Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Options
Replies
-
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?
How compassionate you truly are.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?[/quote]How compassionate you truly are.
Because I like bacon and was being lighthearted in this discussion, I am now an uncompassionate person? It was a joke; lighten up.0 -
Who does? Who claims that the pope is perfect and never makes errors? You've never seen me make such a statement about this pope or any others.Yeah, but we don't have a Pope who is incapable of making errors in matters of faith and morals.0 -
My expert said it meant fish IN ATHENS. I don't think the text we are discussing was written in Athens. He said it might have had a different meaning in Palestine. Also the word had about four prime meanings, as I said. Outside of Athens, all of them were not fish. Liddell & Scott back him up.
AGAIN: This excursion into that Greek word is a "red herring" (pun intended). No one disputes the meaning of "ichthus" (fish) and that word is used in Matthew, Mark and Luke in the context of the loaves and fishes miracle. That John uses a word that has variations of meaning, that actually includes fish, should not be a cause of confusion.
Again,if that were the only problem, you would be right. However, I brought up many others.0 -
Which I was successfully able to refute.Again,if that were the only problem, you would be right. However, I brought up many others.0 -
As a believing Catholic, I wouldn't play the "agenda" card if I were you. No one could be more rightfully accused of having an agenda than you.
WHAT???? I have zero agenda on whether or not people eat meat. That is what began this debate; no? YOU do have an agenda, so you're going to try using ONE word, that can also mean fish, as a point of debate?
I have never tried to get someone to convert to Catholicism. I defend my faith, debate issues, and practice my faith, but with no agenda. However, as a vegetarian, you do have one. You will even use religion to support your claims. You claimed Jesus was a vegetarian. The debate started when I was refuting that. You then went on the attack of the Catholic church. Go back and read this thread. Never once did I attack someone's desire to be a vegan/vegetarian, and I even supported parents who choose to raise their children that way.
Your agenda is to promote the Catholic view of history. My agenda vis a vis history is to find the truth, which,even if it is NOT that Christ was a vegetarian is certainly not the Catholic version.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?
Please provide the primary source documents for your claims on St. Dominic. I looked around some but did not find them. Since you are "up" on this issue, perhaps you can direct me to the primary sources. Concerning the Pope, I thought I indicated that he apparently admitted guilt. Where someone is clearly guilty, I have no argument against condemning their actions. By the way, though, I'd still like to know what the point is? Do you claim that being a vegetarian makes you better than everyone else so that you are incapable, because of your vegetarianism, of doing terrible things? Since I never claimed religious people were immune from doing evil acts I continue to be a little confused about why you are insisting on me declaring people 1,000 years ago "butchers," etc. If they were, they did very evil things and I am sad they did so. But, having said that, I don't know where that leaves us since nothing really new has been added to our conversation.0 -
I will answer your question about the Albigensians if you answer mine about Pope Innocent III and St Dominic being evil murderers. If after everything you said, you cannot bring yourself to admit that those two butchers are evil and culpable for the deaths of hundreds of thousands then I would have to conclude that you are a hypocrite who is only pretending to be concerned about the deaths of innocents at the hands of Holy Mother Church.
Are you serious? I've addressed this several times now. Let me give you some of my responses on this subject:
8:09PM last night I typed: That being said, I in no way wish to defend any evil that has been done in the name of Christianity, Catholicism, democracy, the United States, human beings in general, etc. (For instance, one source I read spoke of the treatment and slaughtering of Native Americans as the greatest slaughter in all of history. I'm not going to move out of the USA, though, because of the evils of our historical past.) We are capable of doing terrible things and I have no reason to deny anything wrong that has been done in the name of Christianity. Again, becoming a Christian does not make a person impeccable and no form of Christianity I would defend has ever said such a thing. I hope and pray that all Christians will become more and more consistent with the beliefs we profess and am saddened when we fail. What we are discussing is the problem of hypocrisy and inconsistency not what the Church formally teaches.
At 9:06AM today I typed: Further, I clearly stated that I have no interest in defending anything evil that has been done and condemn it just like anyone else.
At 12:10PM today I typed both of these statements: 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.
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.
No, I never said all Catholics were murders. I specifically named the people I accused of murder.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?How compassionate you truly are.
Because I like bacon and was being lighthearted in this discussion, I am now an uncompassionate person? It was a joke; lighten up.
[/quote]
My wife said the same thing. I guess I didn't get your joke.0 -
Even with the wink at the end of it?My wife said the same thing. I guess I didn't get your joke.0 -
No, I never said all Catholics were murders. I specifically named the people I accused of murder.
