Why doesn't the Bible condemn cannibalism?

[NulliuSINverba]

In this particular case, it was not made into law because a law was not needed for these people - it was already abhorrent.

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?

"For when people of the nations, who do not have law, do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their heart, while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by (Lit., "between.") their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused." - Romans 2:14-16

Doesn't that scripture appear to render divine revelation totally redundant?

Law, we can argue, only comes about because someone's conscience is not working correctly without it. Adam and Eve were only given 1 law.

Wait. If Adam and Eve needed to have their conscience "corrected" by this one law before they'd sinned, what does this imply about their original condition? Wasn't somebody on this very thread claiming that Adam and Eve were created perfect? Who was that?

It sounds like you're arguing that Adam and Eve needed fixing straight out of the box. Are you? Or would you like to reconsider your claim?

By the time the Jews got the Law Covenant there were just over 600.

Such as "Don't wear clothes of diverse fabrics." That's still objectively immoral, right? Or has God change his mind on blended fabrics?

Today we have thousands.

Is anyone disputing that?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

The Bible doesn't say, "Thou shall not climb a tree and bark like a dog" either.

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?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That would mean the Bible is saying not to kill or murder or are you saying opposite?

Not sure what you're saying but take for example the ordered hit on the Canaanites. Every living thing was killed. Every man, woman, child, farm animal, and house pet. And the law that was handed down to the Israelites stated that murder was not to be committed but it has been translated to appear that all killing was a no-no.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Wow. That's actually a rather thought-provoking assertion.

Q. - If a murder is motivated by Divine Revelation, does it count as an objective evil?

Thank you. You know, I don't know. Maybe He has an exclusion to the rule?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

The renewing of the mind. The destruction of the flesh. The natural man becoming a spiritual man of higher conscious.

Flaked-out Hippie Couple says:

"Higher consciousness? Hah! Duuuuuuuuuuude! You should totally tour with us!"

 

[kepha31]

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 are prehistoric.

Of course, if we were to agree (strictly for the sake of argument) that the Golden Rule originated via divine revelation, we're still left to ask how such objective morality could be suspended in the case of the Israelite invasion of the Promised Land as recorded in the Old Testament. Can God declare a moratorium on objective morality so His Chosen People can wantonly slaughter/enslave untold masses of Not His Chosen People?

Christians don't have the corner market on the truth, the Golden Rule is expressed in many religions.
Objective morality is not a feel-good euphemism. The real question to ask is why be moral? What makes people, Christian or atheist, pull a stranger out of a burning car? Why Be Moral 101
The third point I would like to make is the false presupposition on the nature of God. "A loving God can't be loving if he orders massacres." It is a fallacy that is found on every forum that hosts atheism. Here is why it doesn't hold water:

Because God is Creator He also has the prerogative to judge. This is analogous to our experience. Society takes it upon itself to judge the criminal and punish him if he supercedes the "just" laws that govern the society, in order to prevent chaos and suffering. If that is true of human society (one man to another), it is all the more of God, because He is ontologically above us (Creator and created).

So it is perfectly sensible and moral to posit (apart from the data of revelation) a notion of God judging both individuals and nations. God's omniscience is such that He can determine if an entire nation has gone bad ("beyond repair," so to speak) and should be punished. And He did so. Now, even in a wicked nation there may be individuals who are exceptions to the rule. So some innocent people will be killed. But this is like our human experience as well. In wartime, we go to war against an entire nation. In so doing, even if it is unintentional, some innocent non-combatants will be killed.

But it's also different in God's case because He judged nations in part in order to prevent their idolatry and other sins to infiltrate Jewish (i.e., true) religion. He also judged Israel at various times (lest He be accused of being unfair). In any event, it is not true that nations or individuals were punished because of what their ancestors did. There is a sense of corporate punishment, just described, and it is also true that the entire human race is a fallen race. We all deserve punishment for that fact alone, and God would be perfectly just to wipe us all out the next second. No one could hold it against Him.

He decides to be merciful and grant us grace to do better, but He is under no obligation to do so, anymore than the governor is obliged to pardon convicted criminals. Again, the societal analogy is perfectly apt. If someone rebels at every turn against every societal norm and law and appropriate behavior and so forth, is society to be blamed? Say someone grows up thinking that serial rape is fine and dandy and shouldn't be prevented at all. So he goes and does this. Eventually, the legal system catches up with him and he gets his punishment. He rebelled against what most people think is wrong, and more than deserved his punishment.

