Why doesn't the Bible condemn cannibalism?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly. So it'd be disingenuous to imply that the dietary restrictions that apply to animals also apply to humans, correct?

I think that you missed my point.

In any case, I have better things to do than explain the dietary rules of a religion I don't believe in to someone who - apparently - refuses to listen to what people are telling him.

It's all in the Bible. From my recollection, the dietary rules are internally consistent and easy to figure out for the most part (it classifies bats as birds, but from what I gather, this is just a translation issue). I disagree with the idea that the rules were handed down by God, obviously, but when I read them myself, I never had a problem figuring out what is and isn't kosher.

Maybe you should try reading them yourself. If you don't want to go to all that trouble, there's a Wikipedia article a few pages back.

The short version: there are criteria that have to be met for a food to be kosher, and humans don't meet them. If you're looking for an explicit statement saying "people aren't kosher!" you won't find it... but it doesn't need to be there.

 

[Kolibri]

So "blood" is a euphemism for "soul?" Does it follow that cows have souls? They certainly have blood.

According to this scripture, yes, God's view is that the blood represents the soul, or the life, of a human or an animal. (see Ge 4:10 regarding human blood.)

That was the reason for all the blood sacrifices in the Law Covenant.
The Law showed the disparity between the value of man's life and that of animal life.
Repetition and excess was required because animal life could not fully ransom a man his life.
Only a perfect man could lay down his life to pay completely for the life-debt created by Adam.

Animals are souls, just as humans are souls.

"Then God said: 'Let the waters swarm with living creatures, (or "souls.") and let flying creatures fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens.' (or "sky.") And God created the great sea creatures (or "monsters.") and all living creatures (or "souls.") that move and swarm in the waters according to their kinds and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God saw that it was good." - Ge 1:20,21

 

[Kolibri]

Would you care to substantiate that assertion?

When the diet was enlarged to include meat that had been properly bled, only animals were listed. Noah and his family were not told: 'You can eat each other too if you wish.'
A restriction was lifted, but the level of the restriction lifted was also specifically animals given as food. Humans by omission were not included.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Sorry, I'm not Christian. That doesn't work for me.

Actually, Christians are obliged to appeal to the Old Testament when it comes to homosexuality, as Jesus was conspicuously silent on the issue while he was wandering around the Holy Land with his band of fabulous fellow bachelors.

If you are saying that Scriptures are crawling with prohibitions, then I will agree with you. There are many things that are prohibited. If you are equating prohibition with condemnation, then yes, eating human flesh is condemned.

Where? Cite the verse.

As I've established, it actually is yes.

No, you have not. You've insisted that the decree pertaining to the nature of an animal's hooves somehow applies to that which lacks hooves.

Kosher rules apply to everything. Honey is not an animal, but it is kosher.

Right. And honey is dealt with separately from meat, yes?

Milk is not an animal, yet it is kosher too. Anything that is not described as kosher in Scriptures is not kosher. Humans are not described as kosher. They are not kosher.

You've also failed to demonstrate that kosher rules trump concerns of starvation while the evidence points away from your conclusions. The scriptures clearly indicate that God anticipated cannibalism as an option.

 

[Tumah]

Thank you. That clears up a lot of misunderstanding. I think you're talking about the reasons for killing. I agree with you that in some instances its appropriate or "right". Protection, self defense, and war. (not limited to). What I'm focusing on is the action itself regardless the reasons. I'm taking out the justifications (the list I gave) and just focusing on the act. The taking of a life is wrong. The body is born, it grows, lives, and dies naturally. That is what it is supposed to do. To interrupt that process in itself is wrong. Maybe a better word is unnatural or unhealthy?

Nods.

Naw. I'm saying if you took the reasons out, the action in itself is wrong. The justifications you gave makes it necessary to kill; but to kill outside of those reasons (killing from malice or because one ones to-say outside of command), I agree with you, is wrong. Talking about the reasons or right to kill, not the killing itself.

