WordWolf

"i was isolated and homeschooled through elementary school one of my first memories was pushing my bike in my neighborhood thinking about whether i was possessed or born of the wrong seed. and thinking about how important it was and how i think about it all the time." [lcm was obsessed with the subject, eventually. I'm not sure which subject was more his biggest concern- "the wrong seed", or homosexuality. Either way, once he got on a roll, you were in for a long diatribe, with lots of angry yelling, bad language, and not much sense (neither scientific nor Biblical.) ] "i also remember sitting on the floor at the mandatory monthly phone hookup. and craig martindale had been going for so long. his teaching was vile hate speech and spiritual warfare against the "homosexual onslaught" and i looked at the clock. and i knew teachings were supposed to be 45 minutes. but it had been longer. and i couldn't get up because all the adults were watching and where would i go." [Yeah, lcm had a lot of leeway. If he wanted to run long, everyone let him, even if anyone else would be in trouble for doing it. He was allowed a double standard. If the subject was "the wrong seed" or homosexuality, you were in for a long ride.] "i told a friend that homosexuality was wrong. he asked what that means? and i said i don't know. his mom didn't let him hang out with me anymore." [Yeah, lcm could go on for hours that something was wrong, but never spend even a minute explaining WHY it was wrong or what was wrong with it. (It's not like he knew, after all.) Any competent Bible teacher can at least provide some reasoning. It may be wrong, but it at least exists.] "it's a bit sad though but we didn't stay in twi proper for too many more years. but that group. in the craig era (the great apostle had died before i could remember). i can't think of anything good i got out of it." [80% of twi present took off in 1988-1989, when lcm demanded an oath of loyalty from the staffers, the corps, and so on. One person who knew him contacted him and said it sounded like lcm wanted people to follow him BLINDLY. lcm replied point-blank that it was what they were already doing. He was incorrect. The other guy invited lcm to kiss something, and hung up the phone. Anyone who refused to sweat an oath to follow lcm was kicked out and their reputations smeared. lcm made a blanket accusation about them serving their base appetites rather than serving Christ. It backfired. Local people everywhere knew the leaders who left. They knew a little about lcm, but they knew he was talking nonsense. 4 out of 5 twi'ers at the time left with their local leaders. This led to all the splinter groups. Meanwhile, lcm now had a group more willing to follow him off a cliff than he had before, even if it was a much smaller group. lcm got a LOT crazier. Eventually, the group began to hemorrhage members again as individuals got sick and tired of being sick and tired or miserable all the time, and jumped ship. That doesn't count all the people lcm kicked out whenever he had any doubts about them. I doubt there was much good in the lcm era at all. "The great apostle"? Oh, yeah. The plagiarizing rapist. Yeah, he died in 1985. He was an alcoholic and a chain smoker. He died of cancer. According to him, he got the cancer from the bright stage lights used when filming pfal over a 2-week period. In case you don't know, bright studio lights do not cause cancer and are not a risk factor for cancer. Otherwise, you'd hear about performers dying of cancer after spending months working on Broadway, London's West End, Corrientes Avenue, and so on. You hear nothing because it was a lie. The man refused to take responsibility for the consequences of his own actions. He smoked a lot- exposing his lungs and his eyes and skin to carcinogens- for hours a day, every day. He drank a lot- weakening his immune system by drinking lots of alcohol every day, a LOT across a week. He maximized his chances of exposure, whether or not he meant to do so. When he got cancer, he invented a virtuous reason he got it- he got it from the bright lights filming pfal (which is impossible, since people exposed to brighter lights for longer periods do not get cancer.) He went around saying he gave up his eye for God, which is a lie from the pit of vpw's ego. He could be considered "an apostle" because he redefined what it meant to be an apostle until it could be applied to him, then hinted around until some people started to say that about him. He put forth he was "great" for decades. In reality, he was excellent at promoting himself, and was moderately good at plagiarizing. At everything else, he seemed to have been purely mediocre despite his own claims. If anyone should get credit, it should be the teachers he shamelessly ripped off.]

