Bloodless Fish?

Non-believers, and freethinkers alike, know what it feels like to discuss matters of religion with a narrow-minded, fundamentalist person. After every single conversation, with such faith-blinded fellows, I tell myself that this is the last time in which I will debate someone whose head is buried too deep into the pages of the bible—or the Quran—that he or she can no longer distinguish between what’s logical (sane is a more accurate word here) about the things they say, and what’s not.

  Some of the arguments they offer are really absurd. However, it’s the answers they give to the probing questions—once they feel cornered—that are the most bizarre. The last guy I had a discussion with about religion, made me crack-up on so many occasions, that it made him feel really uncomfortable, and respond with more and more stupid answers.

John (this is not his real name by the way; I’d rather spare him the humiliation) is a thirty-something guy and a Catholic. We started the conversation, like most religious chats, discussing the corruption of the church, how it is getting in the way of science, and the fact that it should be separated from state. Then, I moved on into a more general “religion is a lie” argument, which carried on with the usual back and forth disagreements. I’m not going to recount all the arguments; I’m only going to tell you about one strange answer he offered, in reply to one of my questions.

Near the end of our conversation, we were discussing Lent and some of the Christian rituals and customs practiced by believers during those forty sacred days before Easter. When I got more specific in my questions, and asked John how come do Eastern-Christians eat fish during Lent while it is forbidden to consume meat during this period? His ridiculous answer was: “Because you are not supposed to eat anything that has blood, and fish don’t have blood!”

Of course I laughed so hard at this reply, especially at the seriousness and conviction with which he was talking. This surely marked the end of our debate; I couldn’t listen to such inane reasoning any longer.

I went back home and tried to look it up online because I would really love to know if this idea is shared with others like John. I’m sure he didn’t come up with it by himself; he must have heard it from someone, or maybe it was something close to it and he modified it. It could be the common belief because why else would eating fish be okay and not other types of meat? This question has always intrigued me, and I still haven’t found a convincing answer, even after an hour looking it up.

A Note to John: Buddy, if I were you I would think carefully before expressing such STUPID claims again. At least, if you’re not able to reflect on how would fish be a living animal without blood, Google it! Here’s a link for you.