We don't say that there should be no punishment. We don't blame society for his suffering in prison. We don't deny that society has a right to judge such persons. So if mere human beings can judge each other, why cannot God judge His creation, and (particularly) those of His creation that have rebelled against Him at every turn? What is so incomprehensible about that? One may not believe it, but there is no radical incoherence or inconsistency or monstrous injustice or immorality in this Christian (and Jewish) viewpoint (which is what is always claimed by the critics).​

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: "How Can God [in the OT] Order the Killing and Massacre of Innocents?" [Amalekites, etc.]

Lastly, the Amalekites would burn children alive as offerings to their false gods, and their beliefs were starting to filter into God's Chosen's culture. Yes, God kills people, examples are all over the Bible. He is the Author and Giver of Life, and when it is your turn to die, it will be up to Him.

 

[BSM1]

That would mean the Bible is saying not to kill or murder or are you saying opposite?

The Bible never commands us not to kill, it only demands we not murder. There is a difference.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Bible never commands us not to kill, it only demands we not murder. There is a difference.

Taking a life is wrong regardless if there is a motive or not. The point of the body is to be born naturally, live, and pass away naturally. Anything interrupting that either by killing or murder is wrong.

I don't see how God can allow someone to take a life without reason but punish them for taking a life if they had a reason. The killing in itself is wrong. I don't see how you can justify it at all.

 

[Kolibri]

Wait. If Adam and Eve needed to have their conscience "corrected" by this one law before they'd sinned, what does this imply about their original condition? Wasn't somebody on this very thread claiming that Adam and Eve were created perfect? Who was that?

It sounds like you're arguing that Adam and Eve needed fixing straight out of the box. Are you? Or would you like to reconsider your claim?

Nothing to reconsider. The other thing that law provides is a reminder of authority - headship. Adam and Eve were provided a reminder that God reserved the right to determine good from bad. Even among perfect humans, Jeremiah 10:23 will prove true.

"I well know, O Jehovah, that man's way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step." - Jer 10:23

Our consciences, when perfect, will not give us license to be independent. We are not designed with complete independence in mind. But by providing us with a conscience that works as intended, direction does not need to be so lengthy as to be lost in too many rules and regulations.

 

[Kolibri]

Such as "Don't wear clothes of diverse fabrics." That's still objectively immoral, right? Or has God change his mind on blended fabrics?

This prohibition mentioned at Le 19:19 and De 22:11 did not apply to the priests but only the people in general. (see Ex 28:6,8,15; 39:29) The law provided a basis for appreciation shown for sacred things.

Likewise a field that was sown with 2 different crops was forfeited for sanctuary use only.
"You must not sow your vineyard with two sorts of seed. Otherwise, everything produced from the seed you sow as well as the product of the vineyard will be forfeited to the sanctuary." - De 22:9

"But no devoted thing that a man devotes unconditionally to Jehovah from his belongings may be sold back, whether from mankind or animals or the field he possesses. Every devoted thing is something most holy to Jehovah." - Le 27:28

Instead of being 'objectively immoral' the mixture was 'objectively sacred'.
Treating something set apart as sacred as something common would be immoral.

God's view of how we treat sacred things has not changed. However, many have come to the understanding that the Law Covenant has ended and only the principles, such as the treating sacred things as sacred, still apply. With the Law fulfilled - that is ended with its conditions satisfied - the law against mixed fabrics no longer applies.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Objective morality is not a feel-good euphemism.

If it cannot be demonstrated to be objective, then isn't that exactly what it is?

The real question to ask is why be moral?

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 himself.

What makes people, Christian or atheist, pull a stranger out of a burning car?

If you can cite a scripture to answer this question, feel free to do so. And while you're at it, please locate one that condemns cannibalism as well.

The third point I would like is the false presupposition on the nature of God. "A loving God can't be loving if he orders massacres." It is a fallacy that is found on every forum that hosts atheism.

So you're asserting that mass slaughter isn't objectively immoral, correct?

