Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Replies
-
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 should not be a cause of confusion.
You just said this:If that were the only anomaly you would be correct. I have already given you many, many others that would lead one to think that perhaps this is more than a choice of words.
So, even your "Greek experts" are saying that this word was used to mean fish! Why would YOU believe the choice of the word was made to say it WASN'T fish? Oh, that's right, because you have an agenda.I already have a response from one of my Greek experts who reminded me that oψαρῖον is actually a diminutive of oψον. Oψον can have the meaning "flesh or fish" particularly in Athens, but it could also have other meanings including 1. anything eaten with bread to give it flavor, a zest or a relish, 2, sauce seasoning, 3. any dainty food, at Athens mostly fish. These are all the primary meanings. Looking up oψον in my Liddell & Scott this was all confirmed. (I cannot answer for any on-line versions)
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.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.0 -
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 should not be a cause of confusion.
You just said this:If that were the only anomaly you would be correct. I have already given you many, many others that would lead one to think that perhaps this is more than a choice of words.
So, even your "Greek experts" are saying that this word was used to mean fish! Why would YOU believe the choice of the word was made to say it WASN'T fish? Oh, that's right, because you have an agenda.I already have a response from one of my Greek experts who reminded me that oψαρῖον is actually a diminutive of oψον. Oψον can have the meaning "flesh or fish" particularly in Athens, but it could also have other meanings including 1. anything eaten with bread to give it flavor, a zest or a relish, 2, sauce seasoning, 3. any dainty food, at Athens mostly fish. These are all the primary meanings. Looking up oψον in my Liddell & Scott this was all confirmed. (I cannot answer for any on-line versions)
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.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.
Let's skip the shoulder rubbing and instead of chocolate frogs, a nice, big juicy steak.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.0 -
Years ago, I recall reading about traditional foods in ancient Rome. One was called garum, a pungent relish/sauce made from fish. Just wondering if you know if this garum was popular throughout the Roman empire at the time Jesus lived.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.
Let's skip the shoulder rubbing and instead of chocolate frogs, a nice, big juicy steak.
Great. I've seen this before. I call it the big fat steak-in-the-eye to irritate vegetarians move. Yawn.0 -
I think you'll agree that I have never used any predictable jabs to irritate any vegetarians on here.Great. I've seen this before I call it the big fat steak-in-the-eye to irritate vegetarians move. Yawn.0 -
I think you'll agree that I have never used any predictable jabs to irritate any vegetarians on here.Great. I've seen this before I call it the big fat steak-in-the-eye to irritate vegetarians move. Yawn.
Not once, no. Not you. But, I really don't want to see this thread go in that direction either.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?
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.0 -
Years ago, I recall reading about traditional foods in ancient Rome. One was called garum, a pungent relish/sauce made from fish. Just wondering if you know if this garum was popular throughout the Roman empire at the time Jesus lived.
I've heard it was especially popular among the Romans but I don't know how widespread its popularity was.0 -
I think you'll agree that I have never used any predictable jabs to irritate any vegetarians on here.Great. I've seen this before I call it the big fat steak-in-the-eye to irritate vegetarians move. Yawn.
Not once, no. Not you. But, I really don't want to see this thread go in that direction either.
No intention of irritation. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. Sorry for the offence.0 -
I think you'll agree that I have never used any predictable jabs to irritate any vegetarians on here.Great. I've seen this before I call it the big fat steak-in-the-eye to irritate vegetarians move. Yawn.
Not once, no. Not you. But, I really don't want to see this thread go in that direction either.
No intention of irritation. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. Sorry for the offence.
Offense0 -
I think you'll agree that I have never used any predictable jabs to irritate any vegetarians on here.Great. I've seen this before I call it the big fat steak-in-the-eye to irritate vegetarians move. Yawn.
Not once, no. Not you. But, I really don't want to see this thread go in that direction either.
No intention of irritation. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. Sorry for the offence.
Offense
It's okay. My reaction is a bit knee-jerk from past threads cluttered up with pictures of rare steak, and comments which seemed to poke fun at the sensibilities of vegetarians. I appreciate the attempt to lighten the mood, though. :flowerforyou:0 -
I think you'll agree that I have never used any predictable jabs to irritate any vegetarians on here.Great. I've seen this before I call it the big fat steak-in-the-eye to irritate vegetarians move. Yawn.
Not once, no. Not you. But, I really don't want to see this thread go in that direction either.
No intention of irritation. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. Sorry for the offence.
Offense
It's okay. My reaction is a bit knee-jerk from past threads cluttered up with pictures of rare steak, and comments which seemed to poke fun at the sensibilities of vegetarians. I appreciate the attempt to lighten the mood, though. :flowerforyou:
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.
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.
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).
Not true. I told you my philosophical basis was the Categorical Imperative. You then dropped the discussion.
Given your comments on plants, too, do you avoid eating plants?
What? What are you talking about? I am a vegetarian. I eat plants.
If not, what objectively differentiates plants from animals?
Again, you obviously were not paying attention. A nervous system, brain, or nerve ganglia separates animals from plants. Except of course for the most primitive.
What makes using any of these "immoral"?
What? Are you sure you are talking about what I said or what someone else said?0 -
I think you'll agree that I have never used any predictable jabs to irritate any vegetarians on here.Great. I've seen this before I call it the big fat steak-in-the-eye to irritate vegetarians move. Yawn.
Not once, no. Not you. But, I really don't want to see this thread go in that direction either.
:flowerforyou:
No intention of irritation. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. Sorry for the offence.
Offense
It's okay. My reaction is a bit knee-jerk from past threads cluttered up with pictures of rare steak, and comments which seemed to poke fun at the sensibilities of vegetarians. I appreciate the attempt to lighten the mood, though. :flowerforyou:0 -
I think you'll agree that I have never used any predictable jabs to irritate any vegetarians on here.Great. I've seen this before I call it the big fat steak-in-the-eye to irritate vegetarians move. Yawn.
Not once, no. Not you. But, I really don't want to see this thread go in that direction either.
:flowerforyou:
No intention of irritation. Just trying to lighten the mood a bit. Sorry for the offence.
Offense
It's okay. My reaction is a bit knee-jerk from past threads cluttered up with pictures of rare steak, and comments which seemed to poke fun at the sensibilities of vegetarians. I appreciate the attempt to lighten the mood, though. :flowerforyou:
:flowerforyou: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.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.
Who do you think the Papal Legate on the crusade was? Good Old St D, the butchering murdering Bas---d. Reminds me of a song from the '60's by the singing nuns:
"Dominique, nique, nique s'en allait tout simplement
Routier pauvre et chantant
En tous chemins, en tous lieux, il ne parle que du bon Dieu
Il ne parle que du bon Dieu
A l'e poque ou Jean-sans-Terre de' Angleterre etait Roi
Dominique, notre Pere, combattit les Albigeois"
NIce huh. I call it the Buchenwald Rock, the Catholic Churches contribution to '60's culture.
(Moi, j'espere que vous pouvez parler Francais.)
Besides historical curiosity, I am still wondering what the ultimate point is. Is the point that all Catholics are evil murderers?
Of course not! My wife was raised Catholic, and she couldn't murder a fly. She could probably murder me, however.
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.
I think by trying to play down the gravity of things like the Inquisition they are denying it.
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/
Yeah, but we don't have a Pope who is incapable of making errors in matters of faith and morals.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.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
This discussion has been closed.