"Hi." [WordWolf: Good evening.] "I was raised in twi." [Ouch! During lcm's reign of terror, yet! After the 1988-1989 exodus, he only got crazier! And we were done with him BEFORE that!] "Did splinter groups." [A lot of us did. I think of the splinter groups as "airlocks." Although more than a few people stayed with them- or are with them now- more people went from them to the rest of society, whether other churches or out of churches.] "An atheist for a lot of years- no faith left." [Well, I think that's understandable. twi can chase people away from Christianity, especially during the lcm years. I'm not an atheist, so I don't think that was the way to go. Then again, what does my opinion matter? If that's where you are in your life, that's where you are. We're both welcome to post here, independently of that, and I appreciate it.] "I'm neurodivergent." [I sometimes question how many of us are undiagnosed, but would show up as neurodivergent if tested. But most people don't have any kind of testing for that sort of thing. I could make an argument that I should be tested. Then again, it wouldn't really change my life even if I had another label. I'm odd for one reason or another, and which reasons don't really matter. But I don't consider neurodivergency to necessarily be a bad thing. Depending on the context, I think it can be a strength. Then again, what does my opinion matter?] "i found this site helpful early on definitely but didn't post." [Sometimes we hear that most of the people who read here never post. We're glad to be helpful either way.] "year later now. looking forward to getting to know folks." [Well, if you're ready to post now, then welcome! Nice to have you aboard. Please mind your manners and avail yourself of the amenities. (Enjoy what we have to offer.)]

"BLUE SUEDE SHOES". (Elvis the Pelvis.)

This show is not a current show. HOWEVER, a current show can be considered either a sequel or a spin-off of this show. If you're paying attention, there's at least one continuity error if you do, since two characters, in effect, switch ages, the older becoming the younger. The current show has had more than one season, and has had fast-food promos and tie-ins with it from one chain. The original show may be well-known, but it is NOT a recent show by any reasonable standard for "recent". The original show is famous. It has had at least one cartoon series, and at least one theatrical release. Which show is the original show? (Or, which show is the current show, I will accept either answer.)

"I'm not sick, but I'm not well. And I'm so hot, 'cuz I'm in hell."

OK, next show. This show is not a current show. HOWEVER, a current show can be considered either a sequel or a spin-off of this show. If you're paying attention, there's at least one continuity error if you do, since two characters, in effect, switch ages, the older becoming the younger. The current show has had more than one season, and has had fast-food promos and tie-ins with it from one chain. The original show may be well-known, but it is NOT a recent show by any reasonable standard for "recent".

"Well, yes, ma'am, I do... I mean, I got everything I need right here with me. I got air in my lungs, a few blank sheets of paper. I mean, I love waking up in the morning not knowing what's gonna happen or, who I'm gonna meet, where I'm gonna wind up. Just the other night I was sleeping under a bridge and now here I am on the grandest ship in the world having champagne with you fine people. I figure life's a gift and I don't intend on wasting it. You don't know what hand you're gonna get dealt next. You learn to take life as it comes at you... to make each day count."

This one has had airplay during my lifetime! IIRC, this is "Lay Lady Lay" and was by Bob Dylan.

Um, any chance this is "Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask"???

My most immediate concern is the outsourcing of one's thinking- to AI, or to mindlessly swallowing and regurgitating everything from a single source, whether online or offline. The idea of opening a "discussion" -on a subject where I'm concerned people aren't doing their own thinking and discussing- with a link for a video to watch strikes me as...well, a little ironic. In another context, I'd complain about someone who insisted he was right- and "explained himself" by posting a link and essentially assigning homework for anyone who wanted to know why they should take him seriously. (No, not now, but it's happened before on the GSC.) I remember "discussions" and I'm a little surprised that we've gotten a number of "discussions" where the "discussion" started with "read this book" or "watch this video" and not actually DISCUSSING anything. I'm a little dismayed that people think this is perfectly fine.