And exactly what sort of fallacy is it to assert that an all-loving god that orders mass slaughters seems utterly incongruous?

it is perfectly sensible and moral to posit (apart from the data of revelation) a notion of God judging both individuals and nations. God's omniscience is such that He can determine if an entire nation has gone bad ("beyond repair," so to speak) and should be punished.

"They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off." ~ Hosea 8:4

They set up princes and God didn't know about it? What were you just saying about God's omniscience? I forgot.

He decides to be merciful and grant us grace to do better

Q. - Did Jesus die to absolve the Canaanites of their sins?

Or was the Grace of God® never extended to those humans? And if so ... why not?

Say someone grows up thinking that serial rape is fine and dandy and shouldn't be prevented at all ...

Serial rape? The Bible is practically literally an Instruction Manual of Serial Rape:

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the Lord, your God, delivers them into your power, so that you take captives, if you see a beautiful woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as a wife, and so you take her home to your house, she must shave her head, cut her nails, lay aside her captive’s garb, and stay in your house, mourning her father and mother for a full month. After that, you may come to her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. If later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; you must not sell her for money. Do not enslave her, since you have violated her." ~ Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (NABRE)

So God has revealed portions of his Divine Nature that make it acceptable to lust after and then marry a female captive under compulsion, "take her to wife" until you're tired of raping her, and then send her packing after you've admittedly violated her? Are you seriously going to assert that this is objectively moral under any circumstances?

So he goes and does this. Eventually, the legal system catches up with him and he gets his punishment. He rebelled against what most people think is wrong, and more than deserved his punishment.

Unless of course, the rape is sanctioned by God, correct? God clearly has no issues with "violating" a female captive, correct? There are scenarios revealed by God where (according to his divine nature, obviously) serial rape is perfectly acceptable? One is merely obliged to wait one month, correct?

Or is "marry under compulsion" not a euphemism for serial rape?

Lastly, the Amalekites would burn children alive as offerings to their false gods

And yet when Yahweh orders one of his adherents to sacrifice his own child as a burnt offering, said adherent is congratulated for not even raising an eyebrow?

Of course God wants a child sacrifice! Of course! What could be more natural?

"Thank God I'm not an Amalekite! Otherwise this wouldn't be all objectively moral 'n stuff!"

Yes, God kills people, examples are all over the Bible. He is the Author and Giver of Life, and when it is your turn to die, it will be up to Him.

How does any of that detestable BS possibly count as "objective morality?" So far, the best you can offer are rationalizations that all hinge on Divine Fiat, correct?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

This prohibition mentioned at Le 19:19 and De 22:11 did not apply to the priests but only the people in general.

Is that supposed to be relevant to whether or not blended fabrics are objectively moral or not?

Likewise a field that was sown with 2 different crops was forfeited for sanctuary use only.

Is it objectively immoral to sow a field with two kinds of seed or not?

God's view of how we treat sacred things has not changed.

So the people in general are still forbidden to wear blended fabrics, correct?

With the Law fulfilled - that is ended with its conditions satisfied - the law against mixed fabrics no longer applies.

Obviously, there are a multitude of biblical scholars whose translations of the scriptures are clearly at odds with yours concerning whether or not "all conditions have been satisfied."

"Until heaven and earth pass away..." ~ Matthew 5:18

I'll leave it to Christianity to settle its internecine squabbles and arrive at a consist narrative concerning god. Which is not to say that I'm going to hold my breath or anything.

 

[Nada]

Most Christians, though they often do not realize it, practice a form of ritual cannibalism as part of their worship.

And if they do this,are they really christians?

 

[Kolibri]

"Until heaven and earth pass away..." ~ Matthew 5:18

I'll leave it to Christianity to settle its internecine squabbles and arrive at a consist narrative concerning god. Which is not to say that I'm going to hold my breath or anything.

Ah! the the first "until" while totally ignoring the second "until" of Mt 5:18. But you are right, that would derail this particular thread.

Is it objectively immoral to sow a field with two kinds of seed or not?

Sacred means "set apart, holy".
With regard to sowing a field with two kinds of seed, under that law. It was not immoral.
What would have been immoral is not donating all the harvest from that field for sanctuary use.
What would have been immoral is for a non-priest to wear mixed threads.
The Law, in the case of these specific regulations, taught respect for sacred things.
But I think I already said that.

