Why doesn't the Bible condemn cannibalism?

[BSM1]

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.

I respect you enough not to needlessly argue with you, but, IMHO, if God valued life children would not die at the whim of maniacs and abusive parents.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you. I honestly dont care for the contradition. In Psalms He talks about His love and justice. Of course, in the Bible He speaks through Christ to willingly die for others.

His justifications are mitch matched. Some out of revenage and jeleousy. Others out of love (nt) and safety (ot).

I disagree with Gods whole plan. The Buddha taught, on the otherside of the coin, all life is precious. The greatest commandment regarding morality.

Anyway, as long as abrahamic faith associate killing by good causes it makes me back away.

I respect you enough not to needlessly argue with you, but, IMHO, if God valued life children would not die at the whim of maniacs and abusive parents.

Since christianity is an eastern faith and if it is influenced by eastern though, I would assume the killings had nothing to do with God but the sins (or delusions) of the people. If we say God shoud stop this or that its saying we do not have the ability to change our own actions but depend on and ask others to change them for us.

How we die is tragic. We should see it as a part of life and if someone (a person) can intervene to save life, so be it. I see God as life, so to ask God to do something about killings is changing the laws of nature of cause and effect. (Ex asking that a child not fall from the cliff even though when pushed gravity will pull Him down, not God)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Since when does cannibalism necessarily entail "ripping or tearing"? You're making up your own definition.

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.

If you are literally consuming the literal flesh and blood of an actual man, then you are committing cannibalism.

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.

You're describing cultural norms, taboos, and gut reactions, not morality. It's quite easy for me to imagine a culture where cannibalism could be seen as a show of respect for the deceased.

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.

Indeed. IMO, this thread was directed toward a particular sort of theist: the kind who adhere to the doctrine of "divine command" morality. Personally, I think that divine command is a load of unsubstantiated nonsense, but it has an interesting implication: if any given practice or cultural norm is really a matter of morality, then it should be traceable back to a command from God. If it can't be traced back this way, then it's just an aesthetic preference.

... if divine command theory is correct, of course.

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.

If cannibalism was actually unthinkable, this thread would not exist.

 

[kepha31]

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

Objective morality can easily be demonstrated. Subjective morality is relativistic. Moral Relativism Refuted by A.L.

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.

I dabble in apologetics, but I am no apologist. If REASON leads to question God, their faith system is in error.
INTERNAL ASSISTANCE: God's grace moves the will to CHOOSE to believe. Grace does not destroy nature but perfects it.
EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE: The act of faith is made in accord with REASON. Most of the atheists I encounter are constantly making false assumptions about the nature of God which has to broken down before you get to the question/challenge, resulting in massive amounts of explanation which they reject anyway.

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.

You demand a scripture that says people are instinctively moral to do the right thing by pulling a stranger out of a burning car? What's wrong with you?
There is no scripture condemning cannibalism. It is instinctively abhorrent. The Bible was never intended to list every single moral precept. Cannibalism violates the dignity of the human person, even if they are dead. This has been explained so what this proves is that you ignore replies that refute such idiotic positions.

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

You are ignoring the context, and can't comprehend the post.

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

And exactly what sort of fallacy is it to assert that bombing of cities such as Berlin in WW2 seems utterly incongruous?
And exactly what sort of fallacy is it to assert that society orders the execution of serial rapist killers "seems utterly incongruous"? Please re-read post #66

"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.

It means "they" set up princess without God. You are bible twisting to force fit it into an agenda. .

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?

Jesus died to redeem the human race, in both directions of time. Redemption, salvation, justification and absolution are related but not the same. You can't comprehend the difference because you are not ready.

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?

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?

Another "gotcha" verse found on every fist shaking web site and it gets tiresome. The particular passage you have quoted here refers to women who have been taken captive as a consequence of war. Off the top of my head I would say it has something to do with giving them children who would take care of them because if they had lost their men as consequence of war, they would have no one to look after them. In addition, any children they did have would be cared for. Bear in mind the state and charities did care for widows and orphans when Deuteronomy was written. This Law would teach responsibility for women widowed and children left fatherless as a consequence of war. In His compassion, God did not compel men to remain married to women they did not love, or who did not love them and did not want to be married to them.

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!"

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?

It's not a sin if God commands it in this case, because God - being our Creator - has the prerogative to take whichever life He chooses (e.g., Job said, "God giveth and God taketh away").
The notion of God being a Fat Marshmallow in the Sky is your problem, not mine.
Killing becomes murder when it is done in improper circumstances and with malice. Human beings do not have the right to kill fellow created human beings, except under very limited circumstances, and never the right to murder (which is why abortion is a grave sin - one of the worst imaginable, in my opinion).

