Why doesn't the Bible condemn cannibalism?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Got any recipes?

I haven't tried them myself, but here are some:
Placenta Recipes | The Best Placenta Recipes on the Internet!

 

[BSM1]

Would you care to explain that difference?

Murder is determined by law. There are degrees of murder; such as first degree, second degree, manslaughter, etc. Killing someone is only murder when it is done in violation of a legal statute and proven or confessed to in court.

 

[kepha31]

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.

I've patiently explained that Communion is NOT cannibalism twice. The charge is false and is highly insulting to Catholics. You can't understand Transubstantiation because it requires supernatural faith, not logic alone.

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?

For the third time,
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.

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.

You keep repeating the same error.

1. 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?

2. Exodus 12:14,17,24; cf. 24:8 - we see that the feast of the paschal lamb is a perpetual ordinance. It lasts forever. But it had not yet been fulfilled.
   
   Exodus 29:38-39 – God commands the Israelites to “offer” (poieseis) the lambs upon the altar. The word “offer” is the same verb Jesus would use to institute the Eucharistic offering of Himself.
3. 
   Lev. 7:15 - the Aaronic sacrifices absolutely had to be eaten in order to restore communion with God. These sacrifices all foreshadow the one eternal sacrifice which must also be eaten to restore communion with God. This is the Eucharist (from the Greek word "eukaristia" which means "thanksgiving").
   
   

   Jesus was using figurative language like in John 2:19-21; 4:13, 14; 10:7; 15:1.

   Jesus always explains figurative language. Your first quote, "Destroy this Temple (in reference to Himself) and I will raise it up in 3 days" There is nothing figurative about that.
4. John 10:7 - here Jesus says, "I am the door." But in this case, no one asked Jesus if He was literally made of wood. They understood him metaphorically.
   
   John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.
   
   

   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.

5. John 15:1,5 - here is another example, where Jesus says, "I am the vine." Again, no one asked Jesus if He was literally a vine. In John 6, Jesus' disciples did ask about His literal speech (that this bread was His flesh which must be eaten). He confirmed that His flesh and blood were food and drink indeed. Many disciples understood Him and left Him.
6. 
   
7. John 6:63 - You, and others often argue that Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" shows that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. However, they must explain why there is not one place in Scripture where "spirit" means "symbolic." As we have seen, the use of "spirit" relates to supernatural faith. What words are spirit and life? The words that we must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life in us.
   
   John 6:66-67 - many disciples leave Jesus, rejecting this literal interpretation that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. At this point, these disciples really thought Jesus had lost His mind. If they were wrong about the literal interpretation, why wouldn't Jesus, the Great Teacher, have corrected them? Why didn't Jesus say, "Hey, come back here, I was only speaking symbolically!"? Because they understood correctly.
   
   Mark 4:34 - Jesus always explained to His disciples the real meanings of His teachings. He never would have let them go away with a false impression, most especially in regard to a question about eternal salvation.
   
   John 6:37 - Jesus says He would not drive those away from Him. They understood Him correctly but would not believe
8. 
   
   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.[/quote]
   
   

   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.

   
   John 6:51-52- then Jesus says that the bread He is referring to is His flesh. The Jews take Him literally and immediately question such a teaching. How can this man give us His flesh to eat?
   
   John 6:53 - 58 - Jesus does not correct their literal interpretation. Instead, Jesus eliminates any metaphorical interpretations by swearing an oath and being even more literal about eating His flesh. In fact, Jesus says four times we must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Catholics thus believe that Jesus makes present His body and blood in the sacrifice of the Mass. Non-Catholics, if they are not going to become Catholic, can only argue that Jesus was somehow speaking symbolically.
   
   John 6:23-53 - however, a symbolic interpretation is not plausible. Throughout these verses, the Greek text uses the word "phago" nine times. "Phago" literally means "to eat" or "physically consume." Like you, the disciples take issue with Jesus' literal usage of "eat." So Jesus does what?
   
