Why doesn't the Bible condemn cannibalism?

[Harmonious]

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

I'm not sure if you are honestly asking, or if you are being intentionally obtuse. But I'll humor you.

Using the Aristotelian taxonomy, there were four classes of animals: land animals, sea animals, air animals, and creeping animals. The only kosher land animals are mammals that both chew their cud and have split hooves. Sea animals have to have fins and scales. Air animals... were far more complicated as explained, and so we have a list of birds that were specifically forbidden. (And while bats aren't technically birds, they come close enough for these purposes.)
As far as creeping animals, there were four insects with jumping legs that were considered kosher, and they were either forms of grasshoppers or locusts. Most Jews have completely lost the tradition of which insects those were.

Since humans are land animals, humans don't chew their cud or have cloven hooves. Not kosher. Should be the end of the story. But for some reason, you are reaching for something else.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That makes sense. I'll take the word murder out. I just feel killing is wrong with or without intent. The justifications can be right or appropriate, that doesn't mean the action is. Same as Capitol Punishment. I disagree with that too. To me, even though they have a logical reason (wouldn't say good) to kill someone because they took a life (life for a life thing) that doesn't make the act right itself.

I don't know if you see it this way; if so, that's the point I'm getting at when it comes to killing.

I'd call it "Killing with Intent." If it met the criteria for murder, I'd call it "murder."

Since murder is a legal term, and it's the state that determines the legal parameters, the state is usually exempt from murder in any instance of killing. For example, capital punishment isn't murder, even though it's killing with intent, because it meets the criteria of legality (where it's legal). "Legal" and "right" are two different issues. For example, I don't believe that capital punishment is "right," even though it's legal.

 

[Harmonious]

I think I'm saying, killing is necesarry in some cases and that doesnt make it right.

I think you're saying, the killings that are necessary makes them right.

I think you are right.

As for the rest of the post, I'm glad we've managed to come to a place where we agree with each other.

 

[Harmonious]

This is not true in Jewish Law. If you divest the action from the intent, then it becomes unintentional, which is not evil. This has a lot of application in Jewish Law and is a determinate factor in many different areas.



This analogy is not accurate for a number of reasons. The simplest one is that it is G-d's continuously willing a person to live that keeps him alive. If a person were to contradict G-d's will, why should G-d not remove His will from him?


I agree with this last statement. Killings that are necessary make them right. However, it can be sad when the right thing to do involves suffering.

Thank you for explaining this.

 

[Whiterain]

I don't know if anyone mentioned but Cannibalism goes way back longer than the Bible and is a serious cardinal sin.

I believe Zeus first condemned it. There's also a flood myth around Zeus and he seen that Man had taken to eaten the flesh of Man and condemned EVERYONE.

So that's one flood myth, it's a condemning sin, IF YOU HAVE TO ASK!? My god...

It's time to talk about morals and ethics, I guess.

That was a very funny question, OP.

It's also black magic ( I guess), OP.. Eating human flesh is considered a magic in ancient beliefs.

Blood, black magic.

You consume the flesh of another human to gain their strength or wisdom..

But don't eat the brain, don't eat the brain... Kuru disease is some wicked stuff, I hear.

Your brain eats itself alive.

 

[Whiterain]

bump

Witch craft and magic had been outlawed for a long long time.

I could also explain the consuming of meat from animal to man one in the same.

Eating Man was extra black/blood magic.... But essentially... The ancestors found eating the meat of animals gave them great power... I believe this was whole heartedly through the process of proteins and other vitamins in the meat...

You eat some human and hit the gym, you're sure to get triple buff.

I'm just sayin.... Nutrients in meat.

How'd I do it, How'd I do it?!

 

[Tumah]

I guess we'd have to disagree here. If it was conditioning, I'd safely say that we all are influenced by external means to which shapes our beliefs whether it be in God, Buddha, or so have you.

It is an inner feeling that I have. It is how the Buddha described as our Buddha nature. The Earth isn't an inanimate object no more than the bacteria on our bodies. The spontaneous movement of life (from tiger to humans) and the making of it (from the creation of planets to the making of a baby) is life. All living. That is what people say when they refer to the earth in a religious sense.

The body is created to live by the seasons. We eat with the seasons, celebrate the seasons, and so forth. It ranges by religion, culture, and lifestyle, but that's the gist of it. It's a holistic lifestyle that I personally try to adopt because it is natural thereby spiritual to me to be in-sync with the earth and myself. I don't separate spiritual and physical. So, I can't relate to seeing the Earth as a thing.
In humans, I see it as an evil act. We don't need to kill for survival if everyone wasn't going to war with each other. We aren't killing to eat each other as animals kill their prey to eat it. If there was no danger between humans, why would there be a need to kill each other? How can we justify killing as right in that circumstance if there is no danger involved? If there was no danger, would we want to put killing in our daily routine because it is right?

