Why doesn't the Bible condemn cannibalism?

[Tumah]

How these different denominations treat and view these emblems is just one of the very many variances among them. While some believe in a esquilax and make use of a physical representation of an alter others do not. Some eat and drink at least weekly and others do not. Some have all their members partake, even when they have not shown repentance after committing serious sins and others are much more selective.

Regarding the bread and wine not being esquilax-isk, Jesus also said the cup means the new covenant, as he claimed to be the mediator of that covenant. (Lu 22:20)
Since the cup did not literally become the new covenant, neither do the bread and the wine literally become a sample of Jesus' sinless body and shed blood.
Since the cup was to represent the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-40, the eating of this communion meal would not be for everyone.
And since the arrangement was instituted on the day of his sacrificial death and immediately following the Passover - which was an annual remembrance - it makes sense to only observe this annually on the same day, or 30 days later in case of a special circumstance. (Nu 9:9-14)

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. What's a an esquilax?

 

[Kolibri]

It was a new word I learned today. Thought I would try it out as a memory aid.

I think the idea of transubstantiation is exactly as reasonable as the idea of the esquilax* and strikes me as no more convincing.



*The mythical creature that's a horse with the head of a rabbit and the body of a rabbit... i.e. indistinguishable in every way from a rabbit.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I always wonder why folks who criticize various aspects of religion, usually commandments they don't care for, assume that a principle that covers a specific case is generalized for what the law never covered, and take a principle that truly covers a broad spectrum of ideas is passed off as an insignificant detail.

In this case, I'm asking why The Law neglects to condemn cannibalism altogether.

Given that The Law covers many broad topics (do not covet) and seemingly ridiculous details (do not wear clothes made of diverse fabrics), I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why the consumption of human flesh by other humans wasn't addressed directly (especially when theists make the unsubstantiated claim that they've received Objective Morality via Divine Revelation).

Perhaps it was a mere oversight? Perhaps God knew that one day he'd be asking people to symbolically consume another human's "body" and (in his wisdom) didn't want to make the Eucharist a contentious issue?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In this case, I'm asking why The Law neglects to condemn cannibalism altogether.

Given that The Law covers many broad topics (do not covet) and seemingly ridiculous details (do not wear clothes made of diverse fabrics), I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why the consumption of human flesh by other humans wasn't addressed directly (especially when theists make the unsubstantiated claim that they've received Objective Morality via Divine Revelation).

It was addressed, as was pointed out. Humans don't have cloven hooves and don't chew their cud, so they're not kosher. From a Jewish perspective, that takes care of all cannibalism.

Perhaps it was a mere oversight? Perhaps God knew that one day he'd be asking people to symbolically consume another human's "body" and (in his wisdom) didn't want to make the Eucharist a contentious issue?

Or perhaps the writers of the Old Testament had no idea that thousands of years in the future, people who claim to follow the Jewish messiah would be eating crackers that they believed to have the "substance" of human flesh.

 

[Kolibri]

In this case, I'm asking why The Law neglects to condemn cannibalism altogether.

Given that The Law covers many broad topics (do not covet) and seemingly ridiculous details (do not wear clothes made of diverse fabrics), I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why the consumption of human flesh by other humans wasn't addressed directly (especially when theists make the unsubstantiated claim that they've received Objective Morality via Divine Revelation).

Perhaps it was a mere oversight? Perhaps God knew that one day he'd be asking people to symbolically consume another human's "body" and (in his wisdom) didn't want to make the Eucharist a contentious issue?

One thing that has not been addressed here is the dietary restrictions given to humans prior to the Law given thru Moses.

"God went on to bless Noah and his sons and to say to them: 'Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth. A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that moves on the ground and upon all the fish of the sea. They are not given into your hand. (or "given under your authority.") Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation I give them all to you. Only flesh with its life (or "soul.") - its blood - you must not eat'." - Ge 9:1-4

Note that when Mankind's diet was enlarged to include meat, humans were not included as a food item.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

It's not described as an objective evil

So does it follow that it isn't objectively immoral or not?

in the most horrific of circumstances, it could be the only way to save one's own life.

