Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Options
Replies
-
You are obviously very sensitive about this subject. I don't think anyone looking at the evidence will conclude, however, that you are objectively looking at the evidence. I included a skeptic's website on this issue simply because I thought it was interesting that a category of people that tend to try to discredit Christianity as much as possible at least find this issue one that has been exaggerated (and because you also used an "opinion piece". Also, given that you know as much as anyone on this issue (according to your testimony), it is interesting that you did not correct the historical data of the links I sent.
*********************
Okay, I can do that. Here is the first batch:
Albigensian Crusade (1208-49) 1,000,000
The traditional death toll given for the war against the Cathars is one million, which is repeated in these:
John M. Robertson, A Short History of Christianity, London: Watts, 1902, p.254 ("It has been reckoned that a million of all ages and both sexes were slain.")
Christopher Brookmyre, Not the End of the World (New York: Grove Press, 1998) p.39
Max Dimont, Jews, God, and History, (New York: Penguin, 1994) p.225: 1,000,000 Frenchmen suspected of being Albigensians slain
Dizerega Gus, Pagans & Christians: The Personal Spiritual Experience (St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn, 2001) p.195
Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History (Orlando, FL: Morningstar & Lark, 1995) p.74
Michael Newton, Holy Homicide (Port Townsend, WA: Loompanics Unlimited, 1998) p.117
Rummel: 200,000 democides
Individual incidents:
Flexner, Pessimist's Guide to History: 20,000 massacred in Beziers.
Ellerbe:
Beziers: 20-100,000
St. Nazair: 12,000
Tolouse: 10,000
Newton: 20-100,000 massacred in Beziers.
Sumption, Albigensian Crusade (1978): <5,000 k. by Inquisition [ca. 1229-1279]
When you have finished giving the party line for each of these, I have plenty more for you.
***************************
Instead, you simply dismiss it and cling to your unnamed sources. You chose a highly suspect source as your initial one rather than a more respectable, scholarly one. You also dismiss my comments on the Inquisition and seem to display no awareness of the vast literature that has been produced in recent decades based on the troves of documents that have become available. All of this suggests you have more of a "Fundamentalist" attitude on this subject than a careful, unbiased, critical one.
*************************
MacPatti, you are spouting the party line at every turn. I have no party line. I am a religion of one. My conclusions are, I believe, somewhat novel at least. And you get caught up in arguing about whether the Pope murdered one million people or only two hundred thousand, as if that latter figure would somehow make him warmer and fuzzier.
**************************
Further, I clearly stated that I have no interest in defending anything evil that has been done and condemn it just like anyone else. I just think the facts should first be determined rather than perpetuating falsehoods and exaggerations. The fact is that it does make a difference whether 10,000 people died in a series of wars over thirty years or whether a million died. Both are bad and to be condemned but there is a difference of 900,000.
******************
So what? Is the Pope any less a murderer?
********************
Also, your replies are becoming increasingly rhetorical and lacking in substance. For instance, on at least two occasions you ridiculed my explanation of "myth" and early Christian history but, when asked to show me something illogical or impossible in my explanation, you simply turned to other things.
***********************
Give me a precise example and I will address it.
***********************
On the Albigensians, you insist you have countless standard historical references when my suspicion is that they are mostly copying each other. I looked through several of my own histories of the middle ages and none of them used the number 1 million for this crusade and a few of them did not even speculate on a number since those matters became apologetical tools in subsequent centuries and are almost certainly embellished. You dismiss the population arguments but do nothing to show how they are in error.
****************************
The argument is a red herring. If you are a murderer for killing a million people, you don't become any less of a murderer for killing 200,000. I have so many sources stating one million deaths in that crusade, I probably could keep throwing them at you for a month. But what is the point. A killer by any other name is still a killer. An organization that condones mass murder doesn't suddenly become nice because it cuts the number of victims down from one million to 200,000. This is not an argument I want to have because it is pointless. It makes no difference which of us is correct in our figures. Pope Innocent III is still a murderer. St Dominic is still a murderer. Innocent people still were butchered because they were vegetarians and heretics.
**********************
The same was done with the Inquisition. Some Protestants inflated the number of those who died in the Inquisition to well over the population of Europe. What is so hard about looking at the data and admitting embellishment if that is what happened?
************************
So WHAT? What is so hard to understand about the fact that the death of thousands is still bad. Not you nor I will ever know how many people died in the Inquisition. The Albegensian Crusade by the way can classified as part of the Inquisition so even using your numbers, and even if no one else died the Inquisition killed 200,000 people at least.
***************************
Of course, we should also not lose sight of the fact that a good while back we talked about the philosophical issues behind vegetarianism and, to my mind, I did not see anything illogical with the position I presented.
************************
What position was that?