I'd be conflicted with that decision too. The former Catholic in me would say that is wrong. The logic in me would say the abortion was understandable to the situation involved. I do agree with the reasons of the situation and why it was done. I just don't agree with taking a life in itself.

I'm just talking about the killing itself not the reasons for it.

True. I don't know too much of Jewish Law. I'd have to study the Old Testament in a cultural light to have a more understanding of which side to take.

This is not true in Jewish Law. If you divest the action from the intent, then it becomes unintentional, which is not evil. This has a lot of application in Jewish Law and is a determinate factor in many different areas.

Bad wording. More of, I'm not saying they should be charged guilty for their actions. I'm just saying the actions itself is wrong not the reasons for it.

That's fair enough. God gave life so He has a right to take it. It sounds contradictory to me. I don't have the right to hurt my child just because he or she is my child. According to the Law (I don't know about Jewish Law), I could go to jail. My being a parent doesn't give me the right to do anything bad to my child. My being a parent doesn't obligate me to do anything good for my child. As long as he or she is mentally socially, and physically healthy and I am taking care of him/her in all aspects of the word, I should have no reason to harm them (taking self defense out and mental illness out).

This analogy is not accurate for a number of reasons. The simplest one is that it is G-d's continuously willing a person to live that keeps him alive. If a person were to contradict G-d's will, why should G-d not remove His will from him?

I think Im saying, killing is necesarry in some cases and that doesnt make it right.

I think youre saying, the killings that are necessary makes them right.

I agree with this last statement. Killings that are necessary make them right. However, it can be sad when the right thing to do involves suffering.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, you have not. You've insisted that the decree pertaining to the nature of an animal's hooves somehow applies to that which lacks hooves.

It deals with all non-insect land animals. To be kosher, the animal needs to have cloven hooves. This excludes both non-cloven hooved animals (e.g. horses) and non-hooved animals (e.g. dogs).

You're making this way more difficult than it needs to be. You also haven't taken my advice of reading up on all this, or you wouldn't be arguing the way you are.

 

[Tumah]

Actually, Christians are obliged to appeal to the Old Testament when it comes to homosexuality, as Jesus was conspicuously silent on the issue while he was wandering around the Holy Land with his band of fabulous fellow bachelors.

How Christians understand Scriptures is not relevant to me. That is what I was saying.

Where? Cite the verse.

I will cite the verse just as soon as you cite the verse that rhinoceros are not kosher.

No, you have not. You've insisted that the decree pertaining to the nature of an animal's hooves somehow applies to that which lacks hooves.

Well I actually haven't done that.
Although I don't think you read your statement through clearly. The decree pertaining to the nature of animal's hooves directly applies to animals which lack hooves. Since animals without hooves don't have split-hooves they are not kosher. This includes elephants.

But that is not what I said. I said that the Laws describe what one may eat. You are making the assumption, that if there are no laws about it, it must be permissible. I am telling you that if there are no laws about it, it is prohibited.

Right. And honey is dealt with separately from meat, yes?

Not sure what you mean here.

You've also failed to demonstrate that kosher rules trump concerns of starvation while the evidence points away from your conclusions. The scriptures clearly indicate that God anticipated cannibalism as an option.

Well, that's because I'm not sure if they do or not. That could be the case where they do.
Are you honestly bringing proof that cannibalism is permitted from verses describing the punishment G-d is going to give Israel for not obeying His Law? They don't obey the Law. That's why they're getting punished. Because they don't do what the Law expects of them. Get it. Like cannibalism.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Humans are land creatures, and are thus covered by the laws of that category. IE: They must have cloven hoof and chew cud.

The Humans-Aren't-Kosher objection has no traction whatsoever when one realizes that the milk of humans is perfectly acceptable for human consumption, despite the fact that humans neither have cloven hooves nor chew the cud.

And in any event, the scriptures clearly demonstrate that there were scenarios where God was determined to drive people to eat each other.