Kinda see where I'm coming from?

It seems to me that your belief about killing is an extension of your religion. As are your inner feelings. I am not a bBuddhist and I don't feel these things that you do.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

[Thank yQUOTE="Tumah, post: 4224268, member: 51255"]It seems to me that your belief about killing is an extension of your religion. As are your inner feelings. I am not a bBuddhist and I don't feel these things that you do.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for being honest. I do find myself in Buddhist beliefs even if I don't mention it. It is one of those things you don't really chose but you just know inside. The hard part is learning about it and more so applying it to my life. Like any person in any faith, we are growing.

Again thank you.

 

[Harmonious]

I don't know if anyone mentioned but Cannibalism goes way back longer than the Bible and is a serious cardinal sin.

I believe Zeus first condemned it. There's also a flood myth around Zeus and he seen that Man had taken to eaten the flesh of Man and condemned EVERYONE.

So that's one flood myth, it's a condemning sin, IF YOU HAVE TO ASK!? My god...

It's time to talk about morals and ethics, I guess.

That was a very funny question, OP.

It's also black magic ( I guess), OP.. Eating human flesh is considered a magic in ancient beliefs.

Blood, black magic.

You consume the flesh of another human to gain their strength or wisdom..

But don't eat the brain, don't eat the brain... Kuru disease is some wicked stuff, I hear.

Your brain eats itself alive.

While your post is interesting, it doesn't precisely address the OP. Even if various pagan practices involved cannibalism, and it is good to know why it SHOULD be forbidden at all costs... The OP asked about the Bible mentioning it, or not.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Using the Aristotelian taxonomy

Wait. Does Aristotle's work count as Divine Revelation? Can you substantiate that? Did the Old Testament Israelites have access to Aristotelian Taxonomy when they were drawing up The Good Lord's dietary restrictions or are you introducing a red herring?

there were four classes of animals: land animals, sea animals, air animals, and creeping animals.

"Creeping animals" was a separate classification? Are there creeping air animals?

Never mind that your summary of "The Aristotelian Taxonomy" appears to be flawed:

"Of land animals some are furnished with wings, such as birds and bees, and these are so furnished in different ways one from another; others are furnished with feet. Of the animals that are furnished with feet some walk, some creep, and some wriggle. But no creature is able only to move by flying, as the fish is able only to swim, for the animals with leathern wings can walk; the bat has feet and the seal has imperfect feet. " ~ Aristotle ("The History of Animals")

Given that Aristotle is here classifying "birds and bees" as land animals, would you care to explain what an "air animal" was according to "The Aristotelian Taxonomy?" Once you've accomplished that, please feel free to explain how all of this dovetails with Old Testament dietary restrictions. Thanks.

The only kosher land animals are mammals that both chew their cud and have split hooves.

Q. - The only kosher milk is milk derived from kosher animals, correct? Does it follow that observant Jews don't breastfeed their infants?

Possible answer: "All kosher milk products must derive from kosher animals."

Since humans are land animals

Can you demonstrate that humans were classified as animals in the Old Testament?

humans don't chew their cud or have cloven hooves.

Wouldn't humans need to possess hooves for the rules concerning the nature of hooves to be applicable?

Not kosher. Should be the end of the story. But for some reason, you are reaching for something else.

Indeed. You've failed to demonstrate that humans are classified as animals in the scriptures. You've also failed to demonstrate that kosher restrictions are in any way intended to apply to humans. If (as you've asserted ... but failed to substantiate) humans aren't kosher, you'll need to explain why there is no prohibition against the consumption of human milk in the Bible. Thanks for playing.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I don't know if anyone mentioned but Cannibalism goes way back longer than the Bible and is a serious cardinal sin.

Please substantiate that second assertion. If it is a "serious" cardinal sin, it ought to be as easy as pie to cite the scripture.

I believe Zeus first condemned it.

Are Christians appealing to Zeus as their source of Objective Morality?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

How could apostle Peter be a bachelor when Peter had a mother-in-law ?

“For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” ~ Matthew 10:35-39

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple." ~ Luke 14:26

"Then Peter spoke up, 'We have left everything to follow you!'" ~ Mark 10:28

I suppose he must have been a "bachelor in Christ?"

Jesus was Not silent and definitely said ' fornication ' was wrong - Matthew 5:32

Matthew 5:32 deals specifically with divorce and adultery. It doesn't mention sex between unmarried persons.

See: "Fornication."
See: "porneia."

19:9

Ibid.

