Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Options
Replies
-
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
You'd have to ask that alien culture about what they believe humanity's rights are. The answer is potentially, "yes, of course, they have the right to do all of that." Now, I imagine we would resist as best as we could.
We are the ones who decide what "rights" we have as a country or a species. Anyone who isn't us is under no particular obligation to agree.0 -
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.
***************
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.
**************
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.
********************
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.
********************
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.
****************
Only a person with an agenda would argue that it means nothing.
***************
On the Nazarenes, I see no evidence that Jesus is to be associated with that group.
***************
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,)
***************
Also, concerning John the Baptist, his eating habits were more like those of Elijah (whom he was likened to) than any other sect.
****************
For a scholarly analysis of this issue, see Eisler, "The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist."
****************0 -
HIPPO (Happily Ignoring Previous Posts, Ok?)
Bearing in mind, that I am an unapologetic omnivore.... I wouldn't force my child to be a Vegan or a Vegetarian... just like I'm not going to force them to be a Carniverous Omnivore... Will I make different dishes for them? Maybe yes, maybe no... maybe when they are old enough I will tell them that I will purchase the ingredients and they can cook the meal...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..................
I do have to ask how old your step daughter was when this all happened - I was about 15 when I started dabbling in vegetarianism, and my parents said they had no problem with it, but they wouldn't cook separate meals. If I didn't want to eat meat, I'd have to make something else on my own time. I felt that this was a fair trade, and honestly opened me up to a lot of foods I wouldn't have tried otherwise. I would be absolutely horrified and betrayed to find out that someone had been lying to me about whether or not there was meat in my food. I do understand, as VergingOnVegan said, the practicality of feeding a large family, but I don't believe that lying in the name of ease was the right thing to do, and certainly not a good lesson to pass on to your children. Not wanting to make separate meals is absolutely understandable, but I would have been up front with her and offered her the options of a) eating what you made, or b) being responsible for her own dinner - or better yet, have her create a meatless meal for the family once a week, month, whatever. I offered to do this for my family as a teen, and I think my parents liked it because it opened them up to new foods and it took some of the pressure off my mom.
I do have to admit, though, that I found the quote: "I thought it was silly to eliminate beef because she thought a neighbor's cow was cute" a little troubling.
The aversion to beef most likely went beyond her "thinking the cow was cute", but also involved your step daughter becoming "re-sensitized" to what beef is - a sentient, living, breathing cow. For the same reason your daughter might have been horrified to consider eating the family dog, she now didn't want to consume the flesh of something she had "met", if you will. One of the biggest issues, at least from what I've seen, is that people are de-sensitized to what meat is made from. Then when others (sometimes children, sometimes vegetarians/vegans) bring this up, they are being "too sensitive" for acknowledging that maybe there's something unsettling about consuming the flesh of an animal. Meat sold in America is so far from what is originally was - we don't sell it with the head, legs, feathers, etc. on, and we give it names like "beef" and "poultry" so that people might not have to come to terms with the fact that they are eating Babe or Bessie. There's a reason that lots of children are horrified when they learn that their favorite hamburgers are made up of ground-up cows - because I truly believe that people are born sensitive and empathetic, but this is drilled out of them as they get older because "that's just the way things are".
But then again, perhaps I'm just sensitive to the fact that the word "silly" was used to describe it - I feel like that's a little harsh when speaking about someone's morals.0 -
She was about 13-14 when this began. Like I said, it happened (lying about the content of a lasagna) about 4-5 times total, during the entire course of time she was actively avoiding eating beef. I'm the step-mom, so most of the time the kids were in another state with their mother. They spent the summers/Christmas breaks with us.
I did use the word 'silly' because it did and does seem silly to me to single out cows as being the one animal that is too cute to eat, but to be perfectly fine eating pigs, chicken, fish, shrimp, all other animal items of any kind. Also, leather was fine, in her book, she just didn't want to *eat* beef. The incongruence of that position weakened it, in my mind.
Also, since she was never made aware of it, lying to my children wasn't a "lesson" I was "teaching". I don't even feel bad about it, I just remembered it in the context of this discussion.0 -
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.
You are immediately leaving out the Unitarians, and probably most of the liberal Protestant sects.
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.