*checks* He's considered the patron saint of EXORCISTS and possessed people. The only written prayer I saw to be directed at him that was related to this was one to keep evil and evil people away from one's self, and was not specifically about possession or demons or devils or anything supernatural. The sensible conclusion to draw, if one believes in patron saints, is that he's to be the one to direct prayers to if you are ministering to a possessed person and/or are performing an exorcism on a possessed person. He's known for living a holy and virtuous life, and that seems to be the connection. That is, if you need to free someone from possession, you need lots of Holy to free them, thus someone like St. Bruno.

the Dark Knight Rises Gary Oldman the Fifth Element

Well, if one is a Roman Catholic, that's the way to go. For basically all other Christians, that's the wrong way to enact one's prayer life. (Also, perhaps St. Bruno is to be prayed to if SOMEONE ELSE is possessed. It's probably hard to pray if you're possessed and in an episode.)

I can go back to your last 15 posts. 3 were completely AI cut-and-paste. An equal number were one-sentence posts. One was a cut-and-paste from another source, and one was a request for an AI cut-and-paste. That may not sound like much, but it means 1/3 of your posts were entirely cut-and-paste, and 1/5 total were one-sentence posts. That's a lot of your content, and it's the most I've ever seen of anyone. I'm concerned about the quality of the posting when that happens. Even the AI thinks it's a bad idea. I'm MORE concerned about what's going on with you, though. Please give this a good, long think. Thanks.

Oldiesman, I ask this in all sincerity. Why the obsession with AIs, and having AIs do all the posting? I feel like you're outsourcing both your posts and your critical thinking. I wouldn't be concerned with a post here or there, but the majority of your posts lately seem to be either a cut-and-paste from an AI, or a link to an AI's answer to something. Partly to illustrate my point, and partly because I liked the irony, I posed to iASK the following question: "What does it say about a person who posts online, when suddenly, all of his posts are now cut-and-pastes of answers from AIs?" Its answer was the following: When a person's online posts suddenly shift to exclusively being cut-and-pastes of AI-generated answers, it suggests a reliance on artificial intelligence for content creation, potentially indicating a desire for efficiency, a lack of original thought, or an attempt to quickly generate a large volume of content [1] [2]. This behavior can have several implications for how the individual is perceived and the quality of their online contributions. According to www.iAsk.Ai - Ask AI: One immediate observation is the potential for a decline in the authenticity and originality of the posts [1]. AI models, while sophisticated, generate responses based on patterns learned from vast datasets, which can sometimes lack the unique perspective, personal experiences, and nuanced understanding that human authors bring [3]. This can lead to a perception that the individual is no longer engaging in genuine communication or sharing their own insights [1]. Furthermore, such a shift raises concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the information being shared [4]. While AI-generated content can often appear authoritative, it is prone to "hallucinations" – generating incorrect facts, fabricating sources, or omitting crucial context [4] [5]. If the individual is simply copying and pasting without critical review, they risk disseminating misinformation, which can damage their credibility and the trust of their audience [4]. This is particularly problematic in fields where factual accuracy is paramount, such as technical forums or educational platforms [2]. The motivation behind this behavior could stem from a desire for increased efficiency and scalability [1]. AI tools excel at automating repetitive tasks and generating content quickly, which can be appealing for individuals looking to maintain a consistent online presence or manage a high volume of interactions [1]. However, this efficiency often comes at the cost of deeper engagement and personalized communication [1]. Another aspect to consider is the ethical implications [1]. If the individual is not transparent about the use of AI, their audience might feel misled, leading to a breach of trust [1]. Some online platforms, like Stack Exchange, have even banned purely AI-generated answers due to concerns about accuracy and the potential for overwhelming the platform with low-quality content [2]. The lack of human verification and validation in such instances shifts the responsibility for inaccuracies directly to the poster [2]. Finally, this pattern might suggest an over-reliance on automation, potentially hindering the individual's own critical thinking and creative development [1]. While AI can be a valuable assistant, using it as a complete replacement for human thought can lead to a loss of these essential skills [1]. Authoritative Sources AI-Generated Responses: How They Work and Why They Matter. [DumplingAI]↩ Is it acceptable to post AI-generated answers. [GenAI Meta Stack Exchange]↩ Natural Language Processing (NLP). [IBM]↩ Learn about how AI works and how to spot common errors AI tools tend to make. [University of Maryland Libraries]↩ Google’s shift toward using AI to generate a written answer to user searches instead of providing a list of links ranked algorithmically by relevance was inevitable. [Vox]↩ Answer Provided by iAsk.ai – Ask AI.

