Is horrific desperation an objective evil, or a subjective evil? What if that horrific desperation reflects God's will? If God utilizes cannibalism to punish humans (and the Bible says that he does), then we only characterize the punishment as evil and we do so on a subjective basis, no?
Or...
Wrong. This thread is a direct challenge to the unsubstantiated Christian claim to possessing an objective morality obtained via Divine Revelation. I think we've already gotten very close to establishing that there is no prohibition against cannibalism in the Bible.
Q. - Aside from scripture...
So Objective Morality is dependent upon social function? What's bad for person A is good for person B and the meaningful distinction is whether or not they're a priest?
That sounds more like special pleading.
Is that supposed to be relevant to whether or not blended fabrics are objectively moral or not?
Is it objectively immoral to sow a field with two kinds of seed or not?
So the people in general are still forbidden to wear blended fabrics, correct?
Obviously, there are a multitude of...
If it cannot be demonstrated to be objective, then isn't that exactly what it is?
Not according to the apologists I've encountered. They're claiming that objective morality is not to be questioned. They feel that to apply their human reasoning to divine revelation would be to question God...
100% correct.
So ... if a Christian were to claim that they knew that climbing a tree and barking like a dog was objectively immoral (and that they'd gained this certain knowledge via divine revelation) ... what would you say to them?
So you're asserting that the only reason that there are any laws in the Old Testament was to outlaw those things that were not already considered abhorrent to people?
So up until the Ten Commandments were issued, people were totally cool with murder and stealing? Is that what you're claiming...
From empathy. Plain and simple.
One might be tempted to refer to this as The Golden Rule. But of course, Christianity cannot have even the most remote claim on the authorship of this bedrock maxim. While I cannot prove it, I suspect (based on its ubiquity) that the sentiments condensed in it...
Correct. On both points.
The point of this thread is not to determine the validity of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Clearly, that practice cannot be demonstrated to rise above the level of harmless theological fan fiction. Consuming Christ's "body" is obviously not literal...
Where is this code located? Our genes? Some sort of collective cloud memory?
That's basically the point I'm driving towards.
Wrong. The Christian claim to objective morality derived via divine revelation is being scrutinized. And failing spectacularly to be supported.
I know it, but...
How would anyone know that eating human flesh is abhorrent to God if he's neglected to reveal it? As you've already conceded, God's word contains no prohibitions against cannibalism. So we can't even claim (as some have done on this forum) that "to be told" equates to "knowing." Because we...
True. In fact, it appears to wallow in it at times.
No Christians do not commit cannibalism? Would you care to review that statement and (if needed) clarify?
Again: Why doesn't the Bible unequivocally condemn the eating of human flesh by other humans?
Because they had not yet consumed the fruit from The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?
I don't know. However, there are Christians who'll insist that organisms don't evolve. It follows that Adam and Eve were afflicted from the beginning with every kind of disease and/or parasite that...