Is human cannibalism, sinful? Explain.

[Vinny37]

Sorry no.

Do you really think that you gonna eat a person and live days longer without medical intervention.

Look I dealt with starvation overseas.se were told not to give food to them but let doctors treat them .

The stomach ceases to work .
You eat your body won't absorb squat .

Never mind how you cut it this is a case to sell and raise human meat

Can't feed cows ? Well we have another babies and the elderly who just died ,then it goes south from there.

Why do you seek live knowing you stared at your spouse as she died then starting cutting her open and hung her to drain the blood and cracked open the ribs ,wiped out her internal organs and saved the intestines for sausage .
Do you really want justification for that ?

When you are in any better shape .it takes a week or more for a dog that is starving to eat on their own without diarrhea.

They have to feed them with liquid nutrients .

You simply won't live long even if you did.

Cannabals In local history as Florida has three tribes that did it was only for the war captives and then selective and it wasn't a normal diet .the Aztecs and Mayans the same .

These didn't hunt humans for food it was more of a sadistic act to punish the defeated tribe even more .

Irc.so no .you seem to want to eat a person .

Would you agree that discussions about sensibilities and hygiene, do not necessarily align with the issue of what is sinful?

Again, should we define any dead human body as a ‘person’, or has the ‘person’ left the body? Aioniologically, I err on the side of the latter definition (ie a corpse is not a person), and would deem eating a person to be sinful (contra imagodei). A mere body would not be your spouse (present tense), but the body your spouse had had (past tense). I agree that memories would subsist, and could decide ones actions. But I am not arguing that cannibalism is tasteful, but asking, Tasteful or not, is it per se sinful?

In a Moby Dick setting, there is no doctor, and the problem is starvation. Let us postulate that suitable water is plentiful. Let us postulate that if we stave off starvation, we might live. Whether healthy or not, is it sinful to eat? Would it be sinful if a pet rabbit had died in the lifeboat, to eat its body? Is the issue of sin only raised because of a deemed/denied sanctity of human bodies?

I am not attempting to justify a kill-to-eat scenario (cannibal killing), nor cruelty, but could even cannibal killing be subjectively sinless, though objectively sinful (Rm.14:23)—whatever if not of conscience is sin (my reading)?

Time to close down for the evening.

 

[jasonc]

Would you agree that discussions about sensibilities and hygiene, do not necessarily align with the issue of what is sinful?

Again, should we define any dead human body as a ‘person’, or has the ‘person’ left the body? Aioniologically, I err on the side of the latter definition (ie a corpse is not a person), and would deem eating a person to be sinful (contra imagodei). A mere body would not be your spouse (present tense), but the body your spouse had had (past tense). I agree that memories would subsist, and could decide ones actions. But I am not arguing that cannibalism is tasteful, but asking, Tasteful or not, is it per se sinful?

In a Moby Dick setting, there is no doctor, and the problem is starvation. Let us postulate that suitable water is plentiful. Let us postulate that if we stave off starvation, we might live. Whether healthy or not, is it sinful to eat? Would it be sinful if a pet rabbit had died in the lifeboat, to eat its body? Is the issue of sin only raised because of a deemed/denied sanctity of human bodies?

I am not attempting to justify a kill-to-eat scenario (cannibal killing), nor ,cruelty, but could even cannibal killing be subjectively sinless, though objectively sinful (Rm.14:23)—whatever if not of conscience is sin (my reading)?

Time to close down for the evening.

Again no,because name one situation where it actually happened.you won't find any who did it and lived.

The account in south America is debated and they don't buy that account of winter survivors as no bodies being half eaten were found .

You can't ignore that
You gonna hope your mate would feed you for months?

When you are that range of life where you have that option .are you gonna keep the entire body free of ants and flies ? And also the fact that you must the hope to live long enough and my accounts of persons lost and recovered weren't even far out from my county .a few miles ,not even in the Bahamas .

Imagine being more east ward and no one .pointless you can't base an extreme case that seldom happens to justify Romans 14 one post said by you alludes to normal human consumption.
Cannabals don't live off humans for a mainstay they simply do it for religious acts or also to show their might .

