincere, well-meaning people (rather than conspirators). You can accuse me of the same, I suppose. You might say that I am hired by the Vatican to go around causing trouble on-line with people who have discovered the "truth." The fact that there is not one shred of evidence to support that is of little concern since that would be consistent with the conspiracy theory (Obviously the Vatican would want to destroy all evidence that I am working on its behalf!). In short, your approach is simply contrary to accepted standards of historical research and reads more like Holocaust denial "histories" or Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code than real history.0 -
Finally, let me just give you an overview of my position: First, you are quite right - it is a conspiracy theory.
I understand what you are doing to the ancient sources. The reasoning you use is quite common amongst conspiracy theorists. I know at least a dozen such efforts to take the same groups you mention and make them say a host of things. Once you adopt the conspiracy theorist's methodology, any piece of historical data that is "inconvenient" for your theory is simply attributed to the evil forces of orthodoxy or some other "power." As such, your interpretation of history functions in an a priori fashion: you start with your conclusions and then make the data fit. I think this is simply backwards. If there is going to be any hope of understanding any history at all, we must proceed in an a posteriori fashion. That is, we consider the "correct" account of history the one that makes the best sense of all the data we have. You can easily use a kind of hermeneutic of suspicion and make anyone out to be evil. My reading of people like Irenaeus, Justin, Athanasius, Basil, etc., makes me think they were sincere, well-meaning people (rather than conspirators). You can accuse me of the same, I suppose. You might say that I am hired by the Vatican to go around causing trouble on-line with people who have discovered the "truth." The fact that there is not one shred of evidence to support that is of little concern since that would be consistent with the conspiracy theory (Obviously the Vatican would want to destroy all evidence that I am working on its behalf!). In short, your approach is simply contrary to accepted standards of historical research and reads more like Holocaust denial "histories" or Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code than real history.
Now, Macpatti, this is really the first dumb thing you have said. Sorry, I didn't mean dumb, but not really up to your standards. You seem to be approaching Biblical history as if it is the most clear cut thing in the world. Why everybody with any brains would come to the same conclusion, right? Wrong. How many denominations of Christian religions are there now 300? 400? The nature of the beast is that it is clearly up for discussion. Nothing is clear cut.
Thus I submit it is you who are taking your "a priori" approach, although I would not have called it a priori. To be a priori it must be a tautology. If anyone is taking that approach, it is you. My guess is you are a staunch something, probably Funamentalist or Catholic. But whatever you have been indoctrinated into, try and step back and become the dispassionate observer. Look at things as if this is the first time you ever saw them. Believe me, if you looked dispassionately at everything that was written about Christianity in the first 400 years of its existence, there is no way you would ever come up with the idea of something called a Pope. (There was a bishop of Rome in that period, but even up to 500 AD, "Pope Gregory" argued that no one Bishop of Christ was superior to any other,)
Furthermore, you wouldn't ever come up with something called "dogma," since there was such a rich diversity of beliefs, that the mere idea of everyone believing the same thing was nonsense. See any parallels with religion in modern America?
There is no "correct account" of history, particularly when you have to construct what "actually" happened from the kind of sources we are dealing with.
Now consider that what I am saying might be true. Suppose you really did have a church that depended for its very existence on pleasing the emperor and his wife. The poor members of this church were illiterate. They had to be told one thing, and the emperor had to be told another. The birth of duplicity.
No, I don't think you are an agent of the Vatican, although I do think the Vatican is intrinsically evil. (Just read a story about how an Italian mobster was buried in a promenant spot in a church in Vatican City after a substantial donation was made to the Catholic Church. And then of course there is the almost daily stories of covering up pedophilia. And all this without even mentioning the religious wars, the crusades. and the inquisition.) Sincere well-meaning people? Not the ones on the top, for sure.
And finally, I am very familiar with accepted standards of historical inquiry. The approach I am taking is both viable and accepted. You disparage Dan Brown, but the reason his fiction worked was because it COULD have been true. He knew a lot about the subject he was writing about. So do I. So do you. Let the debate begin.0 -
Now, Macpatti, this is really the first dumb thing you have said. Sorry, I didn't mean dumb, but not really up to your standards.
Here's a few thoughts in reply (and note that I'll ignore the part about what I've said being called dumb):
1. The many denominations of Christianity must not be overblown. Virtually all of them agree, for instance, on their belief in the resurrection of Jesus, the Trinity, etc. Hardly any of them, for instance, would look favorably on the Gnostic ideas you have been presenting. We would have to look at the individual causes of division between them in order to have a real sense of what the many divisions mean but I think there is great unity on the issues we have been discussing.
2. By a priori I meant that you have determined on other grounds than historical ones what the history of Christianity "must" have looked like. This is not the same as a tautology but is closely related. If you determine, based on your own philosophical considerations, that Jesus could not have eaten meat (because no really enlightened guy would do such a thing and Jesus must have been enlightened) and then you search around in the data for a way to support your fundamental assumptions/convictions, those presuppositions are guiding what you can and cannot accept as "true." I think that is what you are doing.