Again: Can a Christian who deems cannibalism as objectively immoral do so via an appeal to divine revelation? If yes, please do so. And be sure to cite your source(s).

People have heard about the Donner Party.

Not a party you'd want to attend.

Q. - Were they Christians? What if God told them to eat each other in a moment of personal revelation? Christians claim he does that all the time.

If you are literally starving to death, and the only thing to eat is dead people... God didn't place a value judgment on such a thing.

Hmm. Given that he's seen fit to issue decrees concerning sex, food, clothes, law, faith, language, and every other conceivable topic, doesn't it strike you as a tad bizarre that he'd omit something like the consumption of human flesh?

What you're asserting is that there are some things that God places no judgment on, correct? Or is it more accurate to say that although God may have a judgement on a particular item, he may not have opted to reveal that via Divine Revelation?

It would be horrific to have to make such a judgment call, and God isn't judging us for making a choice when the only option is a bad one.

Given the twin facts that God hasn't seen fit to condemn cannibalism, and that God allegedly delights in the smell of burning flesh, I'd imagine his only concern would be that we not devour each other raw.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation I give them all to you. Only flesh with its life (or "soul.") - its blood - you must not eat'." - Ge 9:1-4

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

Note that when Mankind's diet was enlarged to include meat, humans were not included as a food item.

Would you care to substantiate that assertion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm. Given that he's seen fit to issue decrees concerning sex, food, clothes, law, faith, language, and every other conceivable topic, doesn't it strike you as a tad bizarre that he'd omit something like the consumption of human flesh?

What makes you think this was omitted?

Those laws about food you mention say that (apart from insects, birds, and fish) the only animals that can be eaten are those that have cloven hooves and chew their cud. Last time I checked, humans don't meet either of these criteria.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Well, you're idea seems to be that eating people who died of natural causes is okay, according to the bible.

Taking the whole of the bible, this is incorrect. There's no "don't eat people" section, but the rule can be derived from two different laws.

1: Murder is not allowed, with some exceptions
2: The only meat the bible allows for eating is that which is slaughtered in a very specific manner. You can't actually kill a human in this manner to make them suitable for eating in a way that wouldn't violate the prohibition against murder.

So you're SOL, on that one, sorry. Eating humans may not be strictly speaking illegal, but to do so you'd need to violate one of the other laws in the bible.

Also you seem to be conflating prophecies of events the bible claimed would come to be and events the bible claimed has happened with divine laws written in the bible. This is not really a valid approach.

 

[Tumah]

In this case, I'm asking why The Law neglects to condemn cannibalism altogether.

Given that The Law covers many broad topics (do not covet) and seemingly ridiculous details (do not wear clothes made of diverse fabrics), I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why the consumption of human flesh by other humans wasn't addressed directly (especially when theists make the unsubstantiated claim that they've received Objective Morality via Divine Revelation).

Perhaps it was a mere oversight? Perhaps God knew that one day he'd be asking people to symbolically consume another human's "body" and (in his wisdom) didn't want to make the Eucharist a contentious issue?

I don't believe there is a case in Scriptures where the Law condemns something. It is either prohibited by Scriptures or not. Since murder and eating limbs of live animals are prohibited and humans do not have the characteristics of kosher animals, cannibalism is prohibited.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

It was addressed, as was pointed out. Humans don't have cloven hooves and don't chew their cud

Neither do fish.

so they're not kosher. From a Jewish perspective, that takes care of all cannibalism.

Does it? Please review this.

Or perhaps the writers of the Old Testament had no idea that thousands of years in the future, people who claim to follow the Jewish messiah would be eating crackers that they believed to have the "substance" of human flesh.

Despite my flippant treatment of the entire issue, I believe that this point merits consideration.

 

[Salek Atesh]

Neither do fish.

But fish have fins and scales. Duh.

Here, read this: Kosher animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overall, the issue of whether an animal is kosher or not is a complex one found in many verses of the bible. But, in short, humans make none of the criteria.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Neither do fish.

Fish are dealt with under separate rules. Water-dwelling creatures with scales are okay, ones without aren't (e.g. shrimp, catfish, dolphin). People don't have scales either.