 

[jasonc]

Cannibalism in pre-Columbian America - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jasonc]

Like I said . Religious and even then it seemed doubted by some .

 

[jasonc]

Just gah,

Look being to war I have that dark side .you feed that .it comes out and wants to play .what you are doing is justifying that .in war ,the most heinous things happen .it changes you .you desire to be there because it's normal but you hate who you are because you had to .

Once you cross this Rubicon ,no going back .you can't call canabilism a Romans 14 issue because deep down we all know even a cadaver is a person .

God never wanted us to eat meat but allows it . Why do you think He would allow human cannibalism as normal .

 

[GodsGrace]

Let those who think that there can be a point (or more), post their posts.

Why are they practicing cannibalism?

This would have a lot to do with it.

 

[Free]

But the imagodei is based not on the human frame, but on the human within the frame. And personal choice to eat (so live) or not to eat (so die), can link to Rm.14:5. It can also link to human traditions: cannibal tribes would inculcate their children with a taste for eating human bodies; our 'tribe' would inculcate our children with a distaste for eating human bodies. Offer me human flesh and I might puke. That does not mean that eating human flesh is sin. Are my distastes, sin, and my tastes sinless?

And, yet, the body is important enough that it will be resurrected. And, no, Romans 14 cannot support such an idea. An abomination is an abomination is an abomination. If God used cannibalism as an extreme curse under for people under judgement, that it is utterly evil doesn't change with the NT. Tastes and distastes have nothing to do with it either.

 

[hawkman]

Ahhh. I see. Lots to chew over, then

Read this thread while eating my roast beef dinner , bad idea . :neutral

 

[Vinny37]

It was with isreal as they rebelled and both isreal and Judah were forced too.this was to show them how hard the judgment was from God .you like to serve baal.now you shall consume the very children you offered to baal to have !

Indeed, in extremis, Israel was into cannibalism (2 Kg.28:28-9). Likewise the Jews also were into cannibalism (Lm.2:20; 4:10; (Josephus) Wars 6.3.4). These were results of sin, but is human cannibalism, sinful?

 

[Vinny37]

Again, you are asking whether it is wise and survivable. Neither of us are looking to recommend it! Yet the story behind Moby Dick, says that some survived sea-cannibalism. Wise or not, survivable or not, is human cannibalism, sinful?

Again, I’d say it was my mate’s deceased body, not my mate. To quote Sarek: “only his body was in death, Kirk.” Death really does person and body separate.

Biblically, it was warned that sin would lead to cannibalism in extremis (Dt.28:54-6; Lv.26:29; Ezk.5:10; Jr.19:9), and both the Jews and Israelites got into it.

Again no,because name one situation where it actually happened.you won't find any who did it and lived.

The account in south America is debated and they don't buy that account of winter survivors as no bodies being half eaten were found .

You can't ignore that
You gonna hope your mate would feed you for months?

When you are that range of life where you have that option .are you gonna keep the entire body free of ants and flies ? And also the fact that you must the hope to live long enough and my accounts of persons lost and recovered weren't even far out from my county .a few miles ,not even in the Bahamas .

Imagine being more east ward and no one .pointless you can't base an extreme case that seldom happens to justify Romans 14 one post said by you alludes to normal human consumption.
Cannabals don't live off humans for a mainstay they simply do it for religious acts or also to show their might .

 

[Vinny37]

In his book, Spencer Chapman, DSO, said: “Though I would not knowingly have become a cannibal I was quite interested to have sampled human flesh” (The Jungle is Neutral, 1949:231). Told post eventum that he had been fed human meat, had he sinned?

I’d deny any personhood, the do-not-murder, status, to a human cadaver, though urge respect for human remains (residual sanctity but not sacrosanct?). I do not seek to imply that objectively, the nasty is nice. But the subjective and objective can disconnect. Subjectively, one raised on the warped mentality that raping a woman or boy, is what both parties desire, can find rape nice, but objectively it remain nasty, indeed objectively sinful.

