Why doesn't the Bible condemn cannibalism?

[Kolibri]

I ask myself, do I dare add to this topic?

There is no law that forbids cannibalism in the Bible, but it is apparent that it was the eating of human flesh was abhorrent to God and his ancient people Israel. It was mentioned as part of a curse of what would result to the people if they disobeyed the Law Covenant they were agreeing to.

"Then you will have to eat your own children, (Lit., "the fruit of your womb.") the flesh of your sons and your daughters whom Jehovah your God has given you, because of the severity of the siege and the distress your enemy inflicts on you. Even the most delicate and sensitive man among you will have no pity on his brother or his cherished wife or his sons who remain, and he will not share with them any of the flesh of his sons that he will eat, because he has nothing else on account of the severity of the siege and the distress your enemy inflicts on your cities. And the delicate and sensitive woman among you who would not even think of putting the sole of her foot on the ground because she is so delicate will show no pity to her cherished husband or her son or her daughter, even toward the afterbirth that comes from between her legs and toward the sons she bears, for she will secretly eat them because of the severity of the siege and the distress your enemy inflicts on your cities." - De 28:53-27

"The king asked her: 'What is the matter with you?' She replied: 'This woman said to me, "Hand over your son, and we will eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow." So we boiled my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, "Hand over your son so that we may eat him." But she hid her son.' As soon as the king heard the woman's words, he ripped his garments apart. When he passed by on the wall, the people saw that he was wearing sackcloth under his clothes. (or "underneath, next to his skin.")" - 2 Kings 6:28-30

And a literal understanding of Jesus' words at John 6:22-59 weeded out people that were not willing to look or ask for a deeper meaning.

"When they heard this, many of his disciples said: 'This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?'" - John 6:60

 

[NulliuSINverba]

There is no law that forbids cannibalism in the Bible, but it is apparent that it was the eating of human flesh was abhorrent to God

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."

At what point are Christians obliged to admit that their revulsion at the thought of consuming human flesh cannot possibly be the result of divine revelation if there is no such divine revelation?

and his ancient people Israel.

No one is denying that cannibalism is repugnant to most people (practicing cannibals being the notable exception). However, morality derived solely from humanity is (according to certain sneering Christian apologists) totally subjective ... and thus inferior.

It was mentioned as part of a curse of what would result to the people if they disobeyed the Law Covenant they were agreeing to.

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?

 

[Unification]

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."

At what point are Christians obliged to admit that their revulsion at the thought of consuming human flesh cannot possibly be the result of divine revelation if there is no such divine revelation?



No one is denying that cannibalism is repugnant to most people (practicing cannibals being the notable exception). However, morality derived solely from humanity is (according to some Christian apologists) totally subjective.



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?

Already explained. You choose to see it literally. The human is also born with a moral code, one doesn't need scriptures. If you want your own questions answered, meditate on it with a still, open mind. Obviously, the scripture is under attack from yourself and you somehow know cannibalism is sick and not of God.

 

[Skwim]

Why doesn't the Bible condemn cannibalism?

Because it was not a controversial issue to the times and writers. There are a million subjects not discussed in the Bible.

But it is "discussed." Just reread the OP.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here is the thing. It does have something to do with the food and drink. I'm using layman's' words because I'm not versed in scripture and cant speak Greek and Hebrew.

In Christianity, the physical is very important. The relationship between physical and spiritual are profoundly expressed in throughout the Bible. Communion is no exception.

All physical things in the Bible had some sort of spiritual significance. For example...

The bread or manna:

In the OT, the manna was not only spiritual food it was physical food for them to eat or they the Israelite would starve. God associated the nourishment for food with the nourishment of life.

They needed both the bread of life and the bread as in food to nourish their spirit and nourish their bodies. Since it came from God (not Wendy's fast food), both are spiritual.

Point: The Israelite depended on God for everything. Not just spiritual food but physical too. You can't separate the two because you can see one and not the other.

The Ten Commandments

Moses literally went up the mountain, took blocks of stone, and God wrote on those tablets. You will get different views if it is literal or not. However, you needed the stones. (Or whatever object that Moses decided to write on).

The Bible

Without the Bible (scriptures from all time periods), no one would know about God and Christ. The Bible was very important in Churches and the putting together of scriptures wasn't an abstract art, but done physically too.

Jesus Christ

If there is no Jesus Christ walking the earth (if God didn't become human, if you like), there'd be no passion. No salvation for Christians.

Point: There needed to be a flesh (Christians' sins) and a spirit (Christians promise of resurrection) in order for salvation to be true to those who believe it.

Communion

In many cultures, food is important. It is what holds many families together (for example, my family in some parts of the states). When we share food, we are sharing ourselves with each other as One unit; One family; One Church. Without the physical members of the family and the food itself, there is no connection.