Child sacrifice was a sin under Old Testament Law, but this was before the Law was given to Moses. Abraham's very agony would lead one to believe that he understood the wrongness of it; hence the existential agony. But in this instance Abraham was tested in his obedience to God in the face of the most unimaginable conflict in his own mind. In effect, God was seeing if Abraham loved Him more than even his own flesh and blood (for Abraham's sake, not God's - God knew what Abraham would do all along). There are numerous trials in life which make no sense to us, and test our faith and trust in God. These can all work for good, if we allow them to be used in our life and spiritual journey. Catholicism is the only religion which gives a cogent and sensible reason for the place and purpose of suffering in this life. That gets into very deep waters, though, so I ask that we just let that lie.

Death itself is a curse - one that God Himself was willing to experience on the Cross in order to save humanity. Whatever God is willing to - in effect - "dish out" He is willing to take upon Himself as well. A fact conveniently overlooked in the ubiquitous attacks with regard to the "problem of evil" . . .(atheists can't even define it with any consistency)

Abraham had already had a relationship with God; that was prior to this incident, so it was a matter of choosing the God he knew, even though it seemed unimaginable that He would request such a thing. (Gen 22:12). The New Testament also tells us that Abraham believed in God to such an extent that he thought God would raise Isaac from the dead, since He had already promised descendants through him (Heb 11:17-19). Of course, the whole incident is a profound metaphor of Jesus' death on the Cross: God the Father's Son. (the ram's horns caught in a thicket is metaphorical to Jesus' crowning of thorns)

 

[BSM1]

Thank you. I honestly dont care for the contradition. In Psalms He talks about His love and justice. Of course, in the Bible He speaks through Christ to willingly die for others.

His justifications are mitch matched. Some out of revenage and jeleousy. Others out of love (nt) and safety (ot).

I disagree with Gods whole plan. The Buddha taught, on the otherside of the coin, all life is precious. The greatest commandment regarding morality.

Anyway, as long as abrahamic faith associate killing by good causes it makes me back away.



Since christianity is an eastern faith and if it is influenced by eastern though, I would assume the killings had nothing to do with God but the sins (or delusions) of the people. If we say God shoud stop this or that its saying we do not have the ability to change our own actions but depend on and ask others to change them for us.

How we die is tragic. We should see it as a part of life and if someone (a person) can intervene to save life, so be it. I see God as life, so to ask God to do something about killings is changing the laws of nature of cause and effect. (Ex asking that a child not fall from the cliff even though when pushed gravity will pull Him down, not God)

So you ( if I follow your thinking) like the rest of us have developed your own truth as to what God is or isn't.

 

[kepha31]

Since when does cannibalism necessarily entail "ripping or tearing"? You're making up your own definition.

If you are literally consuming the literal flesh and blood of an actual man, then you are committing cannibalism.

You're describing cultural norms, taboos, and gut reactions, not morality. It's quite easy for me to imagine a culture where cannibalism could be seen as a show of respect for the deceased.

Indeed. IMO, this thread was directed toward a particular sort of theist: the kind who adhere to the doctrine of "divine command" morality. Personally, I think that divine command is a load of unsubstantiated nonsense, but it has an interesting implication: if any given practice or cultural norm is really a matter of morality, then it should be traceable back to a command from God. If it can't be traced back this way, then it's just an aesthetic preference.

... if divine command theory is correct, of course.

If cannibalism was actually unthinkable, this thread would not exist.

And if they do this,are they really christians?

Since when does cannibalism necessarily entail "ripping or tearing"? You're making up your own definition.

If you are literally consuming the literal flesh and blood of an actual man, then you are committing cannibalism.

If cannibalism was actually unthinkable, this thread would not exist.

The thread is an attack on the Bible because it does not explicitly state that cannibalism is wrong, therefore incomplete. It may be an indirect attack on the Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and Catholics are cannibals (on the grounds of ignorance). I didn't vote the poll because all of the options are misleading.

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 Student cannot, or refuses 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.

This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

From a Christian perspective, no. Id view God the way Catholics do in regards to justice, love, and forgiveness.

Since I dont practice Christianity, I dont see Him as an external being, force, or the like. Just personified life. At its core, the true nature of life in us and all are shown when we become who we are not how others define us. We are all Buddhas. When we find our practice and faith and it brings out who we are as a person that is more love for me to live than asking forgiveness for sins I havnt commited.

I hearbso many definitions of God from Christians. There's a few personalities of Him in the Bible. I dont study the Bible anymore in a spiritual light. Life is simple. Why make it complex with Gods and Goddesss.