Face/Off John Travolta Pulp Fiction

I'll try to be relatively brief and relatively on-topic. -I'm well aware that some Christians posit Mary as a "mediatrix"- that is, a mediator between God and man, and a co-mediator with Jesus. For those of us who believe the verse that there is ONE God and ONE mediator between God and man, and that mediator is "the man Christ Jesus", this doctrine is nothing less than error. I'm aware that Pope John Paul II declared it during the Marian Year in the 1980s, when he dedicated an entire year to Mary. I liked the man, but in this he was just plain wrong. -I'm aware that the usual argument for Mary worship is that "adoration" and "worship" are two different things, that "worship" is directed at God, and "adoration" is directed at Mary, saints, etc. I consider the distinction mere sophistry. In "adoration", prayers are being directed to a person, and statues are made of them, where one prays, lights candles, and offers devotions. That's "worship" with a few cosmetic distinctions even a lawyer would have trouble making stick. If someone made a statue of Zeus, knelt before it, prayed before it, lit candles before it, and offered devotions to Zeus at it, you'd say they were "worshipping" Zeus- and you'd be correct. -It was in Vatican II in the 1950s when the doctrine of "The Assumption" was codified. The then-Pope declared that Mary never died- he said she had ascended to heaven, where she was made "queen of heaven." (His term, not mine.) Obviously, I can't buy into any of that. -I'm also aware that some people have said that Mary is related to all three members of the Trinity- as the mother of the Son, the daughter of the Father, and the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Not aware of this? Pope John Paul II said as much in L'Osservatore Romano. You can read the official English translation here: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/marys-relationship-with-the-trinity-8027 If you're on board with these doctrines, we'll have to agree to disagree. I do not mind interacting with Catholics, but I'm not going to sign on to all their doctrines. I don't have to get on their case about them, either.

A dissenting point of view is on this page: https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/3051/Veneration-of-Mary.htm In the interests of polite discussion, I won't paste the contents, but they speak for themselves.

https://uscatholic.org/articles/201405/why-do-catholics-venerate-mary/ In 2005 in Chicago, a young woman was driving home from work and looked at the wall of an underpass where she saw an image of the Virgin Mary. For a short while, “Our Lady of the Underpass” became national news and a local pilgrimage site. Where some saw a miraculous image, however, others saw a mere salt stain. Although the excitement has died down, there are still those who ensure that the underpass remains adorned with candles, flowers, and a makeshift altar. There are thousands of stories like this. Some Marian shrines become permanent pilgrimage sites, such as Lourdes and Medjugorje. Others simply fade away. The veneration and adoration of Mary is as old as the church itself. The earliest record of Mary’s veneration probably comes from the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in A.D. 431. There church fathers affirmed Mary as the Theotokos, or God-bearer. The title stuck, and today we refer to her as the “Mother of God.” This designation of Mary as the mother of God is really at the root of Roman Catholic veneration. Mary is the link between our broken humanity and the boundless divinity present in the triune God. Mary is redeemed, as she is human, but she is also considered to have a special and unique relationship with God, as she shares DNA with Christ. Mother Teresa once remarked, “She gave Jesus his body, and his body is what saved us.” In the many years since 431, Mary has come to occupy a powerful place in Roman Catholic spirituality. She has many faces and innumerable names, among them Our Lady of Guadalupe, She Who Ripens the Wheat, Queen of Angels, and the Light Cloud of Heavenly Rain. She is said to appear on occasion, mostly to children or others who are weak, disempowered, or on the margins of society. She is said, in some cases, to procure miracles. Some have even said that in the last days, Mary will lead the army of angels in the final battle against evil. But all of the titles and all of the miracles are considered to be a result of Mary’s close relationship with her son, Jesus. As mother of the King of Kings, she is the saint of saints. Furthermore, because the church is the body of Christ, and Mary is Christ’s mother, she is also the mother of the church. This means that in addition to having a special relationship with Jesus, Mary also has a special relationship with the church. She belongs to the church and the church belongs to her. So when we pray the rosary, or bow our heads during the creed, we are honoring our mother, and the mother of our Lord. Although she is not God, she has earned our respect and devotion.

