Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Options
Replies
-
I'm working on my counter argument for all of the recent posts! Not bowing out of the debate, vegesaurusRex, just haven't had time to respond yet. I'm hoping people won't buy into your information without seeing my counter.
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?
I obviously do not know what Pope Innocent III was thinking, but for 1200 years the notion that Christ was a vegetarian had vexed the Catholic Church. Vegetarians were an old enemy, and the Pope may have just been killing two birds with one stone.0 -
I'm working on my counter argument for all of the recent posts! Not bowing out of the debate, vegesaurusRex, just haven't had time to respond yet. I'm hoping people won't buy into your information without seeing my counter.
No problem, Macpatti, but I don't know how you are going to rebut historical facts.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?
I obviously do not know what Pope Innocent III was thinking, but for 1200 years the notion that Christ was a vegetarian had vexed the Catholic Church. Vegetarians were an old enemy, and the Pope may have just been killing two birds with one stone.
But what was the reasoning for vegetarianism being an enemy? I do not see anything in the doctrines that would consider vegetarianism to be counter to Christianity.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?
I obviously do not know what Pope Innocent III was thinking, but for 1200 years the notion that Christ was a vegetarian had vexed the Catholic Church. Vegetarians were an old enemy, and the Pope may have just been killing two birds with one stone.
But what was the reasoning for vegetarianism being an enemy? I do not see anything in the doctrines that would consider vegetarianism to be counter to Christianity.
What would be the doctrinal reason for requiring the believe that the earth is 6,000 years old?
Vegetarianism was associated with heretics. That is probably reason enough.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?
I obviously do not know what Pope Innocent III was thinking, but for 1200 years the notion that Christ was a vegetarian had vexed the Catholic Church. Vegetarians were an old enemy, and the Pope may have just been killing two birds with one stone.
But what was the reasoning for vegetarianism being an enemy? I do not see anything in the doctrines that would consider vegetarianism to be counter to Christianity.
What would be the doctrinal reason for requiring the believe that the earth is 6,000 years old?
Vegetarianism was associated with heretics. That is probably reason enough.
Well, the literalism in the Bible would imply that the Earth cannot be older than that by counting the years and lifespans of all of the people mentioned in the Old Testament. I think you are then confusing heresy and vegetarianism. I believe the power consolidation that led to the persecution/destruction of the heretical groups was not motivated by the fact that they were vegetarianism but rather by the fact that they were not beholden to the Roman Church. The fact that some of the groups were vegetarian is a coincidence .0 -
What would be the doctrinal reason for requiring the believe that the earth is 6,000 years old?
Vegetarianism was associated with heretics. That is probably reason enough.
Also, vegetarianism was associated with non mainstream sects since at least Periclean Athens. There were Jewish vegetarian sects, the Therapeutae, Essenes and Nazarenes, all probably originating from the Pythagoreans, who were also vegetarian. Vegetarians were known as non-conformist to whatever the dominant beliefs were. That is still true.0 -
Does every Debate here have to digress to Religion?
And by the way, "forcing" your child to be a vegetarian? What is wrong with eating healthy? If that is the way the parents' eat, then it would be natural that the children are being brought up that way. I don't consider it "forced". It shows a lot more care on the parents' part than driving through McDonalds for convenience.0 -
Well, the literalism in the Bible would imply that the Earth cannot be older than that by counting the years and lifespans of all of the people mentioned in the Old Testament. I think you are then confusing heresy and vegetarianism. I believe the power consolidation that led to the persecution/destruction of the heretical groups was not motivated by the fact that they were vegetarianism but rather by the fact that they were not beholden to the Roman Church. The fact that some of the groups were vegetarian is a coincidence .
All I can say is that having studied early Church history and Ancient History quite extensively is that I disagree. Vegetarianism was a BIG DEAL.0 -
Does every Debate here have to digress to Religion?
And by the way, "forcing" your child to be a vegetarian? What is wrong with eating healthy? If that is the way the parents' eat, then it would be natural that the children are being brought up that way. I don't consider it "forced". It shows a lot more care on the parents' part than driving through McDonalds for convenience.