 

[BSM1]

Taking a life is wrong regardless if there is a motive or not. The point of the body is to be born naturally, live, and pass away naturally. Anything interrupting that either by killing or murder is wrong.

I don't see how God can allow someone to take a life without reason but punish them for taking a life if they had a reason. The killing in itself is wrong. I don't see how you can justify it at all.

Two things: 1) you obviously haven't read the Bible, or if you have you wish to translate it to fit your world view, and 2) suppose you have a maniac shooting and killing fourth graders and lethal force is the only way to stop him, wouldn't that killing be justified?

 

[BSM1]

The question unnecessarily posits a conflict between a supernatural presence and a substantial one. Jesus is both substantially present (bread and wine really become his body and blood) and supernaturally present (transubstantiation occurs by the supernatural action of God; the accidents of bread and wine remain without the substances of bread and wine).

In consuming the eucharistic elements, the physical mechanisms of eating injure only the accidents of bread and wine. The process of consuming the host doesn't involve ripping and tearing Christ's body, despite its substantial presence. This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work. This is what Bible cults cannot, or refuse to, understand.

We can still say Christ's flesh and blood are consumed sacramentally in Holy Communion because what is eaten is literally his body and blood, even if the physical action of eating affects only the accidents of bread and wine.

With that said, cannibalism is morally wrong because, for starters, it violates the dignity of the human person, dead or alive. Primitive tribes in remote cultures may practice it, but that does not mean its morally licit to sit down at a funeral dinner and eat your dead family member, because it is not explicitly forbidden in the Bible. People have a natural instinct to show respect for the dead, found in almost every religion in every culture. Atheists will admit as much.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that every taboo, belief, custom and practice must be explicitly found in the bible to be trustworthy. It is a false presupposition invented in the 16th century.

The enemies of Israel, as evil as some were, did not eat human flesh. The concept is so grotesque its' simply unthinkable, which may be why its not in the Bible. The real purpose behind the OP is to mock the Bible by pointing out a moral absence, which makes no sense.

Great quote about the internet but I believe it was Mark Twain who said it....

 

[Unveiled Artist]

1st. I dont care for the accusation. I have read the Bible. Thou shall not kill is enough for me to understand God values life.

2. Killing "in itself" is wrong. We can justify it to save people...the justification itself isnt wrong. It saves people. Thats not my point. The killing itself is wrong...the act doesnt change just because a child dies compared to an adult. Also, children and adults are both human and under the same laws of karma. If there is something to prevent killing so be it. If there is something to intervene, so be it. The act is wrong, nothing more.

Two things: 1) you obviously haven't read the Bible, or if you have you wish to translate it to fit your world view, and 2) suppose you have a maniac shooting and killing fourth graders and lethal force is the only way to stop him, wouldn't that killing be justified?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, people aren't kosher, so the few Christian denominations that still keep kosher have that to fall back on. The majority that don't, though... they don't have anything to say that cannibalism is wrong, but several verses in the New Testament saying that all food is permitted.

The best they could do is cite that passage (in Romans?) that says that a food is unclean for you if you think it's unclean. That would support not forcing people to engage in cannibalism against their will, but not a blanket prohibition on cannibalism.

... assuming, of course, that we're only talking about eating people who had died already and not killing people in order to eat them.

Cannibalism is, for humans, eating another human. No Catholic sees hosts as Jesus feet, toes, and hair. They are bread and wine. It is not under cannibalism. Tell Jesus He that He is a cannibalist for telling His disciples to eat of His body and drink of His blood. Hed probably look at you nuts. So would Catholics.

Yall take the word literal too literally.

No, that's the Vatican.

Catholic doctrine, as documented in the Catechism, says that Jesus is fully man (as well as being fully God), and that the Eucharist really is his body. Put these together and they teach that you're eating the actual body of an actual man: cannibalism, even though the Host doesn't have feet or hair.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Im just saying taking the Eucharist is not cannibalism regardless if it is right or wrong.

The Eucharist is not cannibalism because the cracker really is just a cracker and not the body of Christ at all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Eh. Ill give you that for sake in point. Now, explain that to others?

The Eucharist is not cannibalism because the cracker really is just a cracker and not the body of Christ at all.