Using a particular, Paul examined the idea of an act (eg human carnivorism: Rm.14:2) being sinless objectively, but sinful subjectively, and having shown that conscience can be wrong, he rounded off with a warning that whoever opposes their conscience, subjectively sins. What seems wrong (or right) to one person, might not in itself be wrong (or right).

The set question seeks to highlight this distinction: if by nurture we deem something sinless, is it actually sinful (in itself), or conversely, if by nurture we deem something sinful, is it actually sinless (in itself)?

Biblically, God more than allows human carnivorianism, BTW (Ac.11:7—kill and eat: global abolition of symbolic unkosherism). That would be another thread, pick up on Noah, and ask why a gradualism was right. I do not think, nor have ever, that human cannibalism is intended by God to be a human norm.

Just gah,

Look being to war I have that dark side .you feed that .it comes out and wants to play .what you are doing is justifying that .in war ,the most heinous things happen .it changes you .you desire to be there because it's normal but you hate who you are because you had to .

Once you cross this Rubicon ,no going back .you can't call canabilism a Romans 14 issue because deep down we all know even a cadaver is a person .

God never wanted us to eat meat but allows it . Why do you think He would allow human cannibalism as normal .

 

[Vinny37]

And, yet, the body is important enough that it will be resurrected. And, no, Romans 14 cannot support such an idea. An abomination is an abomination is an abomination. If God used cannibalism as an extreme curse under for people under judgement, that it is utterly evil doesn't change with the NT. Tastes and distastes have nothing to do with it either.

As C S Lewis noted (Miracles), our biological bodies are second hand suits, and you never know whether you’ve got an atom from Emp. Nero. After three days, Jesus retained his human body, in glorified form, as shall be ours. But most of us will not have that luxury of keeping our last batch of atoms—would you fight with Nero over an atom? (Perhaps he will not be needing it.) We shall put on physicality, perfected spirits summoning atoms as clothes; to ride with the king we must have steeds. But pre-death, the human body is constantly changing atoms, killing off cells. Flux. The body itself is not sacred.

On Rm.14, please now see #31, where I have sought to exhibit its principles from its particulars.

That “an abomination is an abomination”, is axiomatic. However the Q is, is human cannibalism in itself, a sinful abomination—ie, not merely subjectively/distastefully, but objectively, sinful per se.

BTW, in my teens, my then pastor forbade black pudding as objectively sinful (Ac.15:20?). Exegetically I came in later years to disagree, but it still remains distasteful to me (my wife loves it), a stubborn no-eat stain on my psyche. On the Q, Is human cannibalism sinful, the issue of taste/distaste is relevant, for since we can mistake the voice of taste for the voice of God, it’s useful to separate the two.

 

[Vinny37]

Read this thread while eating my roast beef dinner , bad idea . :neutral

As long as you don't toast me for tea. Sorry Hawkman.

 

[jasonc]

Gonna disagree.

You can't simply just eat your a person and not ignore that it was once alive .

Most people can't even watch their favorite steak or crab or lobster ,the latter are boiled alive as that Is the only way or to dismember it fast before they realese their position to ruin your meal .

Once you overcome that there is no moral grounf against killing a person for hunger because simply put their are alternatives .

You can't simply use a cadaver to catch a fish ?

Make a hook and bait and fish line ?

 

[jasonc]

Again, you are asking whether it is wise and survivable. Neither of us are looking to recommend it! Yet the story behind Moby Dick, says that some survived sea-cannibalism. Wise or not, survivable or not, is human cannibalism, sinful?

Again, I’d say it was my mate’s deceased body, not my mate. To quote Sarek: “only his body was in death, Kirk.” Death really does person and body separate.

Biblically, it was warned that sin would lead to cannibalism in extremis (Dt.28:54-6; Lv.26:29; Ezk.5:10; Jr.19:9), and both the Jews and Israelites got into it.

I'm sure you won't recognize your mate when she is in heaven .

It's a body we got not a spirit .

Your are confusing Greek mythology with what the Jewish thought Is and Jews don't see a
Soul as a person with a wrapped flesh but all.of it it's clothing .our bodies good or bad are us.

I didn't kill you I just freed you so that I can enjoy a meal .