Actually I thought I was having a semi-private conversation with MacPatti, but I welcome others to the religion topic. Bear in mind that MacPatti and I are very knowledgeable about the time period under discussion although we seem to disagree on just about everything. Nonetheless, I do not wish to monopolize the group. You are probably right and maybe we should relocate this discussion to a different group.0 -
We're in a debate with "ethical" vegans and vegetarians. I think it's quite reasonable to think religion may come up when someone is speaking of ethics, morals, murders, etc.Does every Debate here have to digress to Religion?0 -
Our discussion has much to do with whether or not Jesus ate meat. Roaddog knows he's welcome to ignore our posts.Actually I thought I was having a semi-private conversation with MacPatti, but I welcome others to the religion topic. Bear in mind that MacPatti and I are very knowledgeable about the time period under discussion although we seem to disagree on just about everything. Nonetheless, I do not wish to monopolize the group. You are probably right and maybe we should relocate this discussion to a different group.0 -
Does every Debate here have to digress to Religion?
And by the way, "forcing" your child to be a vegetarian? What is wrong with eating healthy? If that is the way the parents' eat, then it would be natural that the children are being brought up that way. I don't consider it "forced". It shows a lot more care on the parents' part than driving through McDonalds for convenience.
Actually I thought I was having a semi-private conversation with MacPatti, but I welcome others to the religion topic. Bear in mind that MacPatti and I are very knowledgeable about the time period under discussion although we seem to disagree on just about everything. Nonetheless, I do not wish to monopolize the group. You are probably right and maybe we should relocate this discussion to a different group.
Eh. Discussions evolve the way they evolve. Religion is a part of everyone's life, whether you believe in God or are an avowed Atheist. It is all over society. I think it's a natural progression for a lot of discussions to head in that direction. Not to mention that religion has dominated our history and the reasons behind nearly everything that happens can be traced to it.0 -
Well, the literalism in the Bible would imply that the Earth cannot be older than that by counting the years and lifespans of all of the people mentioned in the Old Testament. I think you are then confusing heresy and vegetarianism. I believe the power consolidation that led to the persecution/destruction of the heretical groups was not motivated by the fact that they were vegetarianism but rather by the fact that they were not beholden to the Roman Church. The fact that some of the groups were vegetarian is a coincidence .
All I can say is that having studied early Church history and Ancient History quite extensively is that I disagree. Vegetarianism was a BIG DEAL.
Well, in studying for my degree in Philosophy and Religion, there was very little focus on the diets of those that were considered heretics. I also see that some of the Saints were vegetarians. I think you are assigning your worldview to your research.0 -
Well, the literalism in the Bible would imply that the Earth cannot be older than that by counting the years and lifespans of all of the people mentioned in the Old Testament. I think you are then confusing heresy and vegetarianism. I believe the power consolidation that led to the persecution/destruction of the heretical groups was not motivated by the fact that they were vegetarianism but rather by the fact that they were not beholden to the Roman Church. The fact that some of the groups were vegetarian is a coincidence .
All I can say is that having studied early Church history and Ancient History quite extensively is that I disagree. Vegetarianism was a BIG DEAL.
Well, in studying for my degree in Philosophy and Religion, there was very little focus on the diets of those that were considered heretics. I also see that some of the Saints were vegetarians. I think you are assigning your worldview to your research.
I have a bachelor's degree in philosophy (U. of Pennsylvania) and we never discussed this topic either. But then, why would we? Vegetarianism is not considered a rigorous philosophy, nor is it considered a religion.0 -
What was the reasoning for the early church to stamp out vegetarianism? Was it some kind of threat?
Someone else answered this, but it reminded me of something. A friend of mine from high school was a super liberal atheist for most of her younger years and has become a Bible-thumping, ultra-conservative Southern Baptist (though she's mellowed a bit since she first went in that direction).
She has made the argument that a person cannot be a Christian if that person doesn't eat meat or wear animal skins (leather and fur). Her reasoning is the line in Genesis about God giving dominion to man over the animals.
I feel that the word "dominion" tends to be up to interpretation. Does dominion mean to dominate at all costs, or does it imply stewardship? Technically, parents have "dominion" over their children, but it's generally frowned upon to eat them.0 -
Does every Debate here have to digress to Religion?
And by the way, "forcing" your child to be a vegetarian? What is wrong with eating healthy? If that is the way the parents' eat, then it would be natural that the children are being brought up that way. I don't consider it "forced". It shows a lot more care on the parents' part than driving through McDonalds for convenience.