The same with Christ. He and His disciples sat and ate around the table. When He passed around the cup and bread, this wasn't just any food. He was directly associating (I'll say) Himself with the food He gives. He showed His relationship not only by ministry, he did so by communion as well. That was the "Last Supper." That's why it is so important and why many Catholics reflect on it, the passion of the Cross, because of its importance in their salvation.

Point: Jesus associated Himself with the food they ate. That cup and bread was a bond between each person as One unite. So whomever drinks of this cup and eats of this bread will have life in Him, and that life is of Christ.

Yes, it is spiritual and it is physical too. (It isn't cannibalism.. referring to the OP; completely different ball park)

--
The Bible to many many Christians is not just an abstract metaphorical spiritual book. A lot of events and passages are taking literally because they believe God exist literally--a fact. Why dub down communion--a supper with Christ--to a spiritual meal we just remember when you can participate in it in Mass?

I know not everyone feels the same about Mass. All they see is pagan this or that. The point is that physical objects, people, etc are used in the Bible a lot (the OT Tabernacle, animal sacrifices, Isaac,) and so on and so forth. They weren't just examples of spiritual truths, they were spiritual truths to many Christians because they are events that actually happened as well.

It has nothing to do with literal food and drink. It's all spiritual and within where Jesus says the kingdom is, within. The only place a person can be transformed, and one can find and know and experience God is internally, not externally.

The Eucharist IS internal. If I was not a Christian and did not take the sacraments and I took the Eucharist, to me, that would just be bread and wine. Put that on my plate and I'd have a good meal with it. It's external nourishment. Since I have taken the sacraments of the Church, and I am Christian by my vows, when I take the Eucharist, I know what I am taking in isn't just food. I don't just throw the blessed hosts down on the table and chow down on it. If you are a Christian and you are with Christ internally, than the Eucharist would reflect that. (As some Christians see the Bible)

It's not the other way around. The Eucharist doesn't make someone a Christian. Before we are confirmed, we say "Yes, I want Jesus to be my Lord and Savior" we made the vows and repented and so forth before we take the Eucharist.

Once we have entered Christ's home and sit at His table, if we are His disciples, we will appreciate that He wanted us to take the cup which He said is His blood and bread which He said is His body.

Highlight: Time period and the type of Church involved shouldn't have anything to do with the sacraments of Christ.
--

This is how I see Christianity when I was practicing and now. I just wish people can see the beauty in participating in a relationship with Christ not just spiritually, but physically too. It changes ones life.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Haha. I was about to say don't. Rats! I'm too late.

I ask myself, do I dare add to this topic?

There is no law that forbids cannibalism in the Bible, but it is apparent that it was the eating of human flesh was abhorrent to God and his ancient people Israel. It was mentioned as part of a curse of what would result to the people if they disobeyed the Law Covenant they were agreeing to.

"Then you will have to eat your own children, (Lit., "the fruit of your womb.") the flesh of your sons and your daughters whom Jehovah your God has given you, because of the severity of the siege and the distress your enemy inflicts on you. Even the most delicate and sensitive man among you will have no pity on his brother or his cherished wife or his sons who remain, and he will not share with them any of the flesh of his sons that he will eat, because he has nothing else on account of the severity of the siege and the distress your enemy inflicts on your cities. And the delicate and sensitive woman among you who would not even think of putting the sole of her foot on the ground because she is so delicate will show no pity to her cherished husband or her son or her daughter, even toward the afterbirth that comes from between her legs and toward the sons she bears, for she will secretly eat them because of the severity of the siege and the distress your enemy inflicts on your cities." - De 28:53-27

"The king asked her: 'What is the matter with you?' She replied: 'This woman said to me, "Hand over your son, and we will eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow." So we boiled my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, "Hand over your son so that we may eat him." But she hid her son.' As soon as the king heard the woman's words, he ripped his garments apart. When he passed by on the wall, the people saw that he was wearing sackcloth under his clothes. (or "underneath, next to his skin.")" - 2 Kings 6:28-30

And a literal understanding of Jesus' words at John 6:22-59 weeded out people that were not willing to look or ask for a deeper meaning.

"When they heard this, many of his disciples said: 'This speech is shocking; who can listen to it?'" - John 6:60

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Already explained. You choose to see it literally. The human is also born with a moral code

Where is this code located? Our genes? Some sort of collective cloud memory?

one doesn't need scriptures.

That's basically the point I'm driving towards.

If you want your own questions answered, meditate on it with a still, open mind.

Obviously, the scripture is under attack from yourself

Wrong. The Christian claim to objective morality derived via divine revelation is being scrutinized. And failing spectacularly to be supported.

and you somehow know cannibalism is sick and not of God.