3. Concerning the primacy of the bishop of Rome, this is a complicated topic and I have looked a the data to some degree. I don't think it is a fair representation of the historical sources to say that until the 6th century popes would say that all bishops are equal. Yes, there are statements speaking of the pope as among the bishops and ones that would squarely place him as "head among equals" but that is true until today. What is interesting is not so much those statements but the many that speak of the bishop of Rome as having a unique role among the other bishops. This would begin, of course, with an awareness of the unique role of Peter among the original 12 Apostles (e.g., Matthew 16:16ff) as well as with the numerous ancient texts that single out the successors of Peter and Paul in the Roman Church (e.g., our old friend Irenaeus who chooses to list the bishops of Rome, that great ancient Church with which all others are obliged to "agree" with, or, perhaps, Ignatius of Antioch who writes to the Roman Church as having "primacy in love," etc.). I have a number of books that go into painstaking detail in analyzing the patristic references to Peter, his successors, the Roman Church, etc. Even the Eastern Orthodox Churches recognize a special place for the bishops of Rome although the deny the western Catholic formulation of that place.
4. Regarding "dogma," I find the roots of a common belief in the churches, the need to conform to apostolic teaching as passed along by those entrusted with its care, etc., a strong theme in the New Testament documents and therefore insist that the ancient Christian movement was not indifferent to "dogma" or an essential minimum of belief. (I have in mind here especially the Pastoral Letters, John's Letters, the Galatians letter, etc.)
5. The "kind of sources" we are dealing with allow for a common core of historical conclusions and these constituted the core of early Christian teachings and became the foundation of the early creeds. I again think you are going to an extreme in your conclusions. If we patiently examine the ancient Christian documents we will come to some sound conclusions. Among them are (a) the New Testament writings distinguish themselves from all others in their proximity to the Christ-event and (b) along with all other early Christian and even non-Christian writings there are some common historical claims of early Christianity that continually force themselves into our attention. Among these are: Jesus lived in the first-century in a Jewish context in the middle east. Jesus' disciples professed him to be the great "king" (Messiah). He suffering and died among criminals. His disciples professed his resurrection and went to martyrs' deaths on account of it. The death of Jesus had saving significance as did his resurrection. His disciples proclaimed Jesus fulfilled the history of Israel that preceded him, etc. All of these claims are common in the sources (not all present in all of them but the best sources overlap in these areas). The Gnostic religions showed themselves to be rather indifferent to historical matters, preferring, instead, to focus on direct spiritual illumination. They played fast and loose with historical matters and, like Buddhism and others, did not need historical events to substantiate their religious claims (since they were esoteric and "interior" in their emphasis). Jesus was a "messenger" of spiritual truths and a historically "accurate" version of his life didn't much matter.
Concerning my life depending on pleasing the emperor, etc., that is simply contrary to the Christian movement's experience and self-understanding during the early centuries. The persecuted Christian movement saw their despised status as a participation in the sufferings of their King, Jesus. Of course there were corrupt persons who did care about pleasing the emperor, etc., but to explain the course of early Christian development in mere political terms is to miss the real source of Christian inspiration, especially before its legalization.
It is easy to lump together every evil deed done in the name of Catholicism and discredit the whole. Imagine if someone found every bad thing you have ever done and refused to listen to anything good or even to listen to the context of the accusations made against you (because they are just trying to discredit you). I certainly don't want to support or explain away any evil that has been done. I would not feel right, though, if I didn't point out that there is a long history of attempts to discredit Catholicism that is deeply woven into western history, especially in America and in Europe after the Reformation. In recent decades, for instance, much study has been done of the Inquisition with rather surprising results. Tedious study of the primary documents that were meticulously preserved has revealed that much of what has been made of the Inquisition is an invention for apologetic purposes rather than historical fact. I would encourage people to search on this matter for themselves, especially looking at books in the last two decades devoted to this subject. The same could be said of the Crusades. Concerning pedophilia, etc., I'm as disgusted as anyone else. Yet again, however, the details often paint a very different picture. Most of the cases that are presently coming to light are from the 60's and 70's and reflect a very different cultural way of addressing these matters. The psychology of those decades optimistically thought that methods of psychotherapy could "cure" or locate the root causes and treat things like pedophilia. Like with so many such theories, however, time showed it to be misguided. We can look back and see the methods of "treatment" and restoring people and moving people about who had been guilty of acts of pedophilia and find all kinds of fault. Again, I agree that fault should be given and such things should have never occurred or been tolerated but, again, the details show a series of fallible, sinful, people struggling to cope with a very disturbing situation where conflicting advice and analyses were given. All of this misses the fact, however, that most priests and Catholics have never committed such acts. All of this misses the countless good deeds that have been done by Catholics (both ordained and not).
Dan Brown's presentation "could be true." I suppose that is right but we don't draw historical judgments based on what "could be true" but, rather, based on what is most probable or likely. It could be the case that an undetected dinosaur will devour me in the next twenty seconds but I am certainly not going to live my life as if that is likely. It could be true that a previously unknown law of physics will cause the sun to explode in two seconds. Again, I'm not going to lose any sleep over that. Dan Brown's presentation of things is another conspiracy theory that plays fast and loose with facts and uses anything that can be seen as supporting his theory while the mountain of data that doesn't fit is simply discarded or explained as part of the conspiracy. If that reasoning were applied to any area of history, history would collapse and we would have to be total agnostics regarding our past. I think that is a massive mistake.0