Actually I thought I was having a semi-private conversation with MacPatti, but I welcome others to the religion topic. Bear in mind that MacPatti and I are very knowledgeable about the time period under discussion although we seem to disagree on just about everything. Nonetheless, I do not wish to monopolize the group. You are probably right and maybe we should relocate this discussion to a different group.
Eh. Discussions evolve the way they evolve. Religion is a part of everyone's life, whether you believe in God or are an avowed Atheist. It is all over society. I think it's a natural progression for a lot of discussions to head in that direction. Not to mention that religion has dominated our history and the reasons behind nearly everything that happens can be traced to it.
I disagree. Religion is not a part of everone's life. Except for in this forum. it is not part of my life at all. I prefer not to discuss it and would rather just debate the highlighted issue without hearing about the religious aspects.
It may be part of your everyday life and, while I respect that, I don't want to relate every issue to God. I am passionate about Motorcycles, Soccer and Cooking. I could probably relate vegetarianism to soccer somehow, but who really cares?
When I want to talk Soccer, I discuss it with my team mates.
When I want to talk motorcycles, I discuss with the guys I ride with.
Cooking may be applicable here.0 -
Does every Debate here have to digress to Religion?
And by the way, "forcing" your child to be a vegetarian? What is wrong with eating healthy? If that is the way the parents' eat, then it would be natural that the children are being brought up that way. I don't consider it "forced". It shows a lot more care on the parents' part than driving through McDonalds for convenience.
Actually I thought I was having a semi-private conversation with MacPatti, but I welcome others to the religion topic. Bear in mind that MacPatti and I are very knowledgeable about the time period under discussion although we seem to disagree on just about everything. Nonetheless, I do not wish to monopolize the group. You are probably right and maybe we should relocate this discussion to a different group.
Eh. Discussions evolve the way they evolve. Religion is a part of everyone's life, whether you believe in God or are an avowed Atheist. It is all over society. I think it's a natural progression for a lot of discussions to head in that direction. Not to mention that religion has dominated our history and the reasons behind nearly everything that happens can be traced to it.
I disagree. Religion is not a part of everone's life. Except for in this forum. it is not part of my life at all. I prefer not to discuss it and would rather just debate the highlighted issue without hearing about the religious aspects.
It may be part of your everyday life and, while I respect that, I don't want to relate every issue to God. I am passionate about Motorcycles, Soccer and Cooking. I could probably relate vegetarianism to soccer somehow, but who really cares?
When I want to talk Soccer, I discuss it with my team mates.
When I want to talk motorcycles, I discuss with the guys I ride with.
Cooking may be applicable here.
You just proved my point, though. You are so turned off by it that you try to avoid it, which makes it a part of your life.
As I said, whether you believe and practice or are exactly opposite, it is part of you. Because you either seek it or avoid it. If it really didn't matter to you, you would overlook the side discussion or leave the thread quietly when it turned to that. But it's important and bothersome enough to you that you had to comment.
No, I am not a religious person. But religion has shaped world history since humans first crawled out of the ooze.0 -
I feel that the word "dominion" tends to be up to interpretation. Does dominion mean to dominate at all costs, or does it imply stewardship? Technically, parents have "dominion" over their children, but it's generally frowned upon to eat them.
Clearly, you never read A Modest Proposal! ;-)0 -
Surely you understand how it enters into some of our topics on here, though. That's why we have this group; so we can discuss things like religion and politics that cannot be discussed in the public forums. You're free to start a "Non-Religous Motorcycle, Soccer, and Cooking" group. As the moderator of the group, you can even make it "against the rules" to discuss religion.I disagree. Religion is not a part of everone's life. Except for in this forum. it is not part of my life at all. I prefer not to discuss it and would rather just debate the highlighted issue without hearing about the religious aspects.
It may be part of your everyday life and, while I respect that, I don't want to relate every issue to God. I am passionate about Motorcycles, Soccer and Cooking. I could probably relate vegetarianism to soccer somehow, but who really cares?
When I want to talk Soccer, I discuss it with my team mates.
When I want to talk motorcycles, I discuss with the guys I ride with.Cooking may be applicable here.0