Since you asked, I'll post what iAsk said on the matter- and 2 other sources rather than just relying on a machine. "In religious discussions, what is Mary veneration?" Mary veneration, particularly within the Catholic Church, refers to the practice of honoring Mary, the mother of Jesus, with special reverence and devotion. This practice is distinct from the worship (latria) reserved for God alone, and is instead categorized as hyperdulia, a higher form of veneration (dulia) given to other saints.[1] [3] According to www.iAsk.Ai - Ask AI: The theological basis for Mary veneration stems from her unique role in salvation history as the Mother of God (Theotokos), a title affirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE.[1] [2] [3] [5] Catholics believe that Mary's "yes" to God's plan, as recorded in the Gospel of Luke, made the Incarnation possible, thus making her a crucial figure in the process of salvation and redemption.[1] [3] [5] Key Aspects of Mary Veneration: Distinction from Worship: The Catholic Church explicitly distinguishes veneration from adoration or worship. Adoration is due only to the Triune God, while veneration is an honor given to Mary due to her unique privileges and role in God's plan.[1] [3] [5] Protestants often accuse Catholics of "Mariolatry" (Mary-worship), but Catholics deny this, emphasizing the difference between hyperdulia (highest veneration for Mary) and latria (worship for God).[5] [6] Biblical Foundations: Proponents of Mary veneration point to biblical passages such as the Angel Gabriel's greeting to Mary as "highly favored" and Elizabeth's exclamation, "Blessed are you among women," as scriptural support for her special honor.[3] [5] Her presence at the beginning and end of Jesus' public ministry, including at the foot of the Cross, is also cited as evidence of her cooperation in salvation.[1] [3] Historical Development: The practice of Mary veneration developed gradually over centuries. Early Christian art from the 2nd century depicts Mary as the mother of Jesus.[1] [2] The theological emphasis on Mary grew in response to heresies like Docetism, which questioned Jesus' humanity. The concept of Mary as the "Second Eve," who reversed the disobedience of the first Eve through her faithfulness, emerged in the 2nd century with figures like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.[1] [2] The official endorsement of "Theotokos" (Mother of God) at the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE marked a significant turning point, leading to increased emphasis on Mary and the dedication of churches in her honor.[1] [2] Forms of Veneration: Mary veneration encompasses various devotions, including prayers, pious acts, visual arts, poetry, and music.[1] Common practices include: Prayers: The "Hail Mary" is a prominent prayer, incorporating biblical greetings from Gabriel and Elizabeth.[1] [5] Other prayers include the "Salve Regina," "Magnificat," and the "Angelus."[1] Feast Days: Numerous Marian feast days are celebrated throughout the liturgical year, some of which are holy days of obligation, such as the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, Mary, Mother of God, and the Assumption.[1] Titles: A wide array of titles are used to honor Mary, such as "Mother of God," "Queen of Heaven," "Star of the Sea," and "Mother of All Sorrows."[1] Art and Music: Marian art, particularly the "Madonna and Child," is a central icon in Christian art. Marian hymns and antiphons are also integral to liturgical and devotional practices.[1] Devotions: Popular devotions include the Rosary, the wearing of scapulars, and Marian pilgrimages to shrines like Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe.[1] [5] Role as Intercessor: Catholics view Mary as a powerful intercessor with her Son, Jesus. They believe that through her compassion and prayers, she can bring petitions to God.[1] [5] This is exemplified by the story of the Wedding at Cana, where Jesus performed his first miracle at Mary's request.[1] Marian Apparitions: Reported Marian apparitions, such as those at Lourdes and Fatima, have significantly influenced Marian devotion. While not required for belief, some apparitions have received official Church approval and are widely believed by Catholics.[1] Protestant Perspective: Protestants generally ceased the practice of Mary veneration during the Reformation, seeking to return to what they perceived as the basics of early Christianity and a radical emphasis on Scripture. They argue that the Bible does not explicitly command or model prayer to Mary or her elevated status beyond being Jesus' mother.[2] [6] In essence, Mary veneration in the Catholic Church is a deeply rooted practice that honors Mary as a unique and essential figure in Christian faith, distinct from the worship of God, and expressed through various devotional forms and theological understandings.[1] [3] [5] Authoritative Sources Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church. [Wikipedia]↩ The History of Mary Veneration: A Protestant Prospective. [Classic Theology]↩ Why Do Catholics Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church. [St. Peter's Catholic Church]↩ The Papacy for Orthodox Christians. [Exodus90]↩ Why Do Catholics Veneration Mary?. [Catholic Courier]↩ Mariolatry. [GotQuestions.org]↩ What Is Veneration? Is Mary Our Mother? Should Mary Be Venerated?. [The Catholic Blog]↩