I guess the question then becomes what about a person who was brought up in a religious family, went to a religious school, and believes solidly in the doctrines of a single specific church. Is that person objective in your opinion?
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.
Gregory I did. In a letter to the Bishop of Constantinople. That letter still exists.
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.
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?
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.
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.
None that I know of, but to be honest I haven't really looked at that, since historically, it is pretty obvious he had no special status that early on.
This would begin, of course, with an awareness of the unique role of Peter among the original 12 Apostles (e.g., Matthew 16:16ff)
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?
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.
I am sure the books are painstaking and contrived. Also, As for the Orthodox regarding the Bishop of Rome as special, I got the story of the letter of Gregory I from a strong Orthodox believer who used it to show me that even the Pope didn't believe in Popes.
Of course he wasn't too fond of my point of view either.
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.)
In the 1960s at Vatican II there was an attempt to unite all the Christian churches into one church. It was of course doomed to failure, and I regard that as a good thing. The last thing I want to see is lack of diversity.
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
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.0 -
"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.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.
You say things better than I can.
I agree with most of this.0 -
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
We are the ones who decide what "rights" we have as a country or a species. Anyone who isn't us is under no particular obligation to agree.
And that's where the trouble starts..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..................
I do have to ask how old your step daughter was when this all happened - I was about 15 when I started dabbling in vegetarianism, and my parents said they had no problem with it, but they wouldn't cook separate meals. If I didn't want to eat meat, I'd have to make something else on my own time. I felt that this was a fair trade, and honestly opened me up to a lot of foods I wouldn't have tried otherwise. I would be absolutely horrified and betrayed to find out that someone had been lying to me about whether or not there was meat in my food. I do understand, as VergingOnVegan said, the practicality of feeding a large family, but I don't believe that lying in the name of ease was the right thing to do, and certainly not a good lesson to pass on to your children. Not wanting to make separate meals is absolutely understandable, but I would have been up front with her and offered her the options of a) eating what you made, or b) being responsible for her own dinner - or better yet, have her create a meatless meal for the family once a week, month, whatever. I offered to do this for my family as a teen, and I think my parents liked it because it opened them up to new foods and it took some of the pressure off my mom.
I do have to admit, though, that I found the quote: "I thought it was silly to eliminate beef because she thought a neighbor's cow was cute" a little troubling.
The aversion to beef most likely went beyond her "thinking the cow was cute", but also involved your step daughter becoming "re-sensitized" to what beef is - a sentient, living, breathing cow. For the same reason your daughter might have been horrified to consider eating the family dog, she now didn't want to consume the flesh of something she had "met", if you will. One of the biggest issues, at least from what I've seen, is that people are de-sensitized to what meat is made from. Then when others (sometimes children, sometimes vegetarians/vegans) bring this up, they are being "too sensitive" for acknowledging that maybe there's something unsettling about consuming the flesh of an animal. Meat sold in America is so far from what is originally was - we don't sell it with the head, legs, feathers, etc. on, and we give it names like "beef" and "poultry" so that people might not have to come to terms with the fact that they are eating Babe or Bessie. There's a reason that lots of children are horrified when they learn that their favorite hamburgers are made up of ground-up cows - because I truly believe that people are born sensitive and empathetic, but this is drilled out of them as they get older because "that's just the way things are".
But then again, perhaps I'm just sensitive to the fact that the word "silly" was used to describe it - I feel like that's a little harsh when speaking about someone's morals.
You said it right.0 -
Also, since she was never made aware of it, lying to my children wasn't a "lesson" I was "teaching". I don't even feel bad about it, I just remembered it in the context of this discussion.
As I'm reading my post over, I'm seeing how judgy that part of my post sounds - I hope you know that wasn't my intention, and I hope you accept my apology for it.
Noting that, how would you feel if your stepdaughter found out that you had lied to her those times and told her that the pork was actually beef and confronted you about it? Would you feel remorseful, or would you justify your actions to her? This is more asked out of curiosity than anything. I guess I wouldn't really feel better about lying to someone as long as they didn't know about it - I would still view it as betrayal if I were on the receiving end.
