# Proof the English eat their young



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22362831


----------



## Shoe City Thinker (Oct 8, 2012)

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your children???? You can't have any pudding if you don't eat your children!!!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Shoe City Thinker said:


> How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your children???? You can't have any pudding if you don't eat your children!!!


 Ah, Pink Floyd.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Actually it would be more accurate to title this thread 'Proof that the first Americans ate their young'


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Actually it would be more accurate to title this thread 'Proof that the first Americans ate their young'


Quite. I'm not aware of evidence of English people being cannibals, not yet anyway.....

However, there's plenty of other evidence of Americans engaging in this unusual diet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Americans? Brits/the English? Regardless, doesn't it all go back to The Garden of Eden and Eve convincing Adam to bite into that damned apple?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Americans? Brits/the English? Regardless, doesn't it all go back to The Garden of Eden and Eve convincing Adam to bite into that damned apple?


The leather bound illustrated Bible I had as a very young boy was well thumbed on the page which depicted a very voluptous Eve. Ahem. :redface:


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

It appears that by taking such drastic measures, several people managed to survive the ordeal. I'm not sure why anyone would begrudge people in such extreme circumstances their survival (especially as it appears that those eaten were already dead).


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Actually it would be more accurate to title this thread 'Proof that the first Americans ate their young'


Article~Smithsonian researchers believe the dead child became food for a community struggling to survive the harsh winter of 1609-10, known to historians as the Starving Time.

Over 150 years before the United States declared their independence.

For your next trick, deny the racism and slavery you filthy English k-niggets planted all over the world!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Article~Smithsonian researchers believe the dead child became food for a community struggling to survive the harsh winter of 1609-10, known to historians as the Starving Time.
> 
> Over 150 years before the United States declared their independence.
> 
> For your next trick, deny the racism and slavery you filthy English k-niggets planted all over the world!!


I deny it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Actually it would be more accurate to title this thread 'Proof that the first Americans ate their young'


Quite. Here's more:
https://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20000907&slug=4041058


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Why stop at kids? This is America! Bigger is better! Let's not forget the Causeway Cannibal, feasting alfresco!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

And of course, the Scots were well known for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawney_Bean


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Tilton said:


> Why stop at kids? This is America! Bigger is better! Let's not forget the Causeway Cannibal, feasting alfresco!


Wash it all down with some OIL!! Petroleum that is!!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Article~Smithsonian researchers believe the dead child became food for a community struggling to survive the harsh winter of 1609-10, known to historians as the Starving Time.
> 
> Over 150 years before the United States declared their independence.
> 
> For your next trick, deny the racism and slavery you filthy English k-niggets planted all over the world!!


Don't get sassy with me boy! 

We English gave the world culture. It's up to you if you decide to disregard it.......


----------



## calfnkip (Mar 21, 2011)

Shaver said:


> The leather bound illustrated Bible I had as a very young boy was well thumbed on the page which depicted a very voluptous Eve. Ahem. :redface:


Adam was not alone in the Garden of Eden, however, and does not deserve all the credit; much is due to Eve, the first woman, and Satan, the first consultant.
- - Mark Twain, 1867


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

calfnkip said:


> Adam was not alone in the Garden of Eden, however, and does not deserve all the credit; much is due to Eve, the first woman, and Satan, the first consultant.
> - - Mark Twain, 1867


There was a woman before Eve: Lillith.

The First Council of Nicaea edited out all the Theology that didn't suit their purpose of course, relegating her to the role of Demoness.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> For your next trick, deny the racism and slavery you filthy English k-niggets planted all over the world!!


So the sad history of racism and slavery in the USA is our fault as well ? We really do seem to be a nation of evil geniuses...


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> There was a woman before Eve: Lillith.
> 
> The First Council of Nicaea edited out all the Theology that didn't suit their purpose of course, relegating her to the role of Demoness.


Their purpose being the settlement of the Arian controversy, construction of the Creed of Nicaea, development of canon law, and settling the date of Easter Sunday. The biblical canon was not even on the agenda.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Their purpose being the settlement of the Arian controversy, construction of the Creed of Nicaea, development of canon law, and settling the date of Easter Sunday. The biblical canon was not even on the agenda.


That's a fair point Mike and I should perhaps have known better than to use this term (i.e. First council) as short-hand for the bigger picture. Much dispute exists over the exact delineation of duty and effect of the first seven ecumenical councils. It seems the revisionism extended not only to the texts but to the censorial and consolidating acts themselves. Never-the-less the development of biblical canon continued over the centuries and was probably complete by the 7th century.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

However, that the Council of Nicaea decided which gospels were to be included, and perhaps more importantly, which were not is a valid point. Most people, or should I say, most Christians think, or assume, that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by the apostles of those names. Whereas they were actually written by others, with the same names, a hundred+ years later. All of the contemporaneous Gospels were excluded by the council of Nicaea, indeed, some were ordered to be burnt.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> However, that the Council of Nicaea decided which gospels were to be included, and perhaps more importantly, which were not is a valid point. Most people, or should I say, most Christians think, or assume, that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by the apostles of those names. Whereas they were actually written by others, with the same names, a hundred+ years later. All of the contemporaneous Gospels were excluded by the council of Nicaea, indeed, some were ordered to be burnt.