Nor did I ever make that claim. Good grief. I've granted you that Catholics have done evil things and encouraged evil things in the past. I'm not sure what more you want me to say. Or why.0 -
Who does? Who claims that the pope is perfect and never makes errors? You've never seen me make such a statement about this pope or any others.Yeah, but we don't have a Pope who is incapable of making errors in matters of faith and morals.
That is the official position of the Catholic Church, that the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Then they modified that of course after some real jerko papal mistakes, like the earth being flat and the sun revolving around the earth and all that. Now I believe the official party line is the Pope is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra.0 -
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.And I replied that animals can feel love, compassion, friendship and can even communicate with words. Since they have everything that makes life worth living, that should be enough to vouchsafe their right to life. I received no response to that.
Your "evidence" for your claims on animals was the link regarding Koko, as I recall. I did reply that the evidence for Koko's linguistic abilities was a matter of significant dispute. Concerning your other claims, there is simply no evidence that lower animals are capable of transcendent actions. Do you have positive evidence that animals other than humans can appreciate the conversation we are having? Further, it appears to me that animals kill one another, often for food. If that is the way of "nature," upon what grounds do you say it is immoral to follow that path? With respect to humans, I have argued that it is our capacity for knowing and loving God, hope for unending life, transcendence above mere survival in our environment, etc., that ground the unique moral nature of human beings. Because animals have some experiences that resemble our own doesn't make those experiences identical nor does it imply that there is no difference between us.
In what do you ground your moral condemnation of others who think it is morally acceptable to use animals for human good?0 -
Which I was successfully able to refute.Again,if that were the only problem, you would be right. However, I brought up many others.
Ha!0 -
I should bring out the pinata about now... at least when beating it candy comes out....0
-
Ha!
Is this where you come in and attack the Pope again? Or call me dumb and uncompassionate? Or use inflammatory words like "murder" or "butcher"?0 -
I should bring out the pinata about now... at least when beating it candy comes out....
Agreed. We're going in circles. It's about time to call it.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?
Please provide the primary source documents for your claims on St. Dominic. I looked around some but did not find them. Since you are "up" on this issue, perhaps you can direct me to the primary sources. Concerning the Pope, I thought I indicated that he apparently admitted guilt. Where someone is clearly guilty, I have no argument against condemning their actions. By the way, though, I'd still like to know what the point is? Do you claim that being a vegetarian makes you better than everyone else so that you are incapable, because of your vegetarianism, of doing terrible things? Since I never claimed religious people were immune from doing evil acts I continue to be a little confused about why you are insisting on me declaring people 1,000 years ago "butchers," etc. If they were, they did very evil things and I am sad they did so. But, having said that, I don't know where that leaves us since nothing really new has been added to our conversation.
If you are a doctrinaire Catholic, you will never admit that a Pope or a Saint was an evil murderer. You still haven't said it. Refusing to admit it will prove your agenda.
And as for St Dominic, I could give you several sources that cover his attrocities in detail, but since you yourself used the Infidels' site, I will give you a quote from there:
When you think of saints, you envision stained-glass pictures of piety. But the truth can be horribly different. Consider Pope Pius V:
When he was Grand Inquisitor, he sent Catholic troops to kill 2,000 Waldensian Protestants in Calabria in southern Italy.
After becoming pope, he sent Catholic troops to kill Huguenot Protestants in France. He ordered the commander to execute every prisoner taken.
Pius also launched the final crusade against the Muslims, sending a Christian naval armada to slaughter thousands in the Battle of Lepanto in 1571.
And he intensified the Roman Inquisition, torturing and burning Catholics whose beliefs varied from official dogma.
After his death, he was canonized a saint. He still is venerated by the church.
It is as if Adolf Hitler were elevated to sainthood.
Or consider Saint Dominic, the king of torture. He founded the Dominican order, whose priests were judges of the Inquisition. They presided while screaming victims were twisted and ripped on fiendish pain machines until they confessed to thinking unorthodox thoughts. Then the Dominicans led the broken "heretics" in grand processions to the stake.
The priests also tortured thousands of women into confessing they were witches who had sex with Satan, changed themselves into animals, flew through the sky, caused storms, and the like. The "witches" also were burned for their confessions.
Or consider Saint Cyril, whose monks and followers beat to death the great woman scientist, Hypatia, director of the Alexandria Library, for her scientific approach to nature.
Or Saint Pedro Arbries, a Spanish inquisitor who tortured and burned former Jews for harboring their old beliefs. An ex-Jew assassinated him, and he was canonized as a martyr.
Anyway, I have a hard time believing that you are unaware that St Dominic was a murderer. Even the Singing Nuns knew that.0 -
Ok... I'm curious because I just saw this on this page... but how does someone get -4 posts?
edited for clarity.0 -
what do the past sins of the Catholic Church have to do with the morality of vegetarianism?0