As far as her views on beef, I guess it can be difficult to understand, but people choose to go to all different degrees with their choices. I know some vegans who still eat honey, but I also know vegans who don't believe in owning pets because they see it as animal enslavement. I don't really see it as silly that she felt uncomfortable consuming something that she had "met", but then again, I'm a little biased
0 -
Many people FORCE their children to be meat eaters....your point?0
-
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.
********************
MacPatti, what you want to do is tiptoe around approved sources and ignore the entire world and information that is available from multiple sources that contradicts your preconceived notion of what Christ was, did and said. If you claim to be intellectually honest, you have to consider the good, the bad and the ugly. Take for example, the Persian Deity Mithra who was worshipped 1,500 before Christ, and who was also very popular in pre Christian ancient Rome:
"Mithra has the following in common with the Jesus character:
Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.
The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or "disciples."
He performed miracles.
As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
He ascended to heaven.
Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.
Mithra is omniscient, as he "hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him."
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
Mithra "sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers."
Mithraism emphasized baptism."
Now it may be convenient for you to ignore this non-canonical source, but if you have any intellectual integrity you must consider this and other sources. I bring up Mithra only to make the point that if you consider only "official" sources you are going to miss a whole lot. Very clearly much of the Christian Mythos derived from Mithraism. I think you can safely assume that these Mythraic Aspects of the Christian story are myth and not reality, and that if you start by stripping away the non-original material from the Christian story, you are left with a much better idea of who Christ was, a real man with real ideas. The sources I use describe Christ much more realistically than the fables held to be true by some mainstream churches. Of course it is in the Vatican's interest to promote the Classical Idea of Christ, since that makes their existence necessary and relevant. But if you understand who Christ the man really was, you have no need for Priests, Popes or dogma,
*************************
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).
*******************
My goal here is not to attack Catholics, but to explore who Christ really was. If you consider that an attack on Catholicism, then so be it. When you talk about the Catholic Church being questioned after the Reformation remember that in the 30 Years War alone, more than half of Germany's population was killed mostly by invading forces the vast majority of which were Catholic Armies trying to stamp out Protestantism. Yes, the reputation of Catholicism suffered greatly, as it should have. The Catholic Church was an organization of men set up to promote the interests of a few, even to the extent of mass murder. I could list the atrocities committed by the Catholic Church during its history and up to the present day, but I am sure you are aware of them, and as I said, my purpose is not to attack the Catholic Church but rather to focus on who Christ really was and what he really believed. The reality that you must take away from this is that the Catholic Church throughout its history has demonstrated a willingness to do ANYTHING to maintain its power. And that is certainly still true today.
**********************
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.
********************
My point was that Dan Brown knew enough about his subject to write a credible believable piece of fiction,
*******************0 -
What was the reasoning for the early church to stamp out vegetarianism? Was it some kind of threat?0
-
What was the reasoning for the early church to stamp out vegetarianism? Was it some kind of threat?
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.0 -
What was the reasoning for the early church to stamp out vegetarianism? Was it some kind of threat?
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.
That makes an argument for not making vegetarianism part of the dogma but you stated that they wanted to "stamp out" vegetarianism. Why stamp it out rather than just say it is not necessary?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.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've heard many things like this with the current literalism movement in Protestantism.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've heard many things like this with the current literalism movement in Protestantism.
I wasn't even a vegetarian yet at the time and I just shook my head over it. Silliness.
If the cost of being a Christian is killing and eating and wearing an animal, then I want no part of it. If people choose to eat meat and wear leather, it's their business. But if a religion requires it? Uh-uh.0 -
What was the reasoning for the early church to stamp out vegetarianism? Was it some kind of threat?
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.
That makes an argument for not making vegetarianism part of the dogma but you stated that they wanted to "stamp out" vegetarianism. Why stamp it out rather than just say it is not necessary?
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 -
What was the reasoning for the early church to stamp out vegetarianism? Was it some kind of threat?
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.
That makes an argument for not making vegetarianism part of the dogma but you stated that they wanted to "stamp out" vegetarianism. Why stamp it out rather than just say it is not necessary?
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.
Interesting. I would think that the heresy in Gnostic thought would be their actual views/beliefs rather than their dietary habits. I had also that the Cather Crusades were more of a political consolidation of power where "heresy" was used as the way to legitimize the event. Is it possible that vegetarianism was used as a simple characteristic of sorting out the "enemies" rather than the motivating factor?0