The four canonical Gospels are rooted in the apostolic tradition and can be attributed to apostolic authorship: both St. John and St. Matthew were apostles (there were no apostles named Mark or Luke); St. Mark was a disciple of St. Peter; and St. Luke was a disciple of St. Paul and knew our Blessed Mother. Scholars generally agree that these Gospels, which had been passed on orally, were reduced to writing (not by their authors of course) by between A.D. 70 and A.D. 100, unlike the non-canonical gnostic gospels which were actually developed in the 2nd through 4th centuries.

The Council of Nicea did not address which gospels were canonical, let alone order anything burned. The selection of the canonical gospels is generally credited first to Irenaeus of Lyons circa A.D 180, and his understanding was soon the practicing consensus of the faithful. Indeed, one reason the issue was not addressed at the Council of Nicea is that even the Arians viewed the matter as settled. A series of regional synods did eventually formally endorse Irenaeus, as did Pope Innocent I at the turn of the 5th century.

Please assure me that you do not teach Religion, Chouan.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Sorry to have displayed my ignorance; that's what comes of believing what one is told by specialists. How does one teach religion? I was once required to teach RE to Year 7s, but refused on the grounds that the first lesson plan in the scheme of learning stated that "The Old Testament is the history of the Jews", I said that it would need to be changed to "..... *a* history of the Jews". I was told by the RE specialist that it had to be taught as given, as it was an "approved and agreed" curriculum, so I didn't teach RE.
I'll stick to areas that I know about myself......


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

No apology needed, of course. We live in a world where anyone can claim to be a "specialist," especially if he is in some way credentialed. As one of my law partners said not long ago: "We live in an era when the gulf between what it means to be 'educated' and what it means to be 'learned' is immense." In any case I can appreciate the rigidity of your RE specialist given that teaching RE "free-lance" can lead to all manner of mischief, but of course your insistence on the indefinite article was indeed more precise. Furthermore, few scholars would be comfortable characterizing the Old Testament as a "history" at all, given that it is an admixture of history, allegory, and theology. Whether that admixture was divinely inspired is a matter of faith of course.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I had an interesting "exchange of views" with her on another occasion. The "agreed" textbook on Sikhism stressed their peace-loving nature, and the essential pacifism of their faith. On the other hand, the history of the Sikhs suggests otherwise. I explained this, and she wasn't very pleased, as I was challenging her knowledge. I then gave a rather more personal example. I sailed with a Radio Officer who was a Sikh; he told me very proudly that when he and some fellow Sikhs visited Naples the old women were frightened of them. "Why was that?" I asked; "because when the Sikhs captured Naples in 1944 they raped all the women." he replied proudly. The RE teacher waxed wrathful at this and stormed off, having retorted that Sikhs were all peaceful people.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> I had an interesting "exchange of views" with her on another occasion. The "agreed" textbook on Sikhism stressed their peace-loving nature, and the essential pacifism of their faith. On the other hand, the history of the Sikhs suggests otherwise. I explained this, and she wasn't very pleased, as I was challenging her knowledge. I then gave a rather more personal example. I sailed with a Radio Officer who was a Sikh; he told me very proudly that when he and some fellow Sikhs visited Naples the old women were frightened of them. "Why was that?" I asked; "because when the Sikhs captured Naples in 1944 they raped all the women." he replied proudly. The RE teacher waxed wrathful at this and stormed off, having retorted that Sikhs were all peaceful people.


I know next to nothing about the Sikhs, but it is important to remember that what faiths' teach is not the same as what their adherents believe which is not the same as what those adherents do. There are many self-described Catholics who don't accept all of our Church's teachings, and no Catholic adheres perfectly to those teachings, and that includes our priests, bishops, priests and nuns. It is the nature of the fallen human condition. In any case your comrade tells an odd story indeed since Naples was liberated in 1943 after the Germans fled from rioting led by Italians retaking their city. The many books I've read on WWII's Italian Campaign never included a discussion of the role of Sikhs let alone the rape of Naples.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Haffman said:


> So the sad history of racism and slavery in the USA is our fault as well ? We really do seem to be a nation of evil geniuses...


Slavery and racism didn't just spring up in the Americas, YOU captured slaves and planted them here!! Maybe not exclusively, but there you go...


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Very much not exclusively, seeing as the slave trade in Europe had been going since the 15th century, begun by the Kingdom of Castile.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I take back everything I ever said about the British.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Shin kicking(!)? Definitely a young man's/woman's sport! ROFALOL!


----------