We don't have eternal katras that are God like .

The vulcans are immortal in trek and don't die if they are able to transfer their katras .I'm a hard core trekker

 

[Vinny37]

My Q is not about whether you can ignore that a body was once alive. My English ex-parents, in WW2 years, reared a chicken as a pet for the pot. They asked a neighbour to kill & prepare it. Even then, they felt they couldn’t eat their old once-feathered friend, and the neighbour got the meal.

There is moral clear blue water between killing and eating, apropos a human being (Gen.9:6). I’m not saying that cannibalism can’t aid murder. I am saying it’s not murder. And I’m asking, is it always, if ever, sinful? Those in Moby Dick, had one alternative: starve to death. Cannibalism can be a last option. Assuming it is, is it always, if ever, sinful?

Let me vary the Q: if you unknowingly ate human meat, have you sinned?

Gonna disagree.

You can't simply just eat your a person and not ignore that it was once alive .

Most people can't even watch their favorite steak or crab or lobster ,the latter are boiled alive as that Is the only way or to dismember it fast before they realese their position to ruin your meal .

Once you overcome that there is no moral grounf against killing a person for hunger because simply put their are alternatives .

You can't simply use a cadaver to catch a fish ?

Make a hook and bait and fish line ?

 

[Free]

As C S Lewis noted (Miracles), our biological bodies are second hand suits, and you never know whether you’ve got an atom from Emp. Nero. After three days, Jesus retained his human body, in glorified form, as shall be ours. But most of us will not have that luxury of keeping our last batch of atoms—would you fight with Nero over an atom? (Perhaps he will not be needing it.) We shall put on physicality, perfected spirits summoning atoms as clothes; to ride with the king we must have steeds. But pre-death, the human body is constantly changing atoms, killing off cells. Flux. The body itself is not sacred.

Careful, you're crossing into Gnostic territory. On the contrary:

Rom 12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

1Co 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,
1Co 6:20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

On Rm.14, please now see #31, where I have sought to exhibit its principles from its particulars.

Your reasoning is not sound.

"Using a particular, Paul examined the idea of an act (eg human carnivorism: Rm.14:2) being sinless objectively, but sinful subjectively, and having shown that conscience can be wrong, he rounded off with a warning that whoever opposes their conscience, subjectively sins. What seems wrong (or right) to one person, might not in itself be wrong (or right)."

"Biblically, God more than allows human carnivorianism, BTW (Ac.11:7—kill and eat: global abolition of symbolic unkosherism)."

Both those quotes are begging the question. Again, humans are created in the image of God, and I would argue that that includes our bodies, and were never given as food, unlike plants and animals. And, again, cannibalism was a horrible curse brought on those under the most severe judgement for sin.

That “an abomination is an abomination”, is axiomatic. However the Q is, is human cannibalism in itself, a sinful abomination—ie, not merely subjectively/distastefully, but objectively, sinful per se.

Yes, it is objectively sinful and an abomination.

BTW, in my teens, my then pastor forbade black pudding as objectively sinful (Ac.15:20?). Exegetically I came in later years to disagree, but it still remains distasteful to me (my wife loves it), a stubborn no-eat stain on my psyche. On the Q, Is human cannibalism sinful, the issue of taste/distaste is relevant, for since we can mistake the voice of taste for the voice of God, it’s useful to separate the two.

Dealing with animals and what parts to eat or not eat is a matter of taste. Cannibalism is not.

 

[jasonc]

My Q is not about whether you can ignore that a body was once alive. My English ex-parents, in WW2 years, reared a chicken as a pet for the pot. They asked a neighbour to kill & prepare it. Even then, they felt they couldn’t eat their old once-feathered friend, and the neighbour got the meal.

There is moral clear blue water between killing and eating, apropos a human being (Gen.9:6). I’m not saying that cannibalism can’t aid murder. I am saying it’s not murder. And I’m asking, is it always, if ever, sinful? Those in Moby Dick, had one alternative: starve to death. Cannibalism can be a last option. Assuming it is, is it always, if ever, sinful?

Let me vary the Q: if you unknowingly ate human meat, have you sinned?