   John 6:54, 56, 57, 58 - He uses an even more literal verb, translated as "trogo," which means to gnaw or chew or crunch. He increases the literalness and drives his message home. Jesus will literally give us His flesh and blood to eat. The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (in Matt. 24:38 and John 13:18) and it always means to literally gnaw or chew meat. While “phago” might also have a spiritual application, "trogo" is never used metaphorically in Greek. So you cannot find one verse in Scripture where "trogo" is used symbolically, and yet this must be your argument if they are going to deny the Catholic understanding of Jesus' words. Moreover, the Jews already knew Jesus was speaking literally even before Jesus used the word “trogo” when they said “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” (John 6:52).
   
   John 6:55 - to clarify further, Jesus says "For My Flesh is food indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed." This phrase can only be understood as being responsive to those who do not believe that Jesus' flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed. Further, Jesus uses the word which is translated as "sarx." "Sarx" means flesh (not "soma" which means body). See, for example, John 1:13,14; 3:6; 8:15; 17:2; Matt. 16:17; 19:5; 24:22; 26:41; Mark 10:8; 13:20; 14:38; and Luke 3:6; 24:39 which provides other examples in Scripture where "sarx" means flesh. It is always literal.
   
   John 6:55 - further, the phrases "real" food and "real" drink use the word "alethes." "Alethes" means "really" or "truly," and would only be used if there were doubts concerning the reality of Jesus' flesh and blood as being food and drink. Thus, Jesus is emphasizing the miracle of His body and blood being actual food and drink.
   
   John 6:60 - as are many anti-Catholics today, Jesus' disciples are scandalized by these words. They even ask, "Who can 'listen' to it (much less understand it)?" To the unillumined mind, it seems grotesque.
   
   John 6:61-63 - Jesus acknowledges their disgust. Jesus' use of the phrase "the spirit gives life" means the disciples need supernatural faith, not logic, to understand His words.
   
   John 3:6 - Jesus often used the comparison of "spirit versus flesh" to teach about the necessity of possessing supernatural faith versus a natural understanding. In Mark 14:38 Jesus also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. We must go beyond the natural to understand the supernatural. In 1 Cor. 2:14,3:3; Rom 8:5; and Gal. 5:17, Paul also uses the "spirit/flesh" comparison to teach that unspiritual people are not receiving the gift of faith. They are still "in the flesh."
   
   John 3:5,11; Matt. 16:11-12 - here are some examples of Jesus correcting wrong impressions of His teaching. In the Eucharistic discourse, Jesus does not correct the scandalized disciples.

Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6, 16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.

Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - Jesus says, this IS my body and blood. Jesus does not say, this is a symbol of my body and blood.

Matt. 26:26; Mark. 14:22; Luke 22:19-20 - the Greek phrase is "Touto estin to soma mou." This phraseology means "this is actually" or "this is really" my body and blood.

1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

Matt. 19:6 - Jesus says a husband and wife become one flesh which is consummated in the life giving union of the marital act. This union of marital love which reflects Christ's union with the Church is physical, not just spiritual. Thus, when Paul says we are a part of Christ's body (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23,30-31; Col. 1:18,24), he means that our union with Christ is physical, not just spiritual. But our union with Christ can only be physical if He is actually giving us something physical, that is Himself, which is His body and blood to consume (otherwise it is a mere spiritual union).

Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.

John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs' blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus' sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.

Gen. 14:18 - remember that Melchizedek's bread and wine offering foreshadowed the sacramental re-presentation of Jesus' offering.

Luke 22:19; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - the translation of Jesus' words of consecration is "touto poieite tan eman anamnasin." Jesus literally said "offer this as my memorial sacrifice." The word “poiein” (do) refers to offering a sacrifice (see, e.g., Exodus 29:38-39, where God uses the same word – poieseis – regarding the sacrifice of the lambs on the altar). The word “anamnesis” (remembrance) also refers to a sacrifice which is really or actually made present in time by the power of God, as it reminds God of the actual event (see, e.g., Heb. 10:3; Num. 10:10). It is not just a memorial of a past event, but a past event made present in time.