Additionally, there appears to be a loophole that trumps kosher restrictions if it's a matter of life and death:

"When the life of a specific person is in danger, almost any mitzvah lo ta'aseh (command to not do an action) of the Torah becomes inapplicable."

No one who has attempted to demonstrate here that cannibalism is Objectively Immoral based on Divine Revelation has even gotten within screaming distance. Sorry.

Next frivolous objection(s)?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Also, protip, the word translated as "abomination" more literally means "prohibited".

Submitted for your edification.

 

[Salek Atesh]

The Humans-Aren't-Kosher objection has no traction whatsoever when one realizes that the milk of humans is perfectly acceptable for human consumption, despite the fact that humans neither have cloven hooves nor chew the cud.

And in any event, the scriptures clearly demonstrate that there were scenarios where God was determined to drive people to eat each other.

Additionally, there appears to be a loophole that trumps kosher restrictions if it's a matter of life and death:

"When the life of a specific person is in danger, almost any mitzvah lo ta'aseh (command to not do an action) of the Torah becomes inapplicable."

No one who has attempted to demonstrate here that cannibalism is Objectively Immoral based on Divine Revelation has even gotten within screaming distance. Sorry.

Next frivolous objection(s)?

Oh my. Lol man. Read the book. Breast milk is specified as Kosher. That doesn't mean that what produces it is.

Kosher foods are inclusive. That is to say, if it ain't specified, it ain't kosher, no matter what you say. And humans aren't written as kosher. So they are not. It's that simple.

COMPARE: Eating insects (thus, bees) is specified as non-kosher. Eating honey is specified to be kosher. There's proof that you don't need to be able to eat the animal in order to eat the animal product.

Why are you trying so hard to make this claim stick?? It's not going to help whatever you're trying to show. Try a new angle.

And... even if you got around the fact human meat is not kosher by species, you'd have to get around the fact that meat that is not slaughtered in a specific manner is not kosher, and there is no way to slaughter humans in that way without breaking more biblic laws. This doesn't work no matter how hard you try.

 

[Tumah]

Here's a new one.

The Humans-Aren't-Kosher objection has no traction whatsoever when one realizes that the milk of humans is perfectly acceptable for human consumption, despite the fact that humans neither have cloven hooves nor chew the cud.

Do more research:
Honey is kosher. Bees are not.
Your argument is invalid [again] sir.

 

[Tumah]

Oh my. Lol man. Read the book. Breast milk is specified as Kosher. That doesn't mean that what produces it is.

Kosher foods are inclusive. That is to say, if it ain't specified, it ain't kosher, no matter what you say. And humans aren't written as kosher. So they are not. It's that simple.

COMPARE: Eating insects (thus, bees) is specified as non-kosher. Eating honey is specified to be kosher. There's proof that you don't need to be able to eat the animal in order to eat the animal product.

Nice picking up on that one! I didn't expect someone to catch that!

 

[NulliuSINverba]

You're making this way more difficult than it needs to be.

Actually, what's driving this issue is the paucity of evidence to support the claim that Divine Revelation makes it clear that cannibalism is Objectively Immoral.

Mind you, I am not arguing that cannibalism isn't a wretched and thoroughly immoral practice. I'm just not trying to justify my conclusion via an appeal to divine revelation.

If our topic were rape, slavery, or several other items (genocide and incest to name just a few) ... we'd be stuck in the same quagmire.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Here's a new one.

Do more research:
Honey is kosher. Bees are not.
Your argument is invalid [again] sir.

Honey is not milk. Wise up.

 

[Tumah]

Actually, what's driving this issue is the paucity of evidence to support the claim that Divine Revelation makes it clear that cannibalism is Objectively Immoral.

Mind you, I am not arguing that cannibalism isn't a wretched and thoroughly immoral practice. I'm just not trying to justify my conclusion via an appeal to divine revelation.