************************0 -
Thank you for your interpretation and official explanation which I already knew. I think the letter speaks for itself. It very clearly states that no one bishop is superior to any other. Period. It not only says that, but says it in terms that are strong and unequivocal. It obviously applies to him, as well as anyone else. The way you phrased your reply, you are obviously cutting and pasting from a Catholic source. You say he was "addressing a specific case of a bishop who declared himself "universal bishop." That is true, but you could have said he was addressing the addressee of the letter, John the Faster, Bishop of Constantanople as well, because he was. John the Faster apparently believed that he was Pope. Gregory was chiding him to let him know there is no such thing as Pope. I would say there is virtually no one who is not Catholic who accepts your interpretation. Gregory said what he said and it speaks for itself. Biblical scholars from Calvin to the present agree with my interpretation. Bytheway, so do the Orthodox scholars. Only the Catholics disagree. Imagine that.
As for the population estimates, those are speculation, and even if those estimates were true, that still means the Pope ordered the death of 100,000 to 200,000 vegetarians. That hardly proves your case for you.
I can't tell you how many times I've read or heard people say, "the text speaks for itself," when confronted with the complexities of context. It is absolutely astonishing that Pope Gregory the Great is being used to support the notion that there is no difference between the Church of Rome and its Bishop and all the other bishops. This is simply contrary to numerous texts and actions of this bishop. You can ignore all the other data and insist that this particular text has only the meaning you are giving to it but that just seems historically dishonest to me. It is also amazing that you would cite John Calvin, of all people, in support of your position. He lived long after Gregory and was engaged in a life-long battle against Roman Catholicism. It is also rather interesting you would cite the Orthodox, too. Of course they will disagree with the Catholic reading of this text. It should be noted, however, that even the Orthodox believe there are differences between degrees of "primacy" and historical importance to certain "sees." No Orthodox theologian, for instance, will say that the Patriarch of Constantinople or Jerusalem is no different than another in primacy and standing. You are wading into areas with deep histories and complex distinctions. To take this text, insist on an interpretation and ignore all the other data from both the writer and the historical context seems downright wrong to me. Also, I never cut and paste from anyone. I did read a few articles on this issue since the details were not fresh on my mind, I even included one link so people can read the discussion for themselves, if they are so inclined. Surely you know how people who are not familiar with the complexities of a position can appear to those who are. For instance, I'm sure an evolutionary biologist finds it frustrating to hear people ridicule the theory of evolution or an economist cringes when someone offers a "simple" solution to government spending or a moralist is told that every moral decision is "black and white." I've done enough studying of Catholic theology to know that it is almost never the case that you can consider a text in isolation from a much deeper and richer context that is filled with important nuances and clarifications. The same is true, I'm sure, in every profession and field of study. The more we study the more distinctions must be made.0 -
So WHAT? What is so hard to understand about the fact that the death of thousands is still bad. Not you nor I will ever know how many people died in the Inquisition. The Albegensian Crusade by the way can classified as part of the Inquisition so even using your numbers, and even if no one else died the Inquisition killed 200,000 people at least.
I've never claimed that the deat of thousands is not bad! I've addressed that numerous times here.0 -
Thank you for your interpretation and official explanation which I already knew. I think the letter speaks for itself. It very clearly states that no one bishop is superior to any other. Period. It not only says that, but says it in terms that are strong and unequivocal. It obviously applies to him, as well as anyone else. The way you phrased your reply, you are obviously cutting and pasting from a Catholic source. You say he was "addressing a specific case of a bishop who declared himself "universal bishop." That is true, but you could have said he was addressing the addressee of the letter, John the Faster, Bishop of Constantanople as well, because he was. John the Faster apparently believed that he was Pope. Gregory was chiding him to let him know there is no such thing as Pope. I would say there is virtually no one who is not Catholic who accepts your interpretation. Gregory said what he said and it speaks for itself. Biblical scholars from Calvin to the present agree with my interpretation. Bytheway, so do the Orthodox scholars. Only the Catholics disagree. Imagine that.
As for the population estimates, those are speculation, and even if those estimates were true, that still means the Pope ordered the death of 100,000 to 200,000 vegetarians. That hardly proves your case for you.