In other words, the “sacrifice” is the “memorial” or “reminder.” If the Eucharist weren’t a sacrifice, Luke would have used the word “mnemosunon” (which is the word used to describe a nonsacrificial memorial. See, for example, Matt. 26:13; Mark 14:9; and especially Acts 10:4). So there are two memorials, one sacrificial (which Jesus instituted), and one non-sacrificial.

Lev. 24:7 - the word "memorial" in Hebrew in the sacrificial sense is "azkarah" which means to actually make present (see Lev. 2:2,9,16;5:12;6:5; Num.5:26 where “azkarah” refers to sacrifices that are currently offered and thus present in time). Jesus' instruction to offer the bread and wine (which He changed into His body and blood) as a "memorial offering" demonstrates that the offering of His body and blood is made present in time over and over again.

Num. 10:10 - in this verse, "remembrance" refers to a sacrifice, not just a symbolic memorial. So Jesus' command to offer the memorial “in remembrance” of Him demonstrates that the memorial offering is indeed a sacrifice currently offered. It is a re-presentation of the actual sacrifice made present in time. It is as if the curtain of history is drawn and Calvary is made present to us.

Mal. 1:10-11 - Jesus' command to his apostles to offer His memorial sacrifice of bread and wine which becomes His body and blood fulfills the prophecy that God would reject the Jewish sacrifices and receive a pure sacrifice offered in every place. This pure sacrifice of Christ is sacramentally re-presented from the rising of the sun to its setting in every place, as Malachi prophesied.

Heb. 9:23 - in this verse, the author writes that the Old Testament sacrifices were only copies of the heavenly things, but now heaven has better “sacrifices” than these. Why is the heavenly sacrifice called “sacrifices,” in the plural? Jesus died once. This is because, while Christ’s sacrifice is transcendent in heaven, it touches down on earth and is sacramentally re-presented over and over again from the rising of the sun to its setting around the world by the priests of Christ’s Church. This is because all moments to God are present in their immediacy, and when we offer the memorial sacrifice to God, we ask God to make the sacrifice that is eternally present to Him also present to us. Jesus’ sacrifice also transcends time and space because it was the sacrifice of God Himself.
Scripture Catholic - THE EUCHARIST

[/QUOTE]

 

[NulliuSINverba]

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.

Is horrific desperation an objective evil, or a subjective evil? What if that horrific desperation reflects God's will? If God utilizes cannibalism to punish humans (and the Bible says that he does), then we only characterize the punishment as evil and we do so on a subjective basis, no?

Or can we classify God's punishments as Objectively Evil?

But it DOES say not to eat blood.

So what? You drain the blood out of a cow and you've got Objectively Moral beef, right?

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

Is it possible that you've reached what you feel is an objectively moral conclusion by way of subjective inferences?

Again: Drain the blood and don't leave the body hanging long enough for it to count as desecration and it's objectively moral, correct?

...

Is it possible that we're obliged to appeal to non-biblical sources to account for humanity's revulsion of cannibalism?

Or are there extra-biblical sources of divine revelation? How would that work?

 

[Nada]

I've patiently explained that Communion is NOT cannibalism twice. The charge is false and is highly insulting to Catholics. You can't understand Transubstantiation because it requires supernatural faith, not logic alone.

[/QUOTE]

Well I appreciate you patiently explaining twice, but that does not make you correct.Forgive me if you feel I am saying things that are insulting to catholics, but what you believe, and what it says in the holy scriptures, are two entirely different things.That is what is being pointed out here.It is not I who says this.Just read the holy scriptures.It is very clear on the matter.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Murder is determined by law. There are degrees of murder; such as first degree, second degree, manslaughter, etc. Killing someone is only murder when it is done in violation of a legal statute and proven or confessed to in court.

Certainly, human law doesn't excuse murder if the defense pleads innocence on grounds of Divine Revelation, correct?

:::sigh:::

Just another example of how society has fallen away from God, right?

.
.
.