So you ( if I follow your thinking) like the rest of us have developed your own truth as to what God is or isn't.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

We could basically say it isnt Cannibalism be ause the hosts to non Catholics are not Jesus Christ. To us Catholics, we dont see his physcal body. (hair, toes, skin). Spiritual speaking aside, we 'see' bread and wine. Cannibalism has nothing to do with real food.

The thread is an attack on the Bible because it does not explicitly state that cannibalism is wrong, therefore incomplete. It may be an indirect attack on the Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and Catholics are cannibals (on the grounds of ignorance). I didn't vote the poll because all of the options are misleading.

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 Student cannot, or refuses 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.

This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.

 

[BSM1]

From a Christian perspective, no. Id view God the way Catholics do in regards to justice, love, and forgiveness.

Since I dont practice Christianity, I dont see Him as an external being, force, or the like. Just personified life. At its core, the true nature of life in us and all are shown when we become who we are not how others define us. We are all Buddhas. When we find our practice and faith and it brings out who we are as a person that is more love for me to live than asking forgiveness for sins I havnt commited.

I hearbso many definitions of God from Christians. There's a few personalities of Him in the Bible. I dont study the Bible anymore in a spiritual light. Life is simple. Why make it complex with Gods and Goddesss.

Yes, this is exactly what I mean. We all have to find our own truth.

 

[Parsimony]

Assuming that the human being in question was not murdered, why should cannibalism be wrong? It's just dead flesh.

 

[Harmonious]

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 have not "been told."

<snip>

That cannibalism is listed as a corrective action/punishment meted out by God is demonstrable via scripture and I'm not challenging that. That cannibalism is against God's Will does not appear to be supported. It isn't even listed as a sin, is it?

Remember that at the heart of this discussion is the Christian claim that they have an objective morality. If there is no Divine Revelation regarding cannibalism, then where does Objective Christian Morality derive its views on the practice? Is it based solely on inference?

Not a Christian, but I can answer the question.

It doesn't outright say "Don't eat people," although, as it has been pointed out, the horror of desperation that would bring people to a point to do so, especially a mother - who gave birth to her children - would be reduced to eating her children to stay alive is especially graphic as a punishment.

But it DOES say not to eat blood. Leviticus 17:10-14 goes on about that.

10And any man of the House of Israel or of the strangers that sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My attention upon the soul who eats the blood, and I will cut him off from among his people.
11For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have therefore given it to you [to be placed] upon the altar, to atone for your souls. For it is the blood that atones for the soul.
12Therefore, I said to the children of Israel: None of you shall eat blood, and the stranger who sojourns among you shall not eat blood.
13And any man of the children of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them, who traps a quarry of a wild animal or bird that may be eaten, and sheds its blood, he shall cover it [the blood] with dust.
14For [regarding] the soul of all flesh its blood is in its soul, and I said to the children of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the soul of any flesh is its blood all who eat it shall be cut off.


That is what it says about the blood of animals. One can imagine that if ANIMAL'S blood is forbidden to be eaten by Jews and our non-Jewish neighbors, ever so much more so would the blood of HUMANS be forbidden to eat.

It DOES say not to murder, in various places, which is different than lawfully killing someone (ie. in battle, the death penalty, self-defense or defense of others, etc.) There are also laws about not desecrating a corpse. (The graphic image of corpse desecration is another punishment, not something to willingly do.)

The verses describing "not desecrating a corpse" aren't in a nice little package like the "not eating blood" verses. There are verses that describe not leaving a body of a person hanged on the gallows overnight, as that is a desecration. For example.

(This is why, during the events in the Book of Esther, when Haman's ten sons were hanged, it was particularly graphic to know that they were hanged on the 13th of Adar, and left hanging through the 15th of Adar. It also happened to be Persian law, and not Jewish law, so it's a bit different)

In combination, the not eating or drinking blood and the not desecrating a corpse together equals forbidding cannibalism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The thread is an attack on the Bible because it does not explicitly state that cannibalism is wrong, therefore incomplete.

No, it's an attack on divine command theory in a Christian context.

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 Student cannot, or refuses to, understand.

I think it's you that fails to understand here. Cannibalism is about consumption of flesh, not "injury".

And it's you who's inferring that cannibalism necessarily means something negative. Nobody else is imposing this judgement on the label.

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.

This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.

No, that's why they do work: cannibalism is the eating of human flesh. If you find this label offensive, there are a few options open to you:

- don't consider the Eucharistic host to be the literal body of Christ.
- don't consider Christ to be fully man.
- don't eat the Host.
- believe all these things, eat it, and accept the idea that cannibalism is not necessarily negative.

You say "what is eaten is literally his body and blood". People who eat the literal body and blood of another human being are cannibals. This is how the term "cannibal" is defined.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In itself, its natural. Somen insects I think do so. Some spiders eat their children if they dont live after birth.