I can't tell you how many times I've read or heard people say, "the text speaks for itself," when confronted with the complexities of context. It is absolutely astonishing that Pope Gregory the Great is being used to support the notion that there is no difference between the Church of Rome and its Bishop and all the other bishops. This is simply contrary to numerous texts and actions of this bishop. You can ignore all the other data and insist that this particular text has only the meaning you are giving to it but that just seems historically dishonest to me. It is also amazing that you would cite John Calvin, of all people, in support of your position. He lived long after Gregory and was engaged in a life-long battle against Roman Catholicism. It is also rather interesting you would cite the Orthodox, too. Of course they will disagree with the Catholic reading of this text. It should be noted, however, that even the Orthodox believe there are differences between degrees of "primacy" and historical importance to certain "sees." No Orthodox theologian, for instance, will say that the Patriarch of Constantinople or Jerusalem is no different than another in primacy and standing. You are wading into areas with deep histories and complex distinctions. To take this text, insist on an interpretation and ignore all the other data from both the writer and the historical context seems downright wrong to me. Also, I never cut and paste from anyone. I did read a few articles on this issue since the details were not fresh on my mind, I even included one link so people can read the discussion for themselves, if they are so inclined. Surely you know how people who are not familiar with the complexities of a position can appear to those who are. For instance, I'm sure an evolutionary biologist finds it frustrating to hear people ridicule the theory of evolution or an economist cringes when someone offers a "simple" solution to government spending or a moralist is told that every moral decision is "black and white." I've done enough studying of Catholic theology to know that it is almost never the case that you can consider a text in isolation from a much deeper and richer context that is filled with important nuances and clarifications. The same is true, I'm sure, in every profession and field of study. The more we study the more distinctions must be made.
Okay, I agree in substance with what you are saying, Tell me what else Gregory wrote that supports your position. I certainly cannot guess it.0 -
So WHAT? What is so hard to understand about the fact that the death of thousands is still bad. Not you nor I will ever know how many people died in the Inquisition. The Albegensian Crusade by the way can classified as part of the Inquisition so even using your numbers, and even if no one else died the Inquisition killed 200,000 people at least.
I've never claimed that the deat of thousands is not bad! I've addressed that numerous times here.
Then why are you arguing over two sets of very substantial numbers?
I guess you could end this part of the argument very quickly by admitting that Pope Innocent III was evil and a murderer, and that St Dominic was evil and a murderer. If you cannot admit that, then I think your comments here are very peculiar.0 -
To point out the exaggeration by those who want to attack the Catholic church.Then why are you arguing over two sets of very substantial numbers?0 -
To point out the exaggeration by those who want to attack the Catholic church.Then why are you arguing over two sets of very substantial numbers?
Why? For what purpose? As I said in my edited version of the post you responded to, do you admit that Pope Innocent III and St Dominic were both evil and murderers?0 -
Yes, it sort of feels like the last Harry Potter movie, but instead with good guys on both sides. Chocolate frogs = intrinsic goodness, which surely isn't open to debate, ya' think?
Well, I didn't think of it that way, but that seriously makes sense. :laugh: Those are actually frogs from the Wizarding World of Harry Potter, too! Which I can personally say taste really, really good. Plus you get a neat little holographic card with each one.
What's not to love?
Sorta like our little debate group.
0 -
Okay, I can do that. Here is the first batch:
Albigensian Crusade (1208-49) 1,000,000
The traditional death toll given for the war against the Cathars is one million, which is repeated in these:
John M. Robertson, A Short History of Christianity, London: Watts, 1902, p.254 ("It has been reckoned that a million of all ages and both sexes were slain.")
Christopher Brookmyre, Not the End of the World (New York: Grove Press, 1998) p.39
Max Dimont, Jews, God, and History, (New York: Penguin, 1994) p.225: 1,000,000 Frenchmen suspected of being Albigensians slain
Dizerega Gus, Pagans & Christians: The Personal Spiritual Experience (St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn, 2001) p.195
Helen Ellerbe, The Dark Side of Christian History (Orlando, FL: Morningstar & Lark, 1995) p.74
Michael Newton, Holy Homicide (Port Townsend, WA: Loompanics Unlimited, 1998) p.117
Rummel: 200,000 democides
Individual incidents:
Flexner, Pessimist's Guide to History: 20,000 massacred in Beziers.
Ellerbe:
Beziers: 20-100,000
St. Nazair: 12,000
Tolouse: 10,000
Newton: 20-100,000 massacred in Beziers.
Sumption, Albigensian Crusade (1978): <5,000 k. by Inquisition [ca. 1229-1279]
When you have finished giving the party line for each of these, I have plenty more for you.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/elbee.html
See the above for a reply to one of the sources you referenced.
Surely you are kidding with this list! The several that I looked up give no evidence of respectable credentials as historians. The same ones I looked at all appear in the genre of conspiracy theory-type books. I encourage anyone who cares about this issue to look at reviews of these sources and draw their own conclusions. These books simply have no credibility as historical sources.
To add to things, do you believe all the teachings of the Albigensians?0 -
Of course, we should also not lose sight of the fact that a good while back we talked about the philosophical issues behind vegetarianism and, to my mind, I did not see anything illogical with the position I presented.What position was that?