If I was shooting my gun in my back yard and didn't trespassed but was shot in my state I can outside of city limits build a gun range and shoot away .cops can ask Me to stop .is the law gonna say I'm guilty of murder ?

In that book I bet he is justifyimg the humans for food as a mainstay .

 

[Vinny37]

I'm sure you won't recognize your mate when she is in heaven .

It's a body we got not a spirit .

Your are confusing Greek mythology with what the Jewish thought Is and Jews don't see a
Soul as a person with a wrapped flesh but all.of it it's clothing .our bodies good or bad are us.

I didn't kill you I just freed you so that I can enjoy a meal .

We don't have eternal katras that are God like .

The vulcans are immortal in trek and don't die if they are able to transfer their katras .I'm a hard core trekker

We, being spirits, have ‘got’ biological bodies. I suspect that bodies generate spirits/personhood/imagodei. I don’t hold that an egō is a soul wrapped in flesh, but I do hold that soul and flesh separate by death. I do not wish in this thread to consider how we came to exist as spirit-bio persons, or whether we will recognise everyone who is in heaven. Too off-track. But assuming recognition, I can imagine someone in heaven, being pleased to have had their dead body save a mortal life (eg liver transplant or liver eaten).

I’m little interested in Jewish though per se (defining it would be interesting), and prefer to stay biblical.

Whether immoralism is true or not (I hold to it), is not my Q, though I’d welcome Vulcans as fellow imagodei.

We could also consider the biblical difference between killing as a general category and murder as a subdivision—Yahweh forbade murder but commanded killings. If I kill you to eat, arguably I have committed murder, even if I have freed you from mortal ties. That murder is sinful, is a given; the Q remains, is cannibalism? Explain.

 

[jasonc]

We, being spirits, have ‘got’ biological bodies. I suspect that bodies generate spirits/personhood/imagodei. I don’t hold that an egō is a soul wrapped in flesh, but I do hold that soul and flesh separate by death. I do not wish in this thread to consider how we came to exist as spirit-bio persons, or whether we will recognise everyone who is in heaven. Too off-track. But assuming recognition, I can imagine someone in heaven, being pleased to have had their dead body save a mortal life (eg liver transplant or liver eaten).

I’m little interested in Jewish though per se (defining it would be interesting), and prefer to stay biblical.

Whether immoralism is true or not (I hold to it), is not my Q, though I’d welcome Vulcans as fellow imagodei.

We could also consider the biblical difference between killing as a general category and murder as a subdivision—Yahweh forbade murder but commanded killings. If I kill you to eat, arguably I have committed murder, even if I have freed you from mortal ties. That murder is sinful, is a given; the Q remains, is cannibalism? Explain.

You are trying to tell this vet who has been with sf and did see things that the moral choices made in war and that's problematic at best .


Look the guy you quote write a book to be read by pathfinder guys ,socom guys are a breed all their own .dark humour and few get them .they aren't normal .I never was one but I was told I have that in me.

They fight the devil on his terrain because they must but it cost them their souls.

I can't read that book he write .in context it's about his three year time on malaysia fighting the japs.trainimg the locals to kill.i bet arming boys teaching girls to lay traaps and all manner of irregular war.

A five year old knowing how to kill ?

That's the things he had to do.hks statement is more like was I right to ?

In order to go where he goes you must be willing to loose your soul

Im your case ,all the time be ready to eat your friend ,spouse should it come

I told my wife .once I buy a gun I will go all in.i own two.one lies in a safe ,the other the one I like more is loaded by my bed .I train on both and will go into tactical shooting because I want to be prepared.you must train your mind not to hesitate even if it's a boy pointing a gun .and when to shoot and not to.

You can't simply say well it's not a sin and just decide when it happens.whem it does you won't be prepared

That's why I say to ,you must dehumanize a person to do this.warfare is a sin thing .while it's not forbidden in the bible oer se .it's not God's plan and also it's very hard on ones soul what goes on war shouldn't be way to normalize anything .

Pity the men who has to fight in war .pray for them .be compassionate .understand their battles .

But dont normalize the inner demon they fight to control .