I know it, but apparently not via the scriptures. The Bible treats cannibalism like a plague of frogs. Are frogs objectively evil?

 

[Unification]

Here is the thing. It does have something to do with the food and drink. I'm using layman's' words because I'm not versed in scripture and cant speak Greek and Hebrew.

In Christianity, the physical is very important. The relationship between physical and spiritual are profoundly expressed in throughout the Bible. Communion is no exception.

All physical things in the Bible had some sort of spiritual significance. For example...

The bread or manna:

In the OT, the manna was not only spiritual food it was physical food for them to eat or they the Israelite would starve. God associated the nourishment for food with the nourishment of life.

They needed both the bread of life and the bread as in food to nourish their spirit and nourish their bodies. Since it came from God (not Wendy's fast food), both are spiritual.

Point: The Israelite depended on God for everything. Not just spiritual food but physical too. You can't separate the two because you can see one and not the other.

The Ten Commandments

Moses literally went up the mountain, took blocks of stone, and God wrote on those tablets. You will get different views if it is literal or not. However, you needed the stones. (Or whatever object that Moses decided to write on).

The Bible

Without the Bible (scriptures from all time periods), no one would know about God and Christ. The Bible was very important in Churches and the putting together of scriptures wasn't an abstract art, but done physically too.

Jesus Christ

If there is no Jesus Christ walking the earth (if God didn't become human, if you like), there'd be no passion. No salvation for Christians.

Point: There needed to be a flesh (Christians' sins) and a spirit (Christians promise of resurrection) in order for salvation to be true to those who believe it.

Communion

In many cultures, food is important. It is what holds many families together (for example, my family in some parts of the states). When we share food, we are sharing ourselves with each other as One unit; One family; One Church. Without the physical members of the family and the food itself, there is no connection.

The same with Christ. He and His disciples sat and ate around the table. When He passed around the cup and bread, this wasn't just any food. He was directly associating (I'll say) Himself with the food He gives. He showed His relationship not only by ministry, he did so by communion as well. That was the "Last Supper." That's why it is so important and why many Catholics reflect on it, the passion of the Cross, because of its importance in their salvation.

Point: Jesus assocated Himself with the food they ate. That cup and bread was a bond between each person as One unite. So whomever drinks of this cup and eats of this bread will have life in Him, and that life is of Christ.

Yes, it is spiritual and it is physical too. (It isn't cannibalism.. referring to the OP; completely different ball park)

--
The Bible to many many Christians is not just an abstract metaphorical spiritual book. A lot of events and passages are taking literally because they believe God exist literally--a fact. Why dub down communion--a supper with Christ--to a spiritual meal we just remember when you can participate in it in Mass?

I know not everyone feels the same about Mass. All they see is pagan this or that. The point is that physical objects, people, etc are used in the Bible a lot (the OT Tabernacle, animal sacrifices, Isaac,) and so on and so forth. They weren't just examples of spiritual truths, they were spiritual truths to many Christians because they are events that actually happened as well.
The Eucharist IS internal. If I was not a Christian and did not take the sacraments and I took the Eucharist, to me, that would just be bread and wine. Put that on my plate and I'd have a good meal with it. It's external nourishment. Since I have taken the sacraments of the Church, and I am Christian by my vows, when I take the Eucharist, I know what I am taking in isn't just food. I don't just throw the blessed hosts down on the table and chow down on it. If you are a Christian and you are with Christ internally, than the Eucharist would reflect that. (As some Christians see the Bible)

It's not the other way around. The Eucharist doesn't make someone a Christian. Before we are confirmed, we say "Yes, I want Jesus to be my Lord and Savior" we made the vows and repented and so forth before we take the Eucharist.

Once we have entered Christ's home and sit at His table, if we are His disciples, we will appreciate that He wanted us to take the cup which He said is His blood and bread which He said is His body.

Time period and the type of Church involved shouldn't have anything to do with the sacraments of Christ.
--

This is how I see Christianity when I was practicing. I just wish people can see the beauty in participating in a relationship with Christ not just spiritually, but physically too. It changes ones life.

Well said. Respect your feedback.

Without God one would starve, spiritually.
The Israelite is the spiritual human. What about the food from heaven for the Gentile and ones separated from God?

The Earth in scripture is the human body made of matter. Where the spirit, life, and blood resides.

Bond-marriage between spiritual and physical in man. Two becoming whole.

God did become human, in us. We are the temple and house of God. Spirit residing bodily. If Christ didn't come in the flesh, INSIDE of us, we'd have no life or chance to become whole. There would be no such thing as life or anything.

The two tablets of stone where God's laws are written are the heart and in the head. When Moses reached Mt Sinai (Holy of holies)

the just and the unjust get physical food. The one who strives for God gets spiritual food.

