Ranee at Arabian Knits wrote:
> In article >,
> "M. JL Esq." > wrote:
>
>
>>The Christian interpretation is ....more attenuated. Refined to
>>sophistry allowing some to eat but not others. Dispensations & etc.
>
>
> Yes, allowing sick or injured people and pregnant or nursing women,
> the elderly and small children to eat. I can see how that could be seen
> as sophistry.
>
> Regards,
> Ranee

I was referring to "Papal Dispensations" that were, at least in the
past, routinely granted to the healthy, rich and powerful Catholics,
with an emphasis on the curia exempting them from the requirement to fast.

But even more than who gets to eat and who does not i find the idea of
what constitutes fasting and what does not of more interest than who is
or is not doing it.

But then i know a couple of people who consider themselves vegetarians
but eat chicken and fish.

And i had one elderly relative, long since deceased, who while a
vegetarian, bought soy products that were manufactured to look and taste
like meat.

"Loma Linda" was the brand name iirc and i can recall soy (tofu) pork
chops & bacon.

http://www.worthingtonfoods.com/bran...on/about.shtml
--
JL