Edited to add:

Given the nature of this thread, I was hoping you'd try to explain the difference(s) between murder and mere killing within the context of claimed Divine Revelation. Appeals to secular law are hardly conclusive, correct?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've patiently explained that Communion is NOT cannibalism twice.

You've explained nothing. You've made the claim and then blathered nonsense, pretending it was an argument.

The charge is false and is highly insulting to Catholics.

You keep saying that, but I don't see why. Cannibalism isn't necessarily bad.

I mentioned the practice of eating the placenta after a birth. This is one example of cannibalism. I find the practice strange, and I wouldn't participate myself, but I don't think it's immoral; do you?

If you really were eating the flesh of Jesus, you would be engaging in cannibalism... but if this is a special kind of cannibalism where the person being eaten isn't harmed and actually wants to be eaten, then what's the issue?

You can't understand Transubstantiation because it requires supernatural faith, not logic alone.

... or at all, apparently.

For the third time,
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.

There's nothing in the definition of cannibalism that requires "ripping and tearing". Any eating of human flesh is cannibalism.

Do you think you're really eating human flesh?

I checked a couple of online dictionaries. One defined "cannibal" as "a person who eats the flesh of other human beings." Another defined the word as "a person who eats human flesh, especially for magical or religious purposes." Don't these two definitions precisely match what you say you do?

Of course, none of the definitions of "cannibal" include "a person who eats what he thinks is human flesh, but isn't", so I don't think you're actually a cannibal.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Objective morality can easily be demonstrated.

OK. Have at it. Demonstrate that cannibalism is objectively immoral.

Subjective morality is relativistic.

So to assert (without making appeals to Divine Revelation) that humanity as a whole tends to view cannibalism as evil is a subjective statement? Do practicing cannibals relish the notion of being eaten themselves, or is the idea of being devoured by other humans universally repugnant?

I dabble in apologetics, but I am no apologist. If REASON leads to question God, their faith system is in error.

If your faith system doesn't leave room for questioning God, then you are politely excused from further participation in this thread.

You demand a scripture that says people are instinctively moral to do the right thing by pulling a stranger out of a burning car?

Specifically? No. Of course not. If the Bible contained references to automobiles, that'd be something else.

However, any Christian that claims that they're pulling a person out of a burning car because it has been divinely revealed that it is objectively moral to do so ought to be able to demonstrate that their claim is true.

I would say that anyone who pulled a person out of a burning automobile should be lauded as a hero. However, I don't claim to have arrived at that opinion via claims of objective morality via divine revelation. So the burden of proof isn't on me, it's on the one claiming they've obtained their objective morality via divine revelation.

Q. - Is there any way aside from scripture for God to reveal what is objectively moral?

There is no scripture condemning cannibalism.

That certainly does appear to be the case.

It is instinctively abhorrent.

So if you're obliged to appeal to instinct, is that objective or subjective? Can we derive objective morality solely from an appeal to human instinct?

The Bible was never intended to list every single moral precept.

So it's intentionally incomplete, correct? God's Word ... the sole apparent source of this so-called "Objective Morality" ... is in fact incomplete? Is that what you're saying?

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.

Q. - Where in the Bible does it assert that violating a person's dignity is objectively immoral? Where in the Bible can you even infer that this is the case?

Doesn't stoning a person violate that person's dignity? Are you ready to follow your premise to its logical conclusion and declare that stoning is objectively immoral?

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

Appealing to context is typically a firm indication that the apologist has nothing more to bring to the conversation.

And exactly what sort of fallacy is it to assert that bombing of cities such as Berlin in WW2 seems utterly incongruous?

It appears to be an example of False Equivalence. We were talking about what God does, correct? Why have you opted to cite the bombing of cites by humanity as if it were somehow equivalent to what God does? Or are you arguing that God bombed Berlin? If we accept that humanity bombed Berlin, and we're not asserting that humanity is all-loving, then to cite the human bombing of Berlin as somehow equivalent to an all-loving god's acts of vengeance or punishment is indeed fallacious.

And exactly what sort of fallacy is it to assert that society orders the execution of serial rapist killers

Again, this appears to be a Fallacy of Equivalence. What society does and what is offensive to God's revealed nature are two different things, correct? If they were identical, we'd execute people for working on the Sabbath, correct?