I'll explain the error in doctrine. First of all, I'm using the term "veneration" since it's the least objectionable term for those who perform it. I could just as easily say "worship". Naturally, this would produce a subtopic of discussion. "Mrs Wolf has suggested to me previously (with merit, I believe) that Mary veneration, at least the modern type and much of what led to it, springs from the practice of Christianity being an Old Boys Club. Women can easily feel left out of things, and Mary veneration helps address that. My problem is that I feel that the usual methods of addressing that would be veneration of Mary (prayers to her, etc.) or veneration of female saints (prayers to them, etc.), and I find EITHER to be doctrinal error, at best. I think we may agree on the problem but not with the solution. I find Mary veneration to be a lazy solution to a deeper problem, one that calls for answers that are doctrinally sound while still addressing the problem. " I thought I was clear enough here, but I'll try to make it clearer, and I'll try to remain somewhat tactful. I think that the entire fuss over Mary- and any number of female saints- stems from a feeling of disenfranchisement felt by females concerning Christianity, and church, and so on. It's easy to portray Christianity as a religion that emphasizes men and marginalizes women. A case can be made for it. On paper, I don't think that's the case- we see women in the Gospels, and in Acts, and mentioned in the Epistles. In practice, I think it had often looked that way. Worse, in the pulpit, it's been that way at times- there have been men who've turned sermons to condemn bad things- and any number of them have blamed (scapegoated, really) women as those bad things, or their source, or their carriers, and so on. So, how do we address that? We can do it with sounder doctrine. Another way we can do that is faster. We can adopt some of the practices that the other religions have, and adulterate Christianity with them. (It can happen whether or not we mean to, of course.) We can adopt some of the "mother goddess" religious practices, and just direct them to Mary. This is also a cheap way to gain converts. If they can maintain their same practices but just swap the labels, they're more likely to adopt Christianity. If one's goal is numbers and retention, this is a good idea. If one's goal is doctrinal purity, this is a horrifying prospect. I do think it's a given that early Christians of the first few centuries DID end up adopting any number of practices and doctrines in use by practitioners of other religions at the time- either intentionally to gain converts, or accidentally by having converts join whose ideas slowly spread through the church. ("A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.") So, their ideas on all sorts of things effected ideas of Christians, and in some cases, became doctrine. (It is outside the scope of this thread to get into all of them.) I think any number of ideas got attached to Mary in this fashion as well- some of them by well-meaning Christians. So, I think proper doctrine and proper teaching should accord women a more balanced role in the church- without having to offer prayers to Mary or anyone else. I think I answered the question while remaining reasonably tactful. I'm sure you'll let me know if I was unsuccessful.