Scriptural marriage can only be between a man and woman. - Genesis 2:24

Those verses in Genesis state that a man leaves his parents and joins his wife because she's made out of his rib. It says nothing about homosexuality (which wasn't even a logistical option at the time). Homosexuality would have to wait until there were at least two people of the same gender. Non-incestuous homosexuality would have to wait until Divinely Sanctioned Heterosexual Incest had created enough of a population to make the former a viable option.

In Scripture fornication applies to both married and single people.

Then why does the scripture bother with mentioning "adultery?" And since Adam and Eve were not married, were they fornicators?

The English word fornication comes from the Greek word porneia.

Yes. See the link above. Strong's Concordance doesn't appear to be in any rush to conflate fornication with adultery.

Porneia is where we also get the English word for pornography.

Can you find a single, modern definition of "pornography" anywhere that mentions adultery? Just wondering.

Porneia also covers more than sex between unmarried people, but also includes un-biblical sex among married people, and also being wrong to have sex with an animal.

"Un-biblical sex" doesn't apply to incest, correct? At least not at first, right?

Since a man can Not have a scriptural marriage with another man, then any sex act would be classed under: fornication.

Q. - If the second man is cloned from the first man's rib, would that make it OK for the two to get married?

Never mind. Let's not seek to cross that ethical bridge before we arrive at it.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Human meat is also not human milk. "Wise up".

Thank you. Your talent for belaboring the obvious is unparalleled.

Allow me to now point out that human milk is also not bee's honey. What fun!

 

[NulliuSINverba]

You have no basis for assuming that humans are kosher by virtue of human milk being kosher.

Premise A: Kosher milk must be derived from kosher animals.
Premise B: Human milk is permitted.
Therefore?

Q. - Is Premise A true?
Q. - Is Premise B true?

If A & B are true, then to assert that there is no basis for asserting that humans are kosher is simply false.

...

Again: We only find ourselves quibbling over this point because the scriptures neglect to forbid cannibalism.

...

You will all please recall that this entire thread was addressed to Christian claims regarding Objective Morality derived from Divine Revelation. So while endlessly engrossing, these desperate appeals to kosher dietary restrictions are utterly irrelevant as far as Christians are concerned:

"Food doesn't go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer." (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God's eyes.)" ~ Mark 7:19

"Every kind of food is acceptable in God's eyes?" Did I read that correctly?

"The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' But Peter said, 'By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.' And the voice came to him again a second time, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.'” ~ Acts 10:9-15

In fact, these differing pronouncements regarding food that was once deemed unclean by God suddenly becoming clean would appear to serve as additional evidence that Objective Morality is simply not to be found via the scriptures.

 

[Tumah]

Premise A: Kosher milk must be derived from kosher animals.
Premise B: Human milk is permitted.
Therefore?

Q. - Is Premise A true?
Q. - Is Premise B true?

If A & B are true, then to assert that there is no basis for asserting that humans are kosher is simply false.

Premise A is not true as demonstrated by premise B

Again: We only find ourselves quibbling over this point because the scriptures neglect to forbid cannibalism.

That's not a good argument. Scriptures neglects to explicitly state a lot of Laws that are easily derived from doing the math.

You will all please recall that this entire thread was addressed to Christian claims regarding Objective Morality derived from Divine Revelation. So while endlessly engrossing, these desperate appeals to kosher dietary restrictions are utterly irrelevant as far as Christians are concerned:

"Food doesn't go into your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then goes into the sewer." (By saying this, he declared that every kind of food is acceptable in God's eyes.)" ~ Mark 7:19

"Every kind of food is acceptable in God's eyes?" Did I read that correctly?

"The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him: 'Rise, Peter; kill and eat.' But Peter said, 'By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.' And the voice came to him again a second time, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.'” ~ Acts 10:9-15

In fact, these differing pronouncements regarding food that was once deemed unclean by God suddenly becoming clean would appear to serve as additional evidence that Objective Morality is simply not to be found via the scriptures.

Yes, when I joined the conversation I had only seen the title of the thread and whatever point in the argument that thread had gotten to by then. I don't follow Christian Scriptures and I'm not sure I believe in Objective morality either. Which is why I bowed out in my previous post to you.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

That's a bit of a bizarre "what if."

With God, all things are possible.

Is there a reason for your crassness? Is there a point you are trying to make?

Yes. My point is that the Christian claim of Objective Morality via Divine Revelation appears to be total nonsense. Cannibalism is merely one example. We could easily plug any number of other unpleasant items into the equation and see what happens. Shall we scrutinize the Bible's position on rape or slavery to see if these things have been Divinely Revealed to be immoral all the time? Or must we simply conclude that these things simply cannot be characterized as Objectively Immoral within the Christian worldview because the Christian god hasn't seen fit to indicate that these things are always wrong?