If humans were designed to each other, Id assume Its not wrong. Disturbing though.

Assuming that the human being in question was not murdered, why should cannibalism be wrong? It's just dead flesh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Assuming that the human being in question was not murdered, why should cannibalism be wrong? It's just dead flesh.

It tends to be unhealthy. If a person died of a disease, the disease could be passed on to the person eating the deceased.

It probably also isn't a good idea to create a situation where the deaths of my neighbours is in my best interest.

Of course, these points only suggest that cannibalism is generally unwise, not that it's necessarily immoral. They also don't apply to certain forms of cannibalism (e.g. eating placenta).

 

[Nada]

The thread is an attack on the Bible because it does not explicitly state that cannibalism is wrong, therefore incomplete. It may be an indirect attack on the Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and Catholics are cannibals (on the grounds of ignorance). I didn't vote the poll because all of the options are misleading.

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 Student cannot, or refuses 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.

This is why the charge of cannibalism won't work.

Nothing supernatural happens during the actual memorial commemorating the last supper..Those emblems are just that.Emblems.This practice once a year,on Nisan 14th,is a humble simple service.Not an over the top event done more than once a year with all the trimmings.You think that one has to rip the flesh to be a cannibal? Lets see what the definition means.
Cannibalism:a person who eats the flesh of other human beings: Ok,so now we know it means, eating human flesh.One does not have to rip the flesh like a creature and look like a zombie to be a cannibal.It consist of drinking blood or eating the fleshy parts.

1. Transubstantiation (in Latin, transsubstantiatio, in Greek μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is the change whereby, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the bread and the wine used in the sacrament of the Eucharist become, not merely as by a sign or a figure, but also in actual reality the body and blood of Christ.
   
   So if one thinks that it literally becomes flesh in actual reality, then it is flesh you are eating.What does the definition say?
   
   Cannibalism:a person who eats the flesh of other human beings:
   
   Another thing,Jesus was still alive when he established the new covenant during the last supper.How is the wine and bread going to become flesh in actual reality, when he was still breathing there with the others, eating and drinking too?
   
   Jesus was using figurative language like in John 2:19-21; 4:13, 14; 10:7; 15:1.
   
   
   Jesus was a Jew and followed the Jewish customs and laws.They know it is wrong to eat human flesh.That is why it was a shock when Jesus explained to others that hey had to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood.What Jesus was saying is that they had to partake of his spiritual food and dedicate themselves to God.
   
   John 6:32,33 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
   
   
   John 6:52-57. Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
   
   53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
   
   So here we have symbolic language not to be taken literally.Jesus just means keep this practice until he returns and then he will do this again with them in heaven after all is accomplished.
   
   
   Google/jw.wol/Bible Hub/Bible Gateway

 

[kepha31]

No, it's an attack on divine command theory in a Christian context.

I think it's you that fails to understand here. Cannibalism is about consumption of flesh, not "injury".

And it's you who's inferring that cannibalism necessarily means something negative. Nobody else is imposing this judgement on the label...

Got any recipes?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

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

Would you care to explain that difference?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

What would have been immoral is for a non-priest to wear mixed threads.

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.

 

[Tumah]

I don't understand. Since the OP is mainly quoting Jewish Scriptures, why is this a question? There are lists and qualifying features that determine what we may eat. If it ain't on the list, it ain't kosher.

Unless you know of some humans who have split hooves and chew their puke...?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

The thread is an attack on the Bible because it does not explicitly state that cannibalism is wrong, therefore incomplete.

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, is there any method for God to divinely reveal objective morality?

It may be an indirect attack on the Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, and Catholics are cannibals (on the grounds of ignorance).

1.) It doesn't appear that the "Real and Substantial Presence of Jesus" can be demonstrated outside of the Eucharist. If a presence is in fact Real and Substantial, that presence ought to be measurable, right? That which is Real and Substantial is also that which is Real and Detectable, correct?

2.) It has not been demonstrated that Catholics (or any Christian for that matter) are literally engaging in cannibalism when they symbolically ingest the body of another human being. If the doctrine were to insist that the bread literally and truly turns into human flesh when ingested, that ought to be testable. Unless of course, the human flesh somehow manages to turn back into bread the minute we enter the digestive system to investigate.

Christian communion isn't really at the heart of this thread's question, however. I merely mentioned it as a possible explanation as to why the human authors of the Bible didn't feel entirely cozy with condemning cannibalism outright.

I didn't vote the poll because all of the options are misleading.

Unfortunately, you weren't required to vote to participate in the thread. Still, no one has a gun to your head in either case.