Literal food has no relevance. Their fathers ate literal food and perished. The bread God refers to is Him. Within. Literal juice and bread have no affect on a human.

I respect your traditions, and if it unites and brings people closer together, wonderful.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

No. This thread has nothing to do with Catholics specifically. The Eucharist is just brought up once at the end.

Correct. On both points.

The point of this thread is not to determine the validity of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. Clearly, that practice cannot be demonstrated to rise above the level of harmless theological fan fiction. Consuming Christ's "body" is obviously not literal cannibalism. It's merely symbolic cannibalism.

Let's not dwell on it here a moment longer, hmm?

...

What I'm asking Christians to do is to demonstrate how they know that cannibalism is an objective evil via divine revelation.

 

[BSM1]

How does the Bible condone killing? All killing in the Bible had a motive thus making it a murder. Yet, it says thou shall not kill. Maybe rephrase?

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.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

the just and the unjust get physical food. The one who strives for God gets spiritual food.

Flaked-out Hippie Couple says:

"Speaking of spiritual food, would you like our favorite recipe for wheatgrass enemas? "

 

[Unification]

Where is this code located? Our genes? Some sort of collective cloud memory?



That's basically the point I'm driving towards.

Wrong. The Christian claim to objective morality derived via divine revelation is being scrutinized. And failing spectacularly to be supported.



I know it, but apparently not via the scriptures. The Bible treats cannibalism like a plague of frogs. Are frogs objectively evil?

The bible has nothing to do with the cannibalism that you perceive literally.

The "Christian" claims many things.

Sure, be still of mind. Isaaic meditated on God before there were any scriptures.

Where does your morality come from? Were you created, by a higher intelligence designed a certain way with good seed initially? Or do you believe in evolution? Laws of nature? Science? Science and God? One objective moral truth physically and spiritually or just physcially and scientifically?

 

[Unification]

Flaked-out Hippie Couple says:

"Speaking of spiritual food, would you like our favorite recipe for wheatgrass enemas? "

I'm digging your beard, friend. How long did it take to grow out?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

All killing in the Bible had a motive thus making it a murder.

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?

 

[Kolibri]

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?

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

"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

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. By the time the Jews got the Law Covenant there were just over 600. Today we have thousands.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Where does your morality come from?

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?

 

[kepha31]

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.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Literal food has no relevance. Their fathers ate literal food and perished. The bread God refers to is Him. Within. Literal juice and bread have no affect on a human.

Thank you. I cannot tell if you understand what I am saying and disagree but here are my thoughts.

The way you phrase it it makes it seem everything used in the Bible are just props for God to express His Words. I respect that view; and, I just don't see how it is completely biblical.

In general, not particularly the Catholic Church, to take the culture and traditions from a faith is ripping the heart out of the teachings itself. It is like going to someone's home for dinner and I look for the table, candles, and food but there's nothing:

The host says "The furniture and food was there before we moved in; now, it's gone." and I ask "why don't you buy a new table, some food, two more candles?"

A protestant might say "we can still have dinner, we can remember what used to be here as if it were here now."

In my view, I'd think "wait, just because we buy a shinny new table made from China, candles from Bed Bath and Beyond, and food from Giant doesn't take away from us communing together--that's what it is all about."

That is the difference between our points of view. I mean, I left the Church because of many reasons; but, I always believed in the Real Presence. Call me crazy.
-
I guess that's my final comment. Good we can disagree on good terms, right?

 

[Sapiens]

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.[1][2] The Catholic Church teaches that the substance or reality of the bread is changed into that of the body of Christ and the substance of the wine into that of his blood,[3] while all that is accessible to the senses (the outward appearances - species[4][5][6]in Latin) remains unchanged.[7][8] What remains unaltered is also referred to as the "accidents" of the bread and wine,[9] but this term is not used in the official definition of the doctrine by the Council of Trent.[10] The manner in which the change occurs, the Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."[11]

Transubstantiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

 

[Unification]

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?

The spirit behind the scripture has the meaning of God destroying and murdering the evil within the human, not literal people. . The renewing of the mind. The destruction of the flesh. The natural man becoming a spiritual man of higher conscious. . And entering rest (promised land)

Joshua made the sun and moon stand still (east and west hemispheres of brain) through meditation and conquered and murdered his enemies that he was enslaved to. (Defeated/overcome his emotions, evil thoughts, desires, etc.)

If it's not of love, peace, equality, or objective truth/morality... It has a deeper meaning, spiritually.

It's easy to make the mistake as the natural minded human... Taking the scriptures literally... Why there is so much divide and endless amounts of denominations and the bible used as a weapon to oppress people. Always a spiritual deeper objective meaning for mankind.