We've already demonstrated that there are scriptures that indicate that there are contexts wherein God will issue instructions regarding the serial rape of female captives. Although I certainly find rape repugnant in EVERY scenario and in EVERY context, that is clearly NOT the case with the Christian god.

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

I'm sorry, but the Bible clearly shows God saying that something happened of which he had no knowledge. Was God lying or was God telling the truth?

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.

So it's OK to rape them until you're tired of doing so, correct? That is what God revealed, yes or no?

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.

If you've raped your female captive a few times, grown weary of her, and set her free ... who'll look after her until that child reaches an age where it can look after its own mother?

Sorry. I'm callin' BS on that.

In addition, any children they did have would be cared for.

So raping a female captive is acceptable in this scenario, because the child would be looked after by charity?

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.

Ah yes. The "Sanctity of Marriage," right? The woman who doesn't want to be married is free to go as soon as the man gets tired of violating her.

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").

If it isn't a sin in this case because God commands it, then it isn't a sin in any case if God commands it.

How repugnant your rationalizations are! What a twisted sense of morality!

 

[Skwim]

Teriffic thread

NulliuSINverba. Stay the course.

You've got 'em running in circles.

 

[Parsimony]

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

In which case discretion is advised.

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

A similar argument could be used against life insurance.

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).

Yes, I can certainly imagine situations where cannibalism is unfavorable, but it wouldn't be wrong in itself. Someone who is starving and has access to a dead body could hardly be faulted for what would logical come about next.

 

[BSM1]

Certainly, human law doesn't excuse murder if the defense pleads innocence on grounds of Divine Revelation, correct?

:::sigh:::

Just another example of how society has fallen away from God, right?

.
.
.

Edited to add:

Given the nature of this thread, I was hoping you'd try to explain the difference(s) between murder and mere killing within the context of claimed Divine Revelation. Appeals to secular law are hardly conclusive, correct?

Huh??

 

[kepha31]

Is horrific desperation an objective evil, or a subjective evil? What if that horrific desperation reflects God's will? If God utilizes cannibalism to punish humans (and the Bible says that he does), then we only characterize the punishment as evil and we do so on a subjective basis, no?

I retract. Cannibalism is in the bible after all, but cherry picking verses out of context doesn't prove what you think it proves. God is saying that horrible things would happen IF they broke His laws. You need to read Lev. 26 from the top of the chapter.
Lev. 26 3 *If you walk in my precepts, and keep my commandments, and do them, I will give you rain in due seasons,
4 And the ground shall bring forth its increase, and the trees shall be filled with fruit.
5 The threshing of your harvest shall reach unto the vintage, and the vintage shall reach unto the sowing-time: and you shall eat your bread to the full, and dwell in your land without fear.
6 I will give peace in your coasts: you shall sleep, and there shall be none to make you afraid. I will take away evil beasts: and the sword shall not pass through your quarters. etc. etc....
Your claim that the Bible says "God utilizes cannibalism to punish humans" is a gross misinterpretation, as it is with every "gotcha" verse. God was NOT commanding cannibalism, he was warning what horrible things would happen if the Isrealites chose to reject Him. You can run along to the next "gotcha" verse from some Christian-bashing web site, it just proves that by running all over the map you are narrow minded and not interested in the truth.

Is it possible that we're obliged to appeal to non-biblical sources to account for humanity's revulsion of cannibalism?

It isn't necessary. The natural law is stamped on the hearts of every human being. It's somewhere in the Book of Romans. If you want to deny the reality of the natural law, then you have to deny what a human is, a being with a conscience.

Or are there extra-biblical sources of divine revelation? How would that work?

The Written Tradition is not dichotomized in opposition to the Oral Tradition from whence the Written Tradition came from. Jesus commissioned a Church to teach both, It's like a stool with 3 legs. Take one out and it falls over.