Does it? Please review this.

I meant "all cannibalism" in the sense that it addresses not only killing someone to eat them but also eating someone who died anyway or eating flesh that doesn't result in death or suffering (e.g. eating placenta).

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I don't believe there is a case in Scriptures where the Law condemns something.

What? Are you serious? The Bible is simply crawling with condemnation!

What about homosexuality? Doesn't that get thoroughly condemned as "an abomination?" Isn't anything described as a "sin" condemned?

Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Exhibit C.

It is either prohibited by Scriptures or not.

And in the case of cannibalism, it would appear that the proper answer is "NOT."

Since murder and eating limbs of live animals are prohibited and humans do not have the characteristics of kosher animals, cannibalism is prohibited.

If we're to accept that kosher rules that pertain to animals also pertain to people, doesn't it follow that The Law views people as animals?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Fish are dealt with under separate rules.

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

 

[Tumah]

Neither do fish.

Yes, but fish have their own requirements. There's no way around this. If its not listed in Scriptures its not kosher. Humans are not kosher (although human milk is). Additionally, Deut. 21:23 prohibits delaying the burial of a corpse. This would include delay for the purpose of eating.

Does it? Please review this.

Preservation of human life is not carte blanche to do anything. There are legal parameters to when it is or is not.

 

[Salek Atesh]

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

Wrong. When dealing with kosher foods, things are separated into three categories:
Land creatures
Water creatures
Flying creatures

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

You seem to be flip flopping on the issue. On your original post, you used scripture saying all animals were given to men to eat as proof cannibalism was allowed. Now you state they are not animals when kosher animal laws make your theory crumble.

Cannibalism ain't kosher, and that's the simple matter to this.

 

[Salek Atesh]

What? Are you serious? The Bible is simply crawling with condemnation!

What about homosexuality? Doesn't that get thoroughly condemned as "an abomination?" Isn't anything described as a "sin" condemned?

Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Exhibit C.

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

 

[Tumah]

What? Are you serious? The Bible is simply crawling with condemnation!

What about homosexuality? Doesn't that get thoroughly condemned as "an abomination?" Isn't anything described as a "sin" condemned?

Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Exhibit C.

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

And in the case of cannibalism, it would appear that the proper answer is "NOT."

As I've established, it actually is yes.

If we're to accept that kosher rules that pertain to animals also pertain to people, doesn't it follow that The Law views people as animals?

No that is the wrong assumption. Kosher rules apply to everything. Honey is not an animal, but it is kosher. 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.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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?

For the record, I wasn't talking about a Christian perspective, but a Jewish one.

Nods.

Hmm... I agree that killing should not be done because one wants to. But I disagree that you are saying that what I think of as legitimate reasons to kill someone are wrong.

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.

Oddly enough, I think we almost agree here. Except for this one bit.

[The abortion] wasn't a choice that was lightly made, but between the mother, father, the Rabbis consulted, and the doctors involved, they aborted this one. The parents were devastated, but it was better that she should live. When her body was healed, the couple proceeded to have three happy and healthy children.​

You might be one to say that they were wrong. Personally, I agree with them, and am glad to know that the family thrives.

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.

No. Killing in self-defense CAN BE the RIGHT thing to do. I understand you disagree.

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

American law isn't the same as Jewish law.

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.

There is a way to condemn someone positively? That's news to me.

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.

To be fair, I would suggest that God values life in MOST circumstances. And other lives...

He gave us life. He has the right to decide who can live and who must die. We don't have to agree with God's decision. We do have to live with it, though.

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).

I see your point. I don't agree with it on every case, but I definitely see your point.

Thank you. I just think we are defining the words differently. You are saying, let me know if I'm wrong, that "wrong killing" is based on reason. So it can't be wrong unless it's done in malice, etc. I'm saying that "wrong killing" is based on the body's physical and mental purpose to be born, grow,live, and die naturally. It is wrong if that process is interrupted.

I'm just taking the reasons out of the picture and focusing on the actions themselves.

Kinda understand?

Edit..

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.