The position I presented was that (a) there is an objective grounds for giving to human life the "right to life" (transcendent thought, etc.) and (b) these grounds are not evident in lower animals. I asked you for a basis for a moral prohibition against using animals for human good (food, clothing) and received nothing in reply (except emotionally-based thinking). Given your comments on plants, too, do you avoid eating plants? If not, what objectively differentiates plants from animals? What makes using any of these "immoral"?0 -
As I said in my edited version of the post you responded to, do you admit that Pope Innocent III and St Dominic were both evil and murderers?
You must have edited after I had already replied. I have already granted you that horrible things have been done in the name of Christianity! From what I do know, Innocent III bears significant guilt and I have no problem saying he supported and encouraged evil acts. My recollection is that he admitted as much later in life. I am more skeptical of your claims on St. Dominic but, again, need to run down the sources before making a solid judgment.
Besides historical curiosity, I am still wondering what the ultimate point is. Is the point that all Catholics are evil murderers? If so, that is simply false. I know many who are not. Is the point that human beings, even religious ones in positions of power, can do terrible, evil things? I've already said that is the case. The Catholic Church has never denied that such is the case, too. Is your point that vegetarians are incapable of doing bad things? I'm not sure what to make of it, but see the website below for an alternative perspective (if you think vegetarianism guarantees one cannot do evil things). Apparently some pretty bad people have been vegetarians.
http://www.vegetariansareevil.com/0 -
:::Throws bacon in the air and runs:: :laugh:
What happened to the meat vs vegan diet debate. It went way off on tangent there. I just have a question. Certain plants do need meat to survive. Look at the venus fly trap, sundew plant, etc. I don't see PETA going after them. Anyway, to each his own. I don't force my children to have certain diets. Sometimes they want a meat, sometimes they don't. I do see that when they don't have a meat for dinner, they will wake up and say they're still hungry. Anyway, live and let live.0 -
:::Throws bacon in the air and runs:: :laugh:
What happened to the meat vs vegan diet debate. It went way off on tangent there. I just have a question. Certain plants do need meat to survive. Look at the venus fly trap, sundew plant, etc. I don't see PETA going after them. Anyway, to each his own. I don't force my children to have certain diets. Sometimes they want a meat, sometimes they don't. I do see that when they don't have a meat for dinner, they will wake up and say they're still hungry. Anyway, live and let live.
As I understand it, this debate has to do with whether vegetarianism was the practice/intent of Jesus and his disciples. I don't think you can discuss that without bringing in the history of the early church, and hash out which documents are authentic. It arose in response to a question: 'What grounding do you have for your ethical vegetarianism?"
Now, I gotta say, if you are going to throw bacon, could you please make it Fakin' Bacon?0 -
If you're throwing it my way, make it real bacon and extra crispy!Now, I gotta say, if you are going to throw bacon, could you please make it Fakin' Bacon? 0 -
Wait, I thought the debate was about whether it was ethical to force your child to be a Vegan/Vegetarian.... but the Tangent that ensued was so much more interesting... I have just been sitting back eating popcorn... well now it's my tuna sandwich for lunch...0
-
If you're throwing it my way, make it real bacon and extra crispy!Now, I gotta say, if you are going to throw bacon, could you please make it Fakin' Bacon?
Now...now....until these big questions are resolved, I think this is premature. Even a bonehead like me knows about pork and Leviticus. 0 -
Ha! There you go with that false humility again!Now...now....until these big questions are resolved, I think this is premature. Even a bonehead like me knows about pork and Leviticus.0 -
Wait, I thought the debate was about whether it was ethical to force your child to be a Vegan/Vegetarian.... but the Tangent that ensued was so much more interesting... I have just been sitting back eating popcorn... well now it's my tuna sandwich for lunch...
They ARE good! We should rub their shoulders and feed them chocolate frogs for added sustenance. In a way, it would be nice if this debate could be clipped and attached to a new thread, and more appropriately named. I don't think that's possible though.0 -
Ha! There you go with that false humility again!Now...now....until these big questions are resolved, I think this is premature. Even a bonehead like me knows about pork and Leviticus.
I wish it were false! It is totally the result of being out of my league. I don't do religious debates because it doesn't take long before it's clear this isn't a strength of mine.0 -
Wait, I thought the debate was about whether it was ethical to force your child to be a Vegan/Vegetarian.... but the Tangent that ensued was so much more interesting... I have just been sitting back eating popcorn... well now it's my tuna sandwich for lunch...
They ARE good! We should rub their shoulders and feed them chocolate frogs for added sustenance. In a way, it would be nice if this debate could be clipped and attached to a new thread, and more appropriately named. I don't think that's possible though.
I wish my year pass hadn't expired to Islands of Adventure, because now I really want a chocolate frog. :laugh:0