The most rebellious nations (by definition), and the most worthy of judgment, are the most Judaism- or Christianity-saturated nations. They are all the more accountable for their rebellion, just as ancient Israel became an abomination to God time and time again because she was given so much, and rejected it. We know from revelation that God clearly judges nations in direct proportion to how much moral truth they know and deliberately reject...

...It is the contrast or relationship between how much of Christianity a nation knows and has rejected, which is the key factor, and what that nation has done or permitted (legally or otherwise) since having rejected it as a culture.

The most rebellious nations (by definition), and the most worthy of judgment, are the most Judaism- or Christianity-saturated nations. They are all the more accountable for their rebellion, just as ancient Israel became an abomination to God time and time again because she was given so much, and rejected it. We know from revelation that God clearly judges nations in direct proportion to how much moral truth they know and deliberately reject...

...It is the contrast or relationship between how much of Christianity a nation knows and has rejected, which is the key factor, and what that nation has done or permitted (legally or otherwise) since having rejected it as a culture.
​

Or can we classify God's punishments as Objectively Evil?

No. God is incapable of evil. He turns evil into good, ultimately, because he is God and knows how. You haven't a clue what objective morality means, and if you are a relativist, you have no consistent definition of evil.

So what? You drain the blood out of a cow and you've got Objectively Moral beef, right?

The morality or immorality rests in the manner of the slaughtering, not on the cow. It is moral to slaughter a cow as humanely as possible, it would be immoral to set the cow on fire.

Is it possible that you've reached what you feel is an objectively moral conclusion by way of subjective inferences?

This makes no sense, unless you are a relativist.

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

- the object chosen;

- the end in view or the intention;

- the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the "sources," or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

IN BRIEF

1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three "sources" of the morality of human acts.

1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

1759 "An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention" (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

 

[sojourner]

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

I love how non-Catholics attempt to make those who are or who have been Catholic think they know more about Catholicism than the Catholics, themselves know.

Transubstantiation is more a theological than an ontological statement, and the meaning is much deeper than simply "bread becomes flesh; wine becomes blood." Every Catholic knows that if you ran scientific tests on the elements, they would come out as -- guess what?! -- bread and wine. That's why the article above maintains that "while all that is accessible to the senses remains unchanged." It's a spiritual, not a physical transformation.

 

[sojourner]

This practice is never mentioned in the holy scriptures.Neither is Eucharist.It was put into place in the 1300's.That is a fact.

Really?! Read harder. The Eucharist is mentioned in the texts, and was "in place," in fact, before the NT texts were written.

 

[sojourner]

Well if the ones in question say in the book that it does actually become flesh, then yes, it is cannibalism.

Yeah except the book doesn't say what you're claiming it says.

 

[sojourner]

It's harmless, although a vain and outward work of the flesh. If the Christ has returned into your heart, I'm not sure why it's still being took.

The physical body you reside in is flesh and blood.

The Eucharist is a communal event that draws the church (the Body of Christ) together. It has little to do with "Is Jesus in your heart?"

 

[sojourner]

Oh...you mean the last supper.It never mentions Eucharist or Transubstantiation in the holy scriptures.

The term εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), means "thanksgiving." It is a biblical term, used in the gospels, and in 1 Cor. in referring to Jesus' act in the last supper.

 

[sojourner]

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?

"Murder" is a legal term. The commandment was, "Do not murder," not "do not kill." Killing one's enemy in wartime isn't murder.

 

[sojourner]

Grape juice isnt in the Bible and yet we dont put that down.

That's true. Grape juice wasn't invented until 1869. The Rev. Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch launched the processed fruit juice industry to produce an “unfermented sacramental wine” for fellow church parishioners in Vineland, N.J., in compliance with the Temperance Movement. Until 1869, all Christians drank wine. So, according to the poster's "logic," anyone not drinking wine for the Lord's Supper is acting "outside the bible."

 

[Unification]

"Murder" is a legal term. The commandment was, "Do not murder," not "do not kill." Killing one's enemy in wartime isn't murder.

A child of God has no enemies, therefore, they don't murder or kill. Literally, legally, in wartime, anywhere.