If our topic were rape, slavery, or several other items (genocide and incest to name just a few) ... we'd be stuck in the same quagmire.

Oh is that what this argument was about? I thought it was just about whether Scriptures allows cannibalism.
Oh well. I'm out.

 

[Tumah]

Honey is not milk. Wise up.

That's right.
But bees are not kosher. Honey is.
You have no basis for assuming that humans are kosher by virtue of human milk being kosher.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Honey is not milk. Wise up.

Human meat is also not human milk. "Wise up".

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Actually, Christians are obliged to appeal to the Old Testament when it comes to homosexuality, as Jesus was conspicuously silent on the issue while he was wandering around the Holy Land with his band of fabulous fellow bachelors.



Where? Cite the verse.



No, you have not. You've insisted that the decree pertaining to the nature of an animal's hooves somehow applies to that which lacks hooves.



Right. And honey is dealt with separately from meat, yes?



You've also failed to demonstrate that kosher rules trump concerns of starvation while the evidence points away from your conclusions. The scriptures clearly indicate that God anticipated cannibalism as an option.

How could apostle Peter be a bachelor when Peter had a mother-in-law ?

Jesus was Not silent and definitely said ' fornication ' was wrong - Matthew 5:32; 19:9
Scriptural marriage can only be between a man and woman. - Genesis 2:24
In Scripture fornication applies to both married and single people. The English word fornication comes from the Greek word porneia. Porneia is where we also get the English word for pornography. Porneia also covers more than sex between unmarried people, but also includes un-biblical sex among married people, and also being wrong to have sex with an animal.
Since a man can Not have a scriptural marriage with another man, then any sex act would be classed under: fornication.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We do disagree; and, I see where youre getting at.

This is not true in Jewish Law. If you divest the action from the intent, then it becomes unintentional, which is not evil. This has a lot of application in Jewish Law and is a determinate factor in many different areas.

I dont know of Jewish Law. Any Law that says the act of killing in itself is right is one I disagree with bot unintentional (impulse from self defense) to intentional (malice or war).

In my view, Im seeing how the body is naturally designed to do. To interupt tah, in itself, is wrong.

If a person were to contradict G-d's will, why should G-d not remove His will from him?

Because he is a has the right to live. If I had a child, I would never kill my child because he disobeyed me or contradicted my rules. It is immoral.

If I believed that God is an external being amd Creator who has the right to take life as well as create it, I agree with you. I dont share that faith, though.

I agree with this last statement. Killings that are necessary make them right

Killings that are necessary does not justify that the action itself is right.

Example only: Relate it to homosexual acts. The religious arguement does not look at the gay couples intent which is good but the action. They say the action is bad regardless the intent.

I diagree with that example, but if you put killing in place of homosexual acts, I agree completely.

Necessity doesnt make something right. If thats the case killing would not be against the law. Necessity just lets the government know how to resolve the situation.

As for God's laws, if you are correct I completely diagree for the reasons I just provided.

 

[sojourner]

I'm saying if the killing had a motive it makes it a murder.

We can justify it all we want. I'm just taking out the justifications and exceptions to the rule and saying, one person took another person's life; that is wrong. In other words, the justification can be right or wrong (killing to protect or killing in anger), but the action itself is wrong.

The problem I see in scripture is when God said "thou shall not murder" (depending on the translation) he wants people to not commit premeditated murder. That is fine. Then He does premeditated murder Himself. Both the people and God are killers. Since they had premeditated motives, it makes them murderers.

Point: The justification (protection versus malice; being human versus being God) doesn't change that they 1. killed someone and 2. did it with a purpose (thought about it too). Hence, it is wrong.
--
With people at war, they have a motive and they take lives. So they are in the same ball park. Justifying they are in a war doesn't give them the moral right to kill. They do so because they have to not because they want to.

It's not a moral directive, though. It's a legal directive. The point being, to the ancients who wrote the texts, there was a difference between killing and murder.