Remember: Our working definition of "Objectively Immoral" is that which is always wrong. The Bible permits rape and slavery, so it would appear that these things are not Objectively Immoral. Correct?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

Premise A is not true as demonstrated by premise B

Great. Be sure to e-mail The Badatz Igud Rabbonim KIR and give them a piece of your mind to chew on (in the figurative sense, of course).

That's not a good argument. Scriptures neglects to explicitly state a lot of Laws that are easily derived from doing the math.

Such as?

I don't follow Christian Scriptures and I'm not sure I believe in Objective morality either. Which is why I bowed out in my previous post to you.

I haven't gotten to the post where you bowed out. Sorry.

...

Thanks for playing. It's been divine.

But you're not leaving empty-handed! No, you'll be leaving with your very own copy of "Objective Christian Morality : The Home Version®!"

<<<applause>>>

 

[Tumah]

Great. Be sure to e-mail The Badatz Igud Rabbonim KIR and give them a piece of your mind to chew on (in the figurative sense, of course).

You misunderstand. I did not say that kosher milk is not derived from kosher animals. I said that the fact that human milk is kosher and is derived from a non-kosher animal is proof that the blanket statement "kosher milk must be derived from kosher animals" is false. There is an exception and that is human milk.

Such as?

Such as not eating rhinoceros. There is nowhere in Scripture that explicitly states that rhinoceros is not kosher.

I haven't gotten to the post where you bowed out. Sorry.

Here you are

 

[Harmonious]

Wait. Does Aristotle's work count as Divine Revelation? Can you substantiate that? Did the Old Testament Israelites have access to Aristotelian Taxonomy when they were drawing up The Good Lord's dietary restrictions or are you introducing a red herring?

Seriously? No, Null. Aristotle does NOT count as Divine Revelation, nor is he the first person to classify animals this way. However, for reasons I don't know, he is given credit for the way the ancient world thought of the division of animals.

Socrates didn't invent the Socratic Method for learning, either, but he was given credit for it.

"Creeping animals" was a separate classification? Are there creeping air animals?

Never mind that your summary of "The Aristotelian Taxonomy" appears to be flawed:

"Of land animals some are furnished with wings, such as birds and bees, and these are so furnished in different ways one from another; others are furnished with feet. Of the animals that are furnished with feet some walk, some creep, and some wriggle. But no creature is able only to move by flying, as the fish is able only to swim, for the animals with leathern wings can walk; the bat has feet and the seal has imperfect feet. " ~ Aristotle ("The History of Animals")

Given that Aristotle is here classifying "birds and bees" as land animals, would you care to explain what an "air animal" was according to "The Aristotelian Taxonomy?" Once you've accomplished that, please feel free to explain how all of this dovetails with Old Testament dietary restrictions. Thanks.

Wow. You really are being purposely obtuse.

In Leviticus 11, the separation between various animals are 1) Creatures on Land, 2) Creatures of the Sea, 3) Birds (with wings), and 4) Flying Insects.

Aristotelian Taxonomy came closest to being similar. It wasn't meant to be the definitive taxonomy, but close enough to be reasonable to give it a name.

Q. - The only kosher milk is milk derived from kosher animals, correct? Does it follow that observant Jews don't breastfeed their infants?

No, it doesn't follow. This is because, no matter which taxonomy you use to describe the the animals of the ancient world, humans are always separate and apart from animals.

Possible answer: "All kosher milk products must derive from kosher animals."

It would be more correct to say that all kosher animal milk products must derive from kosher animals. Humans are different, so mother's milk is in a different category.

And it is. Unless I'm mistaken, the Shulchan Aruch treats human milk like almond and coconut milk, or in short, "not in the category of being milk or meat."

Can you demonstrate that humans were classified as animals in the Old Testament?

Nope.

Wouldn't humans need to possess hooves for the rules concerning the nature of hooves to be applicable?

Nope.

Indeed. You've failed to demonstrate that humans are classified as animals in the scriptures.

Yup. And that's why it wasn't until other people mentioned the other laws about Kosher animals that I joined that bandwagon.

You've also failed to demonstrate that kosher restrictions are in any way intended to apply to humans. If (as you've asserted ... but failed to substantiate) humans aren't kosher, you'll need to explain why there is no prohibition against the consumption of human milk in the Bible. Thanks for playing.

Because mother's milk is different, and always has been.

However, I get the feeling that you will take even this and twist it, because you aren't really interested in the answer, but are having fun at our expense. I don't look forward to further playing.

 

[Harmonious]

Yes. My point is that the Christian claim of Objective Morality via Divine Revelation appears to be total nonsense.

Ah. Perhaps then the game is over. I'm not Christian, and the fact is that according to my belief system, the answer to "are things allowed" on many topics is "It Depends."

My answers to you reflect that.

However, it appears that my honest answers aren't what you are looking for. You are looking to scorn and mock, regardless of what answer you are given.

Got it.