"I'm not a regular fish eater but would like to begin." (Oldiesman) I thought another good question was worth asking, so I asked it that question. "If one wants to begin eating more fish and seafood, what are the healthiest options to add to one's diet?" "To incorporate more fish and seafood into a healthy diet, individuals should prioritize options that are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, low in mercury, and sustainably sourced. These choices offer numerous health benefits, including improved heart and brain health, while minimizing environmental impact and potential contaminant exposure [1] [2] [3] [4]. According to www.iAsk.Ai - Ask AI: The healthiest options to add to one's diet include a variety of fish and shellfish, with a focus on those high in omega-3s and low in mercury, such as salmon, sardines, mackerel (Atlantic or Pacific chub), herring, rainbow trout, mussels, clams, and scallops. These options provide essential nutrients like protein, vitamins D and B12, iron, and phosphorus, which are crucial for overall well-being [1] [3] [5]. Fish High in Omega-3 Fatty Acids Omega-3 fatty acids are essential fats that the body cannot produce on its own and must be obtained through diet. They are vital for heart health, reducing inflammation, supporting brain development, and potentially lowering the risk of cognitive decline and age-related macular degeneration [1] [3]. Salmon: Wild-caught Alaskan salmon is highly recommended for its high omega-3 content, low mercury levels, and sustainable fishing practices. Farmed Atlantic salmon can also be a good option, especially if sourced sustainably [3] [5] [6]. Canned salmon is a convenient and affordable alternative, offering similar nutritional benefits, including calcium [1] [6]. Sardines: These small, inexpensive fish are packed with omega-3s, vitamin D, and calcium (due to their edible bones). They are low in contaminants and are a sustainable choice [1] [5] [6]. Mackerel: Atlantic or Pacific chub mackerel are excellent sources of omega-3s. It's important to choose these lower-mercury varieties over king mackerel, which is high in mercury [1] [3] [6]. Herring: A staple in the Nordic Diet, herring is exceptionally rich in omega-3s, vitamin D, vitamin B12, selenium, and niacin. It is also a sustainable and affordable option [1] [5] [6]. Rainbow Trout: Often farmed sustainably, rainbow trout offers a good amount of omega-3s and has a milder flavor than salmon, making it a great alternative [3] [5] [6]. Lean Fish and Shellfish While fatty fish are prized for omega-3s, lean fish and shellfish also offer significant nutritional value, including high-quality protein and various vitamins and minerals, with generally lower fat content [1] [3]. Cod: This flaky white fish is a good source of phosphorus, niacin, and vitamin B12, providing 15-20 grams of protein per 3-ounce serving [3]. Hake: A white fish that is an excellent source of protein and low in saturated fat. Look for hake with the blue MSC label for sustainable sourcing [4]. Perch: With a mild taste and medium texture, perch is another healthy white fish option [3]. Mahi-Mahi (Dolphinfish): A firm, tropical fish that is versatile in cooking. When choosing mahi-mahi, opt for those caught in the U.S. and Ecuador with troll lines for better sustainability [3] [6]. Clams: Whether wild-caught or farm-raised, clams are environmentally friendly and rich in protein, magnesium, potassium, and iron [4] [5]. Mussels: These shellfish are highly sustainable, affordable, and a good source of selenium and vitamin B12 [5]. They also filter and clean the water they are farmed in, offering environmental benefits [5]. Scallops: Protein-dense, low in fat, and rich in vitamin B12 and omega-3 fatty acids, scallops are generally good for the environment [4]. Squid (Calamari): High in protein (around 18 grams per four-ounce serving), vitamin C, calcium, and iron, squid is a versatile and healthy seafood option with a mild flavor and firm texture [4]. Fish to Limit or Avoid Some fish should be limited or avoided due to high mercury levels or unsustainable fishing practices, especially for pregnant or breastfeeding individuals and young children [1] [3] [6]. High-Mercury Fish: Swordfish, king mackerel, orange roughy, big-eye tuna, shark, and tilefish are generally high in mercury and should be consumed sparingly or avoided [1] [3] [6]. Certain Tuna Varieties: While canned light tuna (skipjack) is a good low-mercury option, yellowfin, albacore, and ahi tuna should be limited due to higher mercury content [1] [3]. Farmed Salmon (in open-net pens): Some farmed salmon practices, particularly those in open-net pens, can raise concerns about parasites, diseases, and environmental pollution. However, freshwater-farmed salmon and some open-net systems with better practices can be good alternatives [6]. Sustainable and Budget-Friendly Options To make fish more accessible and environmentally conscious, consider these tips: Canned and Packaged Fish: Tuna, sardines, and anchovies in cans or pouches are convenient, have a long shelf life, and are excellent sources of protein and omega-3s [1]. Farm-Raised Fish: While wild-caught is often preferred for sustainability, responsibly farmed fish can be more economical. Look for guidelines from organizations like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries for sustainable seafood [1] [4]. Smaller Fish and Bivalves: Choosing fish lower on the food chain, such as herring, sardines, clams, and oysters, benefits both cardiovascular health and the environment, as they generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions compared to terrestrial animal proteins [5]. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends adults consume at least 8 ounces of fish per week, and pregnant or breastfeeding individuals should aim for 8 to 12 ounces per week of low-mercury options [1] [2]. Incorporating a variety of these healthy and sustainable seafood choices can significantly contribute to a well-balanced and nutritious diet [3]. Authoritative Sources Healthy Fish to Eat. [hopkinsmedicine.org]↩ Advice about Eating Fish. [fda.gov]↩ The 11 Best Fish to Eat. [healthline.com]↩ 5 of the Healthiest Seafood Options You Should Eat Today. [panapesca.com]↩ Seafood selections that help your heart — and our planet. [health.harvard.edu]↩ 5 of the Healthiest Fish to Eat (and 5 to Avoid). [eatingwell.com]↩ How to Choose the Healthiest Seafood (for You and the Environment). [silversneakers.com]↩ Best and Worst Fish for Your Health. [webmd.com]↩ Answer Provided by iAsk.ai – Ask AI.

I asked the same source about whether or not anchovies were a good choice of fish to add to a diet if one was increasing their fish intake. The answer, overall, was positive. However, it did include the following caveat, which is important to consider especially as one gets older... "While anchovies are nutritious, it's important to consider their sodium content, especially when consumed in canned or cured forms.[12] Rinsing canned anchovies before consumption can help reduce sodium levels.[13] For individuals with high blood pressure or those monitoring sodium intake, fresh or lightly salted anchovies might be preferable." Overall, it sounded like a good food to add- in moderation, and with one's sodium level in mind. "In summary, incorporating anchovies into an everyday diet offers a wealth of nutritional advantages, including high levels of omega-3s, protein, and various essential vitamins and minerals, all within a sustainable and low-mercury package." It's no joke to be concerned about one's sodium levels. If your doctor already has you watching them, you may need to radically alter your current diet to remove a lot of sodium if you want to add anchovies at all. Oh, and make sure you can stand the flavor before buying, say, one gross of jars of the stuff. Some foods are a good idea on paper but are unpalatable.

That's it.

Yes. Among the other names was the eponymous